Wikipedia

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 86

< Talk:Donald Trump
Latest comment: 6 years ago by JFG in topic Trump/Rodman image
Archive 80←Archive 84Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87Archive 88→Archive 90

False statements

Latest comment: 6 years ago68 comments16 people in discussion

Interesting to see this section is barely a paragraph. Trump's "false statements" are one of the more visible aspects of his profile. Perhaps we could include a few of his more notable whoppers? Like the time he claimed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton cofounded ISIS, perhaps?[1] --Pete (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Good luck. The history of his articles reveals consistently successful efforts to whittle down such content to practically nothing. Check the article's history and you'll see that NPOV does not apply here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The link provided says he claimed in a speech that Obama founded and Clinton co-founded ISIS not that they both co-founded the entity. Of course he was speaking in terms of being figurative in that actions by Obama led to the founding of ISIS and that Clinton aided that by her actions. There are far better examples of him making false statements and this one is simply and utterly taken out of context.--MONGO 01:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Do we have a RS that he was being figurative? Did he clarify his remarks or admit that his statement was false? Cites? --Pete (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Trump said he was not speaking figuratively: Donald Trump: I meant that Obama founded ISIS, literally SPECIFICO talk 02:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
CNN reporter put forth a spin title. (No surprise) It was figurative and not further explained. Markbassett (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Uh... you guys do realize that you are saying that it's perfectly fine to lie, as long as one then claims that they were "speaking figuratively". Whatever the hell that means. The moon is made of blue cheese. Oh, I was speaking figuratively. 2+2=8. Just figuratively of course. User:Jimbo Wales is two inches tall! Wait, I meant that figuratively. Markbassett owes me a hundred dollars. Only figuratively, but you better pay up buddy!
Wait, wait, wait, no, that's incorrect. Actually, it's not even Trump who claims he was speaking figuratively. As the source above shows, he actually doubles down on the claim when given the opportunity to say that it was just figuratively. He sticks by it. It's actually Trump supporters on Wikipedia who are making this bullshit excuse for him. Which is actually WP:OR.
Yet another example of the sorry state these articles are in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Well VM, I agree with your "sorry state" analogy, but not for the reason you mentioned. Speaking about figuratively, I stumbled across this article which may help you understand a perspective that is obviously quite different from your own based on your evaluation of "figuratively", including the difference between a lie and how metaphors are used...figuratively. Atsme📞📧 15:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
More nonsense intended to confuse, disinform and ... lie. There is "using a metaphor" ("rivers of blood", "shake the rust of American foreign policy") and then there's outright lying. "Obama founded ISIS" - where exactly is the metaphor in that???? Please at the very least learn what a "metaphor" actually is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 , sorry VM - I'm not going anywhere near your bait. Your issue with metaphors is, well...your issue, not mine. Perhaps if you'd be a bit more flexible with your tightly held views of the world according to VM, we'd all get along much better. Atsme📞📧 17:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
A lie is a lie, no matter what goofy things you come up to call it. That's the "world according to VM". Sorry you don't share it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Volunteer Marek - Thanks for that demonstration of Hyperbole and Sarcasm, illustrating two other forms of expression thats-not-a-lie in addition to Figurative. Now go observe that I said the title is spin from the author. It not Trump saying "Donald Trump: I meant that Obama founded ISIS, literally", it is a clickbait title to article that does not have content where Trump says he meant that literally. That Trump wanted to keep saying "founder", sure. But its a figurative expression. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, nonsense. It's pretty clear from his statement that he indeed meant it literally. You are demanding that he say "I mean it literally" at the end of his every claim, or it's not meant literally. Again, this is just lame ass excuse making for an obvious lie. Oh, wait. For "speaking figuratively". Hey, I guess some people enjoy being lied to.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Skyring -- it's said a lot but there isn't (yet) anything as big or iconic as other Presidents 'you can keep your doctor', 'read my lips no new taxes', or 'it depends on what your definition of is, is'. And too may of them spin around someone putting an interpretation on words and then a particular judgement approach -- seems more a constructed view product for their market and not a statement of an objective fact. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't describe it as "putting an interpretation on words". It's taking words literally, on face value, assuming their most likely, usual meaning, then being told that isn't what he said or isn't what he meant. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. He repeated it many times, without any moderation or qualifiers, just a straight out absolute statement. He was also questioned on it repeatedly, and just doubled down even more emphatically. Did he mean it or believe it? Who knows. With Trump it's all about the immediate points he can score, and whom he can hurt, not about whether it's truthful. He said it, it was a very false statement, and it scored points with a certain class of voters who fall for repeated lies, a technique taught to Trump by Roy Cohn [2]. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
No, we should not be calling Trump's criticism a false statement - it comes across more like defense of Obama, and that's not our job. We say what the sources tell us...and the NYTimes stated: Mr. Trump’s statement was an escalation in his recent criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of the terror threat, as he had previously accused only Mrs. Clinton of having a “founding” role in the terror group. Let's not lose perspective. Iran is the top state sponsor of terrorism, there's the WaPo article about Obama's $1.7 billion deal, and now there's news about Obama giving Iran secret access to the US financial system. Atsme📞📧 07:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
This article is about Trump, not Obama, nor Hillary. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
False statements are often used by him as "criticism". The two are not mutually exclusive. (Don't make too much of the current - NOTNEWS - one-sided GOP coverage of that tightly controlled and limited access the Iranians got to THEIR OWN money.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I never see these same arguments at the parallel BLPs on the opposite side of the political spectrum - read those same arguments when editors attempted to add the health issues at HRC's BLP - they ruled to be UNDUE. It also appears that NOTNEWS for some only applies to allegations against a particular POV, and that is how we know this article has serious POV issues. The argument here has always been that If it is covered in RS, it belongs in the article...unless it favors Trump, and then it is censored. Sorry, but your arguments are not convincing because you're arguing for DNC coverage which is exactly what you described for exclusion of other material regarding one-sided GOP coverage. There is nothing - I repeat, nothing - in our PAGs that says we cannot/should not include coverage by biased media or sources. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Please spare me the same ole weary unconvincing arguments of bias. That is not how WP works. Atsme📞📧 20:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

There are lots of whoppers of his that we could add as examples, but the "Obama-Hillary-ISIS" legend is not one of them. It hasn't gotten as much attention as some of the others, and WEIGHT of Reliable Source Coverage is our standard. --MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Still, it’s a good suggestion: the current paragraph offers NO examples, just a generalization and some factchecker reports. We should cite a few carefully chosen examples. Our criteria should be: (a) widely reported things that are (b) blatantly false, that he has (c) said repeatedly, in defiance of (d) repeated debunking. Here is NBC’s list of his 10 biggest whoppers of 2017. I would suggest we choose a few from that list. I would recommend that we chose from among “Obama bugged Trump Tower,” “biggest inauguration crowd in history”, “I won’t benefit from the tax bill,” and “millions of illegal votes for Hillary”. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

  Just curious..., wouldn't that be considered OR; i.e., choosing one news source, then choosing what we like out of a list at that news source? Atsme📞📧 21:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, please actually READ WP:OR. It says not to do our own research, or synthesize separate facts to reach a conclusion that was not in the sources. It does NOT say we mustn't choose what to report here. In fact is absolutely our job, and our basis of operation, to choose among sources and to select what out of those sources to report. I spelled out the criteria I think we should use to make our selection; you can't get any more DUE or NEUTRAL than that. --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually I did read OR, in particular WP:PRIMARY. Why would NBC not be considered a primary source per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Notes? Thank you in advance for explaining...Atsme📞📧 22:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Apparently you didn't read WP:PRIMARY either. Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. No way does that apply to NBC's thoughtful summary of a year of news stories. --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
P.S. If you didn't like NBC's list for some reason, try Factcheck.org's. I think you'll find the same things on it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, maybe....but as we’re now learning, some media articles may well be considered primary sources based on this recent indictment. Times they are a changing...literally. Atsme📞📧 13:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
MelanieN, I like the NBC list -- we need to rely more on these summaries that give perspective to the daily news reports. One that's come up again recently is "64 people died in Puerto Rico" with the new government report best estimate00:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC) that the death toll is closer to a hundred times that. I agree the ISIS one, although he may very well believe it, has gained relatively little traction compared to others that refer to more tangible recent issues -- disparagement of Latino and Muslim populations, Dark State conspiracy theories about the Justice Dept., and a few others. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Can't blame that one on Trump. The "64 people" official death toll was according to the government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Also, the new information was not from a "new government report", it was from an academic study. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes you're right. I should have recalled the source of the actual number (estimate). Actually, come to think of it the whole PR response issue belongs in the racism and policy basket, not in the untruth subject matter. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It's more like disparagement of the criminal aspects of Latino and Muslim populations and the open border controversy. To say otherwise is POV. For example, MS13 issues, and Islamic terrorism are very real. I remain cautious about taking journalistic opinion at face value - liken it to being something along the lines of practicing sound editorial judgment. Only the facts, please. Atsme📞📧 23:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, at the risk of straying from the current editing discussion, I need to tell you that what you just wrote is false. Scary insinuations about "the caravan" of violent Central American criminals marching inexorably to invade the USA somewhere East of El Cajon were untrue before, while and after Trump promoted them. Etc. Etc., Fox News notwithstanding. SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, please don't talk about "journalistic opinion" unless you are talking about things taking place on the opinion pages of a newspaper or among the talking heads on a TV show. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Drmies, perhaps you didn't notice but one of the sources I used above was an opinion page in USNews authored by an academic who writes a column for them. That academic was criticized as not notable. You know I always honor your requests, but I expect them to be valid ones. I would very much appreciate it if you read this discussion again because I'm beginning to feel that you are being called/or attracted to my discussions without knowing the full scope of what I'm actually stating to be my position. Atsme📞📧 00:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
If you were talking about someone writing on the opinion page, you weren't talking about journalism: you were talking about an academic who wrote an opinion column on the editorial page. "Journalistic opinion" as such simply does not exist, unless one thinks that all journalism is opinion. Bad journalism may be opinionated, but then it's bad journalism. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I had to rub my one good eye to make sure I read your response correctly. I thought it was playing tricks on me. 🧐 Yes, Drmies, I was talking about an academic who is a weekly columnist for a news publication - specifically US News - and he is also an occasional columnist for The Washington Times, and a few other news sources. We call that a journalist or columnist, albeit part-time. Merriam's definition of journallist is a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast. We could say he's an associate prof who dabbles in opinion journalism or that he's an opinion journalist with academic credentials, whatever works best. He also has experience as a diplomat with the U.S. Dept. of State so we could add that he's a former diplomat with academic credentials, and his areas of expertise as a journalist include US national security and foreign policy. Atsme📞📧 02:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
And he's still one of thousands of "academics" who are not notable experts in any field and he is a gent who's affiliated with a rather uninmpressive far right institution with a fancy name but no reputation for significant thought or any other excellent accomplishment. So, why would an encyclopedia present this gentleman's POV to our readers when we could instead find the most incisive and insightful commentators and the most reliable factual reporting on which to base our article? SPECIFICO talk 03:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
🎼🎶 🎶 🎶 🎶 repetitive harping doesn't sell records, so I'll end it on this note: ♬ I disagree that he's not notable. ♫ 🥁 Atsme📞📧 20:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Not a forum for discussing...well, these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not going to debate the OR argument; however, I will say that the sources I cited above are RS. You can call them wrong all day long if it suits you, but it won't change our PAGs. I grew up near the Texas border - spent lots of time there as an adult - have lived/seen the events you called false which is neither here nor there. Our job on WP is to write what RS say, detach ourselves from any biases we may have in a concerted effort to provide our readers with factual information in a dispassionate tone, make sure it is verifiable, and presented from a NPOV. If we do that, everything else will work out just fine. Atsme📞📧 01:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, no again. You've got an opinion piece by a non-notable academic who also hangs his hat at a right-wing faux think tank. And then there's the opinion of Jeff Sessions, OMG, etc. RS for what? Not facts. SPECIFICO talk 01:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
BTW, this isn't true either. SPECIFICO talk 01:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I disagree that he's a "non-notable academic". I have not seen the Fox clip, but will in a bit - in the interim, this article is in-line with what most in the media are reporting. Atsme📞📧 15:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
PS: Just watched the Fox clip - what part of it do you believe isn't true? Atsme📞📧 15:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, what color link do you see here? Lamont Colucci? If you believe he's notable, by all means write an article. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
😆 Surely you don't believe that unless someone has an article in WP, they can't possibly be notable as reliable experts about a specific topic? RS states: The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. I'd say this info helps to identify his area of expertise. Someone once told me that there's actually life outside WP, and I believed them because they live for a living. Atsme📞📧 16:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme: Did you actually see lots of members of ISIS pouring into America when you "grew up near the Texas border" then? Forgive me, but this sounds an awful like "I can see Russia from my house." -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I have two associates who own several sections of land (and lease parts of it for hunting) along our southern-most border, and they have witnessed it, their hunters have witnessed it, and have turned over photographs to border security. You might want to brush-up on your homework, and see page 11, Jeh Johnson's statement in this report. The ISIS situation is not new. I also have extended family from Iraq who served as translators, so as I said in the beginning, I'm not going to debate or contribute to the OR argument but remain quite confident regarding my perception of what is actually happening. Our job as editors is confined to citing RS, which I've done, and to comply with NOR, which I've done - end of discussion on my end. Atsme📞📧 14:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh jebus freakin crust but this is dumb. No, there's no fucking ISIS camp on the US-Mexico border [3] (and this is why JudicialWatch is a garbage source)and I'm sorry but anybody who believes in that nonsense is a total fucking idiot. Senators or reps or secretaries included.
And it's precisely by treating people who say dumb ass shit like that seriously and pretending like this stuff can be part of regular discourse among intelligent people that we get into a situation like this, where obvious bullshit is being presented on part with established facts, where you can't call an obvious lie a lie (we have to call it "speaking figuratively" (sic)), and where absurd conspiracy theories are treated as possibilities, and where people walk into pizza parlors with the intent to shoot them up cuz they heard something somewhere. Enough. COMPETENCE IS REQUIRED and that applies to the very basic ability of being able to differentiate between plausible phenomena and obviously witless conspiracy theories.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Ha!! Jebus freakin crust - gotta remember that one. Well, VM...most here are aware of your POV, and understand why opposing views may stir your emotions. The reality is rather simple - it doesn't matter how upset you become when other editors don't agree with your perception of the world and world events. It's better to simply not have any expectations, one way or the other, it spares one disappointment and helps to maintain one's neutrality. Yes, WP:CIR...and if you truly believe the rhetoric in your comment above, why don't you apply it to the many Trump-related articles that are based primarily on speculation, conspiracy theories and wishful thinking, starting with Trump-Russia dossier. Happy editing!! Atsme📞📧 16:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Like Atsme, I have also lived on the southern border and personally know individuals who have witnessed same. Including Border Patrol agents I've talked to and give the same kind of testimony. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh BS. And a good thing that Wikipedia users' ridiculous personal "testimonies" are not considered as reliable sources and have no bearing on what content we include or not include. This is WP:NOTAFORUM violation and belongs in some conspiracy subreddit, not on a talk page of an encyclopedia article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, personal knowledge is valuable as it relates to WP:CIR and sound editorial judgment, both of which are required when editing highly controversial articles. No one is suggesting personal views are RS so you can stop that spin. Oh, and VM, I've noticed that we have quite a few competent editors, so competency is not exclusive to you alone...but your consistent criticism and obliquely presented PAs are beginning to wear thin. Please try a little harder to be collegial and express your views without all the emotion. Thanks. Atsme📞📧 16:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah... no. This isn't "personal knowledge". This is "personal self delusions" or something. Anyone can go and make wild claims and then back them up with "but I swear, I saw it with my own two eyes!". Here, lemme go to the Earth article and put in that it's flat because, you know, I saw it from the plane and it didn't look round to me! Or let me go to the UFO article and write how they real cuz they abducted me last night, I swear, it's my own "personal knowledge"! Also, I just checked, using match sticks, and no matter how many times I counted, 2+2 is in fact 8! "My own personal knowledge"! I guess you're right, it's related to CIR. Also, not clear where you're seeing "emotion" here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I hate to disagree with you on this one, Marek, but I was down in Laredo several years back attending my nephew's Boy Scout induction ceremony there, and while we were at the Dairy Queen, we saw 4 guys in ISIS t-shirts hitchhiking not more than 200 feet from where we were seated. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Four men wearing ISIS T-shirts? Blatantly and casually wearing them in public??? And actually expecting to be picked up as hitchhikers???? Impossible to take this story seriously. Either you misinterpreted what you saw, or it was some kind of prank. Similarly, what your friends with border property have seen, and certainly do see all the time, was people sneaking across the border. What led them to conclude that the people they saw were ISIS members could be anything, but most likely their own expectation. There have been a few cases of middle eastern terrorists of various stripes being smuggled across the border.[4] But the notion that they are just blatantly walking across in large numbers has been thoroughly debunked.[5] --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
May I theorize that SPECIFICO is pulling your leg?   — JFG talk 20:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
...? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

What I think would greatly improve the article would be not to perfect our list of this-and-that, i.e. which lies and distortions Trump has broadcast, so much as to look at how and why he uses them. What are the subjects, on what occasions does he say these things, what's the context, what's the effect, what does it benefit him, is it crazy or is it strategic? These are the meaningful issues, and there is lots of RS discussion of these questions. We should try to assemble some good content from them. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Getting back to the idea of choosing a few examples to cite in the Falsehoods section

I don't want to hat the above discussions - they are ongoing and at least somewhat related to the topic - but I'd also like to get back to the suggestion of including a few examples. Repeating my comment from above: We should cite a few carefully chosen examples. Our criteria should be: (a) widely reported things that are (b) blatantly false, that he has (c) said repeatedly, in defiance of (d) repeated debunking. Here is NBC’s list of his 10 biggest whoppers of 2017. I would suggest we choose a few from that list. I would recommend that we chose from among “Obama bugged Trump Tower,” “biggest inauguration crowd in history”, “I won’t benefit from the tax bill,” and “millions of illegal votes for Hillary”. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC) --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as [the World Trade Center] was coming down [6] is one of his ugliest lies (from the campaign trail). I suspect something about the "birther" controversy should be included, as well as his own "truthful hyperbole" line (currently in "Campaign rhetoric"). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
That's a tempting idea, but I'm afraid it would turn into a quotefest of trash (shit Trump said, followed by shit people said about him). Encyclopedic writing should remain above that. — JFG talk 20:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree. I can't see why we should spend time picking which to mention and/or quote and endless arguing about whether it was a "whopper" or just a sensationalism designed to agitate his political foes. All I can say is it works cause the media pounces on every word he utters or tweets looking for some way to feel annoyed. Watched an interview he did a day or week maybe after he was elected and he stated he had to win states no Republican has ever won before....or something along those lines. Of course I think every state has been won by a republican presidential nominee at one point or another but was this a whopper or was it just a figurative Trumpism?--MONGO 00:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I think MelanieN's criteria are a good suggestion. As a nit though, why is the NBC list referred to as " his 10 biggest whoppers of 2017" when it has nine entries?S Philbrick(Talk) 00:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
If I were to pick, I'd probably start with item 2 HILLARY CLINTON WON THE POPULAR VOTE BECAUSE OF FRAUD. It's possible he believes it, which would make it technically not a lie, but he should know better, so it qualifies.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
RS Polling tells us that a large segment of the US electorate believes that various of Trump's falsehoods are true. This has nothing to do with the mainstream media clucking and whining over them. RS do however give broad analysis of the phenomenon including collateral factors such as his staff and associates fear of Trump reprisals if they do not flatter and parrot him, the role of Fox News and the alt-right media in propagating false narratives, and other factors. These larger issues are more significant than the particular misstatements and sycophancy. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with the substance of your point. Having said that, if your suggestion is that this article should have a discussion of this phenomenon I'm not quite so quick to agree. The fact that some people make statements which are judged by some to be falsehoods but believes by others for various reasons sounds like a subject worth discussing but it seems like it should be its own article not something in this particular biography. I don't think the phenomena of which you speak is unique to Trump.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

NBC severing ties with Trump

Latest comment: 6 years ago37 comments10 people in discussion

This edit [7] claims to shorten "excess detail". But the detail happens to be the extraordinary and widely reported and discussed fact that NBC rebuked Trump and severed its ties due to remarks Trump made about immigrants -- one of his central points -- in his candidacy announcement. This content should be restored. I mistakenly reverted it less than 24 hours after a different unrelated revert, so I have restored the content for others to assess. SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Meh - NBC rebuked Trump and Trump rebuked NBC - they both got what they wanted out of each other. There's mention of ties being severed over at The_Apprentice_(U.S._TV_series). Atsme📞📧 17:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a bad edit. It needs to be reverted, but I think I'm overdrawn on reverts for a least a few hours.- MrX 🖋 17:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted the removal of this material. If anyone feels strongly about removing it, we can discuss it here.- MrX 🖋 17:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I say remove it, a media tiff about this is undue for here. PackMecEng (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a "media tiff" any more than Harvey Weinstein is a media tiff, the HBO/ATT merger is a media tiff, or unsolved murders of Russian Journalists is a "media tiff" ... Just cause it involves media does not make it a "media tiff". SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Hissy fit? Would that work better? The rest is unrelated in importance and scale to the issue at hand. PackMecEng (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
It's important biographical information that should stay in the article. Editors should really seek a consensus on the talk page before removing long-standing, stable content. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
It is important to the shows article, not important enough for this article. PackMecEng (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
So are you proposing removing all of the Apprentice material, or just the big reveal where Trump gets fired?- MrX 🖋 18:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind seeing a trim of the Apprentice material, but this is a good start. PackMecEng (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I kinda think that a major network firing a major reality TV celebrity is important to mention in the major reality TV celebrity's biography. It's not just a "tiff".- MrX 🖋 18:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
We are very consistent in mentioning in the bio articles of Matt Lauer, Kevin Spacey, Roseanne Barr, et. al. why they were terminated by their broadcast hosts SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly correct. Gandydancer (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The main reason is that is what they are most known for, that is not the case for Trump. PackMecEng (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Wait, what? I'm reasonably certain The Apprentice is the reason Trump had such high name recognition. It is doubtful he would've won the election without that show. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree that was the case, but right now it certainly is not. PackMecEng (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm still trying to get my arms around Atsme's "Matt Lauer is best known for sexual misconduct...Kevin Spacey is best known for sexual misconduct...Roseanne Barr is an American racist and twitter user...etc." Really? SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
And these days Trump is best known globally as the president of the USA, not as a minor reality tv star. PackMecEng (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is an absolutely ridiculous view to hold. His MULTI-YEAR, MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR, GLOBAL TV SHOW PHENOMENON that put him on the TV of the millions of Americans who like crappy TV is not something you can conveniently forget. Despite 8 years of the presidency, Ronald Reagan was (and still is) often referred to as "The Gipper". -- Scjessey (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Or "the kiester". I do not anticipate that the sexual misconduct will ever be removed from those folks articles, even if they sprout wings and fly to Hawaii. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 
Mister Ed with Wilbur and friend!
Lets see, 8 years as leader of the free world or about 12 years mainly on American tv? Yes he was known for the TV, and even got his start that way. But there is no way in heck anyone can reasonably say it was even close to as important as president. PackMecEng (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Huh? Trump has been in office for a year and half, and he is not the leader of the free world; he's the president of the United States.- MrX 🖋 21:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Did I miss an election? I don’t see how we can talk about The Apprentice and not mention the termination of its star. O3000 (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah the 8 years is a little crystal. But leader of the free world is a common title for president of the United States, even if Angela Merkel was called that for a tiny bit. My issue with the Apprentice section is that it is to long already. Currently longer than several prominent things he has done since then. PackMecEng (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
So remove the image of Rodman. As for leader of the free world, seems odd for a president who's motto is "America First". O3000 (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell Free_World#United_States has not changed since Trump has been in office. PackMecEng (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
(ec)Good. Let's shorten the Apprentice. 3 points: 1. Trump portrayed a comic book version of a business magnate surrounded by average folks who reported directly to the potentate. AKA "flat organization structure". 2. This convinced half of America that Trump himself was a successful high profile business magnate. Kind of like thinking Marlon Brando was a gangster or Mr. Ed was a talking horse? 3. Trump was terminated because NBC refused to associate itself with what it deemed hate speech in Trump's campaign announcement. Any other important points? SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO - back to the topic, yes it's a bit of excess detail. Not a strong necessity to reduce but certainly can be. I suggest trimming it a bit in an act of good faith. Maybe chop out the middle sentence? Might also seem less fluffy if it did not use fluffy cites (e.g. the Politico blog, 'Boy Genius Report', New Hampshire Union Leader paper, etc) and used more prominent publications that covered this story. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I did a few edits. See what you think. Detail can be found in the dedicated Apprentice article. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Not bad; I tweaked it a little, see what you think. I still believe we are giving too much importance to the back-and-forth between Trump and NBC around his departure from the show. Each side said they dumped the other, and they had other things to settle regarding Miss Universe; that situation contributed to the public feud. — JFG talk 17:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
User:SPECIFICO - those edits seem better, but do not address the paragraph that this thread is about -- This edit [8]. Again, I'll suggest cutting out the middle line (about NBC going for a 15th season) as a possible step for this topic -- reducing it down to Trump said he was out, and then NBC said they were cutting relationship. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Do not confuse The Apprentice with Miss Universe

The whole hoopla with NBC was related to their dispute around Miss Universe ownership, and we already address it in the relevant section Donald Trump#Miss Universe. Again, it should be removed from the section about The Apprentice. — JFG talk 05:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The two bits about NBC dumping him should be combined so that the total bloat in this section of the article can be reduced. NBC said they couldn't live with his statements. That means NBC couldn't do X they couldn't do Y they couldn't do Z... and so forth, but the overall fact is that Trump got severed by NBC under the terms of his contract, and then he apparently sold one of the shows to WWE (controlled by his friend and backer Linda McMahon) prior to her appointment to head the Small Business Administration.
So this is another good opportunity to remove excessive play-by-play detail from the article and replace it with contextualized summary text supported by RS narratives that focus on the key facts and factors for us. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
User:SPECIFICO - agree strongly with less play by play (unless a step had independent coverage) and contextual summary. RS narrative for summary is also desirable though more caution needed. It would only be for cases where RS widely agree such as widespread reaction about G7 and focus to events and nature, and only doing POV subsets, judgments, or speculation when it is needed for context to a subsequent part of narrative and is properly attributed. (e.g. if a lawsuit for DACA was based on campaign language viewed by X as racist, then that cause should be included... but if there is no result to explain then avoid just raw opinions on remarks.). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate your reasoned contributions here, Markbassett. Much of the space on this page is wasted on editors' personal attempts to discern due weight when we should be looking to secondary and tertiary NOTNEWS sources to do that for us. That does risk getting into some weeds about whether Judge Jeanine and her ilk are such a source, but I think the vast majority of WP editors understand what's meant by mainstream RS and I'm hopeful that we can move the content of this article more in that direction. SPECIFICO talk 16:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Walk of Fame star

According to the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, Trump received the star not for The Apprentice but for having produced the Miss Universe contest, as reported by Christopher Zara in Fast Company magazine. (Kanye West complained that wife Kim Kardashian hadn't received one and was told that they don't have a category for reality TV and won't consider reality TV stars unless they have been nominated or won an Emmy, an Oscar, or a Grammy, i.e., "when they're legitimate actors or singers" (HuffPo, Yahoo). I moved the sentence from the Apprentice into the Miss Universe section (subsection of Side ventures). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Signed document

Latest comment: 6 years ago42 comments15 people in discussion

Ok - here's the game changer, and let's do this first things first: CNN published the document which states the following:

  1. The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new US-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.
  2. The United States and DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.
  3. Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
  4. The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

This is what we should include in the article, along with the fact that the meeting was historic. No predictions, no speculation.

Survey

  • Approve - recommend adding a sub-section with factual information as proposed above. Atsme📞📧 18:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not precisely sure what you want, but it appears you want to merely summarize the document, rather than the secondary sources covering and analyzing the promises made as per NPOV. This is not what we do - we base our articles on secondary coverage and analysis. This is to allow us to give context, and to comply with NPOV. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think the list from the statement may be better for another article, but we should include a concise summary of any well-sourced third-party analysis in this article.- MrX 🖋 18:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I assume you are talking about our North Korea subsection (under Foreign policy). It currently contains NOTHING about the meeting, although it describes the lead-up to the meeting. A paragraph should be added summarizing the meeting, including a sentence about the outcome. We certainly should not include the entire communique they put out at the end, which consists of vague pleasantries. Game changer? Oh, please. --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • What was the outcome? I suppose we could say that reactions ranged from hope to confusion to concern, but that's editorial OR and it's true of just about everything. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Melanie...please (not oh please) read the source, and my suggestion again, and yes, it should be included in the section mentioned, and because of its historic significance (regardless of who does or doesn't like it, RS have covered it and it is notable as such) it belongs in the lead a summary, not the individual key points in the box above 19:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC) - and now that we have the actual document, we can properly present the material based on FACTS, only please. Atsme📞📧 19:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Replying below. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added one sentence about the meeting to the "North Korea" section; while some content has been challenged, I feel there's consensus to discuss the summit in some form, and that my version is neutral. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Regarding additional details: if the US does stop joint military efforts with South Korea as a result of the summit, that should be included; I don't see sourcing that supports including that yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
      • This verbal commitment from Trump has gotten a lot of coverage and I think we should mention it. I will put in a sentence that he said it. If we actually do it, that will obviously need additional coverage, maybe in the South Korea subsection. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose adding this meaningless verbiage to the article. Wake me up when there's actual commitments/verification/timeline. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC*
  • Oppose. It's a primary source, and here's one secondary source view of what it means: One expert told NK News that he believed Tuesday’s agreement had “zero practical value.” “We expected it would be a flop, but it’s floppier than anything we expected,” Andrei Lankov, a director at the Korea Risk Group – which owns and operates NK News – said. “The declaration is pretty much meaningless.” “The Americans could have extracted serious concessions, but it was not done,” he continued. “The North Koreans will be emboldened and the U.S. got nothing.” Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Absolutely not. Dropping the full text of a treaty into a personal article (even a world leader) would be WP:UNDUE and inappropriate, and for laws, treaties, and legal documents, trying to paraphrase their meaning without relying on a secondary sources inevitably treads into WP:OR. We should look at what secondary sources are saying and use those, possibly waiting until we have enough to have a clear sense of what exactly it's worth, how significant it is, and how we should summarize it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Opposs as full quote, support summary – In the section below, MelanieN suggested an appropriate prose summary of the signed declaration; that's what we should insert. — JFG talk 12:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
MelanieN aptly summarized it in just one sentence; see below. — JFG talk 12:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
We need consensus RS summary. If you'll review the key concern cited by many editors here, it's that the meaning of the document is unclear. In such a circumstance, WP editors' summary is OR. SPECIFICO talk 12:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedians summarize sources everyday; it's our job. It's only OR if you add your own interpretation or your own facts, instead of simply reporting what the source has stated. — JFG talk 12:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not a matter of summarizing words. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Markbassett: Actually, no. The summary of the summit should be in Presidency of Donald Trump. What goes here is the summary of the summary of the summit at best. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Scjessey - That would be OK by me, and I'd also say as his BLP the brief amount should try and highlight the view from his life and effects on it. Markbassett (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

The subsection should lead with the factual events (date, time, place and purpose of meeting), note that it was an historical event, and stick only to the facts - no speculation, or predictions. Atsme📞📧 18:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, that's a primary document. Does not address its meaning or significance at all. That would be an inkblot test not encyclopedia text. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
It's published and analyzed by secondary sources. Furthermore, do you remember the dossier? It is also a primary document but what was that work-around? I'm hoping editors here can resolve this issue, but an RfC is always a 2nd option if we need wider community input (which I probably should have done from the get-go). Atsme📞📧 18:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Let's just stick with our WP policies. SPECIFICO talk 18:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
What do you think we're doing? That is policy - see WP:PRIMARY which states: Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia... You can always start a discussion at RS/N if you find any part of that confusing. Atsme📞📧 19:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
"... but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." You have to keep reading. 138.115.53.142 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Not applicable. This is about a literal quote and NOT an interpretation. Markbassett (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Exactly - the IP is the one who should "keep reading" - A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. My proposal clearly demonstrated inclusion of #1 - #4 which could be cited to the RS, and I further qualified it with This is what we should include in the article, along with the fact that the meeting was historic. No predictions, no speculation. There was -0- interpretation proposed in my proposal. Atsme📞📧 23:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The section should lead with summaries from reliable, high-quality secondary sources, and should rely on the interpretation, framing, and context of those sources to determine how we describe those things here. This is not complicated; we get our facts from secondary sources, including central facts like "what does this mean and what is its possible long-term significance, if any?" --Aquillion (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter (pingó mió) - not quite what I suggested. We quote the main points from the signed agreement. The lead-in and closing statement will comprise what RS have published as it relates to the facts being reported. It is too early to include commentary and opinions but not too early to state the facts of the event. If nothing/something more comes of it, the lead and section can always be updated. My line of thinking for this is exampled in the 4th paragraph of the lead at Kīlauea which includes recent news coverage of that event. Simple. Atsme📞📧 19:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

(moving my discussion with Atsme here; it doesn't belong in the Survey section): The meeting was historic, yes. It deserves a paragraph The communique was not, and certainly does not deserve to be quoted in full. We have made many such agreements with North Korea; most were more detailed than this one. The Clinton administration had an agreement; the Bush administration had one;[9] neither one was lived up to.[10] [11] If this one gets followed through on, THEN it will be historic. For now it is just a piece of paper, worthy of a one-sentence summary in the North Korea subsection. --MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I have now added such a paragraph. I took the summary of the communique from the article 2018 North Korea–United States summit, so presumably it is already to some extent the product of discussion and consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
MelanieN, thanks for that approach, but I think that what works for an article only on that topic does not necessarily work here. Also it's clear there's at least as much sentiment against rushing this as there is to include it right now. Let's also remember this is his biography, at least 2 steps removed from that other article. SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
User:MelanieN - better to just follow the cites. The judgement of what belongs or what deserves to be quoted or is seen as historic is simply not one that WP editors should be trying to make by giving an OR logic and OR construction for the article, and I am a bit concerned the other treaty logic also sounds like it came from a Rachel Maddow show or something. While both the Bush Six-party talks and Clinton Agreed Framework would make good "See Also" links to the summit article, I think we should just follow the cites and put in what they have in WP:DUE weight. If they give a lot of coverage to it then we do too; if they usually list the text, then we do too; if they do not say it is historic, then we also do not. Simple and easy. (Except for the getting WP editors to follow of course.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

"Ok - here's the game changer..." That statement may ultimately become a game changer, but so far nothing has actually happened. We must say nothing more than state that such a statement has been issued. And can some editors please calm down and realise they are writing an encyclopaedia, not a twitter feed? HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't even know what to say about the "game changer" comment. It's like there are parallel universes, or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
There appears to be a misunderstanding of my use of the term "game changer" so allow me to clarify: I originally opposed inclusion based on RECENTISM and NOTNEWS; however, the game changer for me was the fact that the agreement has since been published which allows us to cite/quote the key points per my proposal for inclusion. Please...let's get on the same page and stop reading things into an editor's comments that simply are not there. Anyone who has trouble reading (as I have had after eye surgery), or with sentence comprehension, or perhaps dyslexia or whatever - please, just ask me to explain, and I will happily oblige. We all share the same goal - to get the article right. Atsme📞📧 23:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion - Seems clear we can wrap this up not to include at this time. Possibly revisit in the future if RS tell us anything significant comes of it. SPECIFICO talk 15:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the lead

Latest comment: 6 years ago20 comments14 people in discussion
Consensus will not develop to add this to the lead section of this article; I will re-start a discussion at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump regarding adding it to that article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

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

I would like to propose the following for addition to the end of the third paragraph of the lead: "His administration has been characterized by high turnover of personnel, including two cabinet members. He has frequently disdained the mainstream media, regularly using Twitter to sidestep the press."

The staff turnover, relationship with mainstream media, and use of Twitter are significant points that I believe should be included. What do other editors think? - MrX 🖋 17:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

We're not just counting votes here. Can you support your view with any convincing reason that has not already been expressed here? SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be "not already expressed here" (see PackMecEng's !vote). We do like to at least see something like PackMecEng's !vote, or the equivalent shorthand "per username". The question of why we feel that makes such a big difference would make an interesting community-level discussion, imo. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I was commenting to MONGO who just said #metoo. But as to your other point, it makes a difference because these decisions need to be based in PAG's and ultimately some PAG application must underlie every editing decision. That's why it's useful to point to them when there are differing views or interpretations. SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I know who you were commenting to, and I pointed to PackMecEng's !vote, which you did not object to but was a reason "already expressed here". My other point was that it's eminently easy to disguise a vote as a !vote by changing "Oppose" to "Oppose per [insert username of any previous opposer]"—or, for that matter, "[insert username of any previous opposer] makes some good points that I agree with"—so the requirement is effectively lipstick on a pig. Part of our group self-delusion that "Wikipedia is not a democracy", in my opinion. My final point was that this would make an interesting community-level discussion, meaning that it's off topic in article talk, and I expect this will be hatted as such. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
That's a relief. I was afraid I was being unclear again 😎. I think "XXX per BBB" is also not adding to this sort of poll, although it may highlight a certain view to the closer. As to hatting, I think there's too much hatting. It's recently seemed to sidetrack various folks and make them feel bad. 😒 SPECIFICO talk 20:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support particularly the first sentence is obviously relevant. And all of this has been covered extensively in sources. Yet... this is a lost cause.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Trump's war with the media may well deserve its own article, if there is not one already, but my concern is over the COI that arises when we try to cite material to the same RS he is at war with, so that doesn't work. As for Twitter - would he be using social media were it not for his presidency? Probably not, so it belongs in Presidency of..., as his way of maintaining transparency with the American people. Re: staff turnover...again, Presidency of..., his staff turnover basically indicates what a newly elected president goes through (more so with Trump as a political newbie of sorts) and his dependency on others to help fill those positions. Once he got his sea legs, he was better able to choose people he felt were better suited for his agenda, as with Mike Pompeo - which may deserve a place in the lede depending on whatever develops from the NKorea summit in the months to come - so it may still be a RECENTISM issue for this bio. Atsme📞📧 19:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think one thing that might get us closer to agreement is to characterize what's noteworthy about this. The resignations have been due to policy disagreements, public disparagement by POTUS, official misconduct, and other substantive reasons. Also the turnover is unusual for early in the Trump's first term in office. That gives more lead-worthy substance to this information. SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Good points, but they still don't belong in the Trump bio, rather they belong in Presidency of Donald Trump; i.e., "official" misconduct and other related reasons. Trump acted as president, not as Trump, the individual, which this bio should focus on considering he has only had 500 days as prez vs 50+ years as DJT. Atsme📞📧 21:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, if you'll work on putting it in the Presidency article, I'll work on an appropriate briefer mention for this one. SPECIFICO talk 02:06, 23 June 2018 (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.

Trump/Rodman image

Latest comment: 6 years ago15 comments11 people in discussion
Consensus to remove. — JFG talk 08:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

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

The longstanding Trump/Rodman image was removed and the removal was challenged by reversion. The subsequent vio of ArbCom restrictions was self-reverted. Seeking consensus to remove the image.

  • Remove. Enough said. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep to illustrate The Celebrity Apprentice. Generally speaking, improving our choice of pictures, and having one for each section, would help improve the article quality towards GA some day. I'd be OK with using a picture with Omarosa or some other notable contestant, but this one is fine. — JFG talk 06:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • to illustrate The Celebrity Apprentice - Right, except that it does not illustrate that; rather, it decorates the section about that, illustrating Donald Trump and Dennis Rodman standing together in some unidentifiable hallway. As I said above, it conveys nothing new except what Rodman looks like, and the section is not about Rodman. WP:GACR, the GA criteria, states that "A good article is ... Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio." The article already satisfies that criterion without an image for every section, and there is no suggestion or indication that an image for every section would improve its GA chances. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh, definitely remove since I was the one who ran afoul of 1RR re-removing it the first time around. I've never watched the show, so from the picture I'd guess that the show was about participants getting a hallway photo op with Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove: it would be optimal to have a pic from Apprentice as well as Miss Universe. However the pic of Rodman, who didn't get very far in the contest, is not representative of anything.– Lionel(talk) 09:57, 19 June 2018 (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.

Donald J. Trump

Latest comment: 6 years ago36 comments12 people in discussion
Suggestion not getting any traction; consensus stands. — JFG talk 08:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Should we note that Trump stylizes his own name as Donald J. Trump in the lead of the article? It is pretty ubiquitous. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting Point. It's like Richard M. Nixon and John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman, but not many others over the past 100 years. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Per consensus 12 [12] the title of the article is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. He does sign his name “Donald J. Trump,” but sources overwhelmingly refer to him as Donald Trump. That was their practice both before and after he became president. (For that matter I sign my name including my middle initial, but that's the only time it's ever used. It's not part of what Wikipedia would call my Common Name.) It’s not like John F. Kennedy or Franklin D. Roosevelt who were commonly referred to with the initial. Still, I’m not sure I understand what you are suggesting. What wording are you suggesting to add? --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Wikipedia general practice on this sort of thing is, but I was thinking of changing the opening paragraph to something like "Donald John Trump (self-stylized as Donald J. Trump, born June 14, 1946)...", if the consensus is to keep the title of the article as it is, or something similar. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
It is unimportant. I'd say leave it out. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree, it's unimportant. Lots of people (including myself) include their middle initial in their signature. It's rather meaningless and doesn't deserve to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I suggest nothing, just laying out the comparisons. He seems to call himself "J" but nobody else does, fwiw. SPECIFICO talk 22:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per #Current consensus #17. I'm not aware that the first sentence of an article should indicate how the subject self-stylizes, when that's the only significant use of the style. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it would stay Donald Trump unless he has made a point of having people use the J. Per WP:NCBIO, WP:INITS seem to apply, and WP:SPNC. The names or labels for Bio pages and BLP seem to try and respect what the person identifies as, though I think this topic appears more often for cases like Chelsea Manning or the artist formerly known as Prince. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbassett (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not actually paying respect to them, but referring to them in the same way that reliable sources do. I don't think that how Trump refers to himself is significant, because reliable sources do not comment on it. I find it more interesting that he refers to himself in the third person.[13] TFD (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: You raise an interesting connection with Trump's third-person habit. This seems also to relate to his multiple personalities, e.g. John Baron, the public relations rep persona that Trump cooked up to tout himself to the New York media in his real estate days. Considering this connection, I now think that a section or a couple of sentences in the Public Image section should mention this highly unusual and characteristic behavior of Trump over an extended period of time. It is widely reported and well-sourced: [14][15][16] SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: I raised the "third person" issue. Somehow, TFD's later comment got place before mine. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh. Thanks. Well I now think we should have some text about this in the article. It relates to the theme of "false or misleading" and maybe to some other themes we have yet to fully develop. SPECIFICO talk 21:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
unhelpful side discussion, and starting to get personal. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural comments
Per Mandruss above - see Current consensus #17 at the top of this page - so unless someone intends to call an RfC to change current consensus, we can hat or archive this discussion. Atsme📞📧 16:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Atsme that consensus list relates to article edits, not to talk page discussion. And the last thing we want is more polls and RfC's with pre-emptive wording selected for first-mover advantage. Discussion is AOK. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Disagree that the consensus list does not relate to talk page discussion. If it relates to article edits, it relates to talk page discussion by extension (talk page discussion is limited to potential article improvements). ―Mandruss ☎ 18:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Mandruss, it doesn't mean consensus can't change, it just means an edit away from consensus can be quick reverted. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, I didn't say it means that. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Ha and I didn't say you said that. But without discussion I said we'd be jumping to RfC's which is not good practice for collaborative investigation of complex content and sourcing issues. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
We can choose not to revisit settled issues without compelling reason to do so. There is no requirement to revisit something every time a new editor happens by who was not aware of the prior discussions. That is one of the values of the list as pertains to article talk. This issue is so important that, despite the first sentence being the most visible part of the entire article, it has occurred to nobody in the many months that sentence has been in place. Now an editor unaware of the article history drops by and the issue suddenly needs discussing? Not in my book, hence #17. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think "we" longer term editors can choose not to allow newbies to open discussion of issues. We routinely direct them to the talk archive. If we cannot all agree on what procedures go with that list, we'd better get rid of it entirely. Where is it documented? Who started "the list" and under what expectations or rules? I don't know, do you? SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
That's a lot of questions and I won't try to respond to them point-by-point. As you know, much of accepted best practice is not written, simply because it would be completely impractical to do so. As for the part about getting rid of the list, I'm not aware of any such sentiment aside from yours, which makes you a minority of 1 as to process—again. Editors have not opposed the existence of the list even when it would have served their interest to do so. The rest of us are not required to satisfy one solitary editor's demands for explicit documentation and rules, which would be a neverending source of wikilawyering ammunition for those so inclined. Much care has been taken to protect the integrity of that list, thereby preventing it from becoming just another battleground, which is precisely why it has survived this long. The clear unspoken consensus, unless many opposing editors are keeping their objections to themselves for some reason, is that the list is a net positive at this article, and that no need for written rules has been shown.
I have asked you to propose changes to established process separately, and to offer workable and specific better alternatives (difficult) rather than merely criticizing the status quo (easy). I'm asking you again. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, "the list" is a "net positive". But it does not obviate discussion. You are saying "We can choose not to revisit settled issues without compelling reason to do so. There is no requirement to revisit something every time a new editor happens by who was not aware of the prior discussions. That is one of the values of the list as pertains to article talk." The burden is on the so-called "new editor" to get up to speed on past discussions as well as the outcomes of RfCs, as that represents current consensus. But beyond that, their voice eventually has to be heard, which in turn calls for a valid and respectful verbal response. No one is dismissed on the basis that Current consensus disagrees with them. Bus stop (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Mandruss—what if that new editor happens to be Jimbo Wales? You are saying "We can choose not to revisit settled issues without compelling reason to do so. There is no requirement to revisit something every time a new editor happens by who was not aware of the prior discussions. That is one of the values of the list as pertains to article talk." That is an untenable position to take. What is a "new editor"? Aside from Jimbo Wales there are many editors whose opinions are respected and highly valued. The Current consensus list does not, in my opinion, obviate all discussion. The "current consensus" is just that. It is a quick reference to past RfCs and it shows what current consensus is on a given issue. It tends to shift the burden to that "new editor" to familiarize themselves with the issues that have already been discussed. But we can never take the attitude that input from editors unfamiliar with past discussions are unwelcome. The input from such editors cannot be summarily dismissed just because it is contrary to past consensus. I think there is a requirement for engaging in verbal discussion with any good faith editor no matter the position they take on any issue. A nonresponse gives the appearance of acquiescence. Bus stop (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I've stated my opinion, which you have distorted, and it's only one opinion. You've stated yours, which is only one other opinion. I'm not going to enter into one of your trademark interminable, WP:SATISFY-violating "debates", from which the only way out is nonresponse. No "acquiesence" is implied. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
You are stating (I'm paraphrasing, obviously) that we should tell newcomers to the article that their issue has already been addressed and resolved and there is nothing further to discuss, and you are saying that we simply refer them to the Current consensus list. In my opinion that is not a good idea as it relates to collaborative editing. The current consensus list is a resource. Yes, they should be referred to past discussion. But it doesn't end there. If they choose to pursue the matter further, as long as it is a good faith effort to improve the article, the discussion should indeed continue. They have the burden of catching up. If it is clear that they are unfamiliar with past talking points and arguments, then and only then can we say that this issue has already been resolved. Bus stop (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The Current Consensus item is not a reason to close this discussion. The Current Consensus is about the title of the article. This discussion is about whether to comment, somewhere in the lede, about how he signs his name. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Oops, my mistake. I had earlier mentioned current consensus #12, about the name of the article. But you all are talking about #17, about how the lede should read. I think it's fair to discuss; even if we can't touch the lede sentence, we might develop a consensus to put this detail somewhere else. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Or we could reach a new consensus. @Mandruss:: The reason nobody's voiced this concern before is that nobody before today tried to use "the list" as a hammer to shut down editor discussion on the talk page. Consensus can change. Especially in an article with developing news and new sources every day. As I've said before these articles will never be as stable as articles about historic or settled scientific subject matter. SPECIFICO talk 00:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I've already stated that my opinion is only one opinion, and you know damn well that I am the last person to believe I have the power to "shut down" anything. Save the inflammatory and combative hyperbole. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Nothing personal at all. I just said your idea doesn't work. You work. Your idea not so much. 😘 SPECIFICO talk 00:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your just one opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Very few RS use the middle initial. Certainly it can be used in some formal contexts, but that does not make it significant. Prior presidents cited (JFK, FDR) used the middle initial consistently as part of their identity, and that gave notoriety to their three-letter acronyms. I don't see a surge of "DJT" usage emerging; to most people he's known as "Trump". — JFG talk 06:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per above comments, but I have no prejudice against a new discussion the usage becomes vastly more common than it is currently. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2018 (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.

Apprentice - I removed a newly added paragraph about the show's ratings

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments10 people in discussion
This looks settled. No appetite to include ratings. — JFG talk 08:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Just documenting that I "challenged" (i.e. removed) a newly added paragraph about the show's ratings. We have several other discussions going on here about how to reduce the size of that section. IMO the ratings are unnecessary trivia unneeded in this biography. Bringing it here for discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Remove - based on my comment above which I posted before I saw this discussion. Atsme📞📧 20:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep - obviously, since it was me who added it. It shows that the show was on it last legs, not – as Trump claimed – the #1 hit until Schwarzenegger took over. Just another Trump myth/falsehood/{l-word we're not supposed to use). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually not according to Business Insider - Trump was correct. Regardless, it's not about ratings - it's about world-wide (encyclopedic) appeal, not about proving Trump wrong for whatever reason. When POV enters the picture, it's the project that suffers the results. Facts only, please. Atsme📞📧 22:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep We have no choice. NPOV means we need objective data. Since RS now question just about everything POTUS has ever said or done, we need to find credible independent sources for as much as possible of this article. There's still too much in the article that would sound no different if it were written by the White House Press Office. SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 16 June 2018 (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.

Apprentice - reinsertion of text

Latest comment: 6 years ago36 comments7 people in discussion

This edit [17] reinserts undue and unsourced detail and presents it as fact rather than part of the TV show plot premise. This edit should be undone. SPECIFICO talk 23:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Valuable description of the show and emphasizes Trump's role; this is his biography after all. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Please find a citation that verifies this and please verify that the "prize" was indeed a senior management role in a business owned by Trump. Yes this is his biography. That's why undue detail about the show would more appropriately go in the article about the show. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Please check out our article List of The Apprentice (U.S.) candidates. In the lede section you will find a blue-link for each of the winners, with verified/sourced details about their work for Trump. Some stayed on after their one year, some left. I think they may have stopped hiring the person when they switched to celebrity contestants, but the description is definitely accurate for the early years. This is not an "undue detail", it was the whole premise of the show. --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC) P.S. And according to this article, it was the show that transformed him from New York tycoon to larger-than-life celebrity and credible presidential candidate. --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
But the article for the show can't tell us what to put in his bio. This detail of the show didn't catapult Trump to celebrity. This is exactly why editors shouldn't rely on our own ideas as to what's DUE WEIGHT. And with this article already quite long and lots of more significant detail omitted -- like America First vs. the Post-WW2 World Order -- who did what to whom on a TV show doesn't seem to change the meaning or significance of Trump's life much. I think this is really the beauty of being able to wikilink to the place where readers can get infinite layers of detail if they keep clicking. SPECIFICO talk 01:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, please do relax. I just restored a brief description of the show's premise. Not every reader has access to U.S. television. We're writing an encyclopedia here, not a "Trump is a fraud" book. — JFG talk 03:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It’s hard to follow such an active history, but here’s what I think happened: At 23:51 on June 14 SPECIFICO removed three things from the show’s section: the description of the show’s premise, how much Trump earned per episode, and the show’s Emmy nominations. At 18:05 on June 15 JFG restored one thing: the description of the show’s premise. Apparently nobody minds your removal of the other two things, but the description of the show has some defenders here. The restored sentence was longstanding content. We will continue to discuss it here for a few days, but the default is to keep it, and it will require consensus to keep it out. --MelanieN (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It's clear to me that some details of American TV fiction are off topic and excessive detail to this bio when we have a separate article to convey them to readers who care. But as in so many of these little snippets, if we are to include it we need to do so in a way that gives full context and detail, not in a way that promotes the narrative put forth by involved characters. Like many other Trump ventures after the failure of his real estate development business, this show was crafted to present a certain narrative to the public. There is much RS discussion of that tactic and the extent to which its credible, the effect it had on his public image, and the returns it paid to his political career. If we're going to start adding description of TV details, they need to be NPOV, not the version promulgated by the principal, and they need to be presented with context and consequence. MelanieN, if you rush the reinsertion then as you say we'll need to launch an RfC and I think that would be unduly burdensome so I hope you'll give this some time to develop broad discussion and see what we come up with. SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Certainly there is no rush. Only three people have commented so far; that's not enough for consensus. Anyhow, no "reinsertion" will be necessary; right now the information is in the article, as it should be while we discuss whether to remove it. Like I said, the default for long-standing material is keep. But let's see if consensus develops to remove it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
P.S. re "American TV fiction": Are you still clinging to your debunked opinion that the winners didn't actually get a job with the Trump organization? They did, you know. That is not "the narrative put forth by involved characters" or "the version promoted by the principal," it is a simple one-sentence description of what the show was about. No need for elaborate analysis, for "context and consequence"; that can be found at the linked article about the show. BTW you didn't seem to have any problem with the very similar descriptions of the premise of Celebrity Apprentice; you left them in. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
MelanieN, it said "senior management roles". Then you cite that they're blue-linked but a quick check reveals that the ones with valid articles had other basis for notability and that most of the winners have no such articles and that those with articles mostly have articles full of tags like unsourced, primary, OR etc.
I'll look at the Celebrity Apprentice bit, thanks.
I'm concerned that you're not specifying what you mean "the default is to keep" the old text. Are you saying that without overwhelming consensus to remove it, that text has somehow hardened and is part of the landscape like Mt. Rushmore? Articles generally get better over time as more content and context is available. That is not often the case with older, stable subjects such as 14th Century French literature, but it is certainly true of all these articles that relate to current or recent events. If you're claiming that the text can be reinserted just because it wasn't overwhelmingly rejected here -- rather than because nobody can actually justify it -- that does not seem right, particularly in these AP articles. Lots of this stuff was put in the article without much attention quite some time ago, and we should be continuously evaluating WEIGHT, context, alternative article locations on WP, and other factors. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you? SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
"This article is under active arbitration remedies. Editors must obtain consensus on the talk page before reinstating any edits that have been challenged." Your edit was to remove material; part of that edit has been challenged, by restoring it; so the material cannot be removed again without consensus. The rest of your edit was not challenged, so it remains in effect. Come on, you know this. --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, considering that I'm the one who brought it to the talk page I give you credit for recognizing that I know this. But if you want to interpret that to mean that any old stale imperfect article text reinstated apparently without even a simple fact/verification check or search for better references, then we'll just need to go through endless RfC's to break the logjam. The DS rule was certainly not intended to empower obstinate POV editing without collaboration or engagement. Not that we're at that point yet by any means. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I looked at the sentence about Celebrity apprentice. That merely states they competed for prizes. That's innocuous enough and verifiable. the "senior management role" bit is obvious nonsense. Do you think Trump Organization risked its billions on telegenic wannabe's who show up for dramatically lit errands like starting a maid service or running a food truck? Or have sources said that's why so many of Trump's recent ventures got into legal trouble and/or failed? SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
P.S. again: We could talk about a slight rewording of the phrase. Right now it says “contestants competed for a high-level management job in one of Trump's businesses”. “High level management” could be a little puffish. Our article about the show says the show’s prize was “a one-year $250,000 starting contract to run one of Donald Trump's companies”. That's more precise than the vague "job". We could say that instead of “high level management job” if you prefer. --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
That would be PSS, and if a 3rd time, you simply add an i after the P. Atsme📞📧 17:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually it would be PPS - "post postcript". I can pick nits just as well as you. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
There you go again - being all factually accurate - but as you can see, adding an "i" after the "P" creates confusion because no one knows which P is being referenced...(not to mention the fact that it screws-up my joke)...and that is the crux of WP editing. Atsme📞📧 20:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I've been wondering what the actual prize was – can't seem to find the source. If they competed for a job as an apprentice to Trump, how does that qualify as high-level management or even management? An unusually well-paid apprentice, but still an apprentice. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Again, I don’t know why this info - a one-year job with Trump for $250,000 - is being challenged; it’s common knowledge. (Some of them also got a car, but never mind.) Sources for the prize: CBS News his first female "Apprentice," handing her a job with his organization and a $250,000 salary, The New Yorker the winners—who do, in fact, go on to work for Trump, with a salary of $250,000, Fortune seven contestants have successfully won a spot as Trump’s apprentice for a year, which comes with a $250,000 payday, Today the winner of “The Apprentice” will end up with a year’s contract working for The Donald in one of his many companies, and a salary of $250,000 Whatever their actual work was, it's titled as management and pays like management. It’s ridiculous to even be arguing about this. Can we move on to something that actually needs to be researched? --MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Let's get to work. There's plenty of RS material that gives a more NPOV and encyclopedic snapshot of the TV show. Starting with this [18] which tells me to remove the statement that the show was filmed in the Trump Tower. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I really can’t understand why you are going to the wall about this, but OK. The first six years were the ones that featured “aspiring, but otherwise unknown, businesspersons” competing for the prize of a job with Trump; the others were called “Celebrity Apprentice” and followed a different format. You have made a bunch of statements, above, about the shows produced under the original premise. Everything you said is incorrect.

  • a quick check reveals that the ones with valid articles had other basis for notability Not true. They were deliberately chosen to be unknowns. Many of them then leveraged their win to go on to do other notable things.
  • most of the winners have no such articles Not true. The first six (the ones under the original premise of competing for a job) all have articles. The articles in each case detail the “job” they got as their prize. #1 took charge of the construction of Trump Tower Chicago. #2 was “nominally managing the construction of Trump Place located in the Upper West Side of Manhattan, New York but in reality promoting it”. #3 supervised the renovation of Trump’s $25 million fixer-upper mansion in Florida. #4 supervised the renovation of the Taj Mahal and two other casinos. #5 supervised the Trump SoHo project. #6 oversaw the Trump at Cap Cana project and also became VP of sales and marketing for the Trump hotel in Las Vegas.
  • those with articles mostly have articles full of tags like unsourced, primary, OR etc. Not true. Articles which do not contain any such tags: #1, #3, #4, #5, #6. Articles which do: #2 is tagged for additional citations.
  • Oh, and apparently you didn’t actually look at the info about Celebrity Apprentice. It does not say they "completed for prizes”. It says they compete to win money for their charities.

Look, I don’t know why you are fighting this so hard, but let’s stay fact-based. You have yet to come up with an actual reason for removing this simple, well-sourced information. --MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Those articles of the former unknowns are nearly all AfD candidates, and tagged for "improvement", except maybe for "Omorosa". "Supervised the fixup of a $25 million mansion. That's a senior executive? That sounds like an administrative assistant who took messages from the licensed General Contractor. Wikipedia editors can't be suspending normal human intelligence to rebroadcast all the foolishness and self-promotion that is handed out by politicians, celebrities, or anyone else. You think the "VP marketing" for a Vegas strip hotel is a WP:NOTABLE individual? What about the tens of thousands of VP-Marketing folks for every other medium sized business in the USA or the world? Who's the VP-Marketing of Cracker Barrel? I can't seem to find that person's Wikipedia article. NPOV takes some critical evaluation of sources, their statements, their biases, their credibility, etc. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh for heavens sake. One more comment and then I'm moving on to something constructive. It is still false (are you trying to rival Trump)?) that "nearly all" of the articles are tagged for "improvement". As I said above, only one of the six articles about the actual winner of a job has an article tag, for more sources. Omorosa was not one of the six winners BTW. The rest are notable, not because of their job title or previous or subsequent activities, but because they were the winners of a major hit TV show. Exactly like the winners of Survivor all have articles.[19] Anyhow, we are far afield from the actual issue under discussion here: should we include a brief description of the show's premise? I say yes. JFG says yes. You say no, for reasons you have never made clear. Do you disbelieve that they got the promised prize? (If that had been the case the winner would certainly have sued.) What other reason can you possibly have for not including the a simple description of the show? Please state your reason simply, in a brief separate paragraph below, and then let's you and I stop this wall of text and move on to let others comment. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
For whatever reason, MelanieN you seem to be straining the limit of Civility. I didn't say "nearly all the articles are tagged for improvement". I was referring to the articles of folks who were not otherwise notable and noting that most of the winners listed have no article at all. So any claim that the winners were launched into corporate careers is not borne out by the facts. Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos did not set up a catering tent on an Apprentice episode and get offered jobs as senior executives at Trump Steaks. The show was fiction start to finish. Let's all enjoy it as such. It's not like Leonard Nimoy can really read your mind or Dr. Bones can heal you with a turkey thermometer contraption either. It's just TV that somehow jumped the shark for the credulous 30%+ of the American population. I'm courteously replying to you -- I have done nothing to prolong this evident point or to shut others out of commenting. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I don’t understand why you are still insisting that “most of the winners listed have no article at all” when I have shown, repeatedly, that all six of them do. We seem to be talking at cross purposes. But let’s move on. I gather that what you are objecting to is the phrase “in which contestants competed for a high-level management job in one of Trump's businesses”. Let’s just reword that. Most of the sources, as I quoted above, say the prize was “a one-year contract for a $250,000 job working for Trump”. Let’s leave out the amount (even though they all mention it) and say “in which the winner would be awarded a one-year contract for a job with the Trump Organization”. That is undeniably true; that’s what they competed for and that’s what the winner got. Would that satisfy you? --MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
SPECIFICO - try to look at it from a different perspective...few people in the world care (or even know) about that TV show. The readers who do know about it will go to the article to learn more about it. I think what we need here is a librarian who knows how to properly organize material/references/information. In the Trump BLP we summarize what he's done - and point to the main article about that topic - we don't try to stuff a 225lb body into a size 4 pair of pants....or a size 42DD into a size 8 blouse....however that equates into the various metrics (weights & measures). Atsme📞📧 20:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
SPECIFICO and SpaceTime also have a problem with “high level management job.” I’m going to change it as I proposed above. --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
"High-level" can be debated, but surely it was a "management job". The new version just says "a job", which could be anything. I will add "management" again. — JFG talk 08:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Here's a brain-twister: When JFG reinserted the word "management" against consensus here, was that a DS violation that should be undone or was that something else and if something else how do we restore consensus w/o "management"? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

We didn’t really discuss that; I just went with “job”. Let’s see what the discussers here say: “management job” or “job”? I am neutral, leaning slightly toward just “job”. Pinging @Power~enwiki, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and JFG: comments? --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Well when you removed the characterization "management" you noted "per talk. Here's the sequence: This edit [20] reinserted “senior-level management”. There were objections. Per new consensus on talk you removed the characterization of the job (the crux of the dispute) and edited to the new consensus here [21]. Then the same editor JFG came back to restore his preferred “management” characterization, against the new consensus – with the edit summary claiming “copy edit” So this stealth consensus violation should be undone, correct? Thanks. "Copy edits" that change meanings and violate consensus or RfC closes are very corrosive. SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm also leaning towards just job (although I would have added the $250,000 salary/win); I don't know enough about the structure of the Trump Organization which consists of dozens or hundreds of companies. I just looked up this 2004 report on the first season finale: The great moments for Rancic are just starting. His one-year, $250,000 salary is just the beginning. Trump offered him a choice of two jobs within his organization: overseeing a 90-story building project in Chicago or renovating and developing a new Trump golf club in Los Angeles. The Chicago native decided to return to his hometown to work for his famous new boss. Would either one of those jobs qualify as management "within the Trump Organization"? Maybe; definitely not high-level. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
"Management" obviously yes, "high-level" disputable; depends how prominent the assigned development projects were with respect to the whole Trump Org. To play it safe and avoid puffery, I removed "high-level". — JFG talk 07:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Roy Cohn influence watered down

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

This edit [22] removes well-written English that conveys the statements of the cited source and its thrust and replaces the wording with a vague and vacuous version that vitiates this striking statement. This edit should be undone. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think that edit is an improvement. More clearly written, and less sensational. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The whole point of what Trump learned from Roy Cohn is to be "sensational" and the "maximum force response" is the direct forebear of the "maximum pressure meme" with respect to North Korea. See page 64 of the cited source. Article text should not be revised without regard for and inspection of the cited source. "Forceful" is not what Roy Cohn was about and not how he trained Trump to attack. The stable language reflected the cited source. The revision language is not true to the source or the subject. SPECIFICO talk 23:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Of course the new language is true to the source; just read it. Are you going to just undo all my edits? Your fellow editors might as well retire and hand you the keys of the encyclopedia? Systematic opposition is unconstructive and unduly personal; please note that I have thanked you for some edits, while disagreeing with others. Do exercise some balance: we all want to bring this article up to Wikipedian standards of quality. — JFG talk 03:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
If you will please take the time to read this and any of the abundant discussions of Trump's tutelage and inseparable companionship with Roy Cohn you will see that Cohn's style and his lessons to Trump were to "counterpunch" -- a term Trump still uses to proudly describe his style -- with overwhelming brutal and vicious attacks against any body or any thing that threatens his agenda. The stable language conveyed a bit of that in a short form. Yours removes the essesntial message of RS accounts. We can either reinstate that text or editors may wish to gather additional RS for an expanded account of this very strange but enduring surrogate father/son relationship that ended tragically for Trump with Cohn's death in the 1980's. Cohn is a key figure in Trump's life story. Perhaps the' key figure. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
So “counterattacking with overwhelming force” is what you are missing in the rewritten sentence? That not a quote from Trump or Cohn; it is a phrase from the authors of the book, although it is not credited as a quote. The new version, “responded to attacks with forceful counterattacks,” faithfully reflects the language of the source, paraphrasing it per Wikipedia’s usual habit to avoid copyvio. IMO there can be no dispute that the new version is much better written, in terms of construction and clarity, without removing anything at all. --MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm adding a specific expert summary of the Cohn style Trump learned from his mentor, attributing it to the source, whose judgment and reporting skills far surpass those of any WP editor here. There's similar discussion from a very different sort of journalist here [23] SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I have no problem with what you added. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Super. That is even more clear than the text that was removed. That's why it pays to work through these things even if you can't stand my insistent charm. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I removed your insertion of a POV opinion by a columnist. — JFG talk 08:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
You can put it back (without senselessly denigrating this report by a highly respected journalist and political observer) or we can do an RfC. You have 2 strikes trying to remove this key influence on Trump's life with mushy language and now this deletion. Since consensus will favor putting it back I suggest you not necessitate the RfC. Your choice. SPECIFICO talk 03:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
You add something, I remove it, onus is on you to get consensus. Vague threats of "two strikes" and crystal-balling the outcome of a possible RfC are not helpful. — JFG talk 07:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I can't find a convincing policy basis to omit this. Per WP:BIASED, we can't omit merely because it's POV opinion, and that's the only basis for objection JFG stated in his editsum and here. "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." New York magazine certainly passes the editorial control test. I don't know how one fact-checks opinion, but I guess New York does as well as anybody on fact-checking in general. BIASED gives examples using Betty Friedan and Harry Magdoff, and I see little significant difference between them and Frank Rich; any noteworthy comments by either of them would likely be loaded with POV, and many of them critical of public figures. This passes WP:WEIGHT because Rich's words hardly represent a fringe viewpoint; surely I don't need to produce sources to prove that to fair-minded editors.
I think I would support the content with the change of "summed up by Frank Rich as" to "described by liberal columnist Frank Rich as". I think most readers of political articles are astute enough to consider the source of the commentary, and our job ends at making it clear who the source is. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_86&oldid=847673481"