Talk:Donald Trump

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Current consensus

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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. 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)

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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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)

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. Do not add web archives to cited sources which 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. (October 2021)

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

firehose of falsehood

I propose the lead sentence:

Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.

be changed to

Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics and characterized as the propaganda technique firehose of falsehood.

Comments? soibangla (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes me as UNDUE and not descriptive for most readers. Possibly some other wording about propaganda technique? SPECIFICO talk 02:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:UNDUE. I've never even heard the term used towards Trump before. I think it's fine the way it is now. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to the sources you provided, it's a "contemporary form of Russian propaganda known as the 'Firehose of Falsehood'" (quoting Mother Jones). The Rand Corporation calls it The Russian "Firehose of Falsehoods" propaganda model. It doesn't look as though the term caught on for Trump's torrent of lies except for a few comparisons with Russian propaganda. (Financial Times is the only recent source, and it's paywalled so I haven't read it.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UNdue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amended version

Not sure where in the article it belongs but the term is very descriptive and useful. Here is a source from 2016 [1]

The only caveat I'd add is that we don't know if Trump was knowingly using this technique, I don't think so.

Amended version:

Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics and likened to the firehose of falsehood propaganda technique.

-- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer your version. As to whether it's knowing, this isn't him talking but his former chief strategist makes clear it's strategic:

Steve Bannon, once Trump’s chief ideologist, put the matter well earlier this year when he told Michael Lewis, "We got elected on Drain the Swamp, Lock Her Up, Build a Wall," he said. "This was pure anger. Anger and fear is what gets people to the polls.” Bannon added, "The Democrats don’t matter. The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit." [2]

And it was adapted from Putin's propaganda strategy:

Bannon articulated the zone-flooding philosophy well, but he did not invent it. In our time, it was pioneered by Vladimir Putin in post-Soviet Russia. Putin uses the media to engineer a fog of disinformation, producing just enough distrust to ensure that the public can never mobilize around a coherent narrative. [3]

soibangla (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good version. -- Valjean (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Likened to" sounds weaselly, and I am not convinced the "firehose" is well-enough known to be referenced in this way in an encyclopedia bio. Maybe there's a way to indicate that Trump executes propaganda techniques without getting into arcane detail. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original sentence does not need adjusting, this just rings of UNDUE.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose in the lead. It's not a common term (personally I never heard it until just now) and it is not uniquely connected with Trump. Add a sentence to the article text if you want. To the "False statements" subsection, or better yet to the article Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a neologism coined by the Rand Foundation that hasn't caught on. Donald Rumsfeld, who was chairman of the board, used this technique to sell the War in Iraq, before Putin was credited with inventing it. Misinformation was broadcast through major U.S. media on a daily basis. TFD (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in the lead and in the body. The term hasn't caught on, and the concept is pretty well-known (repeat a lie often enough, and enough people will believe it—the "I heard that before, must be true" effect or something along those lines). It's sometimes referred to as a "torrent of falsehoods" but I don't see that either term adds useful information to "unprecedented" or the number 30,573. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact the well-known concept you describe - "repeat a lie often enough, and enough people will believe it" - is already being consistently applied to Trump's claims under the term The Big Lie. That term is already used in this article and in Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. No need for this little-known, Johnny-come-lately of a term. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in lead and the body. The term is just not used abundantly enough in relation to Trump to appear in this article. An inclusion over at Veracity of statements by Donald Trump might be appropriate. Here it's certainly not warranted in the lead and probably not in the body. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in the body only. Sources show that an important part of Trump's presidency is his use of propaganda techniques. ––FormalDude talk 08:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most biased pages on Wikipedia. "Ranked among the worst presidents" is wholly inappropriate for someone who hasn't even been out of office for a year — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec935 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There should be mention of criminal justice reform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec935 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of cites

Is there any guideline on which date to use when a source is updated, in some cases several times? I've searched "Help" in vain. This article, for example, was published on July 30, 2020, and updated on August 20. Do we keep the original date or use the date of the last update? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very good question. Ping me if you ever get an answer. -- Valjean (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Probably an unhelpful answer, but I remember in HS English class my teacher was telling my class about MLA citation format. She said that we use the date that we saw when we cited the page, not the most recent date. The information cited was current and correct to that revision, but may not be in a later one. Not sure if this is any assistance, I've found the Help desk here to be unhelpful too, lol. Mgasparin (talk) 08:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That applies to the access-date= parameter, not the date= parameter. -- Valjean (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valjean, I think the teacher meant the cited page's date on the day it was cited, i.e., cite's original date was January 4, student wrote paper on January 5, cite was updated on January 10. Student's paper was correct on January 5 but possibly not after January 10. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Space4Time3Continuum2x, I agree. The student should make sure the date in the access-date= parameter fits the actual date they read the source, and base their paper on the source content on that date. No other dates are relevant in that connection. -- Valjean (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mgasparin, thanks. That's pretty much what I remember. I interpret that to mean that if the student cited the page on January 11 they'd use the date of the update. So, basically common sense :) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the original question ("Is there any guideline on which date to use when a source is updated...?") is still unanswered. I tried at Help talk:Citation Style 1 and got nowhere. Even they can't agree, and some even got hostile. (I may have made it too complicated.) I think a very specific RfC there about the date=parameter (and only that) might be necessary to solve that problem. -- Valjean (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look at that discussion. Oh my! I think I'll just go with common sense. When I add a cite, I use the date of the last update; when I read an updated cite that doesn't support or no longer supports the WP text, I'll update WP and change both date and access-date of the cite or I'll replace the cite. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of conspiracy theories in the lead

SPECIFICO, yeah, agreed, it needs to be discussed but until then the consensus version per the RfC should be used. Except for the words "conspiracy theories", none of this was discussed: Through social media and mass media manipulation, Trump has brought fringe conspiracy theories into the mainstream, and used them to his political advantage. Please self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I viewed that as a bold edit that's also consistent with the RfC. Maybe needed some tweaks, but it reflected article text on the matter. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which RfC would that be? It isn't this one. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It did not limit the detail or context. The !votes and close were not for specific wording. The wording was briefly, minimally discussed, I believe. Anyway we need to discuss what wording is appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 17:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording in the article reflects exactly what was decided in the RfC just closed: that he promoted conspiracy theories. Period. If anyone wants to expand on that wording, they should first do it in the article text - which currently says nothing about "social media and mass media manipulation" or "bringing into the mainstream" or "using to his political advantage". And of course such an addition to the text would need solid sourcing. Then and only then could it be considered as an addition to the lead. Come on, folks, you know this. You can't add original material to the lead that is not reflective of what is in the article itself. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The "and promoted conspiracy theories" is definitely supported by the body and by RfC consensus, and any further addition should probably start in the body. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the additional detail was already in the body text (as I said above). SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Space4Time3Continuum2x Removed my contribution to the body of the article on grounds that it was "way too much detail." I completely disagree. My edit only added four sentences about vital parts of Trump's mass media usage, all properly sourced. ––FormalDude talk 17:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are there perhaps even better sources, tertiary evaluations perhaps from some of the torrent of books that've come out in the past 12 months? SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had to begin the revert a few times because of edit conflicts, and in the end I wrote the edit summary in a great hurry—apologies for the curt results. For starters, I disagree with making "Relationship with the press" a subsection to "Use of mass media". Trump had a relationship with the press long before social media existed (see laying-of-the-pipes and pouring-or-the-cement ceremonies) but the using went both ways. He wanted the publicity, and the press used him as filler/comic relief. If "media manipulation" needs its own subsection, it should be be part of his relationship with the press/broadcast media. It’s separate from his use of social media which was entirely unfiltered and unchecked by journalists and editors and manipulated the public. The cited NYT article is four years old, and they clarify that news media allowed themselves to be manipulated: 1. Mr. Trump remains a master media manipulator who used his first news briefing since July to expertly delegitimize the news media and make it the story rather than the chaotic swirl of ethical questions that engulf his transition. 2. The news media remains an unwitting accomplice in its own diminishment as it fails to get a handle on how to cover this new and wholly unprecedented president. That's changed somewhat. As for the sources, I find it a bit problematic to cite a book or article based on its summary or abstract. I don’t see what makes Cassam’s opinion quote-worthy (never heard of him or the Nature journal, for that matter). Also, Cassam didn’t say that, Nature paraphrased him. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections of access-dates

Surge_elec, I just gotta ask how you know that whoever added or later looked at that cite did it on October 9, 2018, and not on October 3. I've noticed you doing an edit like this before. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that on certain sources, the access-dates were written as when the source (with that particular content) was archived. In this case, on that day (October 9), the source was like this (the archived October 3 source, was not like this). So, I made that way. Surge_Elec (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't make sense to you, we can discuss. Surge_Elec (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand your reasoning. You mention an archive, but the example link from Space4 wasn’t archived. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input Space4Time3Continuum2x. I changed it. Oct 3 archive [4] and Oct 4 archive [5]. The Oct 4 archive matches the content given in the wikisource. Surge_Elec (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you still don't agree, you can edit as you like. As, I have completed editing this article. Surge_Elec (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And what difference does it make and why is the access date significant? SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What difference does it make: Explained above. That seemed to be the case for certain sources.
Why is the access date significant: In the format of sources, it is. All the sources generally on Featured Articles have access-dates. Surge_Elec (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So what? I see no defense as to the importance above. It sounds like you are way too involved with a pointless task. SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is part of the format, and I also find it helpful to know when a cite was added or corrected. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Surge_elec, I was curious and checked the edit history from October 3 to November 21 when I stopped looking. The cite was added on October 3 with the access-date but without the author's name. Whoever added the name later didn't change the access date. I just mentioned it because changing the access date to some time in the past didn't make sense since you checked the source today. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "access-date=" parameter should be used, and it should be the date when the person who creates the content read the source. (I don't think a later addition of the author's name necessitates updating the access date, as the author doesn't change.) The date the editor added the content and ref is another matter, and the access date should not be updated without actually rereading the source, which can be a pain, so just use the original date of access. Keep in mind that the URL doesn't change when an article is updated, so we are currently dependent on the access date. -- Valjean (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When copying sources and content from other places at Wikipedia, remember to attribute the article it came from, and don't change those original access dates unless you actually have reread the source. Keep the original access date. -- Valjean (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2021

Remove the links from "politician, media personality, and businessman" in the lead sentence as per WP:EGG. Readers, particularly mobile readers, should know what they're clicking on. DeaconShotFire (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus, item [50]. ValarianB (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia rules trump consensus. DeaconShotFire (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Manual of Style article on linking says that it "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." We've had three RfCs about the phrasing of the first sentence, which included the links, and a number of discussions about linking. IMO that's reason enough for the application of the "occasional exceptions" and for leaving the sentence alone for a while. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The words "politician", "media personality", and "businessman" don't make it clear enough what the links are nor is it customary to link like this in the lead. Why not link "served" to "Presidency of Donald Trump"? It's equally as clear. Context is still highly important. DeaconShotFire (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linking "served" to "Presidency" would also be an EGG where readers might expect a link to Service. Personally, I don't care where these wikilinks go, it's just that linking every other word in the first sentence seems a bit much. We should respect current consensus, though, item 50, which includes the links the current four links. If anyone wants to change it, start a discussion or an RfC. It's been a whole five weeks since the last one :) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Linking "served" to "Presidency" would also be an EGG where readers might expect a link to Service."
Yes, that's quite the point I was making.
How is anyone, particularly anyone on a mobile device, going to expect that the word "politician" is going to take them to "Political career of Donald Trump"? DeaconShotFire (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are not asking to remove the words, just the links.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very fine people

Re this revert [6] — According to the edit summary, something like this was rejected in the past. Could anyone give me an idea of why it was? Bob K31416 (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because we go with what RS say, and Trump is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that was the reason for rejecting it in the past because the RS was [7], not Trump. Anyone else? Bob K31416 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source you cited fact-checked something Biden said during the campaign (Trump has "yet once to condemn white supremacy, the neo-Nazis"). The source says that Trump was criticized for saying "very fine people on both sides", exactly what the WP sentence says. WP's sentence doesn’t mention the KKK, neo-nazis, or white supremacists. Neither did Trump when he made the "very fine people" statement. The "clarification" came two days later (also per your cited source), after Trump had been criticized in news media and even by allies like Lindsay Graham, and reporters kept hammering him about it. A few more factchecks: PolitiFact, WaPo, USA Today.

I was about to revert your edit myself but another editor was faster. The Racial views section has been discussed many times—just scroll back through the last 70 archives or so. Long story short: "Trump said"—well, he would, wouldn’t he, to quote WP:MANDY Rice-Davies whom I didn’t know until recently (and I know it’s an essay and not a WP guideline, and I don’t care because it’s common sense). The second sentence of the section says that Trump has repeatedly denied being racist and then quotes him directly with "I am the least racist person there is anywhere in the world." And then he continued to say, tweet, and do things many people consider racist, followed by a denial/strong denial/very strong denial, rinse and repeat. We do not need to mention every denial. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there was criticism of Trump's explanation, then both Trump's explanation and the criticsm should be in the article. Otherwise important information for understanding the situation is suppressed and it would be an example of biased editing and harm the credibility of this article and the reputation of Wikipedia. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only if RS report it, not quote him report that he had denied meaning the KKK or white supremacists. I note the WP source does inf act call Trumps denial BS. So indeed if we use that source we can say "trump denied he meant white supremacists, but this denial was shown to be flawed".Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a starting point, here's the item regarding his explanation.
Trump said that "very fine people" wasn't referring to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and he referred to the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists as criminals and thugs.[1]
To this, various editors who are critical of Trump's explanation and other information that appeared in the given RS can add RS criticsm. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Some have argued that explanation doesn’t hold up, because Trump referred in that statement to a protest “the night before” when — it was widely reported — white nationalists burned tiki torches and chanted anti-Semitic and white nationalist slogans. We’ll leave it to readers to make up their minds on Trump’s remarks,", this only fact checks Biden claim Trump has never condemned white supremacists (read WP:SYNTHESIS}. Again it's not he denied it, it's also a fact his denial has also been questioned.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The RS is titled "Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists", and the excerpt you gave is about Trump. So I don't think you have a valid argument that the article is not about Trump. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, the flag-waving "harm the reputation of Wikipedia" mom-and-apple-pie rings hollow here. If you cannot demonstrate wide RS coverage that took Trump's "clarification" at face value, then this content is undue or downright misleading. It would take a much-expanded version to contextualize the attempted revisioni and glossing-over of his first declaration of support for the white supremecists, and this article is not the place for that. As you should be aware, these watery revisions and wink-wink denials are part of Trump's longstanding communications style. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example of how RS criticism of Trump's explanation can be included. I'm not saying it's best, just giving an example.
Trump said that "very fine people" wasn't referring to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and he referred to the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists as criminals and thugs. However, in the original statement Trump referred to a protest the night before where white nationalists burned torches and chanted racist slogans.[1]
Bob K31416 (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, we already knew that. There would need to be a discussion of his use of these "clarifications" to disarm those who (sorry, like you,) know of his dogwhistle messages but do not wish to acknowledge them for how they are understood by the overwhelming majority of mainstream media, academic, and analysts writings. SPECIFICO talk 21:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else care to comment? Bob K31416 (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with SPECIFICO. Needs wider RS coverage. ––FormalDude talk 02:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists

Should we change how the article conveys Trump calling white supremacists "very fine people"?

If Trump has clarified his "very fine people" statement & we've a reliable source for it? Then, indeed add it. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. TFD (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trump said it, then he "clarified", then he backtracked to "very fine people" in his—uh—infrastructure speech (Atlantic). If you want to add all the clarifications and reversions, we might as well add a new paragraph "Support for and from the far-right", add the stuff about Duke ("don't know him"), "stand back and stand by" ("don't know who the Proud Boys are") (USA Today), etc. (LA Times). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: Perhaps you'd like to describe what changes you're proposing specifically? May make it easier for other editors to weigh in. ––FormalDude talk 02:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's Bob's proposal. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So the proposal is adding:

Trump said that "very fine people" wasn't referring to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and he referred to the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists as criminals and thugs.

Correct? ––FormalDude talk 02:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then we would also need the fact that RS have called this clarification BS. Moreovoer WWE do not say he said they were, we said RS accused him of doing it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I gave an example of such an edit in the previous section:
Trump said that "very fine people" wasn't referring to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and he referred to the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists as criminals and thugs. However, in the original statement Trump referred to a protest the night before where white nationalists burned torches and chanted racist slogans.[1]

References

  1. ^ Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists
I got the idea from an excerpt you presented. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but RS say his clarification does not add up, if we give his view we have to give RS voes on his view.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I tried that in the above example. Could you give an excerpt from an RS that is along the lines you're thinking of so it can be used? Bob K31416 (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about the WP source "But that’s wrong. There were white supremacists. There were counterprotesters. And there were heavily armed anti-government militias who showed up on Saturday.".Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...and the link to whatever RS that excerpt was from? Bob K31416 (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its already here, read the sources people have already posted here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else? Bob K31416 (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/08/very-fine-people-charlottesville-who-were-they-2/. Just googled the quote. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That excerpt, "But that's wrong..." taken in context says Trump was wrong when he said that there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. Is this what should be put in as criticism, along with the original edit proposal? Bob K31416 (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


These "clarifications" have been discussed many times on this and other articles. The consensus has repeatedly been not to elevate these manipulative WP:MANDY revisions on a par with the widely covered primary statements. At the least it would take an RfC to make any change along the lines proposed here. SPECIFICO talk 03:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give a link to a discussion? Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. You're an experienced edtor. If you want to parachute into a very highly edited article to insist on a controversial reversal of longstanding content, you can very well search the talk and article archives for yourself. Or you can recede and take up more constructive suggestions. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else care to give a link? Bob K31416 (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about a link to the last time someone tried to add "balance" to that sentence, with the same FactCheck.org cite you used, and was reverted? It was on January 27, 2021. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC) Here's another link, from a day later. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reverting editor criticized the edit, the usatoday source, but not the factcheck.org source. Bob K31416 (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone care to give a link to a discussion? Bob K31416 (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note linking to another Wikipedia article's section that discusses in detail Trump's Charlottesville remarks

I made an edit [8] that was reverted [9]. It's a note that contains a link to the following section in Wikipedia: Unite_the_Right_rally#President_Trump's_statements. The section is a detailed discussion of Trump's remarks about the rally.

My edit summary said, "added note with link to section with detailed discussion of Trump's comment, otherwise the reader would most likely not know about it." The reverting edit summary said, "Readers will see it if they're interested enough to follow the link to the article on the rally" Readers wouldn't follow the link to the article and find the section if they didn't know the section was there. Here's what the note said, "See the section President Trump's statements for a detailed discussion of Trump's statements about the rally."

Maybe the most efficient way to handle this is to ask: Is there anyone here who supports the edit that adds the note? Bob K31416 (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The most efficient will be to drop all this discussion, which has increasingly taken the form of a one-way insistence against and longstanding consensus and the current reaffirmation of same. SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Citing a chimerical "consensus" without any objective agreement on how one would measure such unanimity is a form of bludgeoning, where you constitute the unitary arbiter of such matters. I among many others agree with the proposed edit that has been reverted, whose inclusion you inacurrately describe as the result of a "one-way instance". It is Wikipedia policy to "include those facts that are of historical, societal, scientific, intellectual or academic significance". Including the widely-reported (in credible sources) fact of the ex-president's objection to having been characterized as having called neo-Nazis and the KKK as "very fine people" reaches the standardly-agreed upon threshold of evidentiary notability and significance. - 2603:8000:103:881B:6D35:A480:EE61:E3AC (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment but see no need for a 'remark'. What I would do is wiki-link "Trump's comment" to Unite the Right rally#Third statement. starship.paint (exalt) 02:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shame it's been reverted already, that section (Unite the Right rally#Third statement) is nearly 1,800 words long, exceeding the WP:DYK minimum character limit for new articles over 7 times. starship.paint (exalt) 03:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: thoughts on the wikilink? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually more important to link to Unite the Right rally#Third statement than Unite the Right rally, because this article focuses on his statement on the rally. He didn't even attend the rally, so the focus on the rally itself is secondary to his statement. starship.paint (exalt) 08:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A link to a section of another article is very unusual. This article needs to provide a summary of fact and context as described by the weight of RS. That link is only confusing and diffuses the issue rather than focusing and summarising it. A link to the entire event is fine. The link I reverted is not. And Bob has disregarded BRD, falsely claimed that the link was endorsed on talk, and reinstated it without consensus. It should be removed and reinstated only if we reach consensus for it here on talk. I've addressed this behavior with Bob on his talk page. SPECIFICO talk 15:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO, I don't believe that was a BRD violation. It was Starship who initially added the link. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, not a 24-BRD DS violation. Just a violation of the general BRD norm that most experienced editors respect and follow. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The part about section links is not true. They're all over the place, including about 18 others in this article alone. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been more clear. It was too narrow. SpaceX offered a much better link, which we may end up agreeing on here. SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what you mean. The target was a subsection of a subsection after all. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trump’s initial statement at Bedminster (we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides) two hours after the homicide was critized as spreading blame to "many sides" and "false equivalency". Two days later, he read a "conciliatory statement" at the WH, then tweeted an attack on the African-American head of Merck,who resigned from the American Manufacturing Council in protest of Trump’s remarks, and later attacked the "#FakeNewsMedia" in another tweet. The next day at the infrastructure speech at Trump Tower, he doubled down on his initial "many sides" statement with "very fine people, on both sides".
Hatting history of edits. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WP text from at least as far as back as 6 September 2018 (I didn’t go back any further) said "comments" (His comments following a 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, were seen as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist marchers and those who protested them.). It was changed to Trump’s comments in reaction to the 2017 Charlottesville far-right rally were interpreted as implying a moral equivalence between white supremacist marchers and counter-protesters on 10 July 2019. On August 29, 2020, unnoticed by other editors this edit added an op-ed (by some) not supported by the source. On January 22, 2021, the "by whom" tag was added to "by some" and finally, on January 27, another op-ed ("by his opponents"). Then "very fine people" was added, changing the meaning of the sentence to make it exclusively about the infrastructure press conference, i.e., the [∫https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally#Third_statement third statement]. After some back-and-forth over the next few weeks we ended up with the current version.
I just added the initial plural-s to Trump's comments and his remarks two hours after the vehicular homicide at the rally ("We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.") which were also widely criticized. I also changed the wikilink from the third statement to all of Trump's comments. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC) I just removed the link pending further discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, it looks like you support adding the link Trump's comments. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't made up my mind—a link right before another, rather long link ("Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia") is overlinking, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think some infrequent duplicate linking to provide helpful context is excusable. To be clear, this is an opinion, as this situation doesn't appear to be mentioned at all at MOS:OVERLINK. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Links competing with each other for user attention (last sentence of first paragraph)? Do we need both, and, if not, which one is more helpful for the reader's understanding? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we decide only one link is appropriate, probably the section link is more relevant. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We just have to look at the article's lead to see that links in the vicinity of each other has not been considered a problem. Also, I agree that the section link is more important because the paragraph is about Trump's remarks. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't cherrypick crude irrelevant analogous examples. Otherwise we would have to evaluate all the instances of text for which there might have been similar overlinking but for which it was not done. So let's discuss the merits, please. The wider context of the entire page link is better. For this article (Trump's bio} the noteworthy and significant factor in the rally was -- wait for it -- Trump's reaction. So the link to the entire article allows our readers to digest the entire context and the section header in the subsidiary article lets them skip to Trump's statements. It is not as if we were to link to an article on mammals when we are intending to refer to squirrels. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re "the noteworthy and significant factor in the rally was -- wait for it -- Trump's reaction" — That's what the section link goes to. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now please respond to my argument as to why the full-article link is better. SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think my last message refuted what you had to say. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. You repeated what I said. You do not appear to be understanding the issue, so I will not address you further. SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=1051515240"