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 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | → | Archive 115 |
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to be able to make changes to the page of President Donald Trump. MrMR143 ( talk) 14:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted two edits by SPECIFICO from 19–20 October that had escaped scrutiny until today. [4] [5] The modified wording implied that the Trump Organization diversified into branding as a reaction to bankruptcies suffered in the 1980s and 1990s. First, I don't know whether there's an established connection, as Trump was keen on slapping his name on other people's businesses long before his casino ventures failed: two of the sources mention an example of that branding fever, with the gold-plated "Trump Cadillac" marketed in 1988. [1] [2] Second, edit summaries said "per sources", and after reading all cited sources, I do not see that they make any link between the bankruptcies and the branded ventures. For reference, I have listed below all the sources cited in the " Branding and licensing" paragraph, [3] [1] [2] [4] [5] [6] and SPECIFICO did not add any new source with those edits. Therefore, the assertion injected into the article and its lead section looks like WP:Synthesis and cannot stand. — JFG talk 10:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
The ventures enable him to hang the Trump logo on towers from India to Panama without chipping in a dime.etc. etc. I think your concern is overstated. The time sequence is known. Yes he branded much of his work whenever possible, but the strategy of branding with only carried interest and no capital required or invested is documented to have developed at the time referenced in both versions. Moreover, the juxtaposition of "expanded beyond NY and "branding & licensing" in the version you restored is SYNTH also untrue. He branded and licensed in New York, e.g. in Riverside South after he gave up most of his ownership in the largest share developed in the 1990's. If there is a source that links branding with "outside NY", I don't see it. SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
I recently removed some unnecessary sources from this section in particular. However, these changes were reverted by another edit so I'm putting this matter to the talk page to discuss which citations can be removed. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 05:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
there are consecutive citations very often, perhaps that's because there are controversial sentences very often.Cutting this stuff is a bad way to reduce file size. Instead, try summary style in a lot of the other sections related to the presidency – that would reduce both citations and the associated prose. ― Mandruss ☎ 06:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
include the citations in your listIt's actually my list (though I can share), so I've added the citations. ― Mandruss ☎ 13:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Trump has made numerous comments and taken certain actions that have been characterized as racially charged or racist, both by those within the U.S. and by those abroad, and in False statements
The statements have been documented by fact-checkers; academics and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politicsstarship .paint ( talk) 14:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Lying in politics is as old as politics itself. There's even a joke about - "How can you tell a politician is lying? His lips are moving." So yes, this statement is correct, but this could honestly be said about almost any politician. Some examples: "Read my lips - no new taxes." "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." "I open every letter and read them all." "The bottom end of the economic ladder receives the biggest percentage [tax] cuts." And a top 10 by the liberal WaPo itself on a man I voted for twice: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/19/obamas-biggest-whoppers/
This statement is dis-genuine and does not properly portray the entire landscape. Grossmisconduct ( talk) 01:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
James Comey had frequent discussions with Trump, and in his first major interview after his firing he described Trump as a serial liar who tells "baffling, unnecessary" falsehoods: [4]
See also Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
WP:NOTFORUM. Pointless bloviating by a user who admits they would be sanctioned if they commented while logged in. ―
Mandruss
☎
22:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
Grossmisconduct - do not even bother. The main source for this claim is the Washington Post, which may as well be the Bible for liberals. You’ll never get it out of the article. Neutral editors have had to fight to keep partisan editors from calling Trump a “liar” in his opening paragraph (yes, really). Recently, an editor has smeared a Jewish Trump advisor as a “white nationalist” with op-eds that do not say he’s a white nationalist. After numerous non-partisan editors correctly objected on BLP grounds, at least two administrators came to the aid of the editors who have no use for BLP. This is the way that this works. So no, let’s not waste any time on such a pointless proposal as removing CNN’s talking points from this article. 174.193.201.169 ( talk) 17:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
|
Not surprisingly, my addition about nicknames was deleted. I used that source on purpose. Do others here feel that we need to mention his 6th grade playground use of terms such as "liddle...", "lying...", and so on? (It seems to be included in our other Trump articles but not here.) Gandydancer ( talk) 21:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
In the introudction, there is a biased opinion, not fact. I suggest that it should be re-phrased. For example, in popular opinion or experts say... and I quote, "Trump has made many false or misleading statements" — Preceding unsigned comment added by H S. Leonard ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Even if OP had not been blocked, the response from
|
Is this going to get mentioned in the biography somewhere? - 332dash ( talk) 04:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
|
User:BullRangifer -I just removed your addition of cite to lead giving definition of “coordination”. It just didn’t fit well as LEAD. The lead here isn’t doing cites, plus the cite was adding content of low details not in the Body of the section. It’s just not good practices to go into details in Lead, nor in this case to further expand this lead. I’m not sure this definition deserves Body space, but maybe try that. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 07:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
In the section, /info/en/?search=Donald_Trump#Political_activities_up_to_2015, it says,
"In 2005, Trump said he had voted for George W. Bush."
It gives a citation to this 2005 Bill O'Reilly interview: https://www.foxnews.com/story/donald-trump-in-the-no-spin-zone
Maybe I missed it, but I don't see where Trump says that in the transcript.
Karl Rove (not that he would know for sure of course) quite confidently said in 2016 that Trump had voted for Kerry, and in an interview with Wolf Blitzer in 2007 or 08, discussing the Democratic candidates (specifically Edwards here), Trump expressed lack of confidence in Edwards due to having been on a ticket that should have beaten Bush.
2601:140:8B80:3EF0:74A0:A323:8AD3:F21E ( talk) 04:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under section Presidency>Foreign Policy>Cuba change “county” to “country”. Szakyl ( talk) 19:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
RFC: What should the LEAD say preceded the impeachment inquiry ?
There's been some discussion over what to say the inquiry followed, specifically whether it should say "whistleblower". So -- please provide your view in the Survey area below: what (if anything) should the lead say preceded the impeachment inquiry ? Also please discuss further in the section below that. Markbassett ( talk) 03:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Examples:
Pinging prior participants in discussions about impeachment inquiry in LEAD from archives 105-108 (apologies if I missed any) User:Aviartm, User:Awilley, User:BullRangifer, User:HaeB, User:JFG, User:Mandruss, User:MarvellingLiked, User:May_His_Shadow_Fall_Upon_You, User:MelanieN, User: Mgasparin, User:Mr_Ernie, User:MrX, User:Oldperson, User:Scjessey, User:SPECIFICO; User:Starship.paint
So I will correct your mistake @ Awilley, BullRangifer, HaeB, JFG, Mandruss, MarvellingLiked, May His Shadow Fall Upon You, MelanieN, Mgasparin, Mr Ernie, MrX, Scjessey, SPECIFICO, and Starship.paint:
As regards the RfC. Please explain,in clear language, your reasoning (justification) behind the change. In other words what is your goal and what do you wish to correct that might be in error? Oldperson ( talk) 19:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. The RfC will also not be publicised through
WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
20:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
{{ping|username}}
to make them work. --
Scjessey (
talk)
09:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I deleted a recently-added paragraph about the Crowdstrike story, on the grounds that it is not part of the Trump administration's foreign policy. Let's not give a platform to junk tweets. Courtesy ping User:ZiplineWhy who added that. — JFG talk 19:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
The too long tag was again added and removed and I’ve put it up for the discussion.
The most recent removal note said “instead of just placing tags, how about you propose ways to shorten the article?” So ... let’s do that.
Obviously consensus#37 alone is not enough ... while a couple folks have been trimming, it seems others add in about as fast. So what approaches would get below #toolong ? (Addendum: WP:TOOLONG)
I’ll offer a couple proposals, others please add more. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 23:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Markbassett and MrX: I noticed that "Racial Views" is currently the longest section here. What do you think of trimming some of that section? Mgasparin ( talk) 02:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't see this as an emergency. I've done some trimming and there's more to be done, per the above suggestions. But its unlikely that newcomers to the article will be sufficiently familiar with the content, the sources, and the sub-articles to do a great job at trimming. So we can all take the timming pledge and get the template off the article. It's just clutter at this point. The article is well-indexed and full of handy links. SPECIFICO talk 23:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the general attitude has to change if any trimming is going to be effective. I did a big trim last month and it was immediately reverted. Small trims with long-winded discussions cannot stop the article growing. Editors need to accept that significant trimming will involve the loss of material that they think is important. Unless editors are willing to accept this, there is no point in talking about trimming. It's like someone who continually resolves to go on a diet, but never lasts a week. It's painful to watch.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Paragraph section, "welcomed and encouraged Russian foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election under the belief that it would be politically advantageous, but", should be removed, as it is not supported by any actual substantiated evidence, nor was it referenced within the Mueller Report. It appears to be an opinion lead in for the next portion of the paragraph which is accurately stated.
What is written in the Mueller Report was that Trump "showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton"; which is substantially different as WikiLeak's is not Russia. The Mueller Report did mention "that the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities"; which should probably be added to the paragraph for accuracy. EWGeary ( talk) 08:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
In this diff, @ JFG: has reinstated substantially the same language that he advocated in this long talkpage discussion last month. JFG's proposed version was rejected in favor of a consensus version among many talk page editors (including @ MelanieN, Bullrangifer, Scjessey, and Starship.paint:). @ MrX: implemented the now-removed consensus in several diffs: [8] [9].
JFG's version repeats the insinuation of the Bidens that was explicitly rejected in the talk page discussion. Also, the link to Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections (words stated by the whistleblower) was explicitly agreed -- again after much discussion. I'm at a loss to understand why this consensus would be reverted to the version similar to a version of JFG's that was rejected during that long discussion.
Then the following diff removed the consensus wording about Trump's withholding of US aid. JFG's edit summary cites false Republican talking points that 1. The aid was just briefly delayed, and 2. Zelensky didn't even know about it. The first point was explicitly rejected in the consensus talk thread linked. The second has been known to be false for over a month, see here
JFG, unless you would like to share what's changed that warrants vacating the recent talk page consensus, please undo your two reversions. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry following a September 2019 report that Trump had abused his presidential power by pressuring the president of Ukraine to undertake actions which would have the effect of helping Trump's 2020 re-election campaign. Among other inducements, Trump ordered congressionally-mandated military aid for Ukraine to be withheld. Witnesses subsequently testified that Trump and his surrogates had been carrying out that pressure campaign for months.
I have restored that consensus version. JFG, I am going to assume good faith, that you just forgot this had been discussed before so you inserted edits you thought were improvements. IMO we should all keep in mind that every word of the lead section has been discussed and parsed and scrutinized extensively, so that ANY change to the lead section should probably be discussed here first. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
... the report centered on several conversations involving President Trump and Ukraine..."[14] - Mr X 🖋 03:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Finally, here is some interesting biographical information about how Trump achieves his trademark orange glow. I'm not quite sure where is should be added. Perhaps in a new section under 'Public profile' called 'Appearance'? [15] [16] [17] [18]
"The "exact shade" of Bronx Colors' orange makeup used by Trump is "BHC06," claimed the Post reporter David Fahrenthold."
— Vox
"The same rule applied to the Bronx Colors-brand face makeup from Switzerland that Trump slathered on — two full containers, one half full — even if it meant the housekeepers had to regularly bring new shirts from the pro shop because of the rust-colored stains on the collars."
— The Washington Post
- Mr X 🖋 02:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah... No. Like really no. Is this a joke? I know you said you were serious, but no one will take you seriously in the future if not. PackMecEng ( talk) 21:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
no one will take you seriously in the future if not, which should have been
I will not take you seriously in the future if not, since you can't possibly know what is in other editors' minds about that. And that's if you feel it's appropriate to personalize the issue on this page with an established editor who has paid his dues. In your place I'd be striking that part of my comment. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
an established editor who has paid his duesshould know better. Frankly stuff like this is an embarrassment. PackMecEng ( talk) 23:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not a crazy idea. He is known (in certain circles) for his complexion. But so are many people in front of cameras all day. If we don't have skin care secrets for rosy actresses, pale supermodels or black presidents, it would be unwise to give this leathery looker the "special treatment". There are things we, as a species, don't want to know. If we have to start learning makeup tips anywhere, it should be at an objectively more beautiful person's article, like Cindy Crawford, Gene Simmons or Mantaur. Consistency is key, X-Man. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Are we just trying to get our usernames into a news article about how the editors at Donald Trump's Wikipedia article are arguing about how to talk about his skin complexion? Onetwothreeip ( talk) 01:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
JzG: RE your revert: It was long-standing content removed by editor InedibleHulk with a cryptic edit summary (who's Oliver Darcy?). It's a prime example of Trump attacking the media–there's method to the "batshit" madness–and it occurred fairly early in his presidency. There was plenty of coverage, in the NYT, WaPo, Forbes, Business Insider, to name just the first few that popped up at the top of the search results. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Similar editorial decisions come up over and over. In my opinion the solution is to find tertiary sources that discuss whatever underlying issues have arisen. In this case, apparently it is POTUS' relations with or statements about journalists and cable TV coverage. It's not the best solution for WP editors to decide among ourselves which examples are most significant. But there should be credible comments from notable observers or respected commentators that can be cited in proportion to their weight. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
attempt to summarize, collect, and consolidate the source materials into an overview? Call me Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Per the discussion here, the succession boxes were removed in 2018 without any discussion. As far as I can tell, this is the only president's article that doesn't have succession boxes. I see no reason to break from precedent, and propose adding them back. Ergo Sum 03:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
First off, yes, Trump's time in wrestling is overshadowed by his time in government. Even by his reign as reality TV king. And yes, pro wrestling is fixed. But his time pretending to hate another famous lying billionaire enough to put his notable hair on the line did draw a legitimately large crowd, both supporters and opposers. The result was a foregone conclusion, but those people were seriously invested in finding out who "won", despite most feeling confident in their prediction of how the conspirators had arranged the finish. It was the highest-grossing one-night fundraiser Linda had ever held, and held that record for a spell. "The Battle of the Billionaires" wasn't the "main event" in a strict booking sense, but it was the "headliner" in mainstream advertising dollars.
For this reason, the McMahons enshrined him in the Hall of Fame ahead of thousands of "more deserving" workers and gave him $6 million to take the arguably more respectable title from fictional African Muslim nemesis, once again only getting cheers because the heel was a plainly greater evil to the sort of people who only bother to vote when lowbrow action megapowers run. In this sense of lasting impact, Trump is both the American President and a more noteworthy professional wrestling manager than Harvey Wippleman or Johnny Polo, both of whom have their WrestleMania results noted, shortly and simply because wrestling fans care who wins predetermined exhibitions of pomp and circumstance.
Regardless of how you feel about wrestling and/or politics, I implore you to look within the logical part of your hearts before telling Lashley he's too fake to appear briefly alongside Trump now that Trump is getting booed at baseball games he barely helped promote. Why should every lesser "sports entertainer" on Wikipedia have key plot developments summarized, but the most electrifying one shouldn't? Because he "won" an election later? Or because he's "racist" and Lashley is "African" and the idea of Trump supporting a black person (either fake morally or real economically) is "undesirable"? Ventura won an election later, Hogan "was racist" later, DiBiase moved on from owning a black man and beating him for escaping to become a damn real Christian minister later; all of their articles relay what went down at SummerSlam, simply because they were involved. Kamala, JYD, Butch Reed...hell, even Virgil. All get reciprocity in the white business partner's relevant career sections. If Lashley's article can mention a guy who stood around ringside and shouted, Trump's should be able to handle revealing how he beat Vince McMahon, including through whom (not just "proxy").
Politically powerful wrestlers have never been exempt from disclosing their PPV records, and I believe we'll need a good reason to continue starting here now. That's all I'm arguing on this. You guys can decide what constitutes a good reason to exclude this very important (to WWE readers) and very short (to all readers) fact about his widely reported hair match. I trust in democracy to do the right thing, and apologize for how long this got. Have a good Monday night! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@ InedibleHulk: TL;DR. My edit summary more than sufficiently provides any conceivable response. -- Scjessey ( talk) 17:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
mentioned in multiple reliable sources.... starship .paint ( talk) 09:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
(which Trump and Bobby Lashley were scripted to win)? Anyway, I thought of an analogy - hope you're familiar with Star Wars. Donald Trump is dropped into the Star Wars universe, playing himself. He doesn't appear in some random book or random animated TV episode. He instead appears in the major Star Wars film Episode VI – Return of the Jedi. Now, before this film, our heroes have often thwarted Emperor Palpatine's schemes, but never fully defeated him. In fact, some heroes like Han Solo or Leia Skywalker are no match for the Emperor at all. Trump is dropped into Episode VI, where he not only defeats, but kills the Emperor, ending the galactic conflict. Obviously, this 'win' is scripted, and Trump did not kill any evil Sith Lord by his own merit. However, Trump being scripted to be put into this leading role is the significant thing itself. It's more than 'Trump appears in Episode VI'. starship .paint ( talk) 14:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
User:InedibleHulk - ‘just follow the sources’ - I think your wording is Ok, sources say win and lose (with scripting understood). Though I’d prefer not to add more length to the article, it is a moment. The alternative phrasing is to say McMahon lost, just saying sources convey the result that way too. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Back on topic, completely erasing 23 and just leaving IV, V and 29 ("Trivial details", 18:10, December 7) is flat wrong and unacceptable. It'd be like Schwarzenegger's article omitting The Terminator. Detailed or not, no Trump WWE section can be remotely serviceable without at least a Wikilink to the obviously biggest part. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
See
WP:NOTFORUM. For information about the U.S. impeachment process, see
Impeachment#United_States. ―
Mandruss
☎
07:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
So now, is he no longer the president? Or is the impeachment just on paper for now? When will he be evicted from the white house? 129.127.32.138 ( talk) 06:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
|
No mention of donation of presidential salary to charity. Why not? Article is heavily biased on all levels. 99.42.89.21 ( talk) 09:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
We would need to establish that there's anything noteworthy about this. Nobody has addressed that test. The amount of money is insignificant to the US Gov't, and insignificant to Trump, There's a wide variation in the amount the US Gov't spends, net of salary, travel, etc. from president to president. There's no source I have seen that explains why this is consequential or significant. If anyone can present a case for its noteworthiness, we can get into some detailed discussion. SPECIFICO talk 22:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." to "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th impeached and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." Thenew wiki Editor 2019 ( talk) 01:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please edit as the subject got impeached a while ago. 2601:6C4:4000:E2D0:754E:C0C0:546D:5A37 ( talk) 02:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Consider changing "third U.S President in American history" to "third President in American history to be impeached ...". MayorCarter ( talk) 02:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change incumbent to former/ex, recently impeached President
change Trump's status to former President 129.205.114.35 ( talk) 05:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Please participate:
BullRangifer ( talk) 20:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello all! Regarding consensus item #6 concerning the lead section — “Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct” — I’ve read through the two linked discussions for/against inclusion: from my reading, it seems the decision tilted against inclusion owing to Wikipedia precedent of including allegations of misconduct only if they’ve impacted significantly on the subject’s career. The argument against inclusion seems to be Donald Trump became the 45th president of the USA despite the allegations, hence… no impact, because the intended outcome of his pursuit was not derailed?
Inarguably though, didn’t the allegations of sexual impropriety considerably impact the conduct of the Trump campaign? Two items regarding these allegations — the National Enquirer’s “Catch-and-Kill” strategy, and Trump’s employment of a lawyer to pay one adult film actor and one other woman for silence — are central to the historically extraordinary way the Trump campaign was conducted. If the allegations required extraordinary and extra-legal countermeasures from Trump’s supporters, from Trump’s campaign staff, and from Donald Trump himself to secure his victory — subsequently leading both to court cases and to convictions (see: Michael Cohen handling the payments to two women) and to the president’s being accused in court documents (as “individual 1” who “was elected president”) of directing and coordinating the commission of said federal campaign finance crimes — isn’t that a central impact on the most notable event of a career?
If impact means “affect,” the allegations had a centrally profound impact on the Trump campaign’s conduct i.e. on the conduct of the briefest but perhaps most noteworthy arc of his career. If “impact” is only narrowly defined to mean “wholly derailed the final outcome,” there may be cause to delete major facts from a substantial many articles’ lead sections: Pres. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s confinement to a wheelchair was hidden from the public, it “impacted” the conduct of his political career… yet it didn’t keep him from becoming the USA’s 32nd president, i.e. it didn’t wholly derail the outcome of his pursuits… so is his childhood illness significant enough to warrant a lead section mention? Or Pres. John F. Kennedy’s many ailments and affairs? They’ve impacted the historical narrative, but did not prevent his presidency. What about his assassination? From the day it occurred it held historical impact, and obviously ended his presidency… but it did not prevent it, so does it warrant lead section mention?
Just a few thoughts, but it seems world-historical details are being excluded from this article’s lead section based on a narrow reading of “impact.” Despite Wikipedia’s “Be bold!” solicitation, I’m disinclined to make the change without first reopening discussion. We should renew dialogue around including charges of Trump’s sexual misconduct, and the presidency-defining events surrounding or following those, with a clearer understanding of what “career-impacting” means.
- 66.167.64.114 ( talk) 06:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you kindly for your replies! The case I’m making is for reopening discussion to include the allegations in this article’s lead section (although then also fully fleshing them out in the campaign article would be good). Rather than restate my case, I would refer anyone new to this dialogue to my first post, above.
As to why it merits prominent mention in this article’s lead section: the presidency is by far the briefest arc in this character’s life so far… but it’s the most important, therefore warranting lead section mention. The manner of this character’s campaign’s conduct, and its headline-garnering aftermath — a maelstrom of investigations into potentially criminal activity, complete with litigation resulting in convictions — is similarly important: it spills into this person’s presidency, and colors his conduct of it. It’s certainly world-historic for a US president to be listed in court documents as having directed and conspired in the commission of crimes by funneling hush money to two women accusing him of sexual impropriety.
Put another way: the Watergate scandal certainly has its own article, and the scandal doesn’t comprise the bulk of what became Pres. Nixon’s (nearly) two-term presidency… but the scandal is certainly linked to from the Richard Nixon article’s lead section — twice — where the scandal is also described plainly as having caused that president’s resignation. The Watergate scandal isn’t siloed to its own article: it is also mentioned in and linked to from the Richard Nixon article’s lead section twice, alongside a brief description of its effect on Nixon’s presidency.
Over the next few days I’ll come up with some phrases for us to mull over. I’m thinking for this article’s lead section probably a single sentence will do it, and as of now something would fit well at or near the end of paragraph 3. I’ll also look at the ancillary article that was suggested for fleshing out. Thanks for your input so far, everyone!
- 66.167.64.114 ( talk) 14:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
it states that Donald J Trump has been impeached when in fact this is inaccurate. Bylaw until the speaker of the house refers the matter to the senate and a judge signs off on the matter the party is not yet impeached. 108.52.23.162 ( talk) 05:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald Trump is currently not impeached until the articles are delivered to the Senate. Until then,the house Democrats only Voted for it and passed it. AmericanPride2020 ( talk) 06:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. Also no specific request made and no reliable sources provided. Also, please see
WP:TRUTH.
EvergreenFir
(talk)
06:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The impeachment inquiry report has been released by the House Intelligence Committee. So, this is where I think we are now, based on this report:
A 2019 House impeachment inquiry found that in the Trump–Ukraine scandal, Trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election to help his re-election bid, and then obstructed the inquiry itself. The inquiry reported that Trump withheld military aid and a White House invitation in order to influence Ukraine to announce investigations into Trump's political rivals.
The inquiry reported Trump conditioning military aid and a head of state meeting on Ukraine's announcements of investigations into Trump's political rivals.(edited per MelanieN's suggestions)
... and looking at the bigger picture, this is where I think we'll eventually end up next year:
In [year], Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives for [charges X, Y, Z]. A 2019 House impeachment inquiry found that in the Trump–Ukraine scandal, Trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election to help his re-election bid, and then obstructed the inquiry itself. Trump was acquitted by the Senate in [year] and completed his term in office.
For the sake of brevity, at the end of this, it would be too much detail to mention investigations, military aid and a White House visit. starship .paint ( talk) 01:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
one of Trump's political rivals- don't forget the DNC (server). starship .paint ( talk) 14:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
When he has been formally impeached, I would like to see that mentioned somewhat more prominently, preferably in the first paragraph, rather than only buried deep down in the fifth paragraph. The latter may have been appropriate as long as we were only dealing with calls for impeachment or preliminary proceedings, but being an impeached president is fundamentally different from simply being president; it means that his legitimacy as president is legally called into question until his trial has concluded. The impeachment is too important for its current obscure, difficult to find place in the lead section. Keep in mind that it is far more common to be president of the United States than to be an impeached president. For instance we could change the first paragraph to "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States, and was impeached on [date]. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality"
. (Certainly the impeachment is of far greater significance than his business or TV career, and ought to be mentioned before that). --
Tataral (
talk)
18:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Just a note: I am reverting out good-faith edits recently done to the bottom of lead per the local convention - for this article, get consensus on lead edits in TALK before any changes
I think just three edits ...
Folks can weigh in whether they're in favor of doing event-by-event edits, but meanwhile I'm reverting back for the general principle, and also note it seems likely Thursday will be the vote for act of impeachment so these edits seem obsolete soon anyway.
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Thanks for the ping. Others seem to have run off putting forth a view that I said “rule” or “requirement”, when careful reading shows I did not. I reverted edits and started discussion with a section titled as a request statement guiding you to what I feel is commonly done. (In the context of it being the current event of the often contentious lead and your perhaps being unfamiliar to this article edit tumult.) But In this case we started beyond that, at ordinary
WP:BRD. I think this might be going to wind up as a separate revert again to cleanly restart talking about that line’s content...but will wait & see as I expect the whole thing is made moot by tomorrow. Cheers
Markbassett (
talk)
01:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
User:IagoQnsi - Thanks for the ping. In this case we obviously started beyond the pre-discussion often done here, and are at
WP:BRD. I think this might go to a separate revert again to cleanly restart talking about that line’s content, but will wait & see as I expect tomorrow events make that line toast anyway. Cheers
Markbassett (
talk)
02:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Proposing we incorporate this conclusion by judge: [24] PunxtawneyPickle ( talk) 04:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This page should probably be updated since this guy has been Impeached. Themesmusic ( talk) 15:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it should also be updated because he was impeached. --Sir Bond 007 (James The Bond 007) ( talk) 15:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Not done This is a campaign ad. O3000 ( talk) 18:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Per Current Consensus #37, I suggest that the section
Donald Trump#Dismissal of James Comey be removed. In the scope of Trump's presidency, it isn't likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy
. Thoughts? --
DannyS712 (
talk)
20:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
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 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | → | Archive 115 |
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to be able to make changes to the page of President Donald Trump. MrMR143 ( talk) 14:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted two edits by SPECIFICO from 19–20 October that had escaped scrutiny until today. [4] [5] The modified wording implied that the Trump Organization diversified into branding as a reaction to bankruptcies suffered in the 1980s and 1990s. First, I don't know whether there's an established connection, as Trump was keen on slapping his name on other people's businesses long before his casino ventures failed: two of the sources mention an example of that branding fever, with the gold-plated "Trump Cadillac" marketed in 1988. [1] [2] Second, edit summaries said "per sources", and after reading all cited sources, I do not see that they make any link between the bankruptcies and the branded ventures. For reference, I have listed below all the sources cited in the " Branding and licensing" paragraph, [3] [1] [2] [4] [5] [6] and SPECIFICO did not add any new source with those edits. Therefore, the assertion injected into the article and its lead section looks like WP:Synthesis and cannot stand. — JFG talk 10:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
The ventures enable him to hang the Trump logo on towers from India to Panama without chipping in a dime.etc. etc. I think your concern is overstated. The time sequence is known. Yes he branded much of his work whenever possible, but the strategy of branding with only carried interest and no capital required or invested is documented to have developed at the time referenced in both versions. Moreover, the juxtaposition of "expanded beyond NY and "branding & licensing" in the version you restored is SYNTH also untrue. He branded and licensed in New York, e.g. in Riverside South after he gave up most of his ownership in the largest share developed in the 1990's. If there is a source that links branding with "outside NY", I don't see it. SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
I recently removed some unnecessary sources from this section in particular. However, these changes were reverted by another edit so I'm putting this matter to the talk page to discuss which citations can be removed. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 05:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
there are consecutive citations very often, perhaps that's because there are controversial sentences very often.Cutting this stuff is a bad way to reduce file size. Instead, try summary style in a lot of the other sections related to the presidency – that would reduce both citations and the associated prose. ― Mandruss ☎ 06:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
include the citations in your listIt's actually my list (though I can share), so I've added the citations. ― Mandruss ☎ 13:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Trump has made numerous comments and taken certain actions that have been characterized as racially charged or racist, both by those within the U.S. and by those abroad, and in False statements
The statements have been documented by fact-checkers; academics and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politicsstarship .paint ( talk) 14:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Lying in politics is as old as politics itself. There's even a joke about - "How can you tell a politician is lying? His lips are moving." So yes, this statement is correct, but this could honestly be said about almost any politician. Some examples: "Read my lips - no new taxes." "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." "I open every letter and read them all." "The bottom end of the economic ladder receives the biggest percentage [tax] cuts." And a top 10 by the liberal WaPo itself on a man I voted for twice: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/19/obamas-biggest-whoppers/
This statement is dis-genuine and does not properly portray the entire landscape. Grossmisconduct ( talk) 01:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
James Comey had frequent discussions with Trump, and in his first major interview after his firing he described Trump as a serial liar who tells "baffling, unnecessary" falsehoods: [4]
See also Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
WP:NOTFORUM. Pointless bloviating by a user who admits they would be sanctioned if they commented while logged in. ―
Mandruss
☎
22:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
Grossmisconduct - do not even bother. The main source for this claim is the Washington Post, which may as well be the Bible for liberals. You’ll never get it out of the article. Neutral editors have had to fight to keep partisan editors from calling Trump a “liar” in his opening paragraph (yes, really). Recently, an editor has smeared a Jewish Trump advisor as a “white nationalist” with op-eds that do not say he’s a white nationalist. After numerous non-partisan editors correctly objected on BLP grounds, at least two administrators came to the aid of the editors who have no use for BLP. This is the way that this works. So no, let’s not waste any time on such a pointless proposal as removing CNN’s talking points from this article. 174.193.201.169 ( talk) 17:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
|
Not surprisingly, my addition about nicknames was deleted. I used that source on purpose. Do others here feel that we need to mention his 6th grade playground use of terms such as "liddle...", "lying...", and so on? (It seems to be included in our other Trump articles but not here.) Gandydancer ( talk) 21:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
In the introudction, there is a biased opinion, not fact. I suggest that it should be re-phrased. For example, in popular opinion or experts say... and I quote, "Trump has made many false or misleading statements" — Preceding unsigned comment added by H S. Leonard ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Even if OP had not been blocked, the response from
|
Is this going to get mentioned in the biography somewhere? - 332dash ( talk) 04:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
|
User:BullRangifer -I just removed your addition of cite to lead giving definition of “coordination”. It just didn’t fit well as LEAD. The lead here isn’t doing cites, plus the cite was adding content of low details not in the Body of the section. It’s just not good practices to go into details in Lead, nor in this case to further expand this lead. I’m not sure this definition deserves Body space, but maybe try that. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 07:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
In the section, /info/en/?search=Donald_Trump#Political_activities_up_to_2015, it says,
"In 2005, Trump said he had voted for George W. Bush."
It gives a citation to this 2005 Bill O'Reilly interview: https://www.foxnews.com/story/donald-trump-in-the-no-spin-zone
Maybe I missed it, but I don't see where Trump says that in the transcript.
Karl Rove (not that he would know for sure of course) quite confidently said in 2016 that Trump had voted for Kerry, and in an interview with Wolf Blitzer in 2007 or 08, discussing the Democratic candidates (specifically Edwards here), Trump expressed lack of confidence in Edwards due to having been on a ticket that should have beaten Bush.
2601:140:8B80:3EF0:74A0:A323:8AD3:F21E ( talk) 04:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under section Presidency>Foreign Policy>Cuba change “county” to “country”. Szakyl ( talk) 19:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
RFC: What should the LEAD say preceded the impeachment inquiry ?
There's been some discussion over what to say the inquiry followed, specifically whether it should say "whistleblower". So -- please provide your view in the Survey area below: what (if anything) should the lead say preceded the impeachment inquiry ? Also please discuss further in the section below that. Markbassett ( talk) 03:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Examples:
Pinging prior participants in discussions about impeachment inquiry in LEAD from archives 105-108 (apologies if I missed any) User:Aviartm, User:Awilley, User:BullRangifer, User:HaeB, User:JFG, User:Mandruss, User:MarvellingLiked, User:May_His_Shadow_Fall_Upon_You, User:MelanieN, User: Mgasparin, User:Mr_Ernie, User:MrX, User:Oldperson, User:Scjessey, User:SPECIFICO; User:Starship.paint
So I will correct your mistake @ Awilley, BullRangifer, HaeB, JFG, Mandruss, MarvellingLiked, May His Shadow Fall Upon You, MelanieN, Mgasparin, Mr Ernie, MrX, Scjessey, SPECIFICO, and Starship.paint:
As regards the RfC. Please explain,in clear language, your reasoning (justification) behind the change. In other words what is your goal and what do you wish to correct that might be in error? Oldperson ( talk) 19:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. The RfC will also not be publicised through
WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
20:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
{{ping|username}}
to make them work. --
Scjessey (
talk)
09:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I deleted a recently-added paragraph about the Crowdstrike story, on the grounds that it is not part of the Trump administration's foreign policy. Let's not give a platform to junk tweets. Courtesy ping User:ZiplineWhy who added that. — JFG talk 19:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
The too long tag was again added and removed and I’ve put it up for the discussion.
The most recent removal note said “instead of just placing tags, how about you propose ways to shorten the article?” So ... let’s do that.
Obviously consensus#37 alone is not enough ... while a couple folks have been trimming, it seems others add in about as fast. So what approaches would get below #toolong ? (Addendum: WP:TOOLONG)
I’ll offer a couple proposals, others please add more. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 23:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Markbassett and MrX: I noticed that "Racial Views" is currently the longest section here. What do you think of trimming some of that section? Mgasparin ( talk) 02:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't see this as an emergency. I've done some trimming and there's more to be done, per the above suggestions. But its unlikely that newcomers to the article will be sufficiently familiar with the content, the sources, and the sub-articles to do a great job at trimming. So we can all take the timming pledge and get the template off the article. It's just clutter at this point. The article is well-indexed and full of handy links. SPECIFICO talk 23:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the general attitude has to change if any trimming is going to be effective. I did a big trim last month and it was immediately reverted. Small trims with long-winded discussions cannot stop the article growing. Editors need to accept that significant trimming will involve the loss of material that they think is important. Unless editors are willing to accept this, there is no point in talking about trimming. It's like someone who continually resolves to go on a diet, but never lasts a week. It's painful to watch.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Paragraph section, "welcomed and encouraged Russian foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election under the belief that it would be politically advantageous, but", should be removed, as it is not supported by any actual substantiated evidence, nor was it referenced within the Mueller Report. It appears to be an opinion lead in for the next portion of the paragraph which is accurately stated.
What is written in the Mueller Report was that Trump "showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton"; which is substantially different as WikiLeak's is not Russia. The Mueller Report did mention "that the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities"; which should probably be added to the paragraph for accuracy. EWGeary ( talk) 08:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
In this diff, @ JFG: has reinstated substantially the same language that he advocated in this long talkpage discussion last month. JFG's proposed version was rejected in favor of a consensus version among many talk page editors (including @ MelanieN, Bullrangifer, Scjessey, and Starship.paint:). @ MrX: implemented the now-removed consensus in several diffs: [8] [9].
JFG's version repeats the insinuation of the Bidens that was explicitly rejected in the talk page discussion. Also, the link to Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections (words stated by the whistleblower) was explicitly agreed -- again after much discussion. I'm at a loss to understand why this consensus would be reverted to the version similar to a version of JFG's that was rejected during that long discussion.
Then the following diff removed the consensus wording about Trump's withholding of US aid. JFG's edit summary cites false Republican talking points that 1. The aid was just briefly delayed, and 2. Zelensky didn't even know about it. The first point was explicitly rejected in the consensus talk thread linked. The second has been known to be false for over a month, see here
JFG, unless you would like to share what's changed that warrants vacating the recent talk page consensus, please undo your two reversions. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry following a September 2019 report that Trump had abused his presidential power by pressuring the president of Ukraine to undertake actions which would have the effect of helping Trump's 2020 re-election campaign. Among other inducements, Trump ordered congressionally-mandated military aid for Ukraine to be withheld. Witnesses subsequently testified that Trump and his surrogates had been carrying out that pressure campaign for months.
I have restored that consensus version. JFG, I am going to assume good faith, that you just forgot this had been discussed before so you inserted edits you thought were improvements. IMO we should all keep in mind that every word of the lead section has been discussed and parsed and scrutinized extensively, so that ANY change to the lead section should probably be discussed here first. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
... the report centered on several conversations involving President Trump and Ukraine..."[14] - Mr X 🖋 03:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Finally, here is some interesting biographical information about how Trump achieves his trademark orange glow. I'm not quite sure where is should be added. Perhaps in a new section under 'Public profile' called 'Appearance'? [15] [16] [17] [18]
"The "exact shade" of Bronx Colors' orange makeup used by Trump is "BHC06," claimed the Post reporter David Fahrenthold."
— Vox
"The same rule applied to the Bronx Colors-brand face makeup from Switzerland that Trump slathered on — two full containers, one half full — even if it meant the housekeepers had to regularly bring new shirts from the pro shop because of the rust-colored stains on the collars."
— The Washington Post
- Mr X 🖋 02:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah... No. Like really no. Is this a joke? I know you said you were serious, but no one will take you seriously in the future if not. PackMecEng ( talk) 21:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
no one will take you seriously in the future if not, which should have been
I will not take you seriously in the future if not, since you can't possibly know what is in other editors' minds about that. And that's if you feel it's appropriate to personalize the issue on this page with an established editor who has paid his dues. In your place I'd be striking that part of my comment. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
an established editor who has paid his duesshould know better. Frankly stuff like this is an embarrassment. PackMecEng ( talk) 23:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not a crazy idea. He is known (in certain circles) for his complexion. But so are many people in front of cameras all day. If we don't have skin care secrets for rosy actresses, pale supermodels or black presidents, it would be unwise to give this leathery looker the "special treatment". There are things we, as a species, don't want to know. If we have to start learning makeup tips anywhere, it should be at an objectively more beautiful person's article, like Cindy Crawford, Gene Simmons or Mantaur. Consistency is key, X-Man. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Are we just trying to get our usernames into a news article about how the editors at Donald Trump's Wikipedia article are arguing about how to talk about his skin complexion? Onetwothreeip ( talk) 01:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
JzG: RE your revert: It was long-standing content removed by editor InedibleHulk with a cryptic edit summary (who's Oliver Darcy?). It's a prime example of Trump attacking the media–there's method to the "batshit" madness–and it occurred fairly early in his presidency. There was plenty of coverage, in the NYT, WaPo, Forbes, Business Insider, to name just the first few that popped up at the top of the search results. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Similar editorial decisions come up over and over. In my opinion the solution is to find tertiary sources that discuss whatever underlying issues have arisen. In this case, apparently it is POTUS' relations with or statements about journalists and cable TV coverage. It's not the best solution for WP editors to decide among ourselves which examples are most significant. But there should be credible comments from notable observers or respected commentators that can be cited in proportion to their weight. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
attempt to summarize, collect, and consolidate the source materials into an overview? Call me Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Per the discussion here, the succession boxes were removed in 2018 without any discussion. As far as I can tell, this is the only president's article that doesn't have succession boxes. I see no reason to break from precedent, and propose adding them back. Ergo Sum 03:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
First off, yes, Trump's time in wrestling is overshadowed by his time in government. Even by his reign as reality TV king. And yes, pro wrestling is fixed. But his time pretending to hate another famous lying billionaire enough to put his notable hair on the line did draw a legitimately large crowd, both supporters and opposers. The result was a foregone conclusion, but those people were seriously invested in finding out who "won", despite most feeling confident in their prediction of how the conspirators had arranged the finish. It was the highest-grossing one-night fundraiser Linda had ever held, and held that record for a spell. "The Battle of the Billionaires" wasn't the "main event" in a strict booking sense, but it was the "headliner" in mainstream advertising dollars.
For this reason, the McMahons enshrined him in the Hall of Fame ahead of thousands of "more deserving" workers and gave him $6 million to take the arguably more respectable title from fictional African Muslim nemesis, once again only getting cheers because the heel was a plainly greater evil to the sort of people who only bother to vote when lowbrow action megapowers run. In this sense of lasting impact, Trump is both the American President and a more noteworthy professional wrestling manager than Harvey Wippleman or Johnny Polo, both of whom have their WrestleMania results noted, shortly and simply because wrestling fans care who wins predetermined exhibitions of pomp and circumstance.
Regardless of how you feel about wrestling and/or politics, I implore you to look within the logical part of your hearts before telling Lashley he's too fake to appear briefly alongside Trump now that Trump is getting booed at baseball games he barely helped promote. Why should every lesser "sports entertainer" on Wikipedia have key plot developments summarized, but the most electrifying one shouldn't? Because he "won" an election later? Or because he's "racist" and Lashley is "African" and the idea of Trump supporting a black person (either fake morally or real economically) is "undesirable"? Ventura won an election later, Hogan "was racist" later, DiBiase moved on from owning a black man and beating him for escaping to become a damn real Christian minister later; all of their articles relay what went down at SummerSlam, simply because they were involved. Kamala, JYD, Butch Reed...hell, even Virgil. All get reciprocity in the white business partner's relevant career sections. If Lashley's article can mention a guy who stood around ringside and shouted, Trump's should be able to handle revealing how he beat Vince McMahon, including through whom (not just "proxy").
Politically powerful wrestlers have never been exempt from disclosing their PPV records, and I believe we'll need a good reason to continue starting here now. That's all I'm arguing on this. You guys can decide what constitutes a good reason to exclude this very important (to WWE readers) and very short (to all readers) fact about his widely reported hair match. I trust in democracy to do the right thing, and apologize for how long this got. Have a good Monday night! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@ InedibleHulk: TL;DR. My edit summary more than sufficiently provides any conceivable response. -- Scjessey ( talk) 17:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
mentioned in multiple reliable sources.... starship .paint ( talk) 09:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
(which Trump and Bobby Lashley were scripted to win)? Anyway, I thought of an analogy - hope you're familiar with Star Wars. Donald Trump is dropped into the Star Wars universe, playing himself. He doesn't appear in some random book or random animated TV episode. He instead appears in the major Star Wars film Episode VI – Return of the Jedi. Now, before this film, our heroes have often thwarted Emperor Palpatine's schemes, but never fully defeated him. In fact, some heroes like Han Solo or Leia Skywalker are no match for the Emperor at all. Trump is dropped into Episode VI, where he not only defeats, but kills the Emperor, ending the galactic conflict. Obviously, this 'win' is scripted, and Trump did not kill any evil Sith Lord by his own merit. However, Trump being scripted to be put into this leading role is the significant thing itself. It's more than 'Trump appears in Episode VI'. starship .paint ( talk) 14:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
User:InedibleHulk - ‘just follow the sources’ - I think your wording is Ok, sources say win and lose (with scripting understood). Though I’d prefer not to add more length to the article, it is a moment. The alternative phrasing is to say McMahon lost, just saying sources convey the result that way too. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Back on topic, completely erasing 23 and just leaving IV, V and 29 ("Trivial details", 18:10, December 7) is flat wrong and unacceptable. It'd be like Schwarzenegger's article omitting The Terminator. Detailed or not, no Trump WWE section can be remotely serviceable without at least a Wikilink to the obviously biggest part. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
See
WP:NOTFORUM. For information about the U.S. impeachment process, see
Impeachment#United_States. ―
Mandruss
☎
07:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
So now, is he no longer the president? Or is the impeachment just on paper for now? When will he be evicted from the white house? 129.127.32.138 ( talk) 06:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
|
No mention of donation of presidential salary to charity. Why not? Article is heavily biased on all levels. 99.42.89.21 ( talk) 09:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
We would need to establish that there's anything noteworthy about this. Nobody has addressed that test. The amount of money is insignificant to the US Gov't, and insignificant to Trump, There's a wide variation in the amount the US Gov't spends, net of salary, travel, etc. from president to president. There's no source I have seen that explains why this is consequential or significant. If anyone can present a case for its noteworthiness, we can get into some detailed discussion. SPECIFICO talk 22:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." to "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th impeached and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." Thenew wiki Editor 2019 ( talk) 01:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please edit as the subject got impeached a while ago. 2601:6C4:4000:E2D0:754E:C0C0:546D:5A37 ( talk) 02:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Consider changing "third U.S President in American history" to "third President in American history to be impeached ...". MayorCarter ( talk) 02:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change incumbent to former/ex, recently impeached President
change Trump's status to former President 129.205.114.35 ( talk) 05:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Please participate:
BullRangifer ( talk) 20:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello all! Regarding consensus item #6 concerning the lead section — “Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct” — I’ve read through the two linked discussions for/against inclusion: from my reading, it seems the decision tilted against inclusion owing to Wikipedia precedent of including allegations of misconduct only if they’ve impacted significantly on the subject’s career. The argument against inclusion seems to be Donald Trump became the 45th president of the USA despite the allegations, hence… no impact, because the intended outcome of his pursuit was not derailed?
Inarguably though, didn’t the allegations of sexual impropriety considerably impact the conduct of the Trump campaign? Two items regarding these allegations — the National Enquirer’s “Catch-and-Kill” strategy, and Trump’s employment of a lawyer to pay one adult film actor and one other woman for silence — are central to the historically extraordinary way the Trump campaign was conducted. If the allegations required extraordinary and extra-legal countermeasures from Trump’s supporters, from Trump’s campaign staff, and from Donald Trump himself to secure his victory — subsequently leading both to court cases and to convictions (see: Michael Cohen handling the payments to two women) and to the president’s being accused in court documents (as “individual 1” who “was elected president”) of directing and coordinating the commission of said federal campaign finance crimes — isn’t that a central impact on the most notable event of a career?
If impact means “affect,” the allegations had a centrally profound impact on the Trump campaign’s conduct i.e. on the conduct of the briefest but perhaps most noteworthy arc of his career. If “impact” is only narrowly defined to mean “wholly derailed the final outcome,” there may be cause to delete major facts from a substantial many articles’ lead sections: Pres. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s confinement to a wheelchair was hidden from the public, it “impacted” the conduct of his political career… yet it didn’t keep him from becoming the USA’s 32nd president, i.e. it didn’t wholly derail the outcome of his pursuits… so is his childhood illness significant enough to warrant a lead section mention? Or Pres. John F. Kennedy’s many ailments and affairs? They’ve impacted the historical narrative, but did not prevent his presidency. What about his assassination? From the day it occurred it held historical impact, and obviously ended his presidency… but it did not prevent it, so does it warrant lead section mention?
Just a few thoughts, but it seems world-historical details are being excluded from this article’s lead section based on a narrow reading of “impact.” Despite Wikipedia’s “Be bold!” solicitation, I’m disinclined to make the change without first reopening discussion. We should renew dialogue around including charges of Trump’s sexual misconduct, and the presidency-defining events surrounding or following those, with a clearer understanding of what “career-impacting” means.
- 66.167.64.114 ( talk) 06:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you kindly for your replies! The case I’m making is for reopening discussion to include the allegations in this article’s lead section (although then also fully fleshing them out in the campaign article would be good). Rather than restate my case, I would refer anyone new to this dialogue to my first post, above.
As to why it merits prominent mention in this article’s lead section: the presidency is by far the briefest arc in this character’s life so far… but it’s the most important, therefore warranting lead section mention. The manner of this character’s campaign’s conduct, and its headline-garnering aftermath — a maelstrom of investigations into potentially criminal activity, complete with litigation resulting in convictions — is similarly important: it spills into this person’s presidency, and colors his conduct of it. It’s certainly world-historic for a US president to be listed in court documents as having directed and conspired in the commission of crimes by funneling hush money to two women accusing him of sexual impropriety.
Put another way: the Watergate scandal certainly has its own article, and the scandal doesn’t comprise the bulk of what became Pres. Nixon’s (nearly) two-term presidency… but the scandal is certainly linked to from the Richard Nixon article’s lead section — twice — where the scandal is also described plainly as having caused that president’s resignation. The Watergate scandal isn’t siloed to its own article: it is also mentioned in and linked to from the Richard Nixon article’s lead section twice, alongside a brief description of its effect on Nixon’s presidency.
Over the next few days I’ll come up with some phrases for us to mull over. I’m thinking for this article’s lead section probably a single sentence will do it, and as of now something would fit well at or near the end of paragraph 3. I’ll also look at the ancillary article that was suggested for fleshing out. Thanks for your input so far, everyone!
- 66.167.64.114 ( talk) 14:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
it states that Donald J Trump has been impeached when in fact this is inaccurate. Bylaw until the speaker of the house refers the matter to the senate and a judge signs off on the matter the party is not yet impeached. 108.52.23.162 ( talk) 05:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald Trump is currently not impeached until the articles are delivered to the Senate. Until then,the house Democrats only Voted for it and passed it. AmericanPride2020 ( talk) 06:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. Also no specific request made and no reliable sources provided. Also, please see
WP:TRUTH.
EvergreenFir
(talk)
06:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The impeachment inquiry report has been released by the House Intelligence Committee. So, this is where I think we are now, based on this report:
A 2019 House impeachment inquiry found that in the Trump–Ukraine scandal, Trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election to help his re-election bid, and then obstructed the inquiry itself. The inquiry reported that Trump withheld military aid and a White House invitation in order to influence Ukraine to announce investigations into Trump's political rivals.
The inquiry reported Trump conditioning military aid and a head of state meeting on Ukraine's announcements of investigations into Trump's political rivals.(edited per MelanieN's suggestions)
... and looking at the bigger picture, this is where I think we'll eventually end up next year:
In [year], Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives for [charges X, Y, Z]. A 2019 House impeachment inquiry found that in the Trump–Ukraine scandal, Trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election to help his re-election bid, and then obstructed the inquiry itself. Trump was acquitted by the Senate in [year] and completed his term in office.
For the sake of brevity, at the end of this, it would be too much detail to mention investigations, military aid and a White House visit. starship .paint ( talk) 01:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
one of Trump's political rivals- don't forget the DNC (server). starship .paint ( talk) 14:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
When he has been formally impeached, I would like to see that mentioned somewhat more prominently, preferably in the first paragraph, rather than only buried deep down in the fifth paragraph. The latter may have been appropriate as long as we were only dealing with calls for impeachment or preliminary proceedings, but being an impeached president is fundamentally different from simply being president; it means that his legitimacy as president is legally called into question until his trial has concluded. The impeachment is too important for its current obscure, difficult to find place in the lead section. Keep in mind that it is far more common to be president of the United States than to be an impeached president. For instance we could change the first paragraph to "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States, and was impeached on [date]. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality"
. (Certainly the impeachment is of far greater significance than his business or TV career, and ought to be mentioned before that). --
Tataral (
talk)
18:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Just a note: I am reverting out good-faith edits recently done to the bottom of lead per the local convention - for this article, get consensus on lead edits in TALK before any changes
I think just three edits ...
Folks can weigh in whether they're in favor of doing event-by-event edits, but meanwhile I'm reverting back for the general principle, and also note it seems likely Thursday will be the vote for act of impeachment so these edits seem obsolete soon anyway.
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Thanks for the ping. Others seem to have run off putting forth a view that I said “rule” or “requirement”, when careful reading shows I did not. I reverted edits and started discussion with a section titled as a request statement guiding you to what I feel is commonly done. (In the context of it being the current event of the often contentious lead and your perhaps being unfamiliar to this article edit tumult.) But In this case we started beyond that, at ordinary
WP:BRD. I think this might be going to wind up as a separate revert again to cleanly restart talking about that line’s content...but will wait & see as I expect the whole thing is made moot by tomorrow. Cheers
Markbassett (
talk)
01:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
User:IagoQnsi - Thanks for the ping. In this case we obviously started beyond the pre-discussion often done here, and are at
WP:BRD. I think this might go to a separate revert again to cleanly restart talking about that line’s content, but will wait & see as I expect tomorrow events make that line toast anyway. Cheers
Markbassett (
talk)
02:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Proposing we incorporate this conclusion by judge: [24] PunxtawneyPickle ( talk) 04:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This page should probably be updated since this guy has been Impeached. Themesmusic ( talk) 15:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it should also be updated because he was impeached. --Sir Bond 007 (James The Bond 007) ( talk) 15:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Not done This is a campaign ad. O3000 ( talk) 18:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Per Current Consensus #37, I suggest that the section
Donald Trump#Dismissal of James Comey be removed. In the scope of Trump's presidency, it isn't likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy
. Thoughts? --
DannyS712 (
talk)
20:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)