edited to add this information, since this is going to be a long clean-up
"Donald Trump, as with any other current political figure, should not be a subject of any trope example on the wiki, except:
- When the work in question specifically mentions the RL individual.
- When the entirety of the example has to do with the portrayal of that individual in the work.
- When the work is fictional.
All three of these must apply.
Alternatively:
- When the RL individual has a creative role themselves, such as writing or acting in a work. In this sense we give them no more nor less treatment then we would any other creator.
Additionally, please make sure to take out any examples of "Funny Aneurysm" Moment, Harsher in Hindsight, or Hilarious in Hindsight regarding these political figures. A political event that may be seen positively by some people may be seen negatively by others.
We're starting with the wicks to Donald Trump (There were 751 of them at the starting point of this count.)
Wicks have already been checked and cleared up to
2/14/17 Inherent in the System
Given the current political climate, talking about Donald Trump on this Wiki is a very sensitive topic and pretty much any comment on him could easily end up violating the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment. I talked it over on Ask a Troper and a moderator gave me permission to start this topic. I feel it will be necessary to make sure any mention of him is safe and avoids politically charged or biased opinions. Right now, we need to stick to facts, not opinions.
Edited by SeptimusHeap on Jul 27th 2020 at 2:06:58 AM
I added the election, and this clean-up, under Why Fandom Can't Have Nice Things, any objections?
Zzzzzzzzzz
Yes. That's doing exactly what we're trying to get rid of. Please remove it.
Actually, that whole TV Tropes section needs a thorough cleaning. I'll add it my do-to list.
edited 12th Mar '17 5:46:07 PM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
Why? Saying that GIFT and TMI problems killed many popular sections of the site is just stating a fact. Or are we going to whitewash every negative thing that ever happened to us now?
Blapper of Water
I'm guessing that the reason is that the entry was basically saying that Trump is the reason for this clean-up thread (and the policy behind it) when in reality it's the fact that we don't trope RL persons and tropers are just so happening to trope this one person disproportionately to other persons. Also, we haven't banned or cut any tropes because of Trump or the controversy behind his election.
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty
Should we look into cutting Harsher/Funny Aneurysm Moments relating to 9/11? We're chopping out all other politically charged entries as well, after all.
Zzzzzzzzzz
No., for two reasons: the first is that 9/11 is not a person, it's a historical occurance and the second is that it's not, itself, controversial or divisive.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
Apologies for my prior addition to Why Fandom Can't Have Nice Things. I realized I should have ran this past you once I added it but it seemed like a perfect example of the phenomenon of this thread as opposed to anything about the election per-se. I don't think I understood the list of what is allowed as well as I though.
Also, Why Fandom Can't Have Nice Things having potential misuse seems funny since it itself could be an example of Why Fandom Can't Have Nice Things.
Back on topic, here are some uses I question if are appropriate:
- YMMV.The Onion:
- "After Obama Victory, Shrieking White-Hot Sphere Of Pure Rage Early GOP Front-Runner For 2016"
became this in light of Donald Trump's 2016 Presidential campaign. The sphere's top pick for a potential running mate is the "Horrible Lurking Fog of Racism", and the announcement that Hillary Clinton is "not ruling out" a 2016 Presidential run causes it to quadruple in size. One of the comments in the YouTube version of the video says it best:
"Fuck, it's even orange..." - "After Obama Victory, Shrieking White-Hot Sphere Of Pure Rage Early GOP Front-Runner For 2016"
- YMMV.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic IDW Issue 46 To 47 (the issue is so politicly heavy and includes a blatant trump expy that it seems impossible not to mention this in some way or form):
- Hilarious in Hindsight: Or Harsher depending on how you see it. These issues were strangely prophetic in how the 2016 U.S. Presidential election would go down (Though please, no discussion about that here).
- There is also several entries for South Park pointing out how the unexpected results of the election meant the planned story resolution had to be canned.
What should be done with those.
Also, after removing all No Real Life tropes from YMMV.Real Life (which came to my attention in part due to bringing up the election), is it even worth keeping said page?
edited 13th Mar '17 12:20:03 AM by Ferot_Dreadnaught
Lost in Space
Putting "why we can't have nice things" examples up with respect to TVT can come across as passive-aggressive complaining about moderation policy.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Zzzzzzzzzz
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
The Onion article ...personally, I think not. It's an edge case, but it doesn't mention Trump specifically and ( I assume it was written in 2012 or around then?) he wasn't even considered a possible candidate at the time. If the date of the article isn't that early, and there's evidence that it was a deliberate, direct reference to Trump, then ...maybe.
The other three? No. None of them are good examples; all are effectively ZCE. are outside of the bounds of the criteria we've established for troping real people.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
About this entry under Orwellian Retcon:
- Poorly attempted by Donald Trump when the crowd for his inauguration turned out to be smaller than Obama's, or indeed the crowd for the Women's March protesting his presidency and the largest protest in U.S history, the very next day. The first press hearing held under his administration had the Press Sec deliver this immortal lie: "This was the largest crowd for any inauguration- period -both in person and around the globe." This caused problems. The next day, when asked to explain what went on to the press, Trump official Kellyanne Conway said that Spicer didn't lie. He offered "alternative facts." This term was promptly pegged as Orwellian, which caused an equally prompt spike in sales for Nineteen Eighty-Four.
- Equally poorly attempted by just Conway a few days later while dealing with the botched rollout of the temporary immigration ban targeted at Muslim nations in particular. In justifying it, Conway invoked the massacre at Bowling Green perpetrated by Iraqi immigrants. It didn't happen.
It was cut, then added back as a Self-Demonstrating Article. I assume we want it to stay cut, so I cut it. Any objections.
edited 14th Mar '17 1:03:31 AM by Ferot_Dreadnaught
Zzzzzzzzzz
Nope. If it's added back again, report it in ATT as editwarring.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
From Fandom Berserk Button:
- Don't order your steak well done, ever. The internet got two common food berserk buttons for the price of one in 2017 with reports the that President Donald Trump ordered a well-done steak and ate it with ketchup.
Keep? Or cut DT part?
Elder statesman
It seems to me that most of the page's non-media examples, including that one, constitute shoehorning because they play so fast and loose with the concept of "fandom".
Bigotry in the name of inclusion is still bigotry.
It fails at least requirement 3 (No Real Life Examples Please), so I'd say Kill It with Fire.
Zzzzzzzzzz
Cut it. It's contrary to NRLEP, ROCEJ and it's not a fandom.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
Like reflections in the glass!
Its cut now
I'm bringing this up in the Real Life section thread now
On-topic I found two entries on CinemaSins. One mentions Trump by name while the other potholes to him, they are:
- When Shrek tells Donkey that he plans to build a ten foot wall around his swamp...
Jeremy: And Mexico will pay for it.
and...
- Many critics of the film say that Kevin James as President of the United States is a terrible casting choice due to its implausibility. Jeremy's thoughts on this?
Jeremy: Well, Donald Trump might be president soon so really this doesn't seem that far fetched at all.
edited 15th Mar '17 7:45:43 PM by MorningStar1337
Lost in Space
Those are in-universe mentions, but the fact that it's on the Funny page means that it's someone giving their opinion on them, which makes them candidates for being cut.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Should I add this to The Hamilton Mixtape? Or would it be a ROCEJ violation? (Note that it doesn't mention Trump, nor any specific individual, but rather focuses on an in-universe condemnation of a general attitude.) I'm bringing it up here only because politically-tinged examples in general seem to be getting the proverbial weed whacker lately.
- Take That!: "Immigrants (We Get the Job Done) is an extended "fuck you" to American anti-immigration sentiment which lampshades the ignorance and hypocrisy of said attitude when American society as we know it would not exist without immigrants and their contributions.
Lost in Space
It's a bit much for the description of the Take That! to itself be a Take That! against the same targets.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
So is that a no? Or should I rewrite it somehow?
Lost in Space
Frankly, I'd leave it off.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Kay, fine.
Zzzzzzzzzz
Cut the last half and it's ok as an example.
- "Take That!: "Immigrants (We Get the Job Done)" is an extended "fuck you" to American anti-immigration sentiment.
edited 16th Mar '17 6:45:39 AM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
That was my thought after reflection. Thanks for the input.
Okay I cut the specified part, but I'm wondering what we should for Acceptable Political Targets as applied to people.