Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Survey: tag- also previous edit summary was wrong, was a comment not a reply
→‎Neutrality: correction to previous comment
Line 227: Line 227:


:What they all said. [[User:Objective3000|Objective3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 17:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
:What they all said. [[User:Objective3000|Objective3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 17:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

:I am reluctant to continue this wrong-venue discussion by commenting again. I hope this doesn't have the effect of inviting replies and replies to those replies. But I failed to express my views accurately in my point 4, and this is too important to let my comments stand uncorrected.<br />I feel that an editor who consistently takes one side or the other is not serving the encyclopedia. I have had [[User:Mandruss#Micro-essays|a comment to that effect]] on my user page for some time. But the prevailing community view is that Wikipedia policy and [[WP:CONSENSUS]] are enough to protect articles from all but the most aggressive POV-pushers, and that those editors eventually get a topic ban or a full ban. Until that changes, and again this is not the place to try to change it, I refrain from bucking the community view. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#999;">&#9742;</span>]] 12:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


== An ArbCom request for clarification affecting this article has been archived. ==
== An ArbCom request for clarification affecting this article has been archived. ==

Revision as of 12:30, 24 August 2017

    Former good article nomineeDonald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
    Article milestones
    DateProcessResult
    June 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
    February 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
    September 18, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
    May 25, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
    Current status: Former good article nominee

    This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Pstein92.

    Open RfCs and surveys

    NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
    [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
    To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

    01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

    02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

    03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

    04. Superseded by #15
    Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

    05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

    06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

    07. Superseded by #35
    Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

    08. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016)

    09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

    10. Canceled
    Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)
    11. Superseded by #17
    The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

    12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

    13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

    14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

    15. Superseded by lead rewrite
    Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
    16. Superseded by lead rewrite
    Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
    17. Superseded by #50
    Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)
    18. Superseded by #63
    The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)
    19. Obsolete
    Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

    20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

    21. Superseded by #39
    Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

    22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

    23. Superseded by #52
    The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).
    24. Superseded by #30
    Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

    25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

    26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

    27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

    28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

    29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

    30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

    31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

    32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

    33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

    34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

    35. Superseded by #49
    Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)
    36. Superseded by #39
    Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

    37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

    38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

    39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

    40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

    41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

    42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

    43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

    44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

    45. Superseded by #48
    There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020) (Superseded by RfC Aug 2020)

    46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

    47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

    48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

    49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

    50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

    51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

    52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

    53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (RfC October 2021)

    54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021)

    55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

    56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

    57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

    58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

    59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

    60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

    61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

    1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
    2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
    3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
    4. Manually archive the thread.

    This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

    62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

    63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

    64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

    65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

    66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

    67. The "Health habits" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

    RfC about Russian affairs in Trump sidebar

    You are invited to participate in Template talk:Donald Trump series#RfC: Selection and display of articles about Russia. — JFG talk 16:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Lies

    As a follow-up on the RfC that was recently closed, and in light of yesterday's New York Times news article (not opinion) discussing Trump's "lies," I would like to start an ongoing, no-archive thread in which we collect all of the reliable sources that discuss whether Trump has lied. The fatal flaw with the RfC, in my view, was that the proposal wasn't readily verifiable: it included an overwhelming list of sources, many of which were opinion sources (not reliable for facts) or that only discussed whether Trump's statements were false. (Not all false statements are lies.) It also made no effort to include reliable sources that say Trump did not or does not lie. I don't know how many such sources exist; that is the purpose of this discussion.

    I am not proposing any changes to the article at this time. I'm merely requesting research help. If you think a source should not be on the list, please tag it, discuss it, and/or move it into a new subsection or something. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources

    Discussion

    This is obviously for political reasons. There are many other politicians (Hillary Clinton, Romney, etc.) who also have numerous reliable sources stating they lie, but they are not put under the same scrutiny on Wikipedia.--97.124.67.164 (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have tangible evidence that the amounts of RS are even similar? The consistent consensus among experienced Wikipedia editors has been that they are not. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's pretty naive to say without acknowledging how much news has changed in the past couple of years. You think the NYT and the Washington Post would chronicle how many times Kennedy or Reagan lied during their respective years in office? Alongside the fact how many in the press have a vendetta against the current President, I'm disheartened to see Wikipedia continuously make decisions like this. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 07:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, then go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you want to claim that longstanding reliable sources are no longer reliable (bring solid evidence or don't waste your time). But this is not the place for that discussion.
    See also #RFC on use of Liar and Lie above, just closed. Per that consensus, it's looking like any mention of "lies" will be attributed to the sources that have said that (whether collectively or selectively I don't know). No matter what anybody thinks about the reliability of our sources, there is no question that many, many have said it, and we would only be reporting that fact with an "According to..." or equivalent. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I say this be included in the article. 31.215.113.174 (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That's all well and good, but I seriously doubt there would be consensus for it unless/until more reliable sources are gathered. So if you want to see it included then please consider helping with the research. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Re [1]. I know there was (were) an exhaustive (several) discussion on the "lies" and "falsehoods" thing, consensus was to include it, so why is this being removed now? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You may be thinking of #Current consensus #7, which was only about the lead. I don't recall a consensus as to body, but if one exists it needs to be located and added to the list. Noted that a mention in the lead generally requires something in the body. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my understanding as well, I did not see anything in consensus about the body. With that since @Bergeronp: removed it originally we can talk about it here to see if it should be kept or not. PackMecEng (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also suggest a new section, as this one is specifically and solely about the words "lie" and "liar", and their variations. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Race relations under Donald Trump

    I think there should be a new section about race relations under donald trump especially in the view of Charlottesville events and the continued controversy about race that follow his presidency (birtherism theory, changing laws around college admissions, receiving praise from KKK leaders etc)

    I am not sure if i should submit the whole paragraph or the request for the paragraph first. If you want to add such a section, I am sure many will contribute both sides of the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mireilleraad (talk • contribs) 10:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mireilleraad: The appropriate article would be Presidency of Donald Trump; please suggest your contents there. Remember that everything you write must be well-sourced, not original research. Welcome to Wikipedia, and good luck! — JFG talk 19:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen 3 sources (Vox, Rolling Stone, and Nicholas Kristof of the NYT) find a theme of bigotry throughout Trump's life, apart from his presidency. Could you please elaborate on the case for excluding such material from his article? Avisnacks (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Those first two are highly subjective, especially the college admissions one. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    On August 16, 2017, Fox News (Gregg Jarrett) reported that based on his research, President Trump was the first President of the United States, to ever in the history of the U.S. to tweet, condemn or speak out on the clashes between opposing protestors at rallies such as the Charlottesville, VA episode. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't tell what part of this grandiose assertion is more dubious, and there's 4 to choose from...whether Jarrett actually said it, whether Trump actually said it, whether (if 1 and 2 are true) is is even a truthful statement by Trump, or whether (if all 3 are true) it is relevant to this article. TheValeyard (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, Jarrett actually stated this on Fox News Hannity broadcast, based on his research, over the past 30-years, the bigotry, hatred and violence displayed during the Charlottesville, VA episode. hmmmm Race relations... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that written pieces tend to have the most solid foundations in fact since they usually go through a stricter editorial process. Avisnacks (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your proposal is quite dubious, and trying to paint a negative picture, at best. My contribution about Jarrett's research was to show Trump has made efforts towards positive race relations, despite the horrific events in Charlottesville, VA. Trump deserves credit, when credit is due... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy to paint a more nuanced picture. I have relied on sources both on the right (WSJ) and the left (NYT, Vox) to attempt neutrality. I am happy to include more exculpatory sources. Like TheValeyard, I doubt that the claim that Trump is the first President to speak out on clashes between protesters holds water. Avisnacks (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    My proposal below:

    Accusations of bigotry

    Trump has been accused of making bigoted remarks, tolerating racism and antisemitism, and even being a racist himself.[1][2][3] Trump has defended himself as the "the least racist person that you’ve ever seen" and "the least anti-Semitic person that you've ever seen in your entire life"[4] claiming an expansive view of American greatness, in which Americans of all races, ethnicity and religions thrive.[5]

    Anti-Mexican comments

    In Trump's campaign-launching speech, he said: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best." "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."[6] Weeks later he added that "tremendous infectious disease is pouring across the border."[7] Trump has defended his statement by saying that "Many fabulous people come in from Mexico and our country is better for it. But these people are here legally, and are severely hurt by those coming in illegally." "I am proud to say that I know many hard working Mexicans—many of them are working for and with me…and, just like our country, my organization is better for it."[8]

    In a series of Twitter posts, Trump argued that Judge Gonzalo Curiel's Mexican heritage impaired his ability to impartially judge a lawsuit against Trump University, because of Trump's strong stance against illegal Mexican immigration. These comments were widely perceived to be racist,[9] most notably by Paul Ryan who called them the "textbook definition of a racist comment".[10] Trump defended them on free speech grounds.[11]

    White supremacy

    Main article: White supremacy
    Silver gray late model compact car in an intersection dragging its front bumper area
    Car that rammed protesters and killed a woman in Charlottesville, Virginia, August 2017

    In June 2017, the Department of Homeland Security stopped funding the "Life After Hate" program which was intended to de-radicalize Neo-Nazis and stop white extremism.[12]

    In August 2017, Trump condemned violence "on many sides" after a car plowed into counter-protesters during a gathering of hundreds of white nationalists in Charlottesville, Virginia the previous day, on August 12.[13] Trump did not expressly mention Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, or the alt-right movement in his remarks.[14] Whereas Republican and Democratic elected officials condemned the violence and hatred of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and alt-right activists, the New York Times noted that Trump "was the only national political figure to spread blame for the “hatred, bigotry and violence” that resulted in the death of one person, as well as two state troopers covering the rally when their helicopter crashed,[15] to 'many sides.'"[16] Trump corrected himself two days later, condemning "the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups."[17] Then the next day, he returned to his initial comments, blaming "both sides".[15] Trump came under criticism from world leaders[18] and politicians[16][14], as well as a variety of religious groups[19] and anti-hate organizations[20] for his remarks, which were seen as muted and equivocal. Avisnacks (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Sources

    1. ^ Kristof, Nicholas (July 23, 2016). "Is Donald Trump a Racist?". The New York Times. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
    2. ^ Berney, Jesse (August 15, 2017). "Trump's Long History of Racism". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
    3. ^ Lopez, German (Feb 16, 2017). "Donald Trump's long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2016". Vox. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
    4. ^ Little, Katie (16 February 2017). "Donald Trump: I am the least anti-Semitic person that 'you've ever seen in your entire life'". CNBC. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
    5. ^ Epstein, Reid J. (June 10, 2016). "Donald Trump Rebuts Allegations of Racism". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
    6. ^ Reilly, Katie (August 31, 2016). "Here Are All the Times Donald Trump Insulted Mexico". Time. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
    7. ^ Jacobson, Louis (July 23, 2015). "Are illegal immigrants bringing 'tremendous' disease across the border, as Trump says? Unlikely". Politifact. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
    8. ^ Walker, Hunter (July 6, 2015). "Donald Trump just released an epic statement raging against Mexican immigrants and 'disease'". Business Insider. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
    9. ^ Epstein, Reid J. (June 10, 2016). "Donald Trump Rebuts Allegations of Racism". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
    10. ^ CAYGLE, HEATHER (June 7, 2016). "Ryan: Trump's comments 'textbook definition' of racism". Politico. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
    11. ^ Kendall, Brent (June 3, 2016). "Trump Says Judge's Mexican Heritage Presents 'Absolute Conflict'". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
    12. ^ "DHS halts planned funding for anti-white extremism group". POLITICO. Retrieved August 13, 2017.
    13. ^ CNBC (August 13, 2017). "Republicans and Democrats speak out after Trump faults 'many sides' at white nationalist rally". Retrieved August 13, 2017.
    14. ^ a b CNN, Dan Merica. "Trump condemns 'hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides' in Charlottesville". CNN. Retrieved August 13, 2017. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
    15. ^ a b Shear, Michael D.; Haberman, Maggie (August 15, 2017). "Trump Defends Initial Remarks on Charlottesville; Again Blames 'Both Sides'". The New York Times. Retrieved August 15, 2017.
    16. ^ a b Thrush, Glenn; Haberman, Maggie (August 12, 2017). "Trump's Remarks on Charlottesville Violence Are Criticized as Insufficient". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved August 13, 2017.
    17. ^ "Trump decries KKK, neo-Nazi violence in Charlottesville". Al Jazeera. August 14, 2017. Retrieved August 15, 2017.
    18. ^ TOOSI, NAHAL (August 16, 2017). "World leaders condemn Trump's remarks on neo-Nazis". Politico. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
    19. ^ Pink, Aiden (August 16, 2017). "Orthodox Rabbinical Group Condemns Trump Over Charlottesville". The Forward. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
    20. ^ "ADL Condemns President Trump's Remarks". ADL. August 15, 2017. Retrieved 17 August 2017.

    Trump and white nationalism

    "He fumed to aides about how unfairly he was being treated, and expressed sympathy with nonviolent protesters who he said were defending their “heritage,” according to a West Wing official." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/trump-charlottesville-white-nationalists.html?mcubz=0 Where do we draw the line when it comes to Nazism and white nationalism? He's saying what he's always privately held, he's a racist. AHC300 (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't draw the line anywhere as that would be WP:OR, but we should look at the WP:RS and make sure that it is WP:DUE. If the sources are unanimous that he is either a Nazi or a white nationalist then their is no reason to abstain from including this information. However if he is merely only liked by such groups then it should not be included. Private views are obviously not WP:VERIFIABLE unless they are shared. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Emir, I saw AHC300's suggestion and I have a few additional sources that could help provide the evidence required to name him as a White Nationalist, or at least sympathizing with alt-right groups or white nationalists. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/08/15/trump-puts-a-fine-point-on-it-he-sides-with-the-alt-right-in-charlottesville/?utm_term=.4e521f7be23; http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/donald-trump-is-a-nazi-sympathizer/; http://www.newsweek.com/white-supremacy-nationalism-alt-right-state-sanctioned-donald-trump-splc-law-651872 Thoughts on the matter? Nexenhero91 (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    When news media regularly refer to him as a white nationalist and it becomes a non-controversial description then we will too. TFD (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Guardian, a pretty well-respected British news source came out with "The President of the United States is now a neo-Nazi sympathiser", while the Washington Examiner (not exactly known for left-wing politics) says "Trump is a neo-Nazi and white supremacist sympathizer" and the LA Times says "As he coddles neo-Nazis, Trump's political isolation increases". I don't think he's actually a Nazi (come on, would he have let his daughter marry a Jew if he was?) but a sympathiser is fair comment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So are you suggesting that we state Trump is a Nazi sympathiser and white supremacist? PackMecEng (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the Guardian that came out with it, but an article clearly marked as "opinion" by Richard D. Wolff, whose Wikipedia article describes as a "Marxian economist." With all the accusations against Trump of fakenews and confusing opinions with facts, let's apply the same standards to Wikipedia articles that we fault others for falling below. Certainly some people on the left and even right have claimed that Trump is racist and we can report that. But we cannot state it as fact unless there is academic consensus. Even then we would be limited by "Contentious labels", which prevents us from describing even neo-Nazi and KKK members as racist. TFD (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that a consensus is forming that issues of racism and bigotry are important issues in this biographical article, but that there is certainly no mainstream agreement that Trump is a racist. I agree with TFD that we should be reporting these issues while sticking to the facts. Avisnacks (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Nicknames

    Can someone please remove the "nicknames" parameter in the infobox? The article is probably gonna get deleted in the first place, but even if it isn't, I'm sure we would need a consensus to include it first. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The article exists, so no, there is no call to remove the infobox entry at this time. If you feel the article runs afoul of Wikipedia notability guidelines, there are instructions at WP:AFD to follow to nominate an article for deletion. TheValeyard (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it should be removed from the infobox. "Nicknames" parameter in infobox was added August 20 and has been challenged so I think it should be removed until we know there is consensus. --72.24.204.166 (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed it pending the AfD. I don't know if it belongs and think we should wait for the AfD to play out as this is a BLP. Objective3000 (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD was snow-closed as Delete. Case moot. — JFG talk 12:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Accusations of bigotry

    Should a new section be added regarding accusations of Trump's bigotry (racism, antisemitism, sexism, Islamophobia)? Avisnacks (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey

    Discussion

    • Four respected sources (Dana Milbank of The Washington Post, Nicholas Kristof of the NYT, Vox, and Rolling Stone) have concluded that Trump is a bigot (and/or racist). Respected news sources on both the right and the left have reported a variety of accusations against Trump's bigoted actions, bigoted statements, and tacit support of bigotry. World leaders, politicians, and opinion writers all over the spectrum have criticized him for these varied acts and words. While reporting of Trumps actions and statements have been heightened as a candidate and president, many writers have traced this theme throughout Trump's life. That said, it is absolutely crucial that this section sticks to the verifiable facts and avoids truth-value statements about Trump (e.g. "Trump is a racist"), because those kinds of statements are hotly disputed. Avisnacks (talk) 09:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. 2 of the votes above are IP users with 4 edits between them, all to this page. I'd suggest that these and future RfCs are limited to confirmed users. ValarianB (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ValarianB GeoLocate reveals that the track to the same hood in Toronto. Will file an spi with cu request, remembering beans. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I only understood 1/3rd of that. :) But it looks like they can figure out if they're the same person or in the same place, so sounds good, thanks. :) ValarianB (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutrality

    The marked lack of citations and the continual referal to consensus being a standard for factual reliability speaks volumes about the political bent of the admins of Wikipedia. This is exactly why no respectable school will accept Wikipedia as a valid source of factual data. While I am impressed with the overall neutrality of this article it is far from being what it should be and the admins should be embarrassed by its clear contempt for the subject, President Trump. ANY reference to false statements should either be cited extensively or removed. ANY mention of political hubris by Trump should either be cited, eliminated, or countered by the opinion of the opposition. When the majority of the admins and editors are politically opposed to the subject of a page consensus is less than worthless and the proper action would be for anyone taking either side to recuse themselves from editing or moderating that page. Another issue of note is that all too many pages on Wikipedia are being created and edited by those who have a fiduciary interest in the subject matter. These are issues that seriously need attention if Wikipedia is going to maintain and increase its relevance. Artis Weaver (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Artis, keep in mind WP gets constantly accused of political bias, but few of these accusations contain substantial or specific problems for us to solve. You should mention specific parts of this article that you think are biased; otherwise, a general comment about how we're politically motivated is not helpful. This article has 621 references, and since this is a BLP of an incumbent President, every passage, particularly those regarding false statements and "political hubris", are properly accompanied by a citation. It is unclear which part of the article you're referring to that is not cited. As for including the opinion of the opposition, it is done where possible, but per WP:UNDUE articles "should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects", so it's not possible to counter every "hubris" with different opinions if they are very minor opinions (and keep in mind this article is already long enough, so more details on specific issues are in subarticles, including opinions and commentaries). And by the way, this might be closer to why Wikipedia is not generally accepted as a valid source. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. What NoMoreHeroes said.
    2. I don't know why you referred to admins multiple times. Are you under the impression that admins are responsible for policing neutrality in Wikipedia articles? They are not.
    3. You might consider the possibility that your perception of "clear contempt for the subject, President Trump" results from your political bias. You might spend some time browsing past discussions in this page's archives, where you will find many, many consensuses against Trump-negative content. It would give you some perspective that you seem to lack. For just one example, the word "liar" does not occur anywhere in the article, despite extensive media claims that Trump is a habitual liar. That omission is no accident, and the article is regularly criticized as being biased in favor of Trump because of omissions like that. I suspect a majority of the public agree that the article is biased, they just disagree as to which direction.
    4. Your suggestion that anyone who "takes either side" should recuse from this article is not sensible. It's impossible to care about politics without "taking either side". Editing an article like this requires knowledge of the subject matter—the more, the better—and people don't acquire that knowledge without caring about it. Second, you presume that editors are incapable of putting Wikipedia content policy before their own political views, and that is demonstrably false; see 3. Finally, if you thought this through to the details of implementation, I think you would find that it's completely unworkable. Not many editors would volunteer to recuse just because we thought they should do so, so you're talking about monitoring every editor's edits and arguments, identifying editors who consistently take a pro-Trump or anti-Trump stance, and topic-banning them. If you seriously want to propose such a thing, which would stand virtually no chance of being accepted, this page is certainly not the place to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Artis Weaver: Welcome to Wikipedia and congratulations on making your first ever edit! However, it is a shame you chose to make this your first contribution to the project. Article talk pages are specifically for discussing how to improve the article, not for screeds lobbing accusations of bias and bad faith against Wikipedia's volunteers. Editors go to extraordinary lengths to keep politically-related articles as neutral as possible, and this one is no exception. I don't really understand the "marked lack of citations" comment. There are currently six hundred and twenty-one individual cited references in this article. Now, I recommend this thread is rolled up and archived. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally second what NoMoreHeroes, Mandruss and Scjessey have explained. Indeed, a fine yardstick of doing a good job at neutrality is when half the people complain about bias for a subject and the other half complain about bias against same. Looking at the archives of the talk page and reactions from various readers, this particular article is very close to this ideal 50/50 balance. — JFG talk 15:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What they all said. Objective3000 (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am reluctant to continue this wrong-venue discussion by commenting again. I hope this doesn't have the effect of inviting replies and replies to those replies. But I failed to express my views accurately in my point 4, and this is too important to let my comments stand uncorrected.
    I feel that an editor who consistently takes one side or the other is not serving the encyclopedia. I have had a comment to that effect on my user page for some time. But the prevailing community view is that Wikipedia policy and WP:CONSENSUS are enough to protect articles from all but the most aggressive POV-pushers, and that those editors eventually get a topic ban or a full ban. Until that changes, and again this is not the place to try to change it, I refrain from bucking the community view. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    An ArbCom request for clarification affecting this article has been archived.

    On behalf of the arbitration committee, I would like to inform you that a request for clarification affecting this article been closed and archived here. If you have any questions, feel free to contact us.

    Sincerely, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Shoot for B-class or GA label?

    The article has been quite stable for a while, controversial topics were properly addressed by consensus, and the talk page is free of major disputes. Would this be the right time to submit the article for a B-class review? — JFG talk 04:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Checking the criteria, it seems to me that we could even try obtaining the WP:Good Article label now. — JFG talk 04:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=797014580"