Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 139

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 135←Archive 137Archive 138Archive 139Archive 140Archive 141→Archive 145

UpdateNerd, you added two photographs taken by Bernard Gotfryd, a photographer who died in 2016 (I reverted both additions). They were copied from the Library of Congress collection. It says on the Rights and Restrictions page that "There are no known copyright restrictions ... Privacy and publicity rights may apply." Where does that leave us? Both look like the kind of publicity shots photographer's are hired to do for the subjects. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Although I didn't upload any of these, there are 499 images in the collection on Commons. Any relevant discussion should take place there. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

UpdateNerd Who do you think those people in white coats milling on the steps are, "nice young men in clean white coats" coming to take him away? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Haha, I had missed them! It's hard enough to make out the foreground figures. That said, the White House flickr doesn't explicate who these figures are, so it's better not to mention them as "his" doctors, when there may be some who are just onlookers. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
You're right, the caption doesn't explain who they are, and it doesn't really matter. (That's a really BIG picture now. Is that size really necessary?) At the time, his return to the WH was big news, and sources said that he was seen off by his team of doctors who then held a press conference after Trump had boarded Marine 1. The WH released a photostream on Flickr. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
UpdateNerd, I cropped the image with CropTool but it didn't add "cropped" to the file name (had to go to https://croptool.toolforge.org/, crop tool isn't available in the tools section in my vertical tools menu). How'd you manage to add "cropped" to the file name of Fred Trump's image? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x, I didn't actually use CropTool, but it looks like you'd just need to upload it as a separate file. Although you could just leave it as it is (overwritten), as I don't see any other pages using the image. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Phrasing of lead - sentences on racially charged/racist and on mysogynistic comments and actions

Per consensus items 30 and 51, the last two sentences of the third paragraph say that Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist. Many of Trumps comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. Sounds a bit choppy but per the closing of consensus item 51 the two sentences must be kept separate. I made a bold edit: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many others as misogynistic." It's one sentence but still keeping the racially charged or racist and the misogynistic comments and actions separate. Comments? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC) I removed "others" – for all I know some may be both. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the significance of his racist comments -- and I'm not sure we still need the weaselly "have been characterized as" -- is far more important than the misogynistic comments, many of which are no more than political taunts of Democratic Party leaders. I think that juxtaposing the two creates a false equivalency that detracts from the "racist" bit. Possibly, the two don't even need to be adjacent. SPECIFICO talk 15:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
many of which are no more than political taunts of Democratic Party leaders: not hardly. He's insulted cast members of Desperate Housewives, Princess Di, Rosie O'Donnell, Mika Brzezinski, Stormy Daniels, to name just a few. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I think they should probably remain separate sentences as that was a key part of the past consensus. I'd want to see a new consensus formed before we make a change. ––FormalDude talk 19:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think having them in the same sentence is fine, and the separate sentences part of the consensus item 51 close was rather questionable. But above all, I think it's important that we not linger in this can of worms more than necessary, and if restoring the original formulation of the sentence (He has a history of insulting and belittling women., also what tracks closest with the paragraph in the body) is what's needed for that, so be it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The discussion was a bit odd. The section was titled "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist" but was about adding misogyny to the lead, only a few editors were involved (I don't recall noticing it), and the discussion continued on an editor's Talk page. The discussion wasn't an RfC. Was there even a need for a formal close, and, if not, are we bound by it? Seems to me that there was a majority plurality for adding misogyny or misogynistic to the racist remarks sentence, just as FormalDude stated in the withdrawn close.
  • Support adding misogyny/misogynistic: Sdkb, IP, Bdushaw, Dr. Van Nostrand
  • Support but add as stand-alone: Specifico, Iamreallygoodatcheckers
  • Oppose but maybe add in a reworked lead: Berchanhimez
  • Oppose: Spy-cicle
I support addition as it is now, wouldn't object to "has a history of insulting and belittling women." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I generally oppose any addition of "misogynistic comments" being added to the lead. I thought SPECIFICO was saying the comments would have to have heavy coverage of their own to be included in the lead. To make my position clear, I generally oppose any addition of trumps misogynistic comments being included in the lead, I feel it's undue weight. Most of his comments are just taunts at politicians or people he doesn't like. His alleged misogynistic comments are simply not very relevant to his notability for an inclusion in the lead. Now if it is mentioned in the lead, I think it's best the way it is now being coupled with racial comments than the way I revised it, the way now has a better flow. I merely added it back to enforce the community consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Should "conspiracy theorist" be added to the lead?

I'm not sure what the etiquette is here. Three editors, GoodDay ([1]), FormalDude ([2]), and myself ([3]), have suggested moving this separate matter from a subsection of the RfC up to a separate section, and FormalDude is considering starting a separate RfC. SPECIFICO hasn't responded, so I'm just going ahead with the move. My apologies, SPECIFICO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Reading all the discussion and !votes above, I wonder whether it is not equally DUE to add "conspiracy theorist" to the lead. That appears to be Trump's main current activity, and he has used it to brilliant effect in retaining control of the Republican Party in his post-presidential retirement. Unlike "politician", conspiracy theorist is not redundant to saying he was president, and it is a unique defining characteristic of Trump the president and former president, well-covered in RS and our article text. Thoughts? SPECIFICO talk 15:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Not proposing "first sentence". That's a separate question.21:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Of course not. Pejorative and partisan terms just ask for trouble. Might as well call him a white supremacist, an insurrectionist or a cult leader, all of which (and more) have been posited by his political opponents as the "true" roles which give him relatively firm control over his party and voters. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Those other terms are subjective and not widely used in RS descriptions. But "conspiracy theorist" is objective and widely sourced and acknowledged, even by Sidney Powell, his former atty. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theorist" is subjective as hell. If you ask someone who believes the 2020 election was rigged by the MSM, SJW and DNC in cahoots, they'll probably feel you're calling him and them liars or idiots. And if I applied it to people who believe the 2016 one was rigged by the KGB, KKK and RNC in cahoots, same deal. You can believe what you want about whether the term even appears in your chosen link. I seriously doubt it calls Trump anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Certainly not. The lead sentence is normally for a person's occupation. It's not for any particular behavior of theirs. I still think we should have "politician" in the lead sentence, because that has been his occupation for the most notable period of his life; right now it just says "media personality and businessman"; that's being discussed above. But even if "conspiracy theorist" is accurate, it's not his occupation. It's not even the activity he is best known for. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

We do have numerous BLP articles that reflect RS identifying people as conspiracy theorisrs, white supremecists, fringe, etc. in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
If that is what they are best known for. If that is how they make their living. Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist. Trump spouts some conspiracy theories, but it's not his claim to fame. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I don't think most conspiracy theorists would say it's how they make a living even though that may be the case. I also think that as of Nov 2020, the conspiracy theories with which he's now inoculated the GOP and most of its state office holders and congresspeople is what's most noteworthy about him. Also he's raised a ton of money for his legal defense and for his favored state political campaigns with the conspiracy theory. I don't think it's obvious this doesn't belong up top. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
This idea that a celebrity has secretly "innoculated" a vague and shady yet allegedly widespread subset of the American government with an unapproved "conspiracy theory" instead of being a real politician is exactly the sort of angle a pro conspiracy columnist would self-publish on the Internet, you know? And yes, I am sure. I used to consider Jones a viable media personality, needling words work! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
There has been nothing secret about the election fraud theories or about Trump's insistence that Republicans "stop the steal". It is his entire brand post-election. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I kinda think SPECIFICO may be joking on this one. Trump is not notable enough for any conspiracy theories he supposedly has supported for him to be described as a conspiracy theorist in the lead. In the lead he is described as a "media personality", "businessman", and "president". Politician is of course under discussion. All those things have entire sections on them in the article, there's no major section on his work as a "conspiracy theorist". Calling Trump a conspiracy theorist in the lead sentence would obviously be WP:UNDUE. Any promotion of that inclusion is attempting to push an agenda. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively many times. We should not call people conspiracy theorists unless that is their major activity. Conspiracism has been part of U.S. political tactics for centuries, that doesn't mean that most U.S. politicians should be labeled conspiracy theorists. TFD (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Strawman much, TFD? Nobody's made any such suggestion. Maybe you'd care to list the consptiracy theories of the past 6-7 US presidents that they promoted with a network of covert and public agents, pursued through the courts, and used to convert one of the two major parties to making it the core of their platform? I can't seem to think of any at the moment. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Bush (feat. Don, Dick and Karl) mindfucked/inoculated both parties into invading Iraq on the power of a pretext that its government was covering up WMDs, or was related to 9/11, or massacred its own maternity ward, or was plotting another 9/11-style plot, or was in an Axis of Evil, or something baseless since accepted as bunk. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
And then there was that Gulf of Tonkin incident, way out there by Bowling Green. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Those were lies, not conspiracy theories. BTW this article says Trump told more lies than any previously recorded. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
They were a full deck of lies, about three or more politicians meeting in secret to plan and commit historically inaccurate crimes, foreign and domestic, sometimes against humanity. They were peddled, they were shared, they were sold on TV. Men were hanged, insurrection broke out, millions were killed and billions were spent. Because of the whole concerted package, deceiving toward a common purpose. And of course there was political gain in '04, Bush wore a flight suit. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
The question here is conspiracy theories, not lies. SPECIFICO talk 02:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
A conspiracy theory is a theory about a conspiracy, usually built on lies. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
For instance, start with "SPECIFICO is hiding nukes". That's a lie, not a conspiracy theory. But then spin out "SPECIFICO's underlings are helping him hide nukes by lying to nuke inspectors about the lack of apparent nukes. Another group is responsible for continually moving them when inspectors show up, and new secret illegal storage facilities are systematically springing up to facilitate SPECIFICO's master plan to nuke us all, contrary to conventions. Fellow Wikipedians, the window of opportunity is fast closing." Now that's a kooky conspiracy theory! But it still basically actually happened to another scapegoated bunch thanks to an ordinary crew of dishonest unscrupulous politicians from "the other side". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
PLEASE DON'T add that. It's bad enough that Democrats keep claiming that the 2016 prez election was stolen, while Republicans keep claiming that the 2020 prez election was stolen. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Democrats claim they won the popular vote in 2016, which they did. Republicans claim they won the electoral college in 2020, which they did not. There's a difference pal. ––FormalDude talk 19:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Democrats are still pushing Russian conspiracy stories. Both political parties, have devious operators. Both are controlled by their corporate donors. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
GoodDay, have you read the Mueller Report? This Republican-led investigation concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Neither it nor any Democrat has been reported as stating that election was "stolen". Please refer to mainstream sourced factual reports when commenting here. SPECIFICO talk 01:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Mainstream news media (like the two major political parties) are also corporate owned. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
The Republicans' Mueller Investigation was not "corporate owned", but more importantly if you want to change Wikipedia sourcing and verification policies to exclude "corporate owned" sources, then you need to go to the Village Pump and state your case. We are not going to change how this site works on a single article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 01:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I still oppose adding conspiracy theorist to this bio articles' intro. GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Um, why? SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Arwa Damon sniffing an supposed sarin covered school backpack & claiming it was so poisoned. Either she already knew it wasn't or her immune system is amazing. PS - Sarin is both odourless & fatal, to smell. That's why I don't trust mainstream news media. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Bad enough as well how those are the only two Wikipedians remember (probably thanks to the Mayans). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what are you are saying with that link. Democrats Democrats worry[ing] that not enough members of their party will be able to vote—they have good reasons to worry. Clinton saying that "the economy is rigged in favor of those at the top", that there is "really systemic racism" against blacks, that "hardworking immigrant families [are] living in fear," that women’s rights are "under tremendous attack", that there is “discrimination against the LGBT community," and that "we are seeing an increase in alcoholism, addiction, earlier deaths" in coal country isn't a conspiracy theory (or 6), it's the truth. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm saying there were American election-based conspiracy theories and conspiracy theory-based American elections before 2016. There was also fake news, racism, border security, social disease, sex-related death and addiction, truth and good people on both sides. Maybe nothing to do with Mayan calendar kookiness. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
GoodDay, which crappy sources have you been watching/listening to/reading? Democrats do not keep claiming and have never claimed that the 2016 prez election was stolen, and the report released by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which was Republican-led at the time, does not explicitly accuse the Trump campaign of direct collusion with Russian intelligence. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Definitely not CNN. How reporter Arwa Damon survived sniffing sarin (which is odourless & deadly) on a school backpack, seems highly questionable at best. Obviously staged at the least. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Where did you get that info from, immensely trustworthy Russia Insight which has one audio clip (she said "that definitely stings", and they translated the Russian crawler with "there is definitely something which smells strange")? In warm weather, Sarin decomposes in a few hours. In Douma, helpers had to wait three hours before they were allowed to approach. The Douma chemical attack took place on April 7, and Damon didn't visit until April 16. No idea if, and if so, what kind of smell decomposed Sarin or an item that had been exposed to Sarin gives off after 9 days but it can't kill or hurt you, and Damon didn't say "it smells". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Damon must have an incredible immune system. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Call me a crazy Laurelite, but I hear "stinks". I mean, she enunciates like someone with a cold, or trying to convey "eww", so it's almost a G. In isolation, I'd say "stings". In the context of sniffing a bag and finger-talking her nostrils, though, smells pretty whiffy to me. Not clear enough to shoot the translator, in either case, accents happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Why would I call you a colorless mineral? Could be "stinks" but she doesn't appear to have a cold. Sounds more like "stings" as in "irritates my nose", supported by the hand gestures. It's a human interest story, never mind why that backpack smelled or stung. CNN doesn't mention Sarin, they say "chemical attack". Doesn't seem likely that the refugees were close to the drop site of the chemicals but the symptoms of the injured and the number of people killed indicated a nerve gas like Sarin, something the disinformation site does not mention. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Because I asked nicely, maybe? Maybe not. And maybe she did say "stings". A smell that irritated my nose to the point of stinging would certainly seem a "strange" one. In any case, the important thing is Donald Trump shouldn't be called an Assad loyalist in the first sentence, if at all. I think I have thoughts about sarinformation in that Talk's archives, but would rather discuss the alternative subtopics here. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
What is a Laurelite? I don't get that reference. Assad loyalist? Did someone suggest that, or is this an alternate timeline I wandered into? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Yanny or Laurel. Laurelites hear Laurel. And yes, welcome back to the beginning! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah, the big social media commotion of yesteryear. I'd already forgotten all about it. Still don't get why it's supposed to be Yanny. I hear "Yerry" or "Yelly", and the longer I listen with the slider pushed all the way to the right, the longer I hear Yerry/Yelly when I push the slider to the left before the sound changes to Laurel. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes to including it somewhere in lead (but not the first sentence) due to the significant coverage in reliable sources being quite excessive. Conspiracy theories are clearly a major activity Trump partakes in frequently. See the below RS.
  1. "24 outlandish conspiracy theories Donald Trump has floated over the years" Business Insider, 2019.
  2. "President Trump loves conspiracy theories. Has he ever been right?" Washington Post, 2019.
  3. "Trump accuses Cruz's father of helping JFK's assassin" Politico, 2016.
  4. "Trump praises QAnon conspiracists, appreciates support" AP News, 2020.
  5. "Fact-checking the dangerous bin Laden conspiracy theory that Trump touted" CNN, 2020.
  6. "Trump again boosts a baseless conspiracy theory, this one about Jeffrey Epstein" Vox, 2019.
  7. "Trump ramps up Twitter push on unfounded Scarborough conspiracy theory" The Hill, 2020.
  8. "Trump praised QAnon during meeting about keeping the Senate" CNN, 2020.
  9. "Tracking QAnon: how Trump turned conspiracy-theory research upside down" Nature (journal), 2021.
  10. "Trump Repeatedly Boosts QAnon On His Way Out The Door" Forbes, 2020.
––FormalDude talk 20:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not there may be an argument that it's reasonable to mention this somewhere in the lead section, but it cannot and must not be added to the lead paragraph. We don't mention that he's tall, blond, or dozens of other attributes in the lead paragraph. The only reason to add this to the lead paragraph is to inflame a political agenda, in a way that Wikipedia must not do. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    @力: I believe it was only suggested to be included somewhere in the lead section? I'm not sure what you're referring to as the "lead paragraph." ––FormalDude talk 20:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    The OP was Should "politician" be added to the first sentence of the lead, and I interpreted the question here as suggesting that "conspiracy theorist" be added instead. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    In that case then I agree with you. SPECIFICO would you mind clarifying this suggestion? Are you proposing it be added to the first sentence, or that it be added just somewhere in the lead? ––FormalDude talk 21:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    So the question is whether it should be included in the article lede at all. What is your stance on that, 力? ––FormalDude talk 04:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
    FWIW, I've asked Specifico (at his talkpage), to separate this "conspiracy theorist" proposal subsection, into a section of its own. At the moment, it may be causing confusion with the "politician" proposal section. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Certainly not. Per MelanieN.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose adding "conspiracy theorist" to the first sentence but I don't oppose adding something to the third paragraph along the lines of "made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics, and promoted conspiracy theories. That should be discussed separately, though, (i.e., moved up two levels), not as part of the RfC on whether to add "politician" to the first sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

New York City - link?

Should New York City in the lead (Born and raised in Queens, New York City, Trump graduated from...) be linked? Koopatrev (talk; contrib) Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 07:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No. Queens is the more specific link and what readers are much more likely to be unfamiliar with. New York City is not normally linked because it's so well known, and anyone clicking Queens can easily move on to the city's article if they want. Station1 (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Yea New York City shouldn't be linked. At that point we would be getting into a MOS:OVERLINK issue. Queens is the more specific link that should be used. Maybe the Queens link could be extended over New York City? Like "Queens, New York City, U.S." Just a thought. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
MOS:SEAOFBLUE says no. BSMRD (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Same principle as consensus item #2 (MOS:OVERLINK—names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Very mild change to lead sentence

I know we just settled a big issue for the lead sentence, but there is one little thing thats bothering me. Right now the order is "politician, media personality, and businessman". I think the order should be "politician, businessman, and media personality". This way it's putting notability in order. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Simply because WP:BOLD seems like good advice for "very mild changes" which don't significantly alter anything. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, RandomCanadian, if they are such mild changes why make them in violation of consensus item #50? Judging by previous discussions, many editors think that his society marriages/divorces, his "successful businessman" persona on The Apprentice, and Twitter gave him the status to win the Republican primary and then the presidency, not his record as a businessman (six bankruptcies, the failed USFL, the failed casinos and the failed airline with his name in big letters on them). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I still think beating and shaving Vince McMahon was the pivotal career decision, but don't think the first thing people read is any less impactful than the last (the middle of any list is certainly muffled). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with SpaceTime that the order in consensus #50 is correct and should be restored. That lists his occupations in order of how notable they made him: politician (world wide), media personality (nation wide), and businessman (New York wide). -- MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure WWE emphasized World at the time, and it's not like The Simpsons, Home Alone 2: Lost in New York or all the political talk show coverage flopped "internationally". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Why do you think notability is determined by some regional prominence standard? Wouldn't it make most sense for it to be based on what is most heavily covered in sources and the article. His business and political activities are substantially covered more than his media career, which only has a small section. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

As Random Canadian pointed out, this word order question is a very minor issue. However, I don't understand why the non-consensus (aka "bold") version is still in the article while this is being discussed. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

We Canadians can be very persuasive. Besides, how can implicit procedural doubts regarding a very small edit seem relatively major themselves? They can't, that's how, it's all good! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with MelanieN and Space4Time3Continuum2x that his flamboyant pre-presidential media persona is much more important than his business career to his notability. If he was a prudent low key New York real estate investor who went on to invest in a few casinos and a few office buildings in other cities, then we would not be having this conversation. His biography would be noncontroversial. His fame before 2015 is due to his monetizing his avocation as a publicity hog. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
He was famous as a businessman before he was a "media personality" (which probably refers primarily to things like the Apprentice), and I think his businesses are a larger part of his overall career story. Regarding the consensus from the RFC, that actually didn't really address the ordering of the three roles as far as I know, only that politician should be included amongst them, and it could well be argued that the old ordering can be tweaked for what's most appropriate and natural following the addition of "politician", which is what RandomCanadian has done here.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
"Media personality" directly and equally refers to everything in its pipelink, no guesswork needed. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
"Media personality and businessman" was the consensus text from the first RfC. It's true that the last RfC didn't discuss the placement of "politician" but neither RandomCanadian nor Iamreallygoodatcheckers objected to its position in first place. They both wanted the order of the other two descriptors switched. "Most appropriate and natural"—seems other editors disagree about what that is. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

North Korea "negotiations" in lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This RfC began its life as a dispute about whether Donald Trump's high-profile visits to North Korea and televised handshakes with Kim Jong Un were best described as "negotiations" or "talks". Very early in the RfC, an editor rewrote the disputed sentence. The community has analysed this new sentence and confirms it as its preferred wording. In practice, the outcome of this RfC is not to change the article from its current form.—S Marshall T/C 08:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I attempted to conform the lead to the article text on North Korea with this recent edit. @Spy-cicle: Could you provide a link to the RfC to which you referred in your subsequent reversion of my edit? I am puzzled as to how any RfC could mandate lead text that does not reflect the article text. They should conform, so one or the other needs to be amended depending on how prior or current consensus will guide us. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

If it ain't in the body it does not go in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
This was the one I was thinking of [4], though I agree that we should add it to the body, if it is not already there.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
At the time of the RfC, the denuclearization talks had broken down, i.e., there was the possibility that Trump and Kim might take them up again. They didn't, and there's no chance of that now. The sources for the last sentence on NK continuing to build its nuclear arsenal are from September and December 2020, respectively. Events have moved past the RfC which was closed in May 2020. We should make the lead conform to the body and write something like "negotiations on denuclearization were unsuccessful" and amend consensus item 44 accordingly. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I do not see the weight of mainstream narratives referring to "negotiations" -- it was a charade and a Trump narrative that's not been supported by informed description. It is uncontroversial to state that the meetings were fruitless. I have not seen tertiary sources with the perspective of time and events that characterize these meetings as negotiations. It would mislead our readers to describe these events as diplomatic negotiations. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
@Spy-cicle: The one point on which there's nearly unanimous agreement among editors of this article is that we do not cherrypick this-or-that to fit whatever happens to have made its way into the lead over time. The lead summarizes NPOV article text. SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Further, Spy-cicle, looking at the close of that RfC, I can't imagine how you interpret it to require the "negotiations" bit -- cited in my edit summary -- be included in the lead. I suggest you restore my edit, pending any improvements to the language I used to the effect that the meetings were unsuccessful and/or did not produce any result (per the close). SPECIFICO talk 21:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
It seems as if we be need to clarify further based on sources the nature of the dealings in the body, but in my view "broke down" seems like better language to use rather than unsuccessful, unless RS material disagrees.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 00:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
That does not seem responsive. What "broke down? Not negotiations? I question whether the weight of RS describes Trump's NK initiatives as "negotiations". Please respond to the issue on the table -- the issue you apparently took a strong position on when you reinstated unsourced lead text, but for which you continue not to document. SPECIFICO talk 00:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
AP "...why the summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un broke down". The Guardian "In a press conference after the talks broke down". Insider "After nuclear talks between the US and North Korea broke down". BBC "The talks, held in 2019, broke down after the US refused to do so." NBC "North Korea claims that its negotiations with the United States over its nuclear weapons program broke down on Saturday, although the U.S. sees it differently.". NYT "after the Hanoi talks broke down.". The Times "When Kim refused to countenance the ultimatum, the negotiations broke down.". Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
CNBC"The Trump administration made some initial progress with North Korea, but the negotiations broke down more than a year ago". Reuters "But the second summit in Hanoi broke down". ABC "how negotiations broke down and that nothing actually was decided." ... "Instead of discussing how negotiations broke down". Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no doubt the initiative "broke down" -- the point is that it never got to the stage of what RS call negotiations. Contemporaneous secondary sources are not dispositive, for reasons already stated by others above. If you survey more recent tertiary sources, summaries, and analysis, you will find that the word "negotiation" is overwhelmingly used only to refer to a general approach that was never really initiated. It was a general hope for negotiations that were stillborn. If you search for tertiary sources on the subject, you'll find commentary across the ideological spectrum - from the Atlantic to the American Enterprise Institute, BBC and Vox to the RAND Corp. -- describing a truncated and failed initiative that never reached the stage of active negotiations. At best there were discussions by diplomatic staff about the possibility of negotiations, but Trump walked out and the curtain fell. Meanwhile, it would be good form for you to remove your unsourced and invalid reinsertion of the negotiations bit in the lead, since there is nothing in the article to support it and editors here have recognized its inappropriateness. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
RSs around the time of the events describe them as "negotiations" as demonstrated by the above sample. Do you have any evidence have gone out of the way to in fact correct that 'error', that they were not negotiations and instead just talks for the press, etc.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
That is exactly what I rebutted immediately above. Jouralists don't go back revising daily News dispatches, and a broad range of later tertiary sources do not recount "negotiations". Either prove me wrong or revert your error and move on. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Reliable sources actually do issue corrections and it is one of the signs they are reliable to being with per WP:NEWSORG. I suggest you find some RSs to back up your claims.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Corrections of fact, not of wording that might be cherrypicked by a WP editor for the lead without article text supporting. You continue not to provide recent tertiary sourcing for "neotiation" as requested, and no editor affirms your views here. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I have not cherrypicked, I used RSs to back up my claims. You have not backed up any of your claims so far...  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 00:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
1. Please read WP:ONUS and the entire WP:NPOV page. 2. Please review my refutations of your view above. 3. It can't be in the lead when it's not in the article. 4. As I've previously stated above, per [[WP:NOTNEWS] this article needs to reflect enduring tertiary evaluation of Trump and his deeds, not merely pick incidental wording from contemporaneous accounts, which do not have the benefit of such perpective and frequently adopt language of the participants and their coterie in the immediate rush to press. I have not found any tertiary sources of more recent vintage that characterize the NK initiative as "negotiations". The closest one finds is descriptions of the preliminary discussions about the format and agenda of the meetings as negotiations of these formalities. But no discussion or analysis of the media events themselves as "negotiations" regarding nuclear disarmament of NK. If you have found such tertiary recent sources, you should present them here and now. Meanwhile, the unsourced non-article "negotiations" should be removed from the lead. It's disappointing to see you fail in that regard. SPECIFICO talk 17:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes I am familar with ONUS, but to my knowledge this is relatively longstanding text formed after the RfC. If no RfC had taken place I would be happy with removing it entirely until something is reached. Yes, I also agree with you're third point per WP:LEAD, I have provided many citations and can add them to the main body provided you do not revert me. Here are some sources which are published some time after the summits reflecting on the "negotiations": [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
So @SPECIFICO: You ignore my reply and go ahead and revert my revert agains the STATUSQUO version whilst also reverting all the sourced additions in the body. Either gain consensus on talk for the change or drop the stick. The D in discuss actually means discussing the issue until consensus is reached not discussing reverting then hoping the issue is resolved.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
[12] @Pipsally: Please tell me where you got consensus to revert against status quo?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Because, as has been explained extensively above, the Lede is a summary and this doesn't match the body of the article. Consensus in the body trumps(!) Pipsally (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pipsally:I added [13] Many RSs to the body but were swiftly reverted by another editor. Not sure what you mean by "Consensus in the body trumps". The lead text is longstanding to please self-revert.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I mean that there is long-standing consensus, but it's in the body of the article and the lede can be editted as necessary to conform accurately to the main text.Pipsally (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
As I stated in my edit summary, your additional sources did not verify the content you claimed to be supporting. We do not write significant content in the lead without substantial verified article text. You also need to consider the relative strength of contemporaneous news articles vs. later tertiary analysis of events written with the benefit of context and later developments. And I see no support for your views here on talk. Longstanding text that is defective on its face has no standing. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC (describing Trump's foreign policy interactions with NK)

NOTE: Please see the discussion in the section immediately preceding

How should we describe Donald Trump's foreign policy interactions with Kim Jong-un of North Korea? 19:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Option A As "negotiations" (Example:... but negotiations on denuclearization eventually broke down)
  • Option B As "talks" (Example:... but talks on denuclearization eventually broke down)
  • Option C With "Trump met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, but made no progress on denuclearization."

Survey (describing Trump's foreign policy interactions with NK)

  • Option C. This is Trump's personal biography. The references to negotiations largely fall into two categories: First, contemporaneous news reports that either recycle Trump Administration language or fall back on generic conventional language to describe diplomatic sessions, and Second, references to meta-negotiations about the format and agenda of the summit or attempts to salvage some substantive engagement from Trump's media-focused approach to the events. So we do have references to Pompeo and others attempting to launch substantive negotiations, but without success. Our WP articles on the three NK/Trump media events do not recount substantive negotiations by Trump that would be DUE for his personal life story. On google search, consider "Trump Korea negotiation returns shy of 1.2 million results, while "Trump Korea fail" returns more than 10 times as many -- 12 million. Aside from the contemporaneous press accounts, the tertiary sources written more recently with the benefit of context and hindsight rarely refer to any "negotiations" involving Trump himself. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    You cite WP:NOTNEWS, essentially citing that Wiki is not a newspa]pers which is correct but it is not really relevant here. You seem to suggest from this link that news reports of this kind are not acceptable which is not true as they are RS. Whether or not they are enough WEIGHT is different which is clear from the last RfC plus the number of RSs using the A term along the same with retrospective sources I have provided. "either recycle Trump Administration language or fall back on generic conventional language to describe diplomatic sessions": Are you suggesting these RSs are unreliable as you would need more evidence for that they just 'recycle Trump's language' and ignore fact checking for this case etc. The google search comparison here is not helpful since you are assuming that the sources from the search come from RSs, which is certainly not the case, most come from blogs, social media and other non-RSs.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • No, On the contrary, NOTNEWS is all about NPOV rather than the vast quantity of contemporaneous news reports written overnight that frequently and unavoidably mischaracterize or misjudge events. It's well established that WP prefers tertiary sources that offer their perspective and judgment applied to the sea of contemporaneous secondary stories. If you'll have a peekaboo at the extensive Britannica.com Donald Trump article you will find no suggestion that he engaged in "negotiations" with North Korea. As to the google metrics, why don't you actually examine the results instead of falsely asserting that the top hits are from blogs and the like. 10 to 1 is a pretty strong refutation of your thesis. Are you claiming there are 10 times as many blogs that say "fail" but that all the meagre "negotiations" hits are RS? C'mon. SPECIFICO talk 00:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Whilst Britannica has repuation for fact-checking secondary sources are preferred as per WP:RSP. The google search results are irrelevant as there does not filter reliable websites from non-reliable websites. Do you have any other sources besides britannica supporting your point?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 00:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Nobody has proposed citing any article text to Briatannica.com, as you well know. Please do not raise straw-person arguments here. Tertiary sources, including analysis by notable experts, summaries published by RS publications and institutions, and other tertiary sources, are as good as it gets with DUE WEIGHT judgment relating to newsy subject matter with an overload of contemporaneous secondary sources. Please read WP:TERTIARY, to wit: Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. You appear to misunderstand the various incidental statements at RSP that compare tertiary and primary sources and the single one that discusses older unedited Britannica articles as sources -- the straw person you raise above. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Do you have any of these such sources then, besides Britannica?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
The WP:ONUS is on you to show that "negotiations" is due weight NPOV wording. It's not in the article text, nor do our WP articles on the various meetings characterize Trump's engagement that way. Here's an example of a recent tertiary summary from Time magazine. I suggest you read some of the thousands such recent tertiary summations of the Trump/Korea show. The onus is on you. SPECIFICO talk 21:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
ONUS applies to simple inclusion/exlusion cases. Such a case does not apply since we already have a consensus to say something about NK interactions per previous RfC. The text you replaced the longstanding had no consensus hence this RfC... You have produced a total of 2 sources, which in my view does not outweigh the range I have provided above, including many which were written reflectively on the topic. But I think it is clear at this point neither of us are going to change our minds on this RfC.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Option C. I was the author of this particular text, though entirely by accident. I was unaware of this controversy, and merely wanted to write a good, succinct sentence (and I was mostly concerned that it was a run-on sentence that seemed to link China tariffs with denuclearization). That said, and I've consulted the appropriate section of this article, I am against "negotiations" as a description. In this diplomatic context, that word implies either the month's long negotiations that typically precedes a high level diplomatic meeting, or the month's long negotiations that that follow such a meeting that agrees on a basic framework. The article, as it stands now, is quite clear that none of that happened ("...talks failed after one day"). Use of "negotiations" would be a bad representation of the nature of Trump's meetings with Kim. Bdushaw (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Addendum. Just checking the article text again, and noted that nothing resembling "negotiations" is described, as indeed, the word is not even used in that section; Trump and Kim exchanging superficial letters is not "negotiation". Nothing is preventing anyone from developing that section to describe the nature and issues of such "negotiations" in the article, if they exist (I've never read any specific such elements; why, indeed, did the talks end after one day?). The lead should reflect article text. Bdushaw (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@Bdushaw: This RfC is not restricted to just the lead. It also applies to the body so the body will also be updated with the term, for example this [19] was edit with RSs reverted from the body. The example is just one way it will likely affect the article.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
No RfC can result in unsourced or UNDUE text being dropped into the article. Please move the discussion threads you launch beneath editors' !votes to the discussion section below. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Would not consider 6 RSs as "unsourced". Nor "UNDUE" given the many RSs I have provided above. Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Option A, for the reasons given above.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Option C - while all of the options have some degree of usage in the sources, Option C has two benefits: (1) it reads clearest and (2) it is most consistent with the most recent RS language; e.g., April 2021 NYT: "Trump tried and failed to broker a nuclear deal with North Korea...Trump left office without removing a single North Korean nuclear warhead." I think "meeting" is more common than "negotiations" in any case. Neutralitytalk 04:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Option C per Neutrality. Mgasparin (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Option B for the primary reason that it's the shortest (particularly as the lead is already severely pressed for space) and conveys the meaning just as clearly as the others. Option A is perfectly fine too – as others have pointed out, RS have used the term. I think the phrasing with "talks" has better flow and "negotiations" has an ever-so-slightly officious ring to it. As Bdushaw notes, the "negotiations" weren't so grand. "Talks" and "negotiations" are just synonyms, though, so it's really six of one... I don't have a strong objection to Option C either (again, it's effectively saying the same thing with different words, isn't there a word for those kind of words?) but it's a bit more convoluted than B/A and I don't think there's any urgent justification for the added length. "Made no progress" has the advantage of setting it in a broader historical context, but also sounds a bit negative in tone. It's also making a judgement in wikivoice, not that it's a controversial judgement or wrong to do so in this case – I've no doubt the weight of RS supports it – it's just a case of being unnecessary (why write an unattributed judgement that requires justification and good sourcing when you can state the fact which supports the judgement in fewer words)? In the article body any option is fine, and there's a stronger case for providing greater analysis. So, yeah, all look decent to me, B seems the simplest and most straightforward, so more suited for the lead. This RfC looks a bit molehillish to me, but perhaps its easier to quibble over the small things. Jr8825 • Talk 23:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Option B first choice because it's shorter, per Jr above. Option A second choice because I am persuaded by the links in this discussion that "negotiations broke down" is what the greater balance of RS use. Option C's "made no progress on denuclearization" seems non-neutral and judgmental and US/S-Korea-centric. Who defines "progress on denuclearization"? The N Koreans may view the meeting as making progress. The summit itself taking place may be viewed by some as progress, even if it didn't achieve denuclearization. I'm not convinced this is the approach taken by the consensus of RSes; for example the NYT piece that Neutrality links to above that says "tried and failed...left office without removing a single North Korean nuclear warhead" is an interview with the S Korea president, and obviously relays their point of view. Removing a single NK nuke is "progress" only from the US/SK POV; the NK POV would probably measure "progress" differently. "Talks broke down" is a better shorter version of the RS-supported "negotiations broke down," which is more neutral than "made no progress." Also, the article should be returned to status quo while this RfC runs. I tried to do that a few days ago but was reverted. Levivich 17:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    • "progress on denuclearization" has been the stated objective of US policy for decades. It's not POV to describe the outcome -- as RS do, if you read some of the 10 million hits I referenced to a search on "Trump Korea fail" -- relative to the policy objective of the USA. SPECIFICO talk 20:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Describing the outcome is fine, but the outcome is that talks broke down. Whether or not progress was made is a matter of opinion and perspective: it depends on what one's goals are. Wikivoice should not be from the POV of US policy, but from a neutral POV. As for the 10 million Google hits, they're not real. WP:HITS explains why "In the case of Google (and other search engines such as Bing and Yahoo!), the hit count at the top of the page is unreliable..." Levivich 20:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
        Interesting – I've wondered in the past why Google hit numbers are so inconsistent and whether they're actually meaningful. Now I know. Thanks Levivich, always a fountain of wisdom. Jr8825 • Talk 22:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jr8825:. Did you read the HITS text? That "how-to" page, not a policy or guideline, is about NOTABILITY, not DUE WEIGHT in article content. Further, it's about using the raw numbers rather than using it as I did above -- to present a ratio and to give links to sources that could be evaluated for reliability and weight. It's important not to be seduced by a specious reference to a wiki-link that is inapplicable both to the editorial decision and to the argument at hand. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: Sorry I missed your ping a few days ago. Yes, I skim read the entire page and my comment was about how useful I found it. It wasn't meant to be directly about this conversation, as my argument for option B is unrelated to WP:DUE; as I explained in my !vote, I don't doubt option C is adequately supported by RS, I prefer B for separate reasons (more concise, more neutral tone, less of a subjective statement etc.). However, HITS is a relevant response to your comment, because HITS explains why the raw number at the top of Google searches is inaccurate and "should usually not be reported". I mean c'mon, Levivich even quoted the bit which was relevant to his point. Yes, HITS is pointing this out in the context of notability and the parts which discuss that are irrelevant, but the inaccuracy of raw result numbers is relevant to any case where they're being used to support an argument (something I've done before, which is why I'm grateful for the information). In this case, you're using the number to demonstrate the weight of the view described in option C. Again, I suspect you're right about the evidence and didn't question this in my own comment, but the difference between 10 and 12 million Google hits, now we know that the numbers are not particularly accurate, is pretty meaningless proof of it. Jr8825 • Talk 12:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
So you think less than 10% of the "fail" search results are valid while allow of the "negotiation" results are valid? I dont, but then again I stopped counting at 420,000 or so. It was specious and irrelevant to cite HITS. The point is that most recent RS do not refer to "negotiations", as can be seen in the RS among the 10 million results. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICO talk 13:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Option C as most closely reflecting the majority of sources today, which broadly emphasize those aspects and largely avoid calling them negotiations. Strenuously oppose A, or any use of the word "negotiations" in this context anywhere in the article voice, because that there are sources that unambiguously state that no negotiations took place and which outright state that Trump's policy was not to negotiate. eg. [22]: Moon also observed that while Trump preferred a “top-down” style of diplomacy in the form of one-on-one summits with Kim, Biden would likely return to the “bottom-up” method of negotiations - whether negotiations took place is at best contested and therefore cannot be stated as fact in the article voice. I can only assume that the sparse results otherwise people are pointing to above are from searches specifically for the word "negotiations", because when I just search "trump" "north korea" the overwhelming majority of sources seem to studiously avoid using that terminology. In addition to the source above, [23] - emphasizes no negotiations took place and that all offers under Bolton were intended to fail. [24] - 'meetings', emphasizes that they went nowhere. [25] - "meetings" collapsed. [26] - "summit". [27] - "meetings". [28] - "agreed to meet". [29] - "summit". [30] - "meeting". I'll emphasize again that this is just from the first page of Google News results for "trump" "north korea", skipping over ones that don't mention the topic at all - obviously with something with this much coverage, it is possible to find sources that use any terminology you desire, but we have to go with what the sources say overall; and overall, sources today overwhelmingly refer to it as "meetings" at best, with some specifically emphasizing that it was not a negotiation. --Aquillion (talk) 04:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • C for the same reasons as Aquillion; while there are contemporary references to "negotiations", we now have the benefit of a fuller perspective from the passage of time and accural of more RS, and can write a fuller description, in both the body and the lead. -sche (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Disussion (describing Trump's foreign policy interactions with NK)

procedural discussion result: add option C
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Spy-cicle: The "talks" version has been replaced by a better text, Trump met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, but made no progress on denuclearization.. Please substitute that for the "talks" version of option B so that we can avoid adding a third alternative and diffusing the discussion and polling. SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I see what you mean here. So essentially instead of describing the overall interactions in the lead as "talk/negotiations" we essentially do not label it and instead say: but made no progress on denuclearization. But the question being asked about wording also would apply to the body (the example is just one way it could be applied to this article). The answer you are proposing to add is fundamentally different to what question says because it does not solve the problem as how to describe them in the body (and also change "broke down" to "no progress" etc). I have no issue with you adding says "Option C: Avoid labelling in the lead and have "but made no progress on denuclearization" and describe it as [talks/negotiations] in body" The latter half of the example C option would have to be filled in at some point since we have to label in some capacity in the body. In this case as explained above, it is probably better to add the extra option than replace "talks" since editors could resonably prefer one over the over. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Don't overthink this. I have read dozens of contemporaneous secondary and later tertiary sources on Trump/Kim and they all end up stating that no progress was achieved on denuclearization. It's brief and to the point and it is supported by the longstanding article text as well as your ill-sourced, unverified patch-up. Please let's keep this to a or b. It's much more likely to give us a conclusive outcome. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I am going to ignore part of the comments which argue against my preferred option since that can be done later. In your proposed option how would you label the interactions in the body as well. The option currently seems convoluted as it does seem to answer this question which the RfC question asks. This RfC is not just restricted to the lead.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
They are not "my commrnts" -- they are the comments of the several editors who discussed this in the thread before this RfC.
Look, I made the edit that gave us choice B partly out of an attempt to compromise with your apparent view that there was some serious talk about disarmament. My language was replaced with a much better version that does not characterize the interaction, but does tell our readers the significant fact that no progress resulted. I renounce version B. You are creating a huge tangle where it's not necessary. If you're not prepared to substitute the current text for your B I will simply add C --- to the detriment of constructive and compact process on this page. Up to you. SPECIFICO talk 21:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Fine with you adding C, but please specify how to describe the interactions in the body as well (i.e. do we describe as negotiations or talks or discussons, etc in the body; as this RfC is not limited to the lead). Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll keep it short and simple, just as you did. You've already stipulated that the RfC is not solely about the lead. SPECIFICO talk 21:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Notified Talk:Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Richest president sourcing and content

After I removed the unsourced article text that Trump was the richest president, Mr. Ernie reinstated it, along with a non-RS-for-BLP reference citing a stock market chatter website. Ernie asked me to launch this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Support SPECIFICO's removal. This is a strong BLP claim that needs a strong reliable source. The source provided by Mr. Ernie does not qualify. ––FormalDude talk 23:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I don’t understand why this is such an issue. Trump is by far the wealthiest president, a multi billionaire worth a lot more than the rest. Is it a notability issue? It’s quite well sourced. [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
One issue is that John F. Kennedy was likely the first billionaire President, not Donald Trump. Looking at the sources you've provided now though, it does seem strong enough to say Trump was one of the richest (if not the richest) U.S. Presidents. ––FormalDude talk 01:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
JFK’s money today, not in the 60s, gets him there. Contemporaneously Trump is by far the wealthiest. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Ernie, you've been editing this article a long time. You know very well that talk discussions, and even the current article tdxt, do not believe the 3 billion figure. Read the article. Review all 5he talk threads. Drop the stick. SPECIFICO talk 02:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Your OR is often unhelpful. Please review the 5 RS I linked just above. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I've referred you to consensus article text and to previous talk page consensus. Now, I'll also ask you to read WP:OR before attempting to use the term again. SPECIFICO talk 03:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: I see is that consensus #38 states it shouldn't be mentioned in the lede, but it says nothing about the body. Is there another consensus you're referring to? ––FormalDude talk 03:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The article text discusses this. Thats among the other consensus deprecation of Forbes' estimate. SPECIFICO talk 04:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
See, I feel the reason you two are not spelling out your justifications clearly is because neither of you have the strongest of points.
SPECIFICO, the Wealth section states that Trump's 2015 FEC filing showed "at least $1.4 billion in assets and $265 million in liabilities." I assume that didn't disappear when Trump took office, and the article doesn't lead me to believe it did either. It does go on to mention his personal and business debts, but nothing in comparison to his personal net worth. So what are you referring to exactly? ––FormalDude talk 04:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Nonsense. I've clearly stated the problems and pointed you to documentation. Bottom line is that this entire bit is 1) primary sourced to the dubious Forbes list reference, and 2) not verifying the bit about "richest president" with any acceptable source. BTW it's quite clear that others such as Kennedy were wealthier. SPECIFICO talk 13:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Here is the BBC, which to my understanding is considered an acceptable source. Please check point #2 in the source. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. ––FormalDude talk 16:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
This is a bit of a side note but you guys are way off about JFK, he was barely worth 100m in today’s dollars even with a friendly inflation calculator. The whole Kennedy family might have been worth a billion in inflation adjusted dollars but JFK personally was not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Kennedy's net worth in today's dollars is from the USA Today article I cited here (24/7 Wall Street's examination of the finances of American presidents from Washington to Trump). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
It would appear to have the attached caveat "Almost all of JFK’s income and property came from trust shared with other family members.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
It's still his income and property, and—despite his claims—Trump isn't a self-made man. I don't particularly care whether we mention first or only billionaire, I just don't see the point since we mention the exact Forbes figure. "Oldest elected" was short-lived, too; who knows what the various tax investigations and lawsuits will reveal. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
As RS have expressed some doubt as to Trumps real worth I am unsure this is all that relevant. Also if his worth is relevant, so is his massive debt. So lets leave it out.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
How about stating that some sources (list a few RS) assert that Trump is the richest president in history, but others assert that he is not, as most of his claimed wealth is offset by huge debts. (list a few RS) Would that work? The subject shouldn't be ignored. -- Valjean (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
That could be a good approach. It's a nuanced subject, because part of Trump's notability before he became president was the controversy surrounding his wealth and his approach to it. I think the 5 sources I linked above would be a good start to pull some text from. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay. Would you please formulate an exact text version based on those sources and post it here for discussion? That could lead to a consensus version to install in the article. -- Valjean (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Equivocation is not "nuance" and it's certainly not DUE encyclopedic content. We already have well-sourced content regarding his wealth. Ranking based on primary and cherrypicked sources to say "most wealthy" adds nothing to the factual narrative. What do you think is its significance? Do you think we should be comparing 2020 "wealth" with wealth in the 1780's or 1960's? How is that meaningful? It's not properly sourced, the current text utterly fails verification and it's just OR trivia parroting a Trump narrative based on no objective data. We're nowhere near ready for article text drafting. We don't even have valid mainstream WEIGHT sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
SPECIFICO is continuing to make valid arguments. I don't think sources relying on the Forbes list should be used. ––FormalDude talk 16:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added the BBC source. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
That's based on Forbes, which is not a reliable source. Please revert @Mr Ernie. ––FormalDude talk 17:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd already reverted before I saw this, same argument (BBC based on Forbes). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Consensus item #5 says we should use the ranking based on Forbes, stating Trump's net worth is $2.1bil. From that long standing consensus we can use the BBC source which states Trump is the first billionaire president. If editors think Forbes should not be used there needs to be another discussion to change consensus item #5. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of the BBC cite because it's based on Forbes and also outdated (2017). We are using "Donald Trump's net worth evaluation and matching rankings from the Forbes annual list of billionaires" per consensus item 5, and the article has been updated to reflect the 2021 rating ($2.4 billion) although item 5 hasn't been yet. You can't use item 5 as justification for "making him one of the richest politicians in American history and the first billionaire American president." Forbes doesn't say that he's one of the richest politicians, so that part's unsourced. They do say that he is the only billionaire president so maybe the discussion should be about keeping that part in the body or removing it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC) In today's dollars, John F. Kennedy was the first billionaire president. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

If we accept the claim from Forbes that Trump was worth 2+ billion, then it’s certainly no stretch to also accept their point that he was the first billionaire president. I don’t know what you mean by out of date, as he was the first in 2017 so would also still be the first now. JFK was not a billionaire, but I get your point. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

There's clear consensus to omit the richest president bit. Can someone take care of that so we dont keep going around in circles? SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

There is longstanding consensus (many years now) that we accept the Forbes valuation of Trump’s wealth. You are reverting the Forbes information saying it is a deprecated source, despite consensus item #5. This small discussion with a handful of active editors who happen to be watching the page this week probably isn’t enough to overturn that. Perhaps an RFC would be helpful at reassessing wider consensus? Mr Ernie (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Consensus item #5 is not applicable, as Space4Time3Continuum2x explained above. I've reverted the edit. ––FormalDude talk 23:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
For richest politician I would agree. The part we are discussing is billionaire president. If you think this discussion overrules the prior ones and that Trump is not a billionaire then I don’t agree with that. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@Mr Ernie: I'm not saying Trump isn't a billionaire, I'm saying the source does not support that he was the first billionaire President. ––FormalDude talk 01:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I’m sorry to belabor this but I’m just not able to follow you. We seem to agree that consensus point 5 says we accept Trump is a billionaire, per Forbes. I had shared sources, including BBC, which explicitly say Trump is the first billionaire president. You’ve just removed that text from the article for reasons that are not clear to me. Several sources, some based on Forbes, support the first billionaire verbiage. Is it that we can accept Forbes saying Trump is a billionaire, but not just the first billionaire president? I don’t buy that we can pull some text from a source but not the rest. I think an RFC may be helpful to revisit the Forbes topic. We should either use it or we should not. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
No worries, you're following me exactly right. The reason I'm not okay with pulling the text from the Forbes source that says Trump is the "only billionaire President" is because I believe that is disputed among reliable sources. It may be helpful to open a discussion at WP:RS/N. ––FormalDude talk 03:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
That's a good suggestion - I may post something over there in the next days when I have some time, which I'll link to here. I checked the list of perennial sources for the Forbes listing, where it is written "Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles." When SPECIFICO reverted the wording their edit summary said the text was from a "deprecated" source which does not appear to be correct. If I understand the Perennial Source page, it is fine to reference a Forbes top list, in this case, the list in question explicitly says the wording we are discussing here. SPECIFICO could you link to a discussion where consensus determined Forbes should be "deprecated?" Mr Ernie (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Why is it so important to add comparisons like "richest" or "first/only billionaire" to the text which already says that Forbes estimated his net worth to be $2.4 billion in 2021? Comparing today's net worth (in Trump's case based on sketchy information because he wouldn't release his tax returns) to somebody's net worth in 1961 or 1861 doesn't mean much. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
It does all seem a bit puffery.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Washington and Jefferson, on their real estate holdings, were wealthier than Trump. Forbes is hot air, the 20th century print version of clickbait content, and the stock tip blog that claims to have adjusted to current dollars has no expertise in such matters. The Forbes list is deprecated in and for this article. No need to run to RSN for a global decision. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I guess for the same reason we say things like he’s the first president to be impeached twice, it’s interesting encyclopedic content. Nevertheless it’s long standing content that requires consensus to change. Specifico reverted it on improper grounds - Forbes is not deprecated and is explicitly permitted per RSN. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Well I can see at least two differences. 1. He will always be the first president impeached twice, my many not always be the richest. Secondly, his wealth has been contested by multiple RS, so it may not even be true, he was impeached twice.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
We are talking about the “first billionaire president.” I don’t see how that may change. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Except that it's false, for all the reasons you ignore. Unless you have something new to bring to the table, it's clear you are the only one supporting this. Even if the "longstanding" bit were relevant (it's not, because clearly these few words of unsourced BLP content that failed VERIFICATION were overlooked) we all know that "Consensus can change" and current consensus could not be more clear. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Now maybe, but that is not how this was initially framed, it was richest. And as I said, some RS have cast his billionaire status into doubt. As well as the fact that some others may have been by today's reckoning. We can't take side'sSlatersteven (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
First billionaire is nonsense. It has relied on sourcing from a stock tip blog that has no expertise in comparisons of wealth over centuries of history. In this thread it's been agreed that JFK was wealthier than Trump. And that still leaves scores of presidents such as the early founders with their vast estates and others. It's a stupid bit of fabricated trivia, possibly only of significance to Trump himself. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
You removed it because you falsely said the source was deprecated, and others perhaps believed you. If others think it should be out, then I’ll follow consensus but at least be clear about why you removed it. The JFK bit is sourced to stock tip blog, the Trump bit to Forbes. Forbes is not deprecated and we have project wide consensus to use it. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Support removal of the richest president bit. His personal wealth is irrelevant to his tenure as US president (IMHO). Besides, the presidency has a salary of its own. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Assessing consensus

SPECIFICO and FormalDude support removal of "1st billionaire president" because of issues with the Forbes source (SPECIFICO says it is deprecated and FormalDude says it is unreliable), despite it's green status at RSN, Space4Time3Continuum2x has stated they don't particularly care one way or the other, Valjean more or less supported the text with some qualifiers, and Slatersteven prefers to leave the text out. If we disregard the nonexistent issues with Forbes (unless SPECIFICO can link to the discussion where it was deprecated), then I don't see a strong consensus to remove long standing text. Is a RSN discussion necessary to reconfirm Forbes' viability? Mr Ernie (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I think I have said RS contradicts this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC):
I'm meh but prefer to leave out, and Valjean proposed "some say while others say" but wanted to see your proposal for a new version, if I'm not mistaken. Not really a consensus to keep, either. I don't know what the rule or convention is about keeping long standing text when the discussion didn't generate much interest. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Ernie, you are ignoring the reply I gave when you first misrepresented my use of the word "deprecated" to assert that referred to RSP. To repeat, it's been deprecated (you can look up the meaning of that word if its unclear to you. It's not limited to the RSP list on Wikipedia) in the text of this article for the reasons explained in the article text. The Forbes lists are not RS for Trump for the reasons laid out in the article text. I think that is clear enough. The "longstanding consensus" bit is not an argument to ignore the clear current rejection of your position. We don't freeze down unsourced article text for a lone dissent appealing to "longstanding". Let's focus on other issues where constructive improvements can be found. SPECIFICO talk 13:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
That is incorrect. We explicitly accept Forbes as RS to describe Trump's wealth - please closely read the current consensus list entry #5, found here Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus, item [5]. In case you are still not able to locate it, it says Use Donald Trump's net worth evaluation and matching rankings, from the Forbes annual list of billionaires (currently the 2020 edition, $2.1B/1001st/275th), not from monthly or "live" estimates.
Space4Time3Continuum2x, typically the onus is on editors seeking to change long standing consensus to get a new consensus, but in this case I had to ask SPECIFICO to start the discussion. It is up to us to determine if the participation in this discussion is enough to form a new consensus. My reading of the discussion, especially in light of the wrong assertion that Forbes is not valid RS, is that there hasn't been a strong case to change consensus. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
When a fact has been widely reported and is one of the most significant facts about a subject, the constructive approach would be to find a better source. TFD (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@Mr Ernie: I never called the Forbes source unreliable, in fact, I said it was a reliable source. The issue is there is disagreement amongst reliable sources on who was the first billionaire President. See these other reliable sources that don't describe Trump as the first billionaire President:
I would like to see more corroborating sources that Trump was the first billionaire President before adding that to the article, as none of the reliable sources you gave verify that Trump was the first billionaire President, except for this BBC source. ––FormalDude talk 07:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@FormalDude You said Forbes was not a reliable source in this diff. The USA Today and Fox Business sources you linked are pulling from that 24/7 Wall Street source, which is not a reliable source. The AL source says JFK died before he could inherit enough to be a billionaire. Unless someone can link a RS that says someone else was the first billionaire president or a discussion discrediting Forbes, then I'm going to restore the first billionaire president text because it is long standing and reliably sourced. In addition to Forbes and BBC, we also have Business Insider (note there is no consensus either way on the reliability of Business Insider, despite that it is widely cited across the project). Mr Ernie (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
When it's necessary to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find a source that confirms preconceived unsourced content for a BLP, there's little hope the content will ever have VERIFICATION or DUE WEIGHT. I'm puzzled -- wasn't it you who relied on the 24/7 blog you now say is not RS? Anyway. The point is there is no support for this brief bit of purported Trump trivia, the significance of which -- even if true -- has not been established (or even asserted) here. I think this has run out of gas. SPECIFICO talk 14:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed about the gas - since you are unable or unwilling to justify your claim for removal that Forbes is deprecated, I have restored the long standing, reliably sourced, status quo ante text. Thank you for the discussion. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Ernie appears to be unduly fixated on me, when numerous other editors above have explained why his preferred text is not VERIFIED. Ernie, if it makes this easier for you to understand, substitute the word "rejected" for "deprecated" in my comments.
But the fact is that there is clearly no current consensus for "first billionaire president", which Ernie has now reinserted in the article. There is no good BLP-standard source for it, there is no credible adjustment for the value of a dollar throughout history, there has been no argument made as to why this would be significant, even if credible, beyond the other detailed article text about his wealth. This text should not have been reinstated against the consensus in this thread, and it should be removed. SPECIFICO talk 13:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
It’s long standing reliably sourced information. When you first removed it, you said it was unsourced, and then later again removed it by falsely stating Forbes was deprecated. Both of those reasonings were invalid. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Look, it's abundantly clear from this thread alone, that your fellow editors do not consider it well sourced. And it is also, as has been told you repeatedly, UNDUE. It's trivia in a BLP that is unsourced to a RS of the standard we would need for such a sweeping claim. When the claim is also trivial, it's not clear why you would go to such lengths to continue to edit war over it and cram these few words back into the article. It appears to be more of an obsessive insistence on being "right" than on the quality of this article. It should be removed, pending the unlikely event that you find valid sources, establish DUE WEIGHT, and convince your colleagues here of both factors. I' ve aleady addressed your repeated equivocations over my use of the English word "deprecate" to indicate it's been rejected by editors here, not that it is on the RSNP list as "deprecated". It's unclear why you would repeat that many times after it's been explained. SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
If other editors are saying the text is unsourced, they would also be wrong. I've asked you several times to show where editors have rejected Forbes. I just scanned through the archives and found discussions here, here, here, here, and here, for starters. You participated in most of those discussions where Forbes was roundly and overwhelmingly accepted as a RS - that's why we have it conveniently written up there in Consensus Item #5. If you are going to continue to insist that the text is unsourced or that the sources are not reliable, then this discussion is no longer fruitful. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
@Mr Ernie: What is the point of continuing on your argument in this long thread when you are still not addressing the route concern? Nobody is saying that it is unsourced, we are saying that the reliable sources are conflicting on the statement. Another way to say that is that it is not well sourced, because a majority of reliable sources do not all verify the information. As SPECIFICO said, it is undue weight at this point. Simply provide corroborating sources for your claim, or move on please. ––FormalDude talk 00:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@FormalDude - Here is the original removal that kicked off this thread. What does that edit summary say? What is the 5th word in the opening post directly under the heading "Richest president sourcing and content?" Would it be helpful for me to link every diff where someone called it unsourced or could you perhaps ctrl-f this section? Why are you saying Nobody is saying that it is unsourced? Just up a few comments you said I never called the Forbes source unreliable, but does that square with what you said in this diff? I've provided sources for the text, which I'll again link here - BBC, BI, and Forbes. Several other sources, including CNN, have mentioned the billionaire status. Which RS do you have stating Trump is not a the first billionaire president? This text has been in the article for a while now, precisely because it enjoys strong sourcing, so you would need to demonstrate otherwise to justify removal. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Stop digging for semantics and trying to turn the tables. I'm not naive enough to believe you still don't understand the point after I've explained it to you three times. I've already presented reliable sources that do not agree with Forbes, which you dismissed. There is no precedent or consensus to call Trump the first billionaire President, and as that is being challenged on the basis of the sourcing, you must prove a majority of reliable sources verify the claim. You have done no such thing, you have only argued about the Forbes source or articles that cite the Forbes source. But, guess what? Forbes is not the only source in the world that covers Donald Trump–surprisingly, there are others! And they say something different. Now please present your "strong sourcing" or even one corroborating source. ––FormalDude talk 01:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The sources are helpfully linked in the directly preceding comment. Could you for simplicity link your RS again, knowing that the 24/7 source isn’t reliable? Why did you say “nobody said that it was unsourced?” Mr Ernie (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Again, stop with the semantics, I'm not going to participate in tangents irrelevant to the point at hand, nor am I going to repeat myself multiple times.
I know the sources are linked. I clicked on them and read them. That's how I found out that they were all just repetitions of the Forbes source, and not their own corroborations that verified the claim that Trump is the first billionaire President. If you happen to find one that isn't just a reference to the Forbes source, please present it. But I won't respond to any other comments from you that don't include a new source. ––FormalDude talk 02:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I can’t force you to substantiate the things you say but if they aren’t true don’t expect others to believe them after a little checking. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@MelanieN participated in some of the previous wealth discussions and is a trusted voice on this topic. I hate to bother you over this but would you mind adding your input? I feel like we are spinning wheels now. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. But I have not been following this discussion - it was never a subject I felt strongly about - and I don't have time right now to get up to speed. Sorry not to be more help. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

24-hr BRD discussion about this edit

I think my edit should be restored, poor justification was given for the revert. ––FormalDude talk 06:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I edited the one-sentence second paragraph and added two RS. I don’t get the revert's edit summary, either, but I also don't think the section needs expanding. Its contents are sufficient to justify a half-sentence or one-sentence mention in the lead: nine conspiracy theories without the various election fraud claims and at least five different 2021 election fraud claims. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Immigration line for intro

I initially came here to say that the line on the Muslim travel ban (Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus, item 23: 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.) was too long. A lot has happened since the start of Trump's presidency and the intro is massive; the legal history and stated justifications of that one individual policy no longer seem as worth the space. I was going to suggest shortening it and then ask for suggestions on where to put it, but going over the article I think it might make more sense to replace the whole thing with a sentence outlining his overall immigration policy. Immigration has a second-level header and a section of comparable size to Foreign Policy, which gets a three-sentence summary in the intro (see MOS:LEADREL). Other than the ban, it's absent from the intro despite being, in our own words, Trump's "signature issue". Going by the article, it would make sense for such a sentence to mention the border wall, the travel ban, and the family separation policy, which all have their own sizeable dedicated sections. There are lots of other issues you could mention as well but as a very rough suggestion of the basic structure, we could have something like:

Taking a hostile attitude towards immigration, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, diverted funding for a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border, and implemented a policy of family separations for apprehended migrants.

─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

He did not oppose immigration in general. SPECIFICO talk 20:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it's arguable to say that he took "a hostile attitude towards immigration", there's several direct quotes from campaign speeches and the like where he said he has no problem with legal immigration. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
His actions sure indicate a hostile attitude towards immigration. His unprecedented travel ban affected legal migrants and illegal migrants alike. ––FormalDude talk 02:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Please rely on sources and not your opinions. Trump favored immigration of white professionals and others he felt qualified. SPECIFICO talk 13:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
See my extended response at my talk page. TL;DR: Reliable sources say & prove Trump had a hostile stance on immigration policy. ––FormalDude talk 01:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Further discussion between SPECIFICO and FormalDude
He did not oppose immigration by white, highly educated professionals. He favored that kind. SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Trump detested the majority of immigration. Unless you think immigration only applies to white highly educated professionals, you cannot say he did not generally oppose immigration. ––FormalDude talk 02:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Your statement is logically false. SPECIFICO talk 09:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I proved my point on my talk page. I have nothing to add. ––FormalDude talk 19:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I am a vegan. Would you say I generally refuse alimentation? SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
No but I would say you generally refuse meat. ––FormalDude talk 22:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Similarly, Trump opposes immigration of non-white, impoverished, and less educated people and Muslims and people from countries he labeled with a vulgar name. He does not oppose immigration in general. I hope you now see what several editors have been saying. SPECIFICO talk 23:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I suggest you really look into what reliable political analysis shows here: that Trump maintained a consistent pattern of negative framing of immigration in general while in office. I can provide a plethora of reliable sources, but I honestly don't have any confidence you're even considering them. ––FormalDude talk 23:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I am addressing only the logical defect in your argument, which was isomorphic to saying vegans generally reject food and which in both cases is false. SPECIFICO talk 01:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I know what you're saying: Trump only rejects a type of immigration rather than immigration in general, just like vegans only reject a type of food rather than food in general. That would be a fine isomorphism, if its basis was not patently false. Trump rejects nearly all types of immigration, not just illegal. He had the strictest immigration policies of any U.S. Presidential administration in decades. He cut legal immigration in half during his Presidency. Based on the sum of Trump's actions and words, it is completely fair to say he had a "hostile attitude" towards immigration. ––FormalDude talk 02:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
In 2019, Trump rolled out a proposal crafted by Jared and S. Miller that was designed, as the NYTimes reported, to bolster immigrants who look like Norwegians. The plan was to facilitate this "merit-based" immigration. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm only interested in reliable sources that analyze Trump's immigration policies during his Presidency as a whole. If you know of any that show he had a favorable view of immigration in general, please produce them. Every single one I've found says otherwise. ––FormalDude talk 02:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I am amazed you would make another logical error. Nobody's claimed he supported all immigration. This is 8th grade logic stuff. Truth tables, etc. High School geometry proof stuff. SPECIFICO talk 03:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Get a grip, you're using every logical fallacy in the book from bothsidesism to red herrings. If you choose to continue this conversation, I recommend you actually try to convince me of the point at hand, rather than flaunting audacious self-serving witticisms. ––FormalDude talk 04:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - not perfect but more accurately reflects the body. Perfect is the enemy of the good. We have been long due for such an update. starship.paint (exalt) 08:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as it is more informative for the reader. ––FormalDude talk 08:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - This makes sense. To be honest, I'm surprised that the lead lacked a brief synopsis of his immigration policy, which as you say, was his "signature issue". Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    @Symmachus Auxiliarus: - there was no update because proposals to update never achieved consensus. starship.paint (exalt) 12:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose "hostile" is completely unsourced and UNDUE. He was not hostile to legal immigration, perhaps to illegal immigration. It also has other problematic issues. No sources has been presented as why some of this info is DUE at all...  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    I'm fine with dropping that portion and keeping the rest. It sounds like that's not the only portion you take issue with though @Spy-cicle. What other concerns do you have, specifically? ––FormalDude talk 22:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nom; the omission of a comprehensive summary of the large amount of text the body devotes to this is surprising. If there's not consensus for "hostile", another possibility is to just drop "Taking a hostile attitude towards immigration" and say the rest. -sche (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think using hostile would fall under MOS:PEACOCK or MOS:LABEL; hostile comes with certain connotations that aren't appropriate; while I beleive the general sentiment should be expressed, I believe we should choose different words to do it with. BilledMammal (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Conditional support provided the phrase "Taking a hostile stand toward immigration" is removed. The rest of it is accurate and neutral, and we have needed something about his immigration policies in the lead for a long time. One other thing: "diverted funding for a wall" is unclear. Does it mean he divert funds that had been intended for a wall? How about "promised to build a wall.." or "proposed a wall..."? The diverting of funds from military and other sources is minor and unimportant. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Happy to clear up "diverted funding for", I was trying too hard to make it concise. I was initially going to say he "attempted to divert funding towards building a wall", i.e. through the government shutdown and national emergency declaration, which are what the relevant section mostly deals with. However, since he eventually got some money diverted from anti-drug programs, I thought just "diverted" would be easier to get consensus for as a starting point. "promised to build a wall" would work for that as well, albeit by shifting the focus away from his actions. In any case, this seems like a good issue to start a follow-up discussion for once we have a baseline. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with MelanieN's comment.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • If that first clause is to remain, then I'm definitely against it. Saying he's hostile towards immigration in general is not accurate, if you want to say illegal immigration then that's fine, but I'm usually opposed to stating opinions like that especially if they are inflammatory. I do support the final bit though it appears to be a fair. I think we should add "citing security concerns" in regards to the travel ban. I also agree with MelanieN's view on the "diverted funding" part, something else should make that more clear. Other than that it's fine. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose He was against immigration of select groups. He viewed immigration like a hiring decision. If he wouldn't want someone working at Trump Tower, he didn't think they should be let into the country. SPECIFICO talk 03:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: are you opposed to a conditional support similar to me and MelanieN that would remove the first clause? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I think MelanieN's version is good. SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, but only with the phrase Taking a hostile stand toward immigration" included - strenuously oppose any version, compromise, or changes that does not include it, or some comparable language indicating broad anti-immigration sentiment. Sources describe him as broadly anti-immigration or hostile to immigration, eg. [36][37][38]. --Aquillion (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - MelanieN's version. Oppose any version with the phrase Taking a hostile stand toward immigration included. PackMecEng (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per Aquillion's concerns, IOW MUST include phrase based on myriad RS. -- Valjean (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I support adding family separation (one of the signature "achievements" of his administration) and removing security concerns (his purported reason) and legal challenges (seems not that noteworthy four years later): Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries and implemented a policy of family separations for apprehended migrants. Trump didn't oppose all immigration, he wanted more immigrants from countries like Norway and fewer from shithole countries, including asylum seekers - we've covered that with Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist. He attempted to divert $3.8 billion in funds allocated by Congress to the Defense Department's budget for (among other purposes) "buying equipment for National Guard and Reserve units, such as trucks, generators and spare parts, as well as fighter jets and ships." That's neither minor nor unimportant—especially coming from the guy who kept bragging about what he did for "his" military—but it was mostly blocked. The lead is way too long, as it is. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    $3.8 billion, as a pure wad of dough, is nothing to sneeze at. But as mere numbers in a vast government ledger, achoo. All that actual tangible stuff could still have been paid for with another ten-digit number (twelve counting change), transferred or "divested" from some other defense subaccount. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the wording of "implemented a policy of family separations for apprehended migrants" is completely misleading, considering his supposed policy was due to a legality of the Bush and Obama administration, which prevented children from being put in jail with adults, hence they were required to be separated. The zero tolerance policy was implemented on only a few thousand illegal immigrants for a few months, during which hundreds of thousands of other illegal immigrants were deported, making it insignificant for the lead. Additionally, "diverted funding for a wall" implies that he diverted funding for a wall to something else... This sentence fails to mention a single instance of him opposing legal immigration, such as his decreased limit on the number of refugees, and as such the claim "hostile attitude towards immigration" isn't even backed up. Bill Williams (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Both Bush and Obama explicitly decided against and worked to avoid separating families.[1] What is significant is based on coverage in reliable sources. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose because current version is fine as is and this doesn't meet the criteria to include the 'hostile' line for starters. Davefelmer (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kruzel, John (June 19, 2020). "No, Donald Trump's separation of immigrant families was not Barack Obama's policy". PolitiFact.

Assessing consensus

There's clearly no consensus for describing Trump's immigration stance as hostile but the remaining points seem to have broad support with the caveat that the wall wording is made clearer. Accordingly, I've added the following to the article:

Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, diverted funding towards building a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border, and implemented a policy of family separations for apprehended migrants.

─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 00:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree that appears to be the consensus. It's time for a non-involved editor to close this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Modify false and misleading statements sentence in lead

The sentence currently reads Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. I think it should read Trump made an unprecedented amount of false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency. This would flow better and shorten the sentence. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I mean... go ahead. WP:BRD exists for a reason, seems a fairly uncontroversial change. BSMRD (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I believe the current text is on the consensus list. SPECIFICO talk
SPECIFCO is right. WP:BRD is discouraged with consensus items. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it should remain limited to American politics, because professional wrestling, product advertising and Communist totalitarianism boast several famous liars that could make Trump's tall talesmanship look relatively like standard American politics. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
That's certainly a fair assessment. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I was about to change "Communist" to "European", on account of "The Royal Guard" by Sabaton, but I guess you're right, fair enough already. Also didn't mention kabuki. Examples don't need to be exhaustive. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
InedibleHulk is right about that. This is just about American politics. No one is claiming that Trump is the worst liar of all time. There are amusing lying contests for entertainment, but if one were to limit it to the American politics realm, Trump easily wins. -- Valjean (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep as it was/is.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Gina Haspel - Concern about a possible coup

@Soibangla: None of the cited sources quote Haspel or mention that she worried. I don't know which source the direct Haspel quote in your edit summary is from but even if the source was added to the section, I'd still object to mentioning her. Lots of people stated something along those lines. Mentioning her prominently suggests that she was somehow involved in Milley's actions, and I don't see a justification for that take in the sources. Please, self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Cited source: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/14/politics/woodward-book-trump-nuclear/index.html soibangla (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Lots of people stated something along those lines She's the CIA director, a top national security official appointed by Trump, showing that Milley was not alone in his concern. It should remain. soibangla (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
You're right. I had just seen it in the cite for the second sentence in the paragraph. But the same source also says that "top national security officials were worried that Trump might provoke a "conflict domestically or abroad to distract from his crushing election loss" and that "some of Trump's most loyal advisers privately expressed concern". It's just this one source that mentions Haspel's concerns. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

24-BRD violation

InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion, please be advised that this edit of yours, which has been reverted by another editor, violated the 24-hr BRD cycle restrictions imposed on the article—see above warning. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Take it to their talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Lafayette Square photo-op

I removed the paragraph about the IG report. This article is not about the Park Police, so their initial plan for fence installation and park clearance is immaterial, as is the IG report about their actions. After the initial brouhaha upon the release of the IG report on the actions of the Park Police had died down, several sources pointed out that the report wasn’t an exoneration of the actions taken to clear the park immediately before Trump’s walk to the church. According to Barr, "there was no correlation between our tactical plan of moving the perimeter out by one block and the president’s going over to the church."[1] The statements by federal officials indicate that they hadn’t intended to start clearing the park before the curfew at 7 p.m., and that the Secret Service had attacked demonstrators at 6:17, without coordinating with the Park Police who were nominally in charge of the operation and before demonstrators had been given the three mandatory warnings to leave. [2][3]

References

  1. ^ Bump, Philip (June 6, 2020). "Timeline: The clearing of Lafayette Square". The Washington Post/. Retrieved June 6, 2020.
  2. ^ Rupar, Aaron (June 11, 2021). "What the new IG report about the gassing of protesters around Lafayette Square actually says". Vox (website). Retrieved September 19, 2021.
  3. ^ Bump, Philip (June 10, 2021). "The lingering questions about the clearing of Lafayette Square". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 19, 2021.

According to Leonnig/Rucker’s book "I alone can fix it", Esper and Milley arrived at the WH while Trump was giving his speech in the Rose Garden. Esper believed he was going to a meeting. Milley, who was in fatigues because he was planning to be out on the streets with National Guard personnel, believed he had been summoned for an update. Both were then told that they would accompany Trump on a choreographed walk to the church, with Trump spearheading the group, Esper, Milley, and Barr following several paces behind Trump, and the rest of the group behind them (page 168-169). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, what the Park Police did is irrelevant, if we do not say something we do not need a counter point.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
This was a minor incident which doesn't belong in an article about Trump's life.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

"becoming the first U.S. president without prior military or government service."

This is mentioned twice in the lead. Can it be removed the second time? (Found right after mentioning he defeated Hillary Clinton) --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I have removed it. However, I think it made more sense in the second position. I don't think this information belongs in the first paragraph, but we probably need consensus to change this.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
That makes sense, Truth be told, I don't mind if it's in the second position so long as the information isn't duplicated. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The problem then is when you say he's a Republican.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. If you feel it fits better in the second position, feel free to put it there. I certainly won't stop you. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The consensus version was the third paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I overlooked that you, InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion, had added the half-sentence about Trump's lack of military or government service to the first paragraph when I reverted your massive unexplained rewrite. It was removed and restored to its former place by another editor. It's just a minor statistic comparison and does not belong in the first paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is the mention of him "reacting slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic" before "Russia interfered in the 2016 election"?

This part of the lead is confusing. Why is the pandemic, something which began in 2019, mentioned before something that occurred during the 2016 election? --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I think keeping the Russia/impeachment material together is better than interspersing it to force chronological order. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Because it's more significant and involves documented actions by Trump. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for the explanations! Makes more sense now. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Help campaign vs. help election

The way I see it you can help someone's campaign (since it is an organization) but not really help someone's election (since it is an event). Perhaps facilitate would be a better verb if it is important to replace campaign with election? - Tournesol (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree. The phrasing of the sentence was probably based on the first sentence of the subsection ("the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election to favor the election of Trump"). I rephrased it to avoid mentioning the Trump campaign twice, and "of that interference" was redundant IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Perhaps better phrasing would be "interfered in Trump's favour"? Thanks, thorpewilliam (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
That's a possibility (as long as we lose the "u":). Or another version (I went bold), using "to benefit the Trump Campaign", based on the wording in the body and in the Mueller Report? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
The wording as it now stands seems fine to me. Even better if it is what is reflected in the source. Thanks, thorpewilliam (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Historical evaluations of Trump's presidency

I believe that we have reached the point where we can mention in the lede how his presidency is generally ranked by scholars and historians – specifically, that he is considered one of the worst presidents in history. We have done this for every former president; in fact we added rankings to Obama's lede less than a month after his term ended, and the scholarly consensus was far less clear for him than it is for Trump.

Doing so will of course be controversial, but it is exactly how we have treated every other president, and it is backed by ample RS. See our article on the matter, the 2018 APSA survey, the 2018 Siena survey, the 2019 Northwestern CSDD survey (though the scope of that one was more limited), and the 2021 C-SPAN survey.
The consensus among academics on this is wholly unambiguous, and the article should reflect that. Cpotisch (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead section mention that the subject promotes conspiracy theories?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Clear consensus for option A. The arguments to the opposite are essentially claims that this "has already been discussed" or that this is not a notable thing about the subject (plus an obviously humourous alliteration by InedibleHulk). The first of these is a non-argument, and the second (a negative statement) is thoroughly disproved by positive proof (in the form of multiple reliable sources, such as required by NPOV) of the opposite, a position which is endorsed by the majority of contributors and is coherent with usual practice as documented in WP:NPOV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


I'm creating this based on previous discussions here and here. Should the lead section mention that the subject promotes conspiracy theories? ––FormalDude talk 05:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

A: Add verbiage to the lead that Trump promotes conspiracy theories

or

B: Do not add verbiage to the lead that Trump promotes conspiracy theories

Survey (Conspiracy theories)

  • A, Add. Of course. We even have a whole article and category for this because it's a very notable aspect of his disconnection from truth and facts. -- Valjean (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • B - on the basis that I'm not convinced he truly believes such conspiracies. Aside from political gain or wanting attention, I've no knowledge of why he's pushing such theories. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • B - We literally already had this discussion multiple times. The links to the prior surveys all show a vast majority of users rejecting the idea of adding the content to the lead. What’s effectively a third poll now of the same question is effectively redundant. Some people just can’t seem to cope their way into accepting the prior results and appear to be prepared to clutter the page with the same question again and again until they hope to get a positive consensus, which would still be worthless as it wouldn’t override all of the negative consensus before. I question the point of all this again. Davefelmer (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • A. It is not hard to find numerous high quality sources describing this as a key feature of Trump's notability as a public figure. His impact on the world as a promoter of disinformation arguably outweighs all other aspects of his political career put together. Leaving this out would be a disservice to our readers. Generalrelative (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    • To clarify: I'm not in favor of adding this to the opening paragraph (something which there is a clear consensus against anyway, judging from previous discussions). I think the best thing would be to add this as a clause appended to the end of the sentence Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. E.g. "and has promoted conspiracy theories throughout his political career." I see that something similar was suggested by Space4Time3Continuum2x last week. Generalrelative (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • B How many times are we going to go through this discussion? Trump's promotion of conspiracy theories is not a notable feature of it's presidency. Also this RfC should be more clear on what is wanted, like articulate a sentence and say where you want it specifically, and then we discuss. It certainly shouldn't be in the lead sentence, that would be massively WP:UNDUE. There isn't a whole section on his conspiracy theories like there is his business, political, and media career. As for inclusion in the lead body, it's still not appropriate. He really is only well known for promotion of conspiracies involving election fraud and COVID-19, and both of these things are already covered in the lead. Also I'm not sure if these things are labeled "conspiracy theories" enough in RS for us to use that particular diction. Also the lead is supposed to be a quick sum of the article content and the subsection on "conspiracy theories" is very small, as it should be for WP:UNDUE. So it's not warranted to label any conspiracy theory promotion in the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Consensus item 33 specifically states birtherism shouldn't be mentioned in the lead section. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The RfC isn’t about adding birtherism to the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Are you aware of the subsection Donald_Trump#Promotion_of_conspiracy_theories and the split article List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump? It is quite DUE to mention somewhere in the lede section that Trump has promoted conspiracy theories. ––FormalDude talk 04:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of the subsection. I'm also aware of how tiny it is, a whopping 3 sentences. MOS:LEAD wants the lead to be a "brief summary" and summarization of the "most important points". None of Trump's conspiracy theory promotion is very relevant to his presidency or career beyond COVID-19 and the election theories, which are already mentioned in the lead, and giving that much weight to a tiny subsection is undue. Yes there is a crap ton of references about his conspiracy theory promotion, but it's not important to his notability. We already have a long standing consensus on not mentioning birtherism. As for List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump, who cares? It's not really even an article with content, it's a list. There are plenty of lists about Trump, they shouldn't be in the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll work on expanding it for you. ––FormalDude talk 05:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Those "whopping three sentences" cover a lot of ground—nine conspiracy theories in the first paragraph (each one wikilinked to its own page) and five in the last paragraph. Trump may have stopped mentioning the one linking the father of Ted Cruz to the Kennedy assassination but the others are still on his rally playlist. And he’s been mentioning election fraud every time he's opened his mouth in interviews, statements, even when he played commentator at the Belford/Holyfield boxing match. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
MOS:LEAD states the lead material should reflect what is "important to the topic". The lead is already really long and we don't need any material that is not significant to the topic. Most conspiracy theory promotion by Trump is just background noise to his notability and his importance. It never substantially effected his campaign, elections, or policies. It's just trivial information really. You can find plenty sources about it, but what does that say about it's importance? Conspiracy theories are not his claim to fame. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles. It's WP:DUE about Trump as a person (he's done it before, during, and after his presidency) because numerous reliable sources mentioned it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Numerous reliable sources mentioning this does not mean it should be in the lead of a Wikipedia article. Sea Ane (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sea Ane: This article is not the one about his presidency. This is about his life story. Everything. SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I do not agree. This is an encyclopedia article, not about his "life story" or "everything", but about things that need to be in an encyclopedia (important things). Sea Ane (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
You are the one who decided based on his presidency. There is a separate article for that. Much of this article is about things outside his presidency. Please try to be consistent. SPECIFICO talk▪︎
Yes, I agree that much of this article is about things outside his presidency. I also stand by what I wrote that I don't believe that what Trump says about conspiracies needs to be in the lead of Wikipedia article since this is not a notable point about his life. Sea Ane (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • B I oppose adding this to the lead per UNDUE and RECENTISM. I also don't think it's appropriate to expand the sections in the body to somehow give justification for adding it to the lead. Here appears to be the last time this was discussed, less than a year ago, with widespread opposition (only one support) to include in the lead. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • A: This isn't a notable thing about him? In what world? There are tons of reliable sources saying he does this (as listed by FormalDude in the discussion section below) and it's easily in the three or four things he's most known for. Loki (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I also support Generalrelative's language. Loki (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • B, as in Bonkers, Baloney and Bull, also Balderdash, Black Sheep and Bah (two Bags full!). B like a Bludgeoning, Badgering game, wherein Bastards and Bureaucrats answer the same. B is for Bowdlerised polarized Poo, and words rearranged till our faces are Blue. B on all Bunkum, Bad News and Brown, B on this Bewitched "Bipartisan" town! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    B as in Backwater argument? B as in Bickery? B as in Babbling nonsense? B as in Baby can't come up with any real justification? ––FormalDude talk 02:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@FormalDude: please be considerate of WP:CIVIL. Please refrain from personal attacks such as calling an editor a "baby" Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, I have been reading a book expressly dedicated to a young Princess Beatrice, so... InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Please be considerate of warning other editors about WP:CIVIL. It is not to be used for pearl-clutching. ––FormalDude talk 03:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, if anything, it's InedibleHulk that's being uncivil. Being cute and alliterative doesn't protect you from WP:CIVIL. Loki (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
No, but choosing my widdle words wisely does. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Buddy, I've Bitched and Bemoaned this Bother here Before, three Beguiling times (my Bookie she kept score). I wrote Bigger Better Bluster "once or twice" back then, to be Botched, Boxed and reBuried, time and time again. So forgive my Basic Braying, my frank and formal dude, but the Bramble we've Bogged down in Bears Bad Boyish attitude. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • A—due, noteworthy, and well sourced. The section on Trump promoting conspiracy theories may be short but it summarizes or names 16 theories he has pushed, some going back a few decades, and he’s still pushing many of them. We don’t hear as much about it as before, now that Twitter has muzzled him and RS have stopped reporting every utterance. Here are additional RS, all from 2021, to the ones in the article and the ones listed in the below discussion:
'More Dangerous And More Widespread': Conspiracy Theories Spread Faster Than Ever , NPR, March 2, 2021
AP FACT CHECK: Trump stokes Jan. 6 conspiracy theories, AP, July 14, 2021
Examining the conspiracy theories, legal threats and Trump fraud claims in the California recall, LA Times, September 14, 2021
Power Up: Republicans are embracing Trump-enabled conspiracy theories more vigorously than ever, WaPo, May 7, 2021
Donald Trump is now backing a QAnon conspiracy theorist to run Arizona's elections, CNN, September 14, 2021
Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • A We can find a ton of RS discussing this going back years. Again he is as notable for this as anything else.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • A. Coverage is extensive to the point where, today, it makes up a major part of scholarship on his administration; see eg. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] I can go into detail on each of these and find many more if requested; that's just the results of a quick search to demonstrate how broad and sustained the coverage of this aspect of his biography is. Note that while there has been consistent coverage of his extensive use and promotion of conspiracy theories as part of his political persona ever since he used Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories to rebuild his political image following his failed campaign in 2000, coverage increased drastically following his promotion of conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 and the 2020 election, which makes it logical to reconsider whether this is leadworthy now. The fact that his use of conspiracy theories for political purposes remains a WP:SUSTAINED part of his coverage long after he left office also demonstrates that this is a noteworthy part of his personal biography and not just his time in the white house. As a note regarding some of the comments above - several people say it is "not a notable part of his presidency"; that is irrelevant, since this is his personal article. The coverage makes it clear that it is a major part of his overall political persona, which goes beyond just his presidency. Whether he believes the conspiracy theories he promotes is likewise irrelevant. Similarly, "we discussed this before" certainly isn't a valid argument, especially given that substantially more coverage emerged concerning more recent conspiracy theories and given how it is now clear that the coverage is WP:SUSTAINED in a way that has outlasted his presidency. The only other argument I'm seeing against it is... some sort of alliteration? Which is also not a policy-based argument. --Aquillion (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • A Extensively documented for many years in a broad range of RS. His conspiracy narratives are the basis of his current control of the Republican Party. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • A One of the most prominent things the subject is known for. Should be included in the lede. ––FormalDude talk 17:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • B: This is not an important part of who Donald Trump is.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • B We've been over this many times, read the archive if you do not believe me. Yes you can find a handful of articles related to conspiracy theories related to Trump, but you can do so for many other things about Trump because arguely he has been the most written about American in the late 2010s from the news media, so at this point it is just WP:UNDUE but I am not going to reiterate everything said before. It is not fundamental to him or summative presidency just like the fact he is teetotalist or eats a lot of fast food which you can also find many, many articles about.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • We mention those others in the article. But not his yearlong denial of the election outcome? Could you explain the similarity you assert between a man declining alcohol vs. his having incited the bloody Capitol invasion? SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • A, although I think the wording by Generalrelative is the best solution here. –Bangalamania (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • A, with support for Generalrelative's language. I would equally support, in the same location, "and promoted multiple conspiracy theories." A short addition is DUE based on the prominence that in-depth coverage of Trump affords this aspect of his character and is needed as a summary of the article's body. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • A per Valjean, Generalrelative, Literaturegeek, Space4Time3Continuum2x, etc. and thousands of reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • B, although the proposed words are true, because there are other things Wikipedia could but doesn't say about Donald Trump in the lead that are even more important than his promotion of conspiracy theories, for example:
    • his use of social media, especially Twitter: great amount of use, nearly 24/7 use, false statements — and eventual banning therefrom
    • his habit of dishonestly exaggerating the value of his assets in self-promoting journalist communications and when applying for loans, and dishonestly minimizing the value of his assets when distributing to creditors, investors, and family members
    • business practices including hiring undocumented workers in contrast to his anti-immigrant politics and his repeated business practice of cheating small businesspersons and poor treatment of employees
In sum, how can the lead mention conspiracy theories and not Twitter? —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Your argument here is a false dilemma. This is not about what other topics could be mentioned in the lede, and comparing them as if each topic isn't drastically different is not accurate. It sounds like you might want these topics in the lede (if so you should bring them up in a new discussion) because you haven't explained why "Wikipedia could but doesn't say" them. ––FormalDude talk 07:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Social media were Trump's tools to propagate the things we mention in the lead (false, misleading, racist, mysogynistic statements) and also the conspiracy theories whose mention we're discussing right here. The promotion of conspiracy theories by somebody more or less famous, let alone the president of the country, has a greater impact on politics/public discourse than his dishonesty, hypocrisy, and cheating when dealing with family members, creditors, investors, employees, and other businesses which affects a relatively small number of people. Adding any of that to the lead is a different discussion, though, as FormalDude pointed out. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Conspiracy theories)

  • Here's some analysis of mainstream reliable sources. I might add more later.
† Describes Trump only as a promoter of conspiracy theories.
‡ Describes Trump as both a promoter and a believer of conspiracy theories.
  1. "24 outlandish conspiracy theories Donald Trump has floated over the years" Business Insider, 2019.‡
  2. "President Trump loves conspiracy theories. Has he ever been right?" Washington Post, 2019.‡
  3. "Trump accuses Cruz's father of helping JFK's assassin" Politico, 2016.‡
  4. "Trump praises QAnon conspiracists, appreciates support" AP News, 2020.†
  5. "Fact-checking the dangerous bin Laden conspiracy theory that Trump touted" CNN, 2020.‡
  6. "Trump again boosts a baseless conspiracy theory, this one about Jeffrey Epstein" Vox, 2019.†
  7. "Trump ramps up Twitter push on unfounded Scarborough conspiracy theory" The Hill, 2020.†
  8. "Trump praised QAnon during meeting about keeping the Senate" CNN, 2020. †
  9. "Tracking QAnon: how Trump turned conspiracy-theory research upside down" Nature (journal), 2021.‡
  10. "Trump Repeatedly Boosts QAnon On His Way Out The Door" Forbes, 2020.†
––FormalDude talk 05:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The section title doesn't show on the RfC page. Another editor just added the question to the RfC statement, so the problem has been fixed. A and B will work but aren't really necessary now that it's a "yes" or "no" question. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The question of this RfC is rather vague. Responders need to know what exactly is being proposed for inclusion and where it is being proposed for placement within the lead. I'm concerned lack of clarification could lead to another procedural close like the last RfC on this topic, or a result that was never a consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    It is specifically "promotes conspiracy theories." I worded the RfC the way it is to allow for the discussion to possibly come to a consensus of a better equivalent verbiage, or possible expansion on it. It's all the same basic question: should we talk about Trump promoting conspiracy theories, or not? If yes, we can always answer the question of what exactly we want to say when that time comes, by consensus. ––FormalDude talk 06:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems clear enough to me. Previous discussions showed a clear trend towards not labeling Trump a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence but no clear trend for no mention or some other mention. If the consensus is to include his promotion of conspiracy theories—as proposed—in the lead, then IMO the logical place for such a mention would be the third paragraph with his positions, false statements, comments and actions. If someone were to object to the placement, then we'd need another discussion just about that. Adding it to this yea or nay discussion would just result in another "yes (or no) but only with (without) s.th. except on alternate Tuesdays" result. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
That sounds good. -- Valjean (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
With an emerging clear consensus for inclusion in the lead, I agree with Space4Time3Continuum2x that this placement would be most appropriate. I think the sentence could read Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics, and has promoted conspiracy theories. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Lets not get ahead of things. I think we can come up with something better than that. That wording makes the conspiracy talk sound incidental. But sources tell us its his stock in trade. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if it's an honest typo or genuine muddling, but you claim claimed the sources claim Trump promotes and/or believes conspiracy theorists, as if to suggest there's no difference between people (who potentially vote for a politician perceived as pleasing) and certain specific ideas (which do not). There's also no distinction between theories meant to make this politician seem popular and personable, and those merely invoked to poison another participant's polling passibility. Stolen election coverups and mass media misinformation are in another boat from simply implying a competitor like Cruz or the Clintons could be complicit in conspiracies to commit murder, from what I've learned about American attack ads. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hellinger, Daniel C. (September 21, 2018). Introduction: Conspiracy Theory Versus Theorizing Conspiracy. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 1–37. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-98158-1_1. ISBN 978-3-319-98158-1 – via Springer Link.
  2. ^ Fuchs, Christian; Fuchs, Christian (September 6, 2021). Donald Trump and COVID-19 on Twitter. Society Now. Emerald Publishing Limited. pp. 191–262. doi:10.1108/978-1-80117-720-720211011/full/html. ISBN 978-1-80117-720-7 – via Emerald Insight.
  3. ^ Cosentino, Gabriele (March 17, 2020). From Pizzagate to the Great Replacement: The Globalization of Conspiracy Theories. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 59–86. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-43005-4_3. ISBN 978-3-030-43005-4 – via Springer Link.
  4. ^ Lucas, Jennifer C.; Galdieri, Christopher J.; Sisco, Tauna Starbuck (20 November 2017). Conventional Wisdom, Parties, and Broken Barriers in the 2016 Election. Lexington Books. p. 166, 175-178. ISBN 978-1-4985-6662-9 – via Google Books.
  5. ^ Neville-Shepard, Ryan (3 July 2019). "Post-presumption argumentation and the post-truth world: on the conspiracy rhetoric of Donald Trump". Argumentation and Advocacy. 55 (3): 175–193. doi:10.1080/10511431.2019.1603027. ISSN 1051-1431.
  6. ^ Barkun, Michael (4 May 2017). "President Trump and the "Fringe"". Terrorism and Political Violence. 29 (3): 437–443. doi:10.1080/09546553.2017.1313649. ISSN 0954-6553.
  7. ^ Dyrendal, Asbjørn; Robertson, David G.; Asprem, Egil (2 October 2018). Handbook of Conspiracy Theory and Contemporary Religion. BRILL. p. ix. ISBN 978-90-04-38202-2 – via Google Books.
  8. ^ Nacos, Brigitte L.; Shapiro, Robert Y.; Bloch-Elkon, Yaeli (October 2020). "Donald Trump: Aggressive Rhetoric and Political Violence". Perspectives on Terrorism. 14 (5): 2–25. ISSN 2334-3745.
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: thanks I forgot! ––FormalDude talk 17:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Closure

We haven't had a !vote in 6 days and the last discussion comment was like 2 weeks ago. I think it's time for a non-involved editor closure. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I have posted a request for an uninvolved closer at WP:Closure requests. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_139&oldid=1195375162"