Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 156
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 150 | ← | Archive 154 | Archive 155 | Archive 156 | Archive 157 | Archive 158 | → | Archive 160 |
Intro to 2016 presidential campaign
Jerome Frank Disciple, I don't think that we need to say that but meh. The bigger problem in this long article was the additional cite. BTW, except for Obama, the articles on other presidents also don't mention the announcement. The first African-American candidate was historic, golden escalator — not so much. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hey fair enough! If you feel strongly on it, feel free to revert—I won't suggest another intro. For me, I thought it was a little jarring that we heard about Trump deciding to run or speculating about a run in 2000 and 2011/12, but then for 2016 it felt like it just jumped straight into "anyway so trump was in the primary, and ...". And absolutely agree re: Obama/Trump. (Though if he sees this, I expect Trump will commission the world's first gold-plated sculpture of a man riding a golden escalator in order to add to the historicalness.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed with @Space4Time3Continuum2x. I think if we find in a few years that the "golden escalator" has staying power and is still mentioned in RSes despite time passing, then we could revisit this and consider inclusion. But I don't see a lot of evidence that this particular factoid is still relevant/DUE. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Stating that the jury found him not liable for rape
Collapsing as redundant and superseded by the multi-part proposal below. Please participate there! And read this only if you need more background on the discussion/dispute.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
| ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
When I originally added the sentence about the civil trial between Carroll and Trump today, it included that the jury found Trump not liable for rape, which is true and identified by reliable sources. NPR: To respond to the two claims made here. (1) Trump being found not liable for rape is a verifiable fact that is covered by reliable sources (as demonstrated with the sources above). This was part of the verdict in the same way as him being found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. A jury finding someone not liable for something doesn't make something less mentionable in an article. (2) It absolutely is not a NPOV violation to include this clause; in fact, quite the contrary, it is a NPOV and BLP violation to not mention this along side the rest of the verdict by the jury. How could it be considered neutral for us to willfully ignore one part of the verdict and include another? This comes across as POV cherry-picking of facts to make this appear worse for Trump. A neutral article should include both what he was found liable for and what he wasn't found liable for. In the same way, it would violate the NPOV to say Trump was not found liable for rape, but exclude that he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 05:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
It does give undue weight to not put that Trump was not found guilty of rape by the jury. Also, Specifico, to be honest, I highly doubt people read the references these days, so the other part of the story should be mentioned. Though wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news outlet, it should cover the other side of the story. Not wanting to offend. The Capitalist forever (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes we mention it all. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
In light of the BLP concerns raised above, I've re-added the explanation to the article [1] (relevant subsection, which, I should point out, is only four sentences). I believe our WP:NOCON policy suggests that when a BLP concern is raised, the article text should be modified to the "safe" version until the BLP discussion is resolved. (In the event of content that arguably violates BLP, that means exclusion pending discussion, and I think it follows that omission arguably violating BLP yields inclusion pending discussion.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
You're unilaterally deciding that there's no BLP problem, but there's a dispute—other editors, including @Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Anythingyouwant, and DFlhb:, have said it is. And, I'm sorry, what's the argument that including the full verdict creates a BLP problem? Here's the text of what was there—I'm actually a bit fascinated to know how it presents a BLP issue. [Moved below].
The way this is headed, I imagine an RFC is on the horizon, and we should probably notify BLP noticeboard, too, particularly as to the question of what the article should say in the interim. Per WP:NOCON, given that the inclusion of just part of the jury verdict has been called a BLP issue, and you're (apparently?) saying the inclusion of the full verdict is a BLP issue, then we should remove any mention of the jury verdict while the discussion is resolved.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Proposed text (long version)
Original version 1
Original short version
Version before the above "proposed text"Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC) References
Quote from jury finding
Opinions
Obviously an encyclopedia can not be perfectly neutral when thousands of people edit it and hash out their opinions/views on talk pages like these.The Capitalist forever (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Additional discussion
Following the actual verdictThe actual verdict states, as CBS News describes: In the jury's verdict form, in response to the first question, "Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll," the jury said, "no," but it answered "yes" to the next question posed, about whether he had sexually abused her. The jury found that Carroll had been harmed as a result of Trump's actions, and that $2 million would "fairly and adequately" compensate her for those injuries. It also answered "yes" to the question about whether Trump had defamed Carroll and said nearly $3 million should be given to Carroll for damages. starship.paint (exalt) 14:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
The below is a digression given that no one is arguing this info is DUE here.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
This page has really been whitewashed to remove this civil lawsuit which determined that Trump sexually abused her from this page. A single user has removed this entirely, which nobody else on this talk page is suggesting. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
|
Admin state line
Hello! I wanted to bring this up on the talk page before editing, because I assume it'll be controversial.
I'm a little skeptical of this line, in the Dergulation subsection:
Defenders of the administrative state said it exists "to protect those who would otherwise be at the mercy of better-organized, better-funded interests".
The line is cited to a Time magazine op ed, which I have no problem with.
Full disclosure, I'm ... generally ... a fan of a strong executive/admin state (very context dependent), so I'm arguing against my own pov here, but I'm not sure this line should be here unchecked—I think there's an WP:NPOV issue. For full context, here's the full subsection (citations omitted):
In January 2017, Trump signed Executive Order 13771, which directed that, for every new regulation, federal agencies "identify" two existing regulations for elimination, though it did not require elimination. He dismantled many federal regulations on health, labor, and the environment, among other topics. Trump signed 14 Congressional Review Act resolutions repealing federal regulations, including a bill that made it easier for severely mentally ill persons to buy guns. During his first six weeks in office, he delayed, suspended, or reversed ninety federal regulations, often "after requests by the regulated industries". The Institute for Policy Integrity found that 78 percent of Trump's proposals were blocked by courts or did not prevail over litigation.
Defenders of the administrative state said it exists "to protect those who would otherwise be at the mercy of better-organized, better-funded interests".
Here's the problem: everything before that line is just a description of what Trump did. There's not effort at providing the underlying theory behind those actions. So, the subsection is, in effect, "Trump did X. Here's a theoretical critique of X." But there many theoretical critiques of the administrative state—arguments that the administrative state is bloated and unaccountable, etc. (In case anyone needs a source—they're easy to find: Here's one defense of Trump's plan to deconstruct the administrative state by David French.)
I'm not sure if a theoretical discussion is really worth including in the article at all—as a first choice, I'd support just deleting that ultimate sentence, but if we're going to include the theoretical critique, we should probably also include the theoretical justification.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Go ahead and remove it. It is SYNTH, among other things. You don't need permission to remove SYNTH. SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Huh, I would've said a bad weasel word rather than synth, but fair enough! removing now.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Trump claimed that a vaccine was less than a year away
"Trump claimed that a vaccine was less than a year awaya vaccine was less than a year away, although HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials had repeatedly told him that vaccine development would take 12–18 months."
- If this is true, Trump was correct. These are using old sources than may wrongly depict the reality. If it's not true, it also wrongly depicts the reality. Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 02:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have a specific proposal, backed up by some new sources? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- "Trump was correct", in addition to being false in this case, is also an example of his having claimed he would accomplish dozens of feats on which he took no meaningful action. He continues that rhetorical approach to this day. In fact, the proportion of such predicitions that have "come true" is far less than the statistical expectation of successful outcomes for a random variable of relevant distribution. SPECIFICO talk 12:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Here's a source for you, Trump scores a long-awaited coronavirus win with vaccines on the way. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Published 6:50 PM EST, Tue November 17, 2020
. Be better, Bob. Zaathras (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)- I'm not sure I understand your point, but here's another source, December 21, 2020 — Biden receives Covid-19 vaccine, praises Trump's 'Operation Warp Speed'. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- To be fair, your first source also contains the quote
"Donald Trump probably doesn't know the difference between a white cell and a prison cell, but the administration got this right"
which makes it pretty clear that any praise and/or credit is not aimed at Trump, but the administration, and Biden does the same -"I think the administration deserves some credit getting this off the ground with Operation Warp Speed"
- neither credit Trump personally with anything:Trump held out the promise of a vaccine as part of his reelection strategy, but his very public bluster appears to have done very little to influence the actual process
and so on. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)- Trump pushed the effort personally. NYT April 29, 2020 [9], "President Trump is pressing his health officials to pursue a crash development program for a coronavirus vaccine that could be widely distributed by the beginning of next year, despite widespread skepticism that such an effort could succeed and considerable concern about the implications for safety." In an earlier statement by Pfizer April 9, 2020 [10]
- • Potential to supply millions of vaccine doses by the end of 2020 subject to technical success of the development program and approval by regulatory authorities, and then rapidly scale up capacity to produce hundreds of millions of doses in 2021.
- • BioNTech will contribute multiple mRNA vaccine candidates as part of its BNT162 COVID-19 vaccine program, which are expected to enter human testing in April 2020
- Bob K31416 (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Trump pushed the effort personally. NYT April 29, 2020 [9], "President Trump is pressing his health officials to pursue a crash development program for a coronavirus vaccine that could be widely distributed by the beginning of next year, despite widespread skepticism that such an effort could succeed and considerable concern about the implications for safety." In an earlier statement by Pfizer April 9, 2020 [10]
- To be fair, your first source also contains the quote
- I'm not sure I understand your point, but here's another source, December 21, 2020 — Biden receives Covid-19 vaccine, praises Trump's 'Operation Warp Speed'. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
This point has got its response, rebuttal and recognition and is ripe for closure. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- I object. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- At the very least, what the article says is out of context and gives the wrong impression. I don't know how much Trump was behind this but it seems like things that happen because of the executive branch in a presidency are usually mentioned on the president's article.
- Also, I don't know what is meant by "Published 6:50 PM EST, Tue November 17, 2020. Be better, Bob." These sources are from March 2020... a source from November 2020 is clearly better. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 16:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- The sentence is in the section describing Trump and his administration's first response to the pandemic (downplay the seriousness of the pandemic, promote quack remedies), and this is the cited source for the sentence.
“So you’re talking over the next few months, you think you could have a vaccine?” Trump asked during a meeting with top health officials on Monday. "You won’t have a vaccine," corrected Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar after some cross talk. "You’ll have a vaccine to go into testing." "All right, so you’re talking within a year," Trump said moments later. "A year to a year and a half," interjected Anthony Fauci, a government veteran of disease outbreaks under six presidents.
I've just amended our phrasing toa vaccine was a few months to less than a year away
. (Bob, for the umpteenth time, Pfizer/BioNTech were not part of the U.S. "crash program".) Lights, do you have a reliable source that contradicts this description of events? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)- Space4Time3Continuum2x, Although Pfizer didn't accept US government money for R&D, it was a part of Operation Warp Speed[11]. But that wasn't the point of mentioning the April 9 statement of Pfizer in my above message. The point was to give some of the background for Trump's April 29 position on having a vaccine for use by the end of the year. I agree with the opening message point that the article item is misleading. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Quoting from your source: We also do not know exactly what happened behind the scenes at Pfizer, so we can’t definitively pinpoint the extent of any influence the US government had on its development timeline. In addition, it’s worth noting in response to Pence’s tweet that Pfizer’s partner on the coronavirus vaccine, German company BioNTech, received significant funding from the German government – and that Pfizer and BioNTech have purchase agreements with other countries in addition to the US. Still, three experts contacted by CNN said the US federal government likely played a significant role in the progress of the vaccine. (Another expert disagreed.) "Other countries" being the entire EU, for one thing. That's a lot of ifs. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Bob all that has nothing to do with Trump. "Trump's position" is LOL funny. Trump does not have "positions", certainily not on organic chemistry. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Space4Time3Continuum2x, Although Pfizer didn't accept US government money for R&D, it was a part of Operation Warp Speed[11]. But that wasn't the point of mentioning the April 9 statement of Pfizer in my above message. The point was to give some of the background for Trump's April 29 position on having a vaccine for use by the end of the year. I agree with the opening message point that the article item is misleading. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- There's no reason to contradict that because it's true. However saying this in the first sentence without further commentary suggests that Trump was wrong. That was perfectly fine info in spring 2020, but now that we are looking back at the description there should be a less chronological description. See
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/03/21/operation-warp-speed-head-says-trump-administration-responsible-for-90-of-vaccine-rollout/?sh=5b7343ba1848
- https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/operation-warp-speed-trump-pfizer-moderna-vaccine-1.5806820
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/12/14/trump-operation-warp-speed-vaccine/
- —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 18:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- The sentence is in the section describing Trump and his administration's first response to the pandemic (downplay the seriousness of the pandemic, promote quack remedies), and this is the cited source for the sentence.
- "The point" was, we do not use old, outdated news articles. The notion that the former president was responsible for its success, or that it was even much of of a success at all, is debunked to today by more recent analysis, (The crash landing of ‘Operation Warp Speed’), and...well, the former president himself - Trump’s effort to disavow Operation Warp Speed shows how far he’s fallen. Zaathras (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Zaathras Did you link to the wrong article? The page in your link 'The crash landing of ‘Operation Warp Speed' is actually titled 'Operation Warp Speed Head Says Trump Administration Responsible For 90% Of Vaccine Rollout'.
- Also, this sentence is sourced to a page from March 2020, so it IS an old, outdated news article. It would be better to use only sources from 2021-2023 when talking about vaccines. Before then, there was just predictions and speculation by various people, some of which ended up being wrong (for example, whoever said the vaccines would take 12-18 months ended up being wrong). —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- (User:Lights and freedom, You might consider acting on the first response to your opening message re proposal. If not, that's OK. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC))
- Zaathras, The NY Post source that you used for the other link is considered unreliable by Wikipedia. [12] "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication." Bob K31416 (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- "The point" was, we do not use old, outdated news articles. The notion that the former president was responsible for its success, or that it was even much of of a success at all, is debunked to today by more recent analysis, (The crash landing of ‘Operation Warp Speed’), and...well, the former president himself - Trump’s effort to disavow Operation Warp Speed shows how far he’s fallen. Zaathras (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Support inclusion of the 1 year remark - I think from the sources above and a quick lit review, the claim was made, is WP:DUE, and it should be mentioned.Edit 11:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC) I now see what is particularly being argued, and I don't see very good evidence that this remark (that Trump had a good or notable prediction here) is particularly DUE. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)- I'm ... a little confused as to what's being discussed here.
- So the article currently says:
Trump claimed that a vaccine was a few months to less than a year away, although HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials had repeatedly told him that vaccine development would take 12–18 months.
- It cites this March 2020 Politico article, but frankly the better source would be this May 2020 NBC News article, which says:
"Vaccine work is looking VERY promising, before end of year,' Trump tweeted on Thursday.
- But I think the point Bob & Lights are making is that ... the vaccine did emerge within a year—he points to this November 2020 CNN article noting its upcoming rollout.
- As I understand, Bob and Light think it should be noted that Trump was right, while SPECIFICO, Space, and Chaheel are saying that it shouldn't be noted because Trump wasn't responsible for the vaccine being completed in the year. Do I have that right?--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- The reason I'm not a huge fan of the Politico article being cited for the proposition is that the "few months" comment Trump made was ... in the form of a question.
After receiving an answer, Trump followed up, "“So you’re talking over the next few months, you think you could have a vaccine?” Trump asked during a meeting with top health officials on Monday.
All right, so you’re talking within a year.
"- From my perspective, the article's current text is a little weird in light of the fact that the vaccine did come out within a year of Trump's remarks.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- There's no consensus for this. Why are you prolonging this pointless discussion? Trump does not make statements because he thinks they are true or predictive. He speaks out of impulse and self-interest. That has nothing to do with vaccines, etc. This is a dead end. No consensus for this. SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- First, what are you talking about? I didn't propose anything, I recapped the discussion and asked for clarification. "There's no consensus for me to ask for clarification"? Thanks for repeating "There's no consensus for this" twice. By the way, a talk page is where we often try to build consensus.
- In terms of the discussion being "pointless" ... I understand you decided that. But you do not own this page. Both Bob & Light disagreed with your "ripe for closure" remark above, and I'm disagreeing with it, too. As I said, I don't believe the discussion is pointless, because,
[f]rom my perspective, the article's current text is a little weird in light of the fact that the vaccine did come out within a year of Trump's remarks
.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC) - I think if we have no consensus for this, then the line should probably be removed. I would say my overview of the discussion now makes me think it likely should not be included, since it's main purpose is to be a dog whistle, and I don't see very good evidence that this remark is particularly WP:DUE, e.g. that secondary RSes have covered it as a unique or important declaration. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- IIRC, there was a Hungarian woman who spent over a decade working on mRNA vaccines whose research formed the basis for the COVID vaccines. She had a difficult time with funding in the US and had to move to Europe to finish her research. I can’t remember her name as no one talks about her. Frankly, I’m disgusted at any politician of any stripe taking any credit. O3000, Ret. (talk)
- Katalin Karikó, VP of BioNTech, the company whose research wasn't funded through Warp Speed, from 2013 until October 2022, according to her LinkedIn page. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Remove discussion of prediction. I can see the logic that "Trump said it would come out within a year, and the experts told him it would take at least twelve months, BUT THEN IT CAME OUT WITHIN A YEAR" wouldn't add much to the article and, I think, falsely imply some involvement by Trump. But it's also crazy to be like "Trump REPEATEDLY said it would come out within a year, EVEN THOUGH THE EXPERTS TOLD HIM OTHERWISE. (But if you look around Wikipedia enough you'll find that it did, in fact, come out within a year.)" The thing is, these seem to have been relatively off the cuff predictions. What's the significance of him having guessed correctly? Why don't we just remove the line?--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Sold to US Air
Just wanted to flag that, in the discussion of Trump's airline foray, there's a failed verification issue. The line is:
Trump failed to earn a profit with the airline and sold it to USAir.
It's cited to this article: a WaPo fact check. But the WaPo article doesn't mention USAir (or US Airways). It does link to a Daily Beast article, but I actually can't tell if Trump himself sold the airway to USAir based on that article. It says:
By the middle of 1991, it was clear that the situation was not going to improve; Trump had raised $380 million from a syndicate of 22 banks led by Citicorp, putting in just $20 million of his own money. But the airline was just one of a cluster of assets that were at stake; and Trump finally hammered out a deal that gave bankers control of the airline; the climate was turned so sour that no bidders came forward to buy it. US Airways was later tapped to run it and by mid-1992, the plus-size “T” logos on the planes were replaced by more conventional airline livery.
--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- I've rephrased it to, "Trump failed to earn a profit with the airline and it was eventually sold to USAir." which I think is more accurate than the previous wording. I left the failed verification tag pending additional discussion here. Should we also cite the Daily Beast article in combination with the Washington Post one? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- The New York Times describes initial operational takeover deal with with option to buy after 5 years. Airway Magazine' Has more detail from later on: "In 1992, the branding was shifted to US Airways as the latter purchased a 40% stake with branding rights. By 1997, US Airways had purchased the remaining 60% and taken full control of the franchise." WikiVirusC(talk) 14:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- I replaced the WaPo article with the DB article—I thought about just adding the DB article, but since the WaPo article just inherently didn't support any mention of USAir, I figured it would be wrong to include it at the end of the sentence, and putting it in the middle of the sentence would just be unecessary. @WikiVirusC I'm also good with the NYT article, which does say Trump still had control of some of the airline when sold. The Airway Mag version seems even better. Whatever you al think. Thanks for the research!--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Wording change re:Greenberg call
Hello! I saw @SPECIFICO: reverted me here and asked that I get consensus for this change, so I figured best to bring this to the talk page.
I'd like to discuss this sentence in the article
Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, using the pseudonym "John Barron" and claiming to be a Trump Organization official, called him in 1984 to falsely assert that he owned "in excess of ninety percent" of the Trump family's business to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.
I noticed a few things about that sentence: First, having read the source, let's be clear: Greenberg was saying that Trump falsely made a claim to him. The point wasn't what Trump intended to do on the call. As such "Trump called him to falsely assert" is unfortunately ambiguous, and it's probably better stated that Trump called him and falsely asserted the info. Second, the double "to X" in the sentence makes the sentence, in my opinion, a bit awkwardly constructed. As such, I suggested:
Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, using the pseudonym "John Barron" and claiming to be a Trump Organization official, called him in 1984 and, to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans, falsely asserted that he owned "in excess of ninety percent" of the Trump family's business.
Admittedly, I still don't love that wording. A bit more radically, I might say:
In 2018, journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported on a 1984 call he had with Trump, who was using the pseudonym "John Barron" and claiming to be a Trump Organization official. According to Greenberg, Trump falsely asserted that he owned "in excess of ninety percent" of the Trump family's business in order to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.
Any thoughts?--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Wow yeah I find this entire set of content really confusingly worded. Especially the "him" with unclear antecedent. I would personally change it to something like:
As it stands, the current wording is really difficult to parse. I had to read it several times to actually understand what claims are being made. And, as a scientist/physician, I guarantee I regularly read more dense and strange jargon on a daily basis than the average Wikipedia-reader. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, during a phone call with Greeberg in 1984, used the pseudonym "John Barron" and claimed to be a Trump Organization official. Greenberg said Trump used the Barron pseudonym to falsely assert that he (Trump) owned a stake "in excess of ninety percent" of his family's business to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.
- I'm glad I don't need to question my literacy after giving the article text a double take. I'm good with your proposal—certainly prefer it to the status quo, though I wonder if we need the second reference to the pseudonym (and repetition of the word pseudonym). Could we just say, combining your version with my last proposed version, "
Greenberg said that Trump falsely asserted that he (Trump) ....
"? Not super important to me either way; your call.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)- Yeah I was on the fence about it. I think that is a fair change. Oh I see how this can become even more confusing. I was toying around with removing the "he (Trump)" but I think we need it to make clear that Trump wasn't asserting that John Barron owned >90%, but in fact, (as Barron) asserted that Trump did. Okay i think that's fair, to remove the second pseudonym reference and maintain the "he (Trump) owned a stake..." It makes sense, there are no unclear antecedents, and it's relatively concise. Will implement unless significant disagreement arises here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm glad I don't need to question my literacy after giving the article text a double take. I'm good with your proposal—certainly prefer it to the status quo, though I wonder if we need the second reference to the pseudonym (and repetition of the word pseudonym). Could we just say, combining your version with my last proposed version, "
What? Huh? I think I just simplified and clarified that sentence without the use of a stake. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- The current version looks fine to me, but also does have a few overly long sentences. It would be my second choice, but I'm generally open to compromise. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'd also prefer the shorter version, but honestly from my perspective both versions are better than the previous version, so I'm content. :) --Jerome Frank Disciple 19:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The most recent change is not an improvement. Please continue to use this talk thread instead of jumping into the article, where revert rules and other needless complications are forced.
Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported that Trump called him in 1984, introducing himself as the fictitious Trump Organization offical "John Barron". Greenberg said Trump used the Barron pseudonym to falsely assert that he (Trump) owned a stake "in excess of ninety percent" of his family's business to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.
that's better, but there are many similar improvements that could be made. See how it's described on the John Barron page. Also, there's no reason to confine this content only to Greenberg's experience. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Was following Space's lead and being bold :) I personally prefer Space's and Shibbolethink's versions to yours, but we'll see what they think! Just for clarification, this was Space's version:
Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, posing as Trump Organization official "John Barron", called him in 1984 and falsely asserted that Trump owned "in excess of ninety percent" of his father's business to get a higher ranking for himself on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.
- The change I suggested was:
Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, posing as Trump Organization official "John Barron", called him in 1984 and, to get a higher ranking for himself on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans, falsely asserted that Trump owned "in excess of ninety percent" of his father's business.
- I'll revert that change since you objected here and reinsert Space's version, which I think 3 people said they preferred to what was there before.
- I'm not sure what you mean about "confine this content only to Greenberg's experience" ... it's Greenberg ... describing a phone call he had. Not that many other people would have experienced that!--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO@Space4Time3Continuum2x@Shibbolethink ... I actually think the current version is massive improvement over what used to be! Great work all.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello! @SPECIFICO, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Shibbolethink: Below, User:SPECIFICO said (and I replied):
- While this subject is on the table, the John Barron run-on sentence that was repaired by splitting should not have been split again. SPECIFICO talk 14:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I disagree with that edit. (1) It's not a run-on sentence; it's a compound sentence. (2) I think we should connect what Trump purportedly said to Greenberg. As I said yesterday, if we don't have that tie, I'd prefer going back to what was before (the first version put in by Space). Does this have to do with your assertion that we shouldn't
confine this content only to Greenberg's experience
. I asked what you meant by that, above, and you didn't respond. This is, inherently, only Greenberg's experience that we're talking about. Also, we should probably discuss this ... in the section discussing Greenberg, above.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I disagree with that edit. (1) It's not a run-on sentence; it's a compound sentence. (2) I think we should connect what Trump purportedly said to Greenberg. As I said yesterday, if we don't have that tie, I'd prefer going back to what was before (the first version put in by Space). Does this have to do with your assertion that we shouldn't
- While this subject is on the table, the John Barron run-on sentence that was repaired by splitting should not have been split again. SPECIFICO talk 14:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I thought it would make the most sense to move that discussion here.
After reverting SPECIFICO, I did offer a separated version that I'd agree to, if the only contention is that the sentence is too long and should be broken up: [13] Thoughts?--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO has requested I revert. I have reverted to the version last edited by SpaceX. After a few changes to the paragraph, including the separation of the first sentence, I said I'd object to that separation and that I'd prefer the older version to a version with separated text. Nonetheless, as that diff shows, to try to find a compromise, I just combined the first two sentences and left the other changes. SPECIFICO then un-combined the sentences, claiming that doing so was a "copyedit (minor)" [14]. I offered another compromise version, but he has requested I revert. As such, given that my efforts to find a compromise failed, I'm reverting to the last stable version: this, by SpaceX.
- For the record, I think this version of the text would be best:
--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported that Trump called him in 1984, pretending to be a fictional Trump Organization official named "John Barron". Greenberg said that Trump, speaking as "Barron", falsely asserted that he owned more than 90 percent of his father's business to get a higher ranking for himself on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.
- User Gugak has now—I think mistakenly—reverted my self revert to the version of the article with the text I proposed. I've alerted that user that this was probably an error, but I just wanted to alert this talk page, too.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Purported MOS:OP-ED issue?
@Space4Time3Continuum2x ... could you elaborate on this edit? I added "but" to transition from the period in which he was declared eligible to the period in which he was declared not eligible—just as I would say (in theory) "He won the 2016 election, but lost in 2020." How is that editorializing? Did you flag it just because of the word but? "But" doesn't always indicate editorializing. And if you're not okay with "but" there, are you okay with the following uses currently in the article:
Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization.
Trump has called golfing his "primary form of exercise" but usually does not walk the course.
During the 1980s, more than 70 banks had lent Trump $4 billion,[122] but in the aftermath of his corporate bankruptcies of the early 1990s, most major banks declined to lend to him, with only Deutsche Bank still willing to lend money.
--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Another:
In 2000, Trump ran in the California and Michigan primaries for nomination as the Reform Party candidate for the 2000 United States presidential election but withdrew from the race in February 2000.
- --Jerome Frank Disciple 13:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- "But" is one of the words to watch. When you use it to begin a sentence, you’re putting emphasis on it. That’s not the case in the three sentences you cite. The exact wording of the "golfing" sentence is prescribed by consensus item 40. The wording of the N. Korea sentence is based on consensus item 44, and "but" is just a conjunction to connect coordinate elements. I just split the third sentence in two, "declined to lend" followed by "willing to lend" was awkward anyway. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC). Are you planning to cite every single "but" on the page now? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
When you use it to begin a sentence, you’re putting emphasis on it.
Where does MOS:OP-ED say that? But okay, I can abide by your personal "compound sentences are more neutral" rule.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- "But" is one of the words to watch. When you use it to begin a sentence, you’re putting emphasis on it. That’s not the case in the three sentences you cite. The exact wording of the "golfing" sentence is prescribed by consensus item 40. The wording of the N. Korea sentence is based on consensus item 44, and "but" is just a conjunction to connect coordinate elements. I just split the third sentence in two, "declined to lend" followed by "willing to lend" was awkward anyway. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC). Are you planning to cite every single "but" on the page now? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Terrific, putting the emphasis right back in by connecting two independent clauses with "but" and then splitting off the the third independent clause as "overlong". Way to cooperate. As with many writing “rules,” the truth is that beginning with but isn’t about wrong or right; it’s about formality, emphasis, and style.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, because it makes sense to have a transition between the finding of eligibility and the deferment; sorry I wasn't prepared for your rule. Quick follow up on that rule—"words on the flag list shouldn't start sentences"—there are a few issues in the article. For context, the words to watch are
but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while ...
. The article currently says:However, no denuclearization agreement was reached, and talks in October 2019 broke down after one day.
(starts a paragraph!)Despite a campaign promise to eliminate the national debt in eight years, Trump approved large increases in government spending and the 2017 tax cut.
(same)Despite record numbers of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. from mid-June onward and an increasing percentage of positive test results, Trump largely continued to downplay the pandemic, including his false claim in early July 2020 that 99 percent of COVID-19 cases are "totally harmless".
Despite the frequency of Trump's falsehoods, the media rarely referred to them as lies.
Despite "numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign", the report found that the prevailing evidence "did not establish" that Trump campaign members conspired or coordinated with Russian interference.
Though Trump said he would eschew "new foreign deals", the Trump Organization pursued expansions of its operations in Dubai, Scotland, and the Dominican Republic.
Although Trump originally argued that the separations could not be stopped by an executive order, he accceded to intense public objection and signed an executive order on June 20, 2018, mandating that migrant families be detained together unless "there is a concern" doing so would pose a risk to the child.
(starts a paragraph)While Trump has not filed for personal bankruptcy, his over-leveraged hotel and casino businesses in Atlantic City and New York filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection six times between 1991 and 2009.
- If you'd like help, I have some free time today and I can address these. I just want to make sure that's actually what you're advocating for. I recombined the last sentence per your above objection to separating off the 1972 finding.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Terrific, putting the emphasis right back in by connecting two independent clauses with "but"
... wait, what? I'm sorry, now you're saying compound sentences (which, yes, connect two independent clauses with a conjunction) can't use "but", per MOS:OP-ED?--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)- While this subject is on the table, the John Barron run-on sentence that was repaired by splitting should not have been split again. SPECIFICO talk 14:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I disagree with that edit. (1) It's not a run-on sentence; it's a compound sentence. (2) I think we should connect what Trump purportedly said to Greenberg. As I said yesterday, if we don't have that tie, I'd prefer going back to what was before (the first version put in by Space). Does this have to do with your assertion that we shouldn't
confine this content only to Greenberg's experience
. I asked what you meant by that, above, and you didn't respond. This is, inherently, only Greenberg's experience that we're talking about. Also, we should probably discuss this ... in the section discussing Greenberg, above.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I disagree with that edit. (1) It's not a run-on sentence; it's a compound sentence. (2) I think we should connect what Trump purportedly said to Greenberg. As I said yesterday, if we don't have that tie, I'd prefer going back to what was before (the first version put in by Space). Does this have to do with your assertion that we shouldn't
- While this subject is on the table, the John Barron run-on sentence that was repaired by splitting should not have been split again. SPECIFICO talk 14:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- The original version of the military service/eligibility text:
In 1966, he was deemed fit for military service based upon a medical examination, and in July 1968, a local draft board classified him as eligible to serve.[12] In October 1968, he was classified 1-Y, a conditional medical deferment,[13] and in 1972, he was reclassified 4-F due to bone spurs, permanently disqualifying him from service.[14
- After your edit adding "commas, add transition word":
In 1966, he was deemed fit for military service based upon a medical examination, and, in July 1968, a local draft board classified him as eligible to serve.[12] But in October 1968, he was classified 1-Y, a conditional medical deferment,[13] and, in 1972, he was reclassified 4-F due to bone spurs, permanently disqualifying him from service.[14]
- I challenged your edit. You started a discussion on the talk page and, after less than an hour, did a hairsplitting revert because my objection doesn’t count or something and then this grammatical rearrange. So now the text is:
In 1966, he was deemed fit for military service based upon a medical examination, and, in July 1968, a local draft board classified him as eligible to serve,[12] but, in October 1968, he was classified 1-Y, a conditional medical deferment.[13] In 1972, he was reclassified 4-F due to bone spurs, permanently disqualifying him from service.[14]
- Not an improvement IMO. The initial version had two compound sentences consisting of two independent clauses each. Now, we have a compound sentence consisting of three independent clauses because you want the third one to start with "but". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough! If you don't want there to be a transition, take it out. I won't object. Or, if you're okay with a mid sentence transition but not a start-of-sentence transition (which I still think is pretty baseless but it's fine), you could say:
In 1966, he was deemed fit for military service based upon a medical examination, and, in July 1968, a local draft board classified him as eligible to serve.[12] In October 1968, however, he was classified 1-Y, a conditional medical deferment,[13] and, in 1972, he was reclassified 4-F due to bone spurs, permanently disqualifying him from service.[14]
- --Jerome Frank Disciple 16:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Given your interest in copy editing, I respectfully recommend reading Strunk & White. The original was the best. DFlhb (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have! Long time ago. But I'm not sure how Strunk & White relates to the version I just suggested. You have a page cite on you? I still have my copy.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- To be clear: @Space4Time3Continuum2x regardless of whether Strunk & White actually recommends against transitions, as I said in my above comment—feel free to take it back to the original. (@DFlhb do you also mean getting rid of the commas? I think that'd be pretty plainly grammatically incorrect, but hey the principle WP:IAR is also used in grammar :) )--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- "Omit needless words" and "Express coordinate ideas in similar form". It's excessively didactic to point out an contrast which is obvious to all readers. DFlhb (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- By that argument, "but" should almost never be used—certainly not in the examples I put forward above, but alright.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have! Long time ago. But I'm not sure how Strunk & White relates to the version I just suggested. You have a page cite on you? I still have my copy.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Given your interest in copy editing, I respectfully recommend reading Strunk & White. The original was the best. DFlhb (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- The original version of the military service/eligibility text:
Age
I feel like it's worth mentioning that Trump was the oldest elected president until Biden's election in 2020. At age 70 in 2016, Trump surpassed the previous record-holder, Ronald Reagan (age 69 on Election Day 1980). Given how much attention presidential ages have gotten in recent years, both among office holders and candidates, I would think this little factoid deserves an insertion somewhere in the article, to give context to such a hotly debated issue, especially with President Biden's recently announced reelection bid. Age was even brought up as an issue with John McCain (age 72) back in the 2008 election. In both the 2016 and 2020 elections (and likely the 2024 election as well), all major candidates were above age 69, with Hillary Clinton turning 69 only days before the 2016 election, Donald Trump at 70 in 2016 and 74 in 2020 (and 78 in 2024), and Joe Biden at 77 in 2020 (and 81 in 2024). A lot of emphasis is placed on Biden's age and practically none on Trump's when in reality, Trump and Biden are less than 4 years apart! They could've attended the same high school together for goodness sake! In fact, although Biden holds the current record for oldest serving and oldest elected president, if Trump wins in 2024 and serves all four years, he will retake the records on both accounts! Four years to men who've roamed the earth nigh on four score represents about 5% of their life spans! Fair's fair. If one is attacked for his age, so should the other. Perspective, people. Just thought someone could edit it in since the article is locked. Thank you. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- So he was a record holder until someone beat him, unsure we need that. Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Seems a bit trivial here. The article is already excessively long, and adding low-importance information to it at this time seems like a bad use of space. --Jayron32 16:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- "Roamed the earth nigh on four score"
. Grassley has roamed the earth nigh on four score and ten, and Iowans reelected him to a six-year term in the Senate last year. If Trump wins in 2024 — we'll cross that bridge when we get to it (or jump off it). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary to include, as it's not a notable fact and doesn't really say anything about his fitness for office. It was notable, for example, when Kamala was elected vice president, and even more notable when Obama was elected president, because the first black president and the first female and black vice president are relevant to not only why they were elected but the broader context of their post-election policy and the like. Trump's age isn't why he was elected, and isn't really relevant to anything about him. Cessaune [talk] 16:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd exclude this here, and include it in the 2024 campaign article (and the articles on Trump and Biden's respective campaigns), iff age turns into a major issue of the campaign. There's just far too much to say in the main BLPs. DFlhb (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- There are too many inaccuracies in this to give it credibility 2601:340:4201:93A0:BD3E:2FA6:136F:1B77 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is obviously a notable topic. It needs to be somewhere in the article, probably in the "2016 campaign" section. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 16:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- It's not obvious to me, and the source you cited is an opinion piece with some stats on oldest and youngest to take office. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- These are not opinion pieces:
- —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- It's still stats trivia, he's no longer the oldest president-elect to take office, and this is still
low-importance information
thatseems like a bad use of space
, to quote another editor. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- It's still stats trivia, he's no longer the oldest president-elect to take office, and this is still
- This is being edit-warred back into the article, with no resolution of the concern voiced by at least two editors that it is trivia. Somebody needs to remove it pending any consensus to include. WP:ONUS. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- It's not obvious to me, and the source you cited is an opinion piece with some stats on oldest and youngest to take office. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Disagree that it is trivial. It's covered by high quality reliable sources including NPR, CBS, NYT, etc.: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] I have added these sources to the content, and removed the "ronald reagan" part. If someone would like to add that it was later surpassed by Biden's election, I would be fine with including that as well. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Please read and advocate your position according to WP:ONUS. Merely asserting that you are correct will not lead to consensus to include it. And meanwhile, please self-revert. SPECIFICO talk 20:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Please refrain from telling me how to argue my own points. I think I can do that quite well on my own, thanks. I made an argument along WP:RSUW and WP:DUE. I then linked to 8 sources out of many which mention this fact when discussing Trump's election. That my argument is not convincing to you is honestly not very important to me. I will state my reasoning, and if you disagree with it, that is your purview. Consensus will win out, and I will be happy with that consensus if and when it does. At the moment, I'm not sure you do have consensus on your side either. I would personally close this (if I were in a position to do so) as "no con". — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Should there be an RFC for this? And if there is no consensus in the RFC, then it would go back to the way it was originally (which I think is excluding this)? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Personally I think an RFC would be unnecessary. But if others would like to stonewall and exclude these 18 words without any interest in compromise, then yes it may become necessary. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Should there be an RFC for this? And if there is no consensus in the RFC, then it would go back to the way it was originally (which I think is excluding this)? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Please refrain from telling me how to argue my own points. I think I can do that quite well on my own, thanks. I made an argument along WP:RSUW and WP:DUE. I then linked to 8 sources out of many which mention this fact when discussing Trump's election. That my argument is not convincing to you is honestly not very important to me. I will state my reasoning, and if you disagree with it, that is your purview. Consensus will win out, and I will be happy with that consensus if and when it does. At the moment, I'm not sure you do have consensus on your side either. I would personally close this (if I were in a position to do so) as "no con". — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Please read and advocate your position according to WP:ONUS. Merely asserting that you are correct will not lead to consensus to include it. And meanwhile, please self-revert. SPECIFICO talk 20:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I also agree this is not trivial information when covered by so many sources. I support consensus to add this. The Capitalist forever (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
How is this situation handled at the Ronald Reagan page? Concerning when he held the oldest-serving US president record. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- That depends, was it a topic of conversation covered in many multiple independent reliable sources at that time? If it was, then it should be included. If not, then it should be excluded. That's the nature of WP:DUE. I don't consider whether it is "right now" included at that page very relevant, given that the encyclopedia is ever-changing. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I was thinking about how 'age' was brought up, during the 1984 presidential debates, between Reagan & Mondale. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Right, I do think it was a common criticism of Reagan: [23], (so much so that an American Experience PBS documentary covered this exact topic in an hour-long documentary in 2011. And in many news pieces both contemporary and modern: [24][25][26] That is the essence of staying power, that it was still relevant enough for PBS to devote an hour to it 27 years later. So I would overall agree at a glance, that it is DUE for that page and likely DUE here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is not the criterion we use to evaluate NPOV due weight. "At that time" is exactly what we do not use. On the biography of a notable individual we give weight to what is of lasting significance. Reagan's age has had some lasting significance due to his incipient senility while in office. Trump's age is the least of his noteworthy achievements. SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Trump's being the oldest elected at that time has continued to be discussed in multiple independent reliable sources now in 2022/2023. See those linked above: [27][28][29][30] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- There are more and more "old" folks due to the longer lives of boomer and subsequent generations. There will therefore be a succession of oldest presidents now and in the future. It's trivia unrelated to anything essential about the individuals. Biden apparently suffers from spinal stenosis, Trump from baldness. These are common and unremarkable aging effects widely seen in the population. SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- all of the above appears to be your opinion, but it isn't what our highest quality RSes find notable enough to cover. They have repeatedly covered Trump and Biden's age, as a notable subject worthy of newsreader attention. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, reliable sources cover a wide range of views. If in doubt of the importance of a topic that is covered in many reliable sources, it's better to err on the side of inclusion unless it violates WP:PUBLICFIGURE. In general Wikipedia editors are not qualified to decide what subjects are important and which are not if they are covered in reliable sources. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- all of the above appears to be your opinion, but it isn't what our highest quality RSes find notable enough to cover. They have repeatedly covered Trump and Biden's age, as a notable subject worthy of newsreader attention. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- There are more and more "old" folks due to the longer lives of boomer and subsequent generations. There will therefore be a succession of oldest presidents now and in the future. It's trivia unrelated to anything essential about the individuals. Biden apparently suffers from spinal stenosis, Trump from baldness. These are common and unremarkable aging effects widely seen in the population. SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Trump's being the oldest elected at that time has continued to be discussed in multiple independent reliable sources now in 2022/2023. See those linked above: [27][28][29][30] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I was thinking about how 'age' was brought up, during the 1984 presidential debates, between Reagan & Mondale. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
BLP speculation not based on RS. "It has often been claimed..." and then repeating a partisan attack meme is not constructive and will not lead to any article content improvements here. Don't do this. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Re the above hatting, there are multiple RSes which support the statement that 'Trump and Biden have both been accused of senility/old age.': Axios · The Guardian · PsychologyToday · USAToday · The GLP · Newsweek · WaPo · NYT · NBC · Alzheimers UK · Snopes · Dallas News. It isn't a BLP violation to simply state that such accusations have been made. Such statements also do not require MEDRS unless they are asserting the validity of the claims, which no one appears to have done here.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- I see you decided to dive into the cess pool after all. WP is not a newspaper. We don't mention Trump's hair, whatever that shiny stuff on his face is, or his verbal garbling, either, and they have all received plenty of coverage in RS. It's a trivial statistic that may have a place in a shorter article but not in this one. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Re the above hatting, there are multiple RSes which support the statement that 'Trump and Biden have both been accused of senility/old age.': Axios · The Guardian · PsychologyToday · USAToday · The GLP · Newsweek · WaPo · NYT · NBC · Alzheimers UK · Snopes · Dallas News. It isn't a BLP violation to simply state that such accusations have been made. Such statements also do not require MEDRS unless they are asserting the validity of the claims, which no one appears to have done here.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the effects of age are discussed by reliable sources:
- This has been discussed by reliable sources: [31] [32] for example. This is a place for discussing how to make the article accurate, not a place for removing people's comments. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree this is trivial. Given the general increase in longevity in the USA, it is inevitable that successive presidents will more or less tend to be the oldest. This article should not be a baseball card with statistics about age and firsts.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)