![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
@ Snooganssnoogans: You have been trimming this article subjectively this month, removing events and aspects of his domestic policy. However, you reverted my explained attempt to do the same. I believed I removed trivial aspects of his foreign policy in my edit. Let's break this down
So what? Did he end up supporting these countries in the end? Not necessarily. Trump just complained about funding for Egypt in the recent covid stimulus bill. Trump has not interfered in Hungary or Poland's struggle with the EU over the Rule of Law provisions this year. Trump started a trade war with China! Trump used to strongly criticize Saudi Arabia ( see his statements as a candidate).
Trump did not just praise Strongmen, but also democratically elected liberal leaders such as Trudeau and Macron. There is also a plethora of Strongmen Trump did not praise, notably Nicolas Maduro. And what is a strongman anyway? Why is Guisseppe Conte of Italy on the list, he is not a strongman at all!? Why is Boris Johnson not on the list, Trump praised him repeatedly and Boris is sometimes described as "Britain's Trump".
So what, he didn't do it, and didn't say it publicly. This is stuff for Foreign policy of Donald Trump (2015–16).
This one is out of place. In it's position in the article, we are to believe that this is in relation to his praise of the Polish President and support for his domestic "homophobic, anti-immigrant" agenda. However, This article leaves out that this is in the context of Nato troops stationed in Eastern Europe to counter Russia, and that there was already 4000 US troops in Poland before Trump's inauguration.
This one is just POV outside of context. At this point in the article, the reader has not been explained the details of the withdrawal of the Iran nuclear deal or the details of the negotiations with North Korea. However, they are now told that the "intelligence community" (very unspecific) assessed that Trump is wrong on this subject. Should just be removed but could also have been pushed further down in the section, at the end.
This is not Trump's foreign policy. This is a congressional reaction to a previously undiscussed foreign policy move. How many troops were there before? How many troops does Trump want to withdraw? How many will stay? Why are they there? Why does he want to withdraw them? Why are the other Republicans opposed? I feel that the war in Afghanistan indeed needs a full paragraph in this article. However, this sentence says very little about it, and if it should be included, it should be along with that paragraph, and not on its own.
We can agree or disagree about the notability of each of these statements, but please assess them separately, in relation to their position in the article, and keeping in mind that the same statements may exist in other Trump-related articles. Mottezen ( talk) 20:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The open admiration of every other authoritarian at the same time that he criticizes democratic allies. This is conjecture and synthesis. Trump has praised and criticised leaders of both democratic and authoritarian governments.
His opposition to NATO membership.This is far more nuanced, as he has not taken any steps to withdraw the United States from NATO.
A bipartisan congressional rebuke of the President's foreign policy is clearly notable.We should only note when this is significant, as most of the Republican Party supports his actions most of the time. We should also make sure that we are not taking the side of his detractors, even in bipartisan criticism. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
There are countless sources that make it a centerpiece of their coverage.I have seen only one, already linked in the article, and I have demonstrated that it isn't enough to make the point made in the contentious paragraph, which is a synthesis. Mottezen ( talk) 23:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
This entire article, in particular the lede, needs to be re-written. Any article on any President should be written accurately, with proper cites, and in particular with neutral language. This entire article, especially the lede, is far from that. All mention of policies and actions during the Trump Presidency are negative, and even those positive actions that are mentioned, such as pulling us out of the Iran nuclear deal and meeting with North Korea, are spun as negative. At the very least the language should be neutral. Why not at least mention that during the Trump administration North Korea was not launching ballistic missiles across Japan? Why not mention that instead of sending planeloads of cash to Iran to help fund their nuclear aspirations, we actually had some measures in place? And why not mention any of the other positive developments during the Trump Administration, such as record low unemployment, record low unemployment among blacks and Hispanics, increased home ownership after home ownership plummeted under the previous two administrations, increasing oil production to make the US the top oil producer in the world - decreasing our reliance on foreign oil and strenthening our position in the world, securing our borders to slow the influx of illegal immigrants, reducing government regulations that hampered business, cutting taxes to boost the economy, stock market performing very well after 8 years of stagnation, placing three justices on the Supreme Court that are committed to upholding the Constitution, and other positives? Or - are all the editors here just totally committed to an article that bashes Trump from beginning to end? Vinny Gambino ( talk) 11:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't do much current politics editing, but this subject is almost in history, so here is a tentative step. As this article is about administration, I think a sentence in the lead on administration turnover is warranted from as a subject-specific and historic context. (see eg. [15]) How's that sound? -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 22:06, 17 January 2021 (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.
Proposed for inclusion, although it may be fitting to split this in two sections. There are matters of significant historical interest pertaining from the time the Senate declared Biden President-elect, to the time that Trump relinquished control of the Executive branch; it is a matter of interest apart from the election dispute and the storming of the capitol, and it deserves own section. The following is only a small part of what should included. Discussing her per revert by @ Onetwothreeip: and discretionary limits on the article. This has already been discussed on the Donald Trump talk page @ Eatcha: @ Thanoscar21:
President Trump delivered his official farewell address the day prior to the inauguration of Joe Biden, and referred to the "inauguration of a new administration", stating that, "We pray for its success at keeping America safe and prosperous." [1] He broke tradition in not attending his successor's inauguration, but in keeping with tradition, Trump left Biden a letter of support in the Resolute desk. [2]. When asked about the letter, Biden stated that it was "generous", but refused to give details. citation needed
Sources
|
---|
|
This trimming of the article should be restored, as the article is currently far too large. All this information is contained in other articles. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 04:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I trimmed some citations from the trade subsection here. This was reverted and should be restored. The content is still supported by the remaining sources. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC) I also note that the length tag has been removed, despite being longstanding on this article, so I will restore that. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 04:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
If we are going to brand Trump a liar, this is not a "Leadership style", it is an ethical issue. Therefore I think we should move this down to the Ethics section. Would anyone have problems with that? JustinTime55 ( talk) 23:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Aquillion keeps deleting sourced material relevant to the page, At times replacing the deleted material with content that is outright false. In others their edits are uncited-in some instances because they deleted the citation in their haste to remove sources for facts that did not align with their politics. Most often the content simply does not seem to belong/best belong here specifically given the ongoing issue with regards to length. I do agree some of this content does belong on List of false and misleading statements by Donald Trump, however, as with the VA Section, Aquillion removed information actually relevant to the Trump presidency and the Veterans Administration, then made up an additional lie (the real one was always there) and then provided fake or exaggerated information that even if true was irrelevant. In countless instances Aquillion has restored blogs and unreliable sources as citations and used editorials as sources to present opinions as facts, reverting clarifications that this is an opinion or viewpoint of an observer. To be clear, in some instances Aquillion is pushing material that is not stated in any sources and/or is objectively false and needs to be removed. OgamD218 ( talk) 02:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&diff=1011240726&oldid=1011239806
I removed some excessive detail here because we can't detail every instance of a president being influenced by somebody on policy issues unless it is particularly notable. My edit was reverted but should be restored, because there is nothing here to suggest this is any more important than Donald Trump or anybody else being influenced by individuals. This content would be more appropriate on articles more specific to the policy area though. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 23:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
This page is not as widely followed or edited as it was before January. I note several instances of cuts being re-done after having been reverted with minimal or no discussion or consensus on talk. I have lost track of all the cuts reverts and re-cuts, but I just noticed one and am asking for editor comment: This cut, which I reverted, was then restored without talk page consensus shortly afterward, with the dubious edit summary "per talk". I continue to believe this removal weakened the article by removing important fact and context. Unless others disagree, it should be restored pending any support for the cut. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Comments also welcome on the several cuts to the Transition section, e.g. this one. @ Jaredscribe, Snooganssnoogans, and MelanieN: who may have worked on this or related content in this section. SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
There seem to be several edits and reverts mentioned here, and I'm not sure which we are supposed to be discussing. But for my part, I favor retaining the "transition and farewell address" section (I added the missing citation), and I oppose putting in anything about Congress. This article is about the administration; Congress is an entirely separate branch of government. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: Why did you restore multiple citations for the simple fact that Trump was initially not wearing a mask in public during the coronavirus pandemic? This seems completely pointless to restore them, and we should return to only needing one reference for this. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 22:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I just deleted the “historical rankings” section, for several reasons. First, it is totally out of date, containing only “rankings” from 2018 and 2019. Second, such rankings are considered to be ratings of presidents, not of their administrations. Third and most important, at the Donald Trump page there is an informal consensus [16] not to include anything about his historical ranking until some time has passed for scholarly analysis. Open for discussion, of course. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Right now we have a paragraph under "2020 election campaign" which says that Trump ran and that the media declared Biden the winner on November 7. I would like to add the following paragraph to that section:
Although the press was referring to Biden as the president-elect, Trump refused to concede, and Biden's transition team received no cooperation from the Trump administration until November 23. [1] [2] Even after that date, Trump continued to insist that he had won the election. He filed numerous lawsuits alleging election fraud, tried to persuade state and federal officials to overturn the results, and urged his supporters to rally on his behalf. [3]
Sources
- ^ Rein, Lisa; Viser, Matt; Miller, Greg; Dawsey, Josh (November 9, 2020). "White House, escalating tensions, orders agencies to rebuff Biden transition team". The Washington Post. Retrieved 27 March 2021.
- ^ Holmes, Kristen; Herb, Jeremy (November 23, 2020). "First on CNN: Key government agency acknowledges Biden's win and begins formal transition". CNN. Archived from the original on November 23, 2020. Retrieved 2020-11-24.
- ^ Holland, Steve; Mason, Jeff; Landay, Jonathan (January 6, 2021). "Trump Summoned Supporters to 'Wild' Protest, and Told Them to Fight. They Did". Reuters. U.S. News. Retrieved 27 March 2021.
I believe this transition is necessary to connect the election and its results to the Capitol riot. I would like to do a major rewrite of that section later, but first let's decide if there is consensus for an explanatory transition like this. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
In late December 2020, president-elect Biden and his transition team criticized Trump administration political appointees for hampering the transition and failing to cooperate with the Biden transition team on national security areas, such as the Defense and State departments, as well as on the economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. [1] [2] Biden also said that "many of the agencies that are critical to our security have incurred enormous damage" and "have been hollowed out — in personnel, capacity and in morale." [1]
Sources
- ^ a b Thomas Kaplan, Biden Admonishes Trump Administration Over 'Obstruction', New York Times (December 28, 2020).
- ^ Quint Forgey, Biden transition chief blasts 'obstruction' by political appointees at OMB, Pentagon, Politico (December 30, 2020).
Thanks for the suggestion. I agree this is important and it is specifically about Trump's presidency and administration. It should probably go immediately after the "November 23" date, with the attempt to overturn the election in a third paragraph transitioning to the riot. How about this:
Although the press was referring to Biden as the president-elect, Trump refused to concede, and Biden's transition team received no cooperation from the Trump administration until November 23.Trump refused to concede, and the administration did not begin cooperating with president-elect Biden's transition team until November 23. [1] [2] In late December 2020, president-elect Biden and his transition team criticized Trump administration political appointees for hampering the transition and failing to cooperate with the Biden transition team on national security areas, such as the Defense and State departments, as well as on the economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. [3] [4] Biden also said that "many of the agencies that are critical to our security have incurred enormous damage" and "have been hollowed out — in personnel, capacity and in morale." [3]Throughout December and January, Trump continued to insist that he had won the election. He filed numerous lawsuits alleging election fraud, tried to persuade state and federal officials to overturn the results, and urged his supporters to rally on his behalf. [5]
Sources
- ^ Rein, Lisa; Viser, Matt; Miller, Greg; Dawsey, Josh (November 9, 2020). "White House, escalating tensions, orders agencies to rebuff Biden transition team". The Washington Post. Retrieved 27 March 2021.
- ^ Holmes, Kristen; Herb, Jeremy (November 23, 2020). "First on CNN: Key government agency acknowledges Biden's win and begins formal transition". CNN. Archived from the original on November 23, 2020. Retrieved 2020-11-24.
- ^ a b Thomas Kaplan, Biden Admonishes Trump Administration Over 'Obstruction', New York Times (December 28, 2020).
- ^ Quint Forgey, Biden transition chief blasts 'obstruction' by political appointees at OMB, Pentagon, Politico (December 30, 2020).
- ^ Holland, Steve; Mason, Jeff; Landay, Jonathan (January 6, 2021). "Trump Summoned Supporters to 'Wild' Protest, and Told Them to Fight. They Did". Reuters. U.S. News. Retrieved 27 March 2021.
For those who will say this makes the article "too long", I intend to propose a rewrite of the "riot" and "aftermath" sections with significant cuts. For now, thoughts about adding the above to the article? -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Trump initially refused to concede, and the administration did not begin cooperating with president-elect Biden's transition team until November 23.[1][2]The effect on the incoming Biden administration isn't a matter for the Trump administration article, and it is hard to assess the effect that Trump's initial obstinance caused, beyond quoting Joe Biden and others. Likewise, Trump insisting he had won the election and attempting to overturn the apparent result are not matters of the Trump administration, but are matters of the election campaign. I agree that we should refer to Biden as president-elect outright, and not that media outlets were referring to him as this. Overall it is important to remember that this article is (supposed to) be about a presidential administration, not a person or president, so whatever we write about the transition should be about the executive branch's role. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 22:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed that our lead contains this sentence: Following his loss in the 2020 presidential election to Biden, Trump refused to concede and initiated an aggressive pursuit to overturn the results, alleging unproven claims of widespread electoral fraud.
It is unsourced and there is nothing in the article text to support it, which violates our rules about lead sections. So I am going to add the above draft to the article text, even though we can continue to discuss it here. --
MelanieN (
talk)
23:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
123: This is getting way too confusing and way too burdensome. Please just restore the consensus text MelanieN added yesterday. Removal of "apparent" doesn't come close to fixing your revert. Please self-revert back to MelanieN's text. SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I have restored the wording that 123ip removed, per clear consensus here. Note: 123ip, do NOT tweak or trim or otherwise edit this wording unless you discuss it here first and get consensus. Be sure to read the notice at the top of the page about the special rules that apply to this page. Those rules are why I waited, for 24 hours after your challenge to my edit, before restoring the wording which had been worked out at this page. Those restrictions, limiting us to one "revert" per 24 hours and requiring us to wait for discussion if an edit of our is challenged, are binding on all of us. So, folks, that version is back in the article and is open for tweaking or discussion here at the talk page. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The Abraham accords were significant foreign policy achievements for the Trump administration, it seems they should get more than a footnote at the bottom of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viktory02 ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
123ip deleted from the article the historic and well-referenced fact I just added — that Trump was the first president in more than 150 years to fail to attend his successor’s inauguration. 123's edit summary was This isn't technically true, ie Nixon, Kennedy, Harding. Other former presidents have also not attended inaugurations. Trump is in fact the first in more than 150 years to refuse to attend the inauguration of his successor. The successors to Nixon, Kennedy, and Harding did not have an inauguration - just a low-key swearing-in ceremony. Trump’s failure to attend his successor’s inauguration was remarked upon by many, many sources: [17] [18] [19] I will wait the required 24 hours before restoring this information, unless someone cares to do it first. -- MelanieN ( talk) 09:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Please add to the lead, reflecting the general consensus of experts: “Trump is almost universally regarded as the worst president of all time.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.103.120 ( talk) 21:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC) https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/is-donald-trump-the-worst-us-president-ever-historians-say-so-20210115-p56u9w.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.103.120 ( talk) 22:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Why would a ranking of Trump’s presidency not go in the Trump presidency article? That doesnt make any sense. 67.85.103.120 ( talk) 15:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO, Snooganssnoogans, Jaredscribe, and Onetwothreeip: Following up to the discussion above, let's take a broader look at the content about the election and post-election period. Right now the section "2020 re-election campaign" briefly describes the election and outcome, and then includes as subsections "Storming of the U.S. Capitol" (with a "main article" link), "Aftermath" (meaning aftermath to the riot, including resignations and impeachment), and "Transition" (now trimmed to 2 sentences which say nothing about the actual transition). I think it is questionable whether the latter three actually belong under the "election" section; maybe a separate main section titled "Election aftermath".
More important, we currently say nothing about the actual transition and how it was delayed for months after the election, by Trump refusing to concede and ordering his administration not to work with the incoming Biden team. That is highly significant to this article, which after all is about the presidency (the administration). It was also unique to this presidency. I intend to draft up a "Transition" paragraph or section, and will propose it here later today or tomorrow under a separate heading. In the meantime, let's discuss the organization of the material I described above. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I am going to remove the paragraph about "reactions" and about Trump's Twitter account, as excessive detail and not really related to this article's subject. In discussion here, I see one person agreeing with my proposal and no-one opposing it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed that synthesis was required, not cuts. Thank you MelanieN for leading this effort. Having added the citations and advocated for the inclusion of the section, I'm satisfied with the outcome for Presidency of Donald Trump § Farewell address. I had also advocated for the inclusion of this quotes: Trump re: Biden admin "We pray for his success". The consensus was to pick a different one, in which he condemns "political violence". I think one is enough and the quote chosen is adequate, probably more significant. The "first in 152 years" is an important fact, thanks for finding and including that. Although arguably outside the scope of the article, I thought it was worth noting Biden's response to the desk note, calling it "very generous." Also, Trump apparently said on inauguration day, from the Heli-pad "We'll be back, in some form." Despite these exclusions, I'm satisfied with the result; certainly its better than nothing. I want to record here in talk in case we have to revisit and clarify this in future years - if for example, political drama ensues and questions are raised about what was exactly was said and done. Jaredscribe ( talk) 04:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Dr. Fauci himself said this CNN report was inaccurate. He is generally considered one of the most reliable sources on the issue, vs politicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.15.6 ( talk) 18:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I contest the sentence "The Trump administration left a non-existent plan for vaccine distribution to the Biden administration." First of all, the source precises "sources says" so it is kind of blurry, but foremost this article of PolitiFact concludes by : "Saying there a plan "does not really exist" is beyond saying a plan is lacking. We rate Klain’s claim Mostly False". -- Dimitrius99 ( talk) 21:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Presidency of Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
TRUMP WON! 97.113.43.70 ( talk) 12:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I believe we should add the specific dates of impeachment in the lede - they currently only show the months. Also, the acquittals have no dates at all, not even months. Mrytzkalmyr ( talk) 15:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
The lead presently has Following his loss in the 2020 presidential election to Biden, Trump refused to concede and initiated an aggressive pursuit to overturn the results, alleging unproven claims of widespread electoral fraud. This is not quite correct in that Trump had aggressively and falsely complained about election fraud, particularly mail ballots, throughout the campaign. He did not initiate this after the election, but had spent some 8 months prior to the election setting up the issue. Bdushaw ( talk) 22:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Presidency of Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article says his presidency ended with his loss to Joe Biden. That is false. His presidency ended on January 20th as stated in the constitution. The election was called in favor of Joe Biden by media organizations but not certified until January 7th. His Presidency ended at 12:00PM on January 20th 2601:40A:C300:2FB0:1E8:5C8D:61C2:37C9 ( talk) 14:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks like a messy op ed full of falsehoods with no sources by User:Reeeeet
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.
I made the following change to the lead section.
Previous:New:Trump made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency.
Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics and likened to the firehose of falsehood propaganda technique.
This was initially proposed by soibangla at Talk:Donald_Trump#firehose_of_falsehood, but I think it is better suited for this article rather than Trump's biography. Spy-cicle reverted this edit, claiming it is undue weight. I think it is due weight given that a majority of reliable sources describe in-detail Trump's propaganda techniques and unprecedented disinformation campaigns. –– FormalDude talk 19:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The reason I call this a smear piece is because almost everything in this article paints Trump in a negative light. Even in the lead paragraph, this article seems to go out of it's way to paint Trump in a negative light, instead of in an objective light, like all the other presidents are. 72.81.153.180 ( talk) 01:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Do we have an article about this subject, or do we cover it in some other article? A new article by a subject matter expert, Fiona Hill, contains plenty of that type of information, and some might be relevant here, even if it's not specifically on the topic of this thread:
If this is also relevant elsewhere, feel free to ping me. -- Valjean ( talk) 03:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Valjean, see Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. TFD ( talk) 04:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
This article seems to be riddled with bias. It is quite clearly promoting a negative view of trump. It seems like this article needs some big revisions. Stanley Keeler ( talk) 13:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
As it is possible Donald Trump may have a second presidency I made a redirect First presidency of Donald Trump that goes to this article. I propose we make a second article Second presidency of Donald Trump about the hypothetical second presidency. If he wins in 2024 then we will move this article to First presidency of Donald Trump and use Second presidency of Donald Trump to talk about the events of that term. MaitreyaVaruna ( talk) 20:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
My current objective is to make structure edits by transferring portions of substantial sections into other articles. However, since I didn't explain my edits, they have been reverted. I hastily reinstated my edits because I thought that this was a minor issue disregarding the actual content of the article, and didn't realise that I need to discuss and wait 24 hours before then. I am very sorry for being impatient. I decided to make this talk section, so anyone that reverts my edits can discuss the reasons here. zsteve21 ( talk) 14:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry if I make these seem demanding, but I feel something should be done. zsteve21 ( talk) 18:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
A structure edit is making improvements to the layout of the article. The reverts has not been done for one ultimate reason. Sometimes the topic is too big to fit into one article and it would be better if the reader/user got a summary instead of having lots of text to read/scroll through or being forced to use the contents list.
Either way, there is no doubt that this article still have excessive prose and if that is tolerated, then there would have been proposals to change WP:SIZERULE. zsteve21 ( talk) 09:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
By "The reverts has not been done for one ultimate reason", I meant that there were other reasons of reverting my edits, such as unexplained edits and disagreement to where I move content within articles. zsteve21 ( talk) 16:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is currently the second longest on the wiki, with 480,000+ bytes. I am open to ideas for splitting or other methods of size reduction. Blubabluba9990 ( talk) ( contribs) 16:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I believe the bigger concern is the excessive amount of one-sided information on the article that may influence polarized opinions or beliefs. I would remove/change those things first. zsteve21 ( talk) 09:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
As to the issue of splitting, of course any editor can raise such a discussion. But, first of all, your statement about article size is incorrect. And second, you were temporarily blocked from editing last month for persistently doing disruptive edits, particularly in regard to splitting. Your motivation here is therefore hard to understand. Please clarify. VarmtheHawk ( talk) 17:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Then either the article has excessive amount of readable prose or references. I am going for articles with the largest wiki markup size which probably indicates too much readable prose, references or statistical data. Perhaps consider requesting a change to the 'Long pages' special page. That's where I go to check for large articles. zsteve21 ( talk) 18:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Please place the following, which adds some much-needed and SCANDALOUSLY OMITTED HISTORICAL CONTEXT to the article, after the 2nd sentence, I propose:
"Trump is widely regarded by historians and other presidential scholars as the worst President of the last 150 years by a significant margin, with no close competitors for this ranking, and as nearly the worst president of all time in multiple studies." [1] [2] [3] [4] 67.85.103.120 ( talk) 19:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
References
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.
Since my edit to the lead was reverted without explanation, let's discuss it here. Not sure if it's appropriate to post the whole thing here so I won't. I think I made some reasonable edits to make it flow better, be more neutral, remove some less important information, and add information about Covid which was a defining moment in his Presidency. Obviously, the lead is still very long and my edit only made it longer. The rest of the Presidents have 3 or 4 paragraphs in theirs, Trump's had 8 sections after my edit. Clearly, a lot of unique things happened in Trump's presidency and these are unprecedented times, so perhaps it's appropriate for it to be longer than the others. There are a few edits that I made that I think are appropriate regardless of what you all think of the rest of my restructuring: 1. Cleaning up the first paragraph. None of the other Presidents who won the election without winning the popular vote mention that fact in this section. I think, while true, its an unnecessary distinction in our system and is perhaps seeking to diminish his victory. I don't think mentioning his false or misleading statements is necessary in this section either, perhaps moving it to the start of the next section is better. We also don't need to repeat that he claimed fraud in the 2020 election here. Finally, I think the fact his presidency being the first since Hoover to lose the Presidency and congress is not important enough to include here. 2. Adding the word "peacefully" in the bottom section to have it say "On January 6, 2021, during a rally at The Ellipse, Trump urged his supporters to "fight like hell" and to "peacefully" march to the Capitol..." because this makes it clear that at that rally he was not directing them to storm the capitol, he was directing them to protest peacefully. MonsterMash51 ( talk) 15:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
this makes it clear that at that rally he was not directing them to storm the capitol, he was directing them to protest peacefullyis your WP:SYNTH. Adding the word "peacefully" does not negate all of the other, more violent and confrontational language the crowd heard. How do you square "fight like hell" with "peacefully"? RS largely agree that Trump stirred up the crowd. [21] [22] [23] [24] – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the congress people to review or overturn the election (rightly or wrongly) through protest, not through overthrowing the capitol. Our opinions do not belong in Wikipedia. We need to use reliable sources. We do not yet know to what extent the storming was planned by the rally organizers and Trump administration. Investigation will hopefully clarify that which we do not yet know. What we do know is that Trump and Trump allies trying to delegitimize our election throughout 2020 and through the lame duck period directly resulted in what happened.
his administration worked with the private sectorconsidering that the NBC News piece above says
In an interview with the subcommittee, Birx said when she arrived to the White House in March 2020 — more than a month after the U.S. declared a public health emergency — she learned that federal officials had not yet contacted some of the largest U.S. companies that could supply Covid testing.It seems their efforts to work with private companies were half assed, at best. He did sign off on Operation Warp Speed, but I think that's too wordy. – Muboshgu ( talk) 03:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Lead Proposal |
Donald Trump's tenure as the 45th president of the United States began with his inauguration on January 20, 2017, and ended on January 20, 2021. Trump, a Republican originally from New York City, took office following his victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. His presidency ended with his defeat in the 2020 presidential election by Democrat Joe Biden after one term in office.
Trump’s presidency was subject to an unprecedented amount of media coverage and scrutiny due to his controversial style, and as such many of his statements were characterized as false or misleading. Legislatively, he failed in his efforts to fully repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, while succeeding in rescinding the Act’s individual mandate as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The federal deficit and national debt continued to increase under Trump due to spending increases and these tax cuts. Democrats retook control of the House of Representatives in the 2018 elections, which hindered his ability to push through further conservative priorities, however he did sign the Great American Outdoors Act, and criminal justice reform through the First Step Act later in his term. He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Trump's "America First" foreign policy was characterized by protectionism, unilateralism, and nationalism. He enacted tariffs, triggering retaliatory tariffs from China, Canada, Mexico, and the European Union, withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, and signed the USMCA, a successor agreement to NAFTA. He sought to secure the United States’ southern border with Mexico, and curb illegal immigration by implementing a controversial family separation policy for migrants apprehended at the border, and demanded federal funding for a border wall resulting in the longest US government shutdown in history and the declaration of a national emergency to construct a portion of the wall. The administration implemented a travel ban from several Muslim-majority countries; recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; and brokered a series of normalization agreements between Israel and various Arab states. His administration also made a conditional deal with the Taliban to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 2021. Trump met North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un three times in talks seeking to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. In 2018, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear agreement and later escalated tensions in the Persian Gulf by ordering the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting economic recession dominated the final year of his term. His administration’s initial response was widely condemned as slow, his messaging contradicted the recommendations of health officials, and a congressional committee found that his actions deliberately "undermined the U.S. response". In May 2020, Trump announced the formation of a public-private partnership named Operation Warp Speed, which facilitated and accelerated the development of two vaccines (the J&J and Moderna vaccines), as well as the purchase of 100 million doses of the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) concluded that Russia interfered to favor Trump's candidacy and that while the prevailing evidence "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government," possible obstructions of justice occurred during the course of that investigation, but did not charge Trump with any crime. Trump attempted to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations into his political rival Joe Biden, triggering his first impeachment by the House of Representatives on December 18, 2019, but he was acquitted by the Senate on February 5, 2020. Following his loss in the 2020 presidential election to Biden, Trump refused to concede and initiated an extensive campaign to overturn the results, making false claims of widespread electoral fraud. On January 6, 2021, during a rally at The Ellipse, Trump urged his supporters to "fight like hell" and march to the Capitol, where the electoral votes were being counted by Congress in order to formalize Biden's victory. A mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, suspending the count as Vice President Mike Pence and other members of Congress were evacuated. On January 13, the House voted to impeach Trump an unprecedented second time for "incitement of insurrection," but he was later acquitted by the Senate again on February 13, after he had already left office. |
additionsand
I keep hearing about this. Is this allegation mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia? There seems to be little information about his alleged destruction of documents.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Presidency of Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald trumps election was historic in that he is the only person ever elected to the presidency having never previously served in government or military 173.62.26.33 ( talk) 23:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I've never seen a more biased lead page for a politician, which isn't surprising. Look at Obama's lead for a quick comparison. There is not a SINGLE negative sentence regarding his presidency, despite the fact that his approval mirrored Trumps at multiple points. Meanwhile this lead? Any policy achievement has to be followed by a negative affect from it, with not a single case of this on Obama's lead. Multiple out of context quotes - "Fight like hell" to make him look bad but no "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" from the same speech. Ending it on how historians hate him, zero mention of how over 90% of those historians are ideological leftists. The entire thing is a poorly written, politically and ideologically biased dumpster fire. Neutrality doesn't even factor into it.
This page is a perfect Grade A example of why no one takes wikipedia politician articles seriously. If it doesn't get fixed, it will remain one. -- SneedPoster321 ( talk) 02:06, 29 April 2022 (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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
@ Snooganssnoogans: You have been trimming this article subjectively this month, removing events and aspects of his domestic policy. However, you reverted my explained attempt to do the same. I believed I removed trivial aspects of his foreign policy in my edit. Let's break this down
So what? Did he end up supporting these countries in the end? Not necessarily. Trump just complained about funding for Egypt in the recent covid stimulus bill. Trump has not interfered in Hungary or Poland's struggle with the EU over the Rule of Law provisions this year. Trump started a trade war with China! Trump used to strongly criticize Saudi Arabia ( see his statements as a candidate).
Trump did not just praise Strongmen, but also democratically elected liberal leaders such as Trudeau and Macron. There is also a plethora of Strongmen Trump did not praise, notably Nicolas Maduro. And what is a strongman anyway? Why is Guisseppe Conte of Italy on the list, he is not a strongman at all!? Why is Boris Johnson not on the list, Trump praised him repeatedly and Boris is sometimes described as "Britain's Trump".
So what, he didn't do it, and didn't say it publicly. This is stuff for Foreign policy of Donald Trump (2015–16).
This one is out of place. In it's position in the article, we are to believe that this is in relation to his praise of the Polish President and support for his domestic "homophobic, anti-immigrant" agenda. However, This article leaves out that this is in the context of Nato troops stationed in Eastern Europe to counter Russia, and that there was already 4000 US troops in Poland before Trump's inauguration.
This one is just POV outside of context. At this point in the article, the reader has not been explained the details of the withdrawal of the Iran nuclear deal or the details of the negotiations with North Korea. However, they are now told that the "intelligence community" (very unspecific) assessed that Trump is wrong on this subject. Should just be removed but could also have been pushed further down in the section, at the end.
This is not Trump's foreign policy. This is a congressional reaction to a previously undiscussed foreign policy move. How many troops were there before? How many troops does Trump want to withdraw? How many will stay? Why are they there? Why does he want to withdraw them? Why are the other Republicans opposed? I feel that the war in Afghanistan indeed needs a full paragraph in this article. However, this sentence says very little about it, and if it should be included, it should be along with that paragraph, and not on its own.
We can agree or disagree about the notability of each of these statements, but please assess them separately, in relation to their position in the article, and keeping in mind that the same statements may exist in other Trump-related articles. Mottezen ( talk) 20:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The open admiration of every other authoritarian at the same time that he criticizes democratic allies. This is conjecture and synthesis. Trump has praised and criticised leaders of both democratic and authoritarian governments.
His opposition to NATO membership.This is far more nuanced, as he has not taken any steps to withdraw the United States from NATO.
A bipartisan congressional rebuke of the President's foreign policy is clearly notable.We should only note when this is significant, as most of the Republican Party supports his actions most of the time. We should also make sure that we are not taking the side of his detractors, even in bipartisan criticism. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
There are countless sources that make it a centerpiece of their coverage.I have seen only one, already linked in the article, and I have demonstrated that it isn't enough to make the point made in the contentious paragraph, which is a synthesis. Mottezen ( talk) 23:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
This entire article, in particular the lede, needs to be re-written. Any article on any President should be written accurately, with proper cites, and in particular with neutral language. This entire article, especially the lede, is far from that. All mention of policies and actions during the Trump Presidency are negative, and even those positive actions that are mentioned, such as pulling us out of the Iran nuclear deal and meeting with North Korea, are spun as negative. At the very least the language should be neutral. Why not at least mention that during the Trump administration North Korea was not launching ballistic missiles across Japan? Why not mention that instead of sending planeloads of cash to Iran to help fund their nuclear aspirations, we actually had some measures in place? And why not mention any of the other positive developments during the Trump Administration, such as record low unemployment, record low unemployment among blacks and Hispanics, increased home ownership after home ownership plummeted under the previous two administrations, increasing oil production to make the US the top oil producer in the world - decreasing our reliance on foreign oil and strenthening our position in the world, securing our borders to slow the influx of illegal immigrants, reducing government regulations that hampered business, cutting taxes to boost the economy, stock market performing very well after 8 years of stagnation, placing three justices on the Supreme Court that are committed to upholding the Constitution, and other positives? Or - are all the editors here just totally committed to an article that bashes Trump from beginning to end? Vinny Gambino ( talk) 11:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't do much current politics editing, but this subject is almost in history, so here is a tentative step. As this article is about administration, I think a sentence in the lead on administration turnover is warranted from as a subject-specific and historic context. (see eg. [15]) How's that sound? -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 22:06, 17 January 2021 (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.
Proposed for inclusion, although it may be fitting to split this in two sections. There are matters of significant historical interest pertaining from the time the Senate declared Biden President-elect, to the time that Trump relinquished control of the Executive branch; it is a matter of interest apart from the election dispute and the storming of the capitol, and it deserves own section. The following is only a small part of what should included. Discussing her per revert by @ Onetwothreeip: and discretionary limits on the article. This has already been discussed on the Donald Trump talk page @ Eatcha: @ Thanoscar21:
President Trump delivered his official farewell address the day prior to the inauguration of Joe Biden, and referred to the "inauguration of a new administration", stating that, "We pray for its success at keeping America safe and prosperous." [1] He broke tradition in not attending his successor's inauguration, but in keeping with tradition, Trump left Biden a letter of support in the Resolute desk. [2]. When asked about the letter, Biden stated that it was "generous", but refused to give details. citation needed
Sources
|
---|
|
This trimming of the article should be restored, as the article is currently far too large. All this information is contained in other articles. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 04:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I trimmed some citations from the trade subsection here. This was reverted and should be restored. The content is still supported by the remaining sources. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC) I also note that the length tag has been removed, despite being longstanding on this article, so I will restore that. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 04:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
If we are going to brand Trump a liar, this is not a "Leadership style", it is an ethical issue. Therefore I think we should move this down to the Ethics section. Would anyone have problems with that? JustinTime55 ( talk) 23:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Aquillion keeps deleting sourced material relevant to the page, At times replacing the deleted material with content that is outright false. In others their edits are uncited-in some instances because they deleted the citation in their haste to remove sources for facts that did not align with their politics. Most often the content simply does not seem to belong/best belong here specifically given the ongoing issue with regards to length. I do agree some of this content does belong on List of false and misleading statements by Donald Trump, however, as with the VA Section, Aquillion removed information actually relevant to the Trump presidency and the Veterans Administration, then made up an additional lie (the real one was always there) and then provided fake or exaggerated information that even if true was irrelevant. In countless instances Aquillion has restored blogs and unreliable sources as citations and used editorials as sources to present opinions as facts, reverting clarifications that this is an opinion or viewpoint of an observer. To be clear, in some instances Aquillion is pushing material that is not stated in any sources and/or is objectively false and needs to be removed. OgamD218 ( talk) 02:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&diff=1011240726&oldid=1011239806
I removed some excessive detail here because we can't detail every instance of a president being influenced by somebody on policy issues unless it is particularly notable. My edit was reverted but should be restored, because there is nothing here to suggest this is any more important than Donald Trump or anybody else being influenced by individuals. This content would be more appropriate on articles more specific to the policy area though. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 23:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
This page is not as widely followed or edited as it was before January. I note several instances of cuts being re-done after having been reverted with minimal or no discussion or consensus on talk. I have lost track of all the cuts reverts and re-cuts, but I just noticed one and am asking for editor comment: This cut, which I reverted, was then restored without talk page consensus shortly afterward, with the dubious edit summary "per talk". I continue to believe this removal weakened the article by removing important fact and context. Unless others disagree, it should be restored pending any support for the cut. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Comments also welcome on the several cuts to the Transition section, e.g. this one. @ Jaredscribe, Snooganssnoogans, and MelanieN: who may have worked on this or related content in this section. SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
There seem to be several edits and reverts mentioned here, and I'm not sure which we are supposed to be discussing. But for my part, I favor retaining the "transition and farewell address" section (I added the missing citation), and I oppose putting in anything about Congress. This article is about the administration; Congress is an entirely separate branch of government. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: Why did you restore multiple citations for the simple fact that Trump was initially not wearing a mask in public during the coronavirus pandemic? This seems completely pointless to restore them, and we should return to only needing one reference for this. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 22:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I just deleted the “historical rankings” section, for several reasons. First, it is totally out of date, containing only “rankings” from 2018 and 2019. Second, such rankings are considered to be ratings of presidents, not of their administrations. Third and most important, at the Donald Trump page there is an informal consensus [16] not to include anything about his historical ranking until some time has passed for scholarly analysis. Open for discussion, of course. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Right now we have a paragraph under "2020 election campaign" which says that Trump ran and that the media declared Biden the winner on November 7. I would like to add the following paragraph to that section:
Although the press was referring to Biden as the president-elect, Trump refused to concede, and Biden's transition team received no cooperation from the Trump administration until November 23. [1] [2] Even after that date, Trump continued to insist that he had won the election. He filed numerous lawsuits alleging election fraud, tried to persuade state and federal officials to overturn the results, and urged his supporters to rally on his behalf. [3]
Sources
- ^ Rein, Lisa; Viser, Matt; Miller, Greg; Dawsey, Josh (November 9, 2020). "White House, escalating tensions, orders agencies to rebuff Biden transition team". The Washington Post. Retrieved 27 March 2021.
- ^ Holmes, Kristen; Herb, Jeremy (November 23, 2020). "First on CNN: Key government agency acknowledges Biden's win and begins formal transition". CNN. Archived from the original on November 23, 2020. Retrieved 2020-11-24.
- ^ Holland, Steve; Mason, Jeff; Landay, Jonathan (January 6, 2021). "Trump Summoned Supporters to 'Wild' Protest, and Told Them to Fight. They Did". Reuters. U.S. News. Retrieved 27 March 2021.
I believe this transition is necessary to connect the election and its results to the Capitol riot. I would like to do a major rewrite of that section later, but first let's decide if there is consensus for an explanatory transition like this. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
In late December 2020, president-elect Biden and his transition team criticized Trump administration political appointees for hampering the transition and failing to cooperate with the Biden transition team on national security areas, such as the Defense and State departments, as well as on the economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. [1] [2] Biden also said that "many of the agencies that are critical to our security have incurred enormous damage" and "have been hollowed out — in personnel, capacity and in morale." [1]
Sources
- ^ a b Thomas Kaplan, Biden Admonishes Trump Administration Over 'Obstruction', New York Times (December 28, 2020).
- ^ Quint Forgey, Biden transition chief blasts 'obstruction' by political appointees at OMB, Pentagon, Politico (December 30, 2020).
Thanks for the suggestion. I agree this is important and it is specifically about Trump's presidency and administration. It should probably go immediately after the "November 23" date, with the attempt to overturn the election in a third paragraph transitioning to the riot. How about this:
Although the press was referring to Biden as the president-elect, Trump refused to concede, and Biden's transition team received no cooperation from the Trump administration until November 23.Trump refused to concede, and the administration did not begin cooperating with president-elect Biden's transition team until November 23. [1] [2] In late December 2020, president-elect Biden and his transition team criticized Trump administration political appointees for hampering the transition and failing to cooperate with the Biden transition team on national security areas, such as the Defense and State departments, as well as on the economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. [3] [4] Biden also said that "many of the agencies that are critical to our security have incurred enormous damage" and "have been hollowed out — in personnel, capacity and in morale." [3]Throughout December and January, Trump continued to insist that he had won the election. He filed numerous lawsuits alleging election fraud, tried to persuade state and federal officials to overturn the results, and urged his supporters to rally on his behalf. [5]
Sources
- ^ Rein, Lisa; Viser, Matt; Miller, Greg; Dawsey, Josh (November 9, 2020). "White House, escalating tensions, orders agencies to rebuff Biden transition team". The Washington Post. Retrieved 27 March 2021.
- ^ Holmes, Kristen; Herb, Jeremy (November 23, 2020). "First on CNN: Key government agency acknowledges Biden's win and begins formal transition". CNN. Archived from the original on November 23, 2020. Retrieved 2020-11-24.
- ^ a b Thomas Kaplan, Biden Admonishes Trump Administration Over 'Obstruction', New York Times (December 28, 2020).
- ^ Quint Forgey, Biden transition chief blasts 'obstruction' by political appointees at OMB, Pentagon, Politico (December 30, 2020).
- ^ Holland, Steve; Mason, Jeff; Landay, Jonathan (January 6, 2021). "Trump Summoned Supporters to 'Wild' Protest, and Told Them to Fight. They Did". Reuters. U.S. News. Retrieved 27 March 2021.
For those who will say this makes the article "too long", I intend to propose a rewrite of the "riot" and "aftermath" sections with significant cuts. For now, thoughts about adding the above to the article? -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Trump initially refused to concede, and the administration did not begin cooperating with president-elect Biden's transition team until November 23.[1][2]The effect on the incoming Biden administration isn't a matter for the Trump administration article, and it is hard to assess the effect that Trump's initial obstinance caused, beyond quoting Joe Biden and others. Likewise, Trump insisting he had won the election and attempting to overturn the apparent result are not matters of the Trump administration, but are matters of the election campaign. I agree that we should refer to Biden as president-elect outright, and not that media outlets were referring to him as this. Overall it is important to remember that this article is (supposed to) be about a presidential administration, not a person or president, so whatever we write about the transition should be about the executive branch's role. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 22:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed that our lead contains this sentence: Following his loss in the 2020 presidential election to Biden, Trump refused to concede and initiated an aggressive pursuit to overturn the results, alleging unproven claims of widespread electoral fraud.
It is unsourced and there is nothing in the article text to support it, which violates our rules about lead sections. So I am going to add the above draft to the article text, even though we can continue to discuss it here. --
MelanieN (
talk)
23:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
123: This is getting way too confusing and way too burdensome. Please just restore the consensus text MelanieN added yesterday. Removal of "apparent" doesn't come close to fixing your revert. Please self-revert back to MelanieN's text. SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I have restored the wording that 123ip removed, per clear consensus here. Note: 123ip, do NOT tweak or trim or otherwise edit this wording unless you discuss it here first and get consensus. Be sure to read the notice at the top of the page about the special rules that apply to this page. Those rules are why I waited, for 24 hours after your challenge to my edit, before restoring the wording which had been worked out at this page. Those restrictions, limiting us to one "revert" per 24 hours and requiring us to wait for discussion if an edit of our is challenged, are binding on all of us. So, folks, that version is back in the article and is open for tweaking or discussion here at the talk page. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The Abraham accords were significant foreign policy achievements for the Trump administration, it seems they should get more than a footnote at the bottom of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viktory02 ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
123ip deleted from the article the historic and well-referenced fact I just added — that Trump was the first president in more than 150 years to fail to attend his successor’s inauguration. 123's edit summary was This isn't technically true, ie Nixon, Kennedy, Harding. Other former presidents have also not attended inaugurations. Trump is in fact the first in more than 150 years to refuse to attend the inauguration of his successor. The successors to Nixon, Kennedy, and Harding did not have an inauguration - just a low-key swearing-in ceremony. Trump’s failure to attend his successor’s inauguration was remarked upon by many, many sources: [17] [18] [19] I will wait the required 24 hours before restoring this information, unless someone cares to do it first. -- MelanieN ( talk) 09:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Please add to the lead, reflecting the general consensus of experts: “Trump is almost universally regarded as the worst president of all time.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.103.120 ( talk) 21:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC) https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/is-donald-trump-the-worst-us-president-ever-historians-say-so-20210115-p56u9w.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.103.120 ( talk) 22:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Why would a ranking of Trump’s presidency not go in the Trump presidency article? That doesnt make any sense. 67.85.103.120 ( talk) 15:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO, Snooganssnoogans, Jaredscribe, and Onetwothreeip: Following up to the discussion above, let's take a broader look at the content about the election and post-election period. Right now the section "2020 re-election campaign" briefly describes the election and outcome, and then includes as subsections "Storming of the U.S. Capitol" (with a "main article" link), "Aftermath" (meaning aftermath to the riot, including resignations and impeachment), and "Transition" (now trimmed to 2 sentences which say nothing about the actual transition). I think it is questionable whether the latter three actually belong under the "election" section; maybe a separate main section titled "Election aftermath".
More important, we currently say nothing about the actual transition and how it was delayed for months after the election, by Trump refusing to concede and ordering his administration not to work with the incoming Biden team. That is highly significant to this article, which after all is about the presidency (the administration). It was also unique to this presidency. I intend to draft up a "Transition" paragraph or section, and will propose it here later today or tomorrow under a separate heading. In the meantime, let's discuss the organization of the material I described above. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I am going to remove the paragraph about "reactions" and about Trump's Twitter account, as excessive detail and not really related to this article's subject. In discussion here, I see one person agreeing with my proposal and no-one opposing it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed that synthesis was required, not cuts. Thank you MelanieN for leading this effort. Having added the citations and advocated for the inclusion of the section, I'm satisfied with the outcome for Presidency of Donald Trump § Farewell address. I had also advocated for the inclusion of this quotes: Trump re: Biden admin "We pray for his success". The consensus was to pick a different one, in which he condemns "political violence". I think one is enough and the quote chosen is adequate, probably more significant. The "first in 152 years" is an important fact, thanks for finding and including that. Although arguably outside the scope of the article, I thought it was worth noting Biden's response to the desk note, calling it "very generous." Also, Trump apparently said on inauguration day, from the Heli-pad "We'll be back, in some form." Despite these exclusions, I'm satisfied with the result; certainly its better than nothing. I want to record here in talk in case we have to revisit and clarify this in future years - if for example, political drama ensues and questions are raised about what was exactly was said and done. Jaredscribe ( talk) 04:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Dr. Fauci himself said this CNN report was inaccurate. He is generally considered one of the most reliable sources on the issue, vs politicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.15.6 ( talk) 18:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I contest the sentence "The Trump administration left a non-existent plan for vaccine distribution to the Biden administration." First of all, the source precises "sources says" so it is kind of blurry, but foremost this article of PolitiFact concludes by : "Saying there a plan "does not really exist" is beyond saying a plan is lacking. We rate Klain’s claim Mostly False". -- Dimitrius99 ( talk) 21:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Presidency of Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
TRUMP WON! 97.113.43.70 ( talk) 12:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I believe we should add the specific dates of impeachment in the lede - they currently only show the months. Also, the acquittals have no dates at all, not even months. Mrytzkalmyr ( talk) 15:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
The lead presently has Following his loss in the 2020 presidential election to Biden, Trump refused to concede and initiated an aggressive pursuit to overturn the results, alleging unproven claims of widespread electoral fraud. This is not quite correct in that Trump had aggressively and falsely complained about election fraud, particularly mail ballots, throughout the campaign. He did not initiate this after the election, but had spent some 8 months prior to the election setting up the issue. Bdushaw ( talk) 22:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Presidency of Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article says his presidency ended with his loss to Joe Biden. That is false. His presidency ended on January 20th as stated in the constitution. The election was called in favor of Joe Biden by media organizations but not certified until January 7th. His Presidency ended at 12:00PM on January 20th 2601:40A:C300:2FB0:1E8:5C8D:61C2:37C9 ( talk) 14:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks like a messy op ed full of falsehoods with no sources by User:Reeeeet
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.
I made the following change to the lead section.
Previous:New:Trump made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency.
Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics and likened to the firehose of falsehood propaganda technique.
This was initially proposed by soibangla at Talk:Donald_Trump#firehose_of_falsehood, but I think it is better suited for this article rather than Trump's biography. Spy-cicle reverted this edit, claiming it is undue weight. I think it is due weight given that a majority of reliable sources describe in-detail Trump's propaganda techniques and unprecedented disinformation campaigns. –– FormalDude talk 19:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The reason I call this a smear piece is because almost everything in this article paints Trump in a negative light. Even in the lead paragraph, this article seems to go out of it's way to paint Trump in a negative light, instead of in an objective light, like all the other presidents are. 72.81.153.180 ( talk) 01:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Do we have an article about this subject, or do we cover it in some other article? A new article by a subject matter expert, Fiona Hill, contains plenty of that type of information, and some might be relevant here, even if it's not specifically on the topic of this thread:
If this is also relevant elsewhere, feel free to ping me. -- Valjean ( talk) 03:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Valjean, see Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. TFD ( talk) 04:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
This article seems to be riddled with bias. It is quite clearly promoting a negative view of trump. It seems like this article needs some big revisions. Stanley Keeler ( talk) 13:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
As it is possible Donald Trump may have a second presidency I made a redirect First presidency of Donald Trump that goes to this article. I propose we make a second article Second presidency of Donald Trump about the hypothetical second presidency. If he wins in 2024 then we will move this article to First presidency of Donald Trump and use Second presidency of Donald Trump to talk about the events of that term. MaitreyaVaruna ( talk) 20:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
My current objective is to make structure edits by transferring portions of substantial sections into other articles. However, since I didn't explain my edits, they have been reverted. I hastily reinstated my edits because I thought that this was a minor issue disregarding the actual content of the article, and didn't realise that I need to discuss and wait 24 hours before then. I am very sorry for being impatient. I decided to make this talk section, so anyone that reverts my edits can discuss the reasons here. zsteve21 ( talk) 14:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry if I make these seem demanding, but I feel something should be done. zsteve21 ( talk) 18:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
A structure edit is making improvements to the layout of the article. The reverts has not been done for one ultimate reason. Sometimes the topic is too big to fit into one article and it would be better if the reader/user got a summary instead of having lots of text to read/scroll through or being forced to use the contents list.
Either way, there is no doubt that this article still have excessive prose and if that is tolerated, then there would have been proposals to change WP:SIZERULE. zsteve21 ( talk) 09:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
By "The reverts has not been done for one ultimate reason", I meant that there were other reasons of reverting my edits, such as unexplained edits and disagreement to where I move content within articles. zsteve21 ( talk) 16:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is currently the second longest on the wiki, with 480,000+ bytes. I am open to ideas for splitting or other methods of size reduction. Blubabluba9990 ( talk) ( contribs) 16:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I believe the bigger concern is the excessive amount of one-sided information on the article that may influence polarized opinions or beliefs. I would remove/change those things first. zsteve21 ( talk) 09:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
As to the issue of splitting, of course any editor can raise such a discussion. But, first of all, your statement about article size is incorrect. And second, you were temporarily blocked from editing last month for persistently doing disruptive edits, particularly in regard to splitting. Your motivation here is therefore hard to understand. Please clarify. VarmtheHawk ( talk) 17:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Then either the article has excessive amount of readable prose or references. I am going for articles with the largest wiki markup size which probably indicates too much readable prose, references or statistical data. Perhaps consider requesting a change to the 'Long pages' special page. That's where I go to check for large articles. zsteve21 ( talk) 18:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Please place the following, which adds some much-needed and SCANDALOUSLY OMITTED HISTORICAL CONTEXT to the article, after the 2nd sentence, I propose:
"Trump is widely regarded by historians and other presidential scholars as the worst President of the last 150 years by a significant margin, with no close competitors for this ranking, and as nearly the worst president of all time in multiple studies." [1] [2] [3] [4] 67.85.103.120 ( talk) 19:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
References
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.
Since my edit to the lead was reverted without explanation, let's discuss it here. Not sure if it's appropriate to post the whole thing here so I won't. I think I made some reasonable edits to make it flow better, be more neutral, remove some less important information, and add information about Covid which was a defining moment in his Presidency. Obviously, the lead is still very long and my edit only made it longer. The rest of the Presidents have 3 or 4 paragraphs in theirs, Trump's had 8 sections after my edit. Clearly, a lot of unique things happened in Trump's presidency and these are unprecedented times, so perhaps it's appropriate for it to be longer than the others. There are a few edits that I made that I think are appropriate regardless of what you all think of the rest of my restructuring: 1. Cleaning up the first paragraph. None of the other Presidents who won the election without winning the popular vote mention that fact in this section. I think, while true, its an unnecessary distinction in our system and is perhaps seeking to diminish his victory. I don't think mentioning his false or misleading statements is necessary in this section either, perhaps moving it to the start of the next section is better. We also don't need to repeat that he claimed fraud in the 2020 election here. Finally, I think the fact his presidency being the first since Hoover to lose the Presidency and congress is not important enough to include here. 2. Adding the word "peacefully" in the bottom section to have it say "On January 6, 2021, during a rally at The Ellipse, Trump urged his supporters to "fight like hell" and to "peacefully" march to the Capitol..." because this makes it clear that at that rally he was not directing them to storm the capitol, he was directing them to protest peacefully. MonsterMash51 ( talk) 15:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
this makes it clear that at that rally he was not directing them to storm the capitol, he was directing them to protest peacefullyis your WP:SYNTH. Adding the word "peacefully" does not negate all of the other, more violent and confrontational language the crowd heard. How do you square "fight like hell" with "peacefully"? RS largely agree that Trump stirred up the crowd. [21] [22] [23] [24] – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the congress people to review or overturn the election (rightly or wrongly) through protest, not through overthrowing the capitol. Our opinions do not belong in Wikipedia. We need to use reliable sources. We do not yet know to what extent the storming was planned by the rally organizers and Trump administration. Investigation will hopefully clarify that which we do not yet know. What we do know is that Trump and Trump allies trying to delegitimize our election throughout 2020 and through the lame duck period directly resulted in what happened.
his administration worked with the private sectorconsidering that the NBC News piece above says
In an interview with the subcommittee, Birx said when she arrived to the White House in March 2020 — more than a month after the U.S. declared a public health emergency — she learned that federal officials had not yet contacted some of the largest U.S. companies that could supply Covid testing.It seems their efforts to work with private companies were half assed, at best. He did sign off on Operation Warp Speed, but I think that's too wordy. – Muboshgu ( talk) 03:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Lead Proposal |
Donald Trump's tenure as the 45th president of the United States began with his inauguration on January 20, 2017, and ended on January 20, 2021. Trump, a Republican originally from New York City, took office following his victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. His presidency ended with his defeat in the 2020 presidential election by Democrat Joe Biden after one term in office.
Trump’s presidency was subject to an unprecedented amount of media coverage and scrutiny due to his controversial style, and as such many of his statements were characterized as false or misleading. Legislatively, he failed in his efforts to fully repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, while succeeding in rescinding the Act’s individual mandate as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The federal deficit and national debt continued to increase under Trump due to spending increases and these tax cuts. Democrats retook control of the House of Representatives in the 2018 elections, which hindered his ability to push through further conservative priorities, however he did sign the Great American Outdoors Act, and criminal justice reform through the First Step Act later in his term. He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Trump's "America First" foreign policy was characterized by protectionism, unilateralism, and nationalism. He enacted tariffs, triggering retaliatory tariffs from China, Canada, Mexico, and the European Union, withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, and signed the USMCA, a successor agreement to NAFTA. He sought to secure the United States’ southern border with Mexico, and curb illegal immigration by implementing a controversial family separation policy for migrants apprehended at the border, and demanded federal funding for a border wall resulting in the longest US government shutdown in history and the declaration of a national emergency to construct a portion of the wall. The administration implemented a travel ban from several Muslim-majority countries; recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; and brokered a series of normalization agreements between Israel and various Arab states. His administration also made a conditional deal with the Taliban to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 2021. Trump met North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un three times in talks seeking to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. In 2018, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear agreement and later escalated tensions in the Persian Gulf by ordering the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting economic recession dominated the final year of his term. His administration’s initial response was widely condemned as slow, his messaging contradicted the recommendations of health officials, and a congressional committee found that his actions deliberately "undermined the U.S. response". In May 2020, Trump announced the formation of a public-private partnership named Operation Warp Speed, which facilitated and accelerated the development of two vaccines (the J&J and Moderna vaccines), as well as the purchase of 100 million doses of the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) concluded that Russia interfered to favor Trump's candidacy and that while the prevailing evidence "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government," possible obstructions of justice occurred during the course of that investigation, but did not charge Trump with any crime. Trump attempted to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations into his political rival Joe Biden, triggering his first impeachment by the House of Representatives on December 18, 2019, but he was acquitted by the Senate on February 5, 2020. Following his loss in the 2020 presidential election to Biden, Trump refused to concede and initiated an extensive campaign to overturn the results, making false claims of widespread electoral fraud. On January 6, 2021, during a rally at The Ellipse, Trump urged his supporters to "fight like hell" and march to the Capitol, where the electoral votes were being counted by Congress in order to formalize Biden's victory. A mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, suspending the count as Vice President Mike Pence and other members of Congress were evacuated. On January 13, the House voted to impeach Trump an unprecedented second time for "incitement of insurrection," but he was later acquitted by the Senate again on February 13, after he had already left office. |
additionsand
I keep hearing about this. Is this allegation mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia? There seems to be little information about his alleged destruction of documents.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Presidency of Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald trumps election was historic in that he is the only person ever elected to the presidency having never previously served in government or military 173.62.26.33 ( talk) 23:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I've never seen a more biased lead page for a politician, which isn't surprising. Look at Obama's lead for a quick comparison. There is not a SINGLE negative sentence regarding his presidency, despite the fact that his approval mirrored Trumps at multiple points. Meanwhile this lead? Any policy achievement has to be followed by a negative affect from it, with not a single case of this on Obama's lead. Multiple out of context quotes - "Fight like hell" to make him look bad but no "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" from the same speech. Ending it on how historians hate him, zero mention of how over 90% of those historians are ideological leftists. The entire thing is a poorly written, politically and ideologically biased dumpster fire. Neutrality doesn't even factor into it.
This page is a perfect Grade A example of why no one takes wikipedia politician articles seriously. If it doesn't get fixed, it will remain one. -- SneedPoster321 ( talk) 02:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)