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 115 | Archive 116 | Archive 117 | Archive 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120 | → | Archive 125 |
add a category List of actor-politicians Aero44 ( talk) 16:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
All this discussion above is basically moot. Per
WP:COPDEF, "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics.
" Trump's status as an "actor" is most certainly not a defining characteristic; therefore, he should not be categorized as such. --
Scjessey (
talk) 20:38, 23 May 2020 (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.
The lead section states, in its paragraph about Trump's political rise:
Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics.
I move to strike the second sentence, yielding the abridged text:
Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency.
We already state as fact, in wikivoice, that Trump spews a lot of garbage. It is unnecessary to further justify this characterization by invoking fact-checkers and the media for a whole extra sentence. Curious readers can read the linked dedicated article: Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, which would arguably be even more prominent with the single-sentence, straight-to-the-point version. — JFG talk 07:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
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.
Is there an article on Trump's executive order? For a reaction section this could be added: " President's power does not extend to threatening or shutting down social media platforms. But we should fear this in every country. Worst case scenario is that platforms don't have courage to tell Trump to go away, that they begin to adapt policies to his whims because he is a lunatic," Wales said. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The suggestion for an article is way premature. Right now this is just one of many controversial executive orders he has made. It may blow up into a notable case, particularly if it sparks notable lawsuits, or it may turn out to be a nothingburger. A sentence in the Presidency article is about all it rates right now. -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Nariyahok ( talk) 20:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
i feel like i should edit this to talk more about his personal life and how he has helped this country very much
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.
This shouldnt be included in the lead, as its based on opinions rather than facts: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist. "
WP:RACIST states "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist [...] may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject [...]" /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels
it is surely not widely used to describe Trump and the sources are questionable too, therefore its necessary to remove the line. I know you guys hate the guts of this guy but wikipedia articles have to be written from a neutral perspective SmooveMike ( talk) 11:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I know you guys hate the guts of this guy, nice Trump quote. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC) (aka editor reads-a-lot)
User:SmooveMike - you're not going to get far on Wikipedia saying The sources are only one thing
. Reliable sources are everything here. As for articles have to be written from a neutral perspective
, yes, we must neutrally reflect the POV of the sources, but the end product is not necessarily neutral. That is, if the sources say "happy", we say "happy", we don't say "emotionless". If they say "happy" and we say "emotionless", we have failed to neutrally reflect the sources.
starship
.paint (
talk) 12:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
SmooveMike, if you’re going to jump into highly controversial articles on your first day here, you might take some time to read the policies and guidelines and the lengthy talk page discussions detailing the consensus behind the current state of the article. O3000 ( talk) 13:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I had attempted to add this subsection:
Personal image
Since running for president, [1] Trump's temperament and mental status has been a regular topic of public discussion. [2] [3] Trump has responded by saying that he has a "great temperament" [4] and is a "very stable genius". [5]
A 2020 Pew Research Center survey found that most Americans would describe Trump as "self-centered". [6]
Sources
- ^ Levin, Aaron (25 August 2016). "History of Goldwater Rule Recalled as Media Try to Diagnose Trump". Psychiatric News. American Psychiatric Association. doi: 10.1176/appi.pn.2016.9a13. Retrieved 25 April 2020.
- ^ Maza, Carlos (24 January 2018). "The awkward debate over Trump's mental fitness". Vox. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
- ^ Rucker, Philip; Parker, Ashley (8 January 2018). "The White House struggles to silence talk of Trump's mental fitness". Washington Post. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
- ^ Cillizza, Chris (1 August 2016). "Donald Trump's ABC interview may be his best/worst yet". Washington Post. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
- ^ Baker, Peter; Haberman, Maggie (6 January 2018). "Trump, Defending His Mental Fitness, Says He's a 'Very Stable Genius'". New York Times. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
- ^ "Few Americans Express Positive Views of Trump's Conduct in Office". Pew Research Center. 5 March 2020. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
While this would be a change to Consensus item 39, "Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health", I do not think it goes against the rationale of the relevant RfC
close discussion, because this section does not describe Trump's mental health itself (besides Trump's self-description as "very stable"), it merely informs the reader of this very noteworthy story about his public image. There is no "armchair diagnosis
", and per
WP:WEIGHT "we should include a paragraph just because of the sheer volume of coverage.
" We could also include more about his personal image similar to
George W. Bush#Cultural and political image. Thoughts?
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Removed last sentence from proposal as UNDUE.
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 02:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Since running for president, Trump's temperament and mental status has been a regular topic of public discussion." Kolya Butternut ( talk) 01:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Scjessey, you participated in the relevant RfC; what are your thoughts on these changes to address what had been previously opposed? Kolya Butternut ( talk) 13:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I oppose this addition, for two reasons. One, I still oppose writing anything about his supposed mental state (I have my own opinion on the subject, but IMO none of that kind of speculation belongs here). I don't believe we've ever done that for other presidents. Even when there is a whole article, like Public image of George W. Bush, we talk about his intelligence but not his mental health. Basically, I reaffirm the consensus statement as it stands. Two, it really adds nothing to his biography to say "there has been discussion about his temperament and mental status" and "this is what he says about himself". Thank you for striking the public opinion poll. If we're not allowing analyses from mental health professionals, we should certainly not post the results of popular polls. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines", or for a topic within an article, WP:WEIGHT guidelines. Similar information is included about Hillary Clinton in her presidential campaign article: "
Despite this letter [from her physician], rumors and conspiracy theories concerning Clinton's health proliferated online. In August 2016, Trump questioned Hillary's stamina and Sean Hannity called for Clinton to release her medical records, fueling these theories." [15] And as for the poll, that was not an "analysis" of Trump's mental health; it was a public opinion poll about his personality and temperament, i.e., his public image. I did not remove it because it did not represent the opinions of experts; I removed it because including that opinion alone created a WP:BLPBALANCE problem. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 18:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
report that other people are speculating" about someone's mental health with evidence that they are in fact speculating.
2)sounds like Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but George Bush is not a comparator here; as far as I know his mental health has not received coverage in RS. I referenced George Bush only to show an example of a "Personal image" subsection. Obama's image section is less personal: Barack Obama#Cultural and political image Joe Biden is also WP:OTHER, and obviously the weight is quite different here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolya Butternut ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
CaptainEek, does my proposed text above avoid the policy problems discussed in your RfC close? Note the sourcing published by the APA itself. I wonder if we were to consider the hypothetical of a notable individual who is 100% of the time identified with the perception of having mental illness, what would Wikipedia do in that situation? My thought is that we would not try to inform readers about his mental health itself; we would inform readers about this aspect of his life story. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 19:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I think there could be some carefully worded addition at some point in the future. I don't think this addition is carefully worded enough, and I think it doesn't provide DUE weight. I think a more solid version should be work-shopped prior to any new RfC. Such a version probably needs to be paragraph length, and summarize a good dozen or two sources. However, my viewpoint should not be the overriding factor here. My close was merely a summary of the arguments presented at the RfC, and reflected a very, very difficult discussion. Most importantly: my close summarized that folks felt we could not create a neutral, BLP conforming paragraph given the sources available. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 20:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Kolya Butternut, The RfC stated The question here is whether we should have something or nothing.
, and my reading of consensus was at the time: nothing. Now I do agree that the old one was on the basis of of issues like MEDRS and PSCI. The suggested text you left on my talk page does not violate either of those policies. That does not mean I support or oppose the addition mind you, I have no strong personal opinion on the matter, which is why I closed the discussion in the first place. You've asked me to amend my close, that would be a pretty unusual step, especially so long after its been closed. But I can help interpret it: the close and RfC were focused on an in-depth discussion including sources that speculated directly about his mental health, and that is what one of the big concerns was. My close was based greatly on those arguments, such as that armchair diagnosis, as so many were trying to do, was
WP:FRINGE. Avoiding such sources and discussion would be a must for any addition. And your addition has done a good job staying away from that.
But as Melanie points out above, and I pointed out in my close, BLP issues remain, even when FRINGE sources are discounted. As I said in my close If Trump were a historical figure, we could write much more on his mental health. But since he's still kicking, we have to be much more precise.
Here is where changing consensus might come into play. Since you are seeking to add this section, the
WP:ONUS is on you to find support. Since it does not include FRINGE items, it is not totally against my close, and it could be the "carefully worded addition" I suggest. But I am not, and cannot be, the person to unilaterally say if its appropriate. This is where you need broader community input. The last RfC was definite: armchair diagnosis is FRINGE, and the issue needs to exactingly follow BLP. Current discussion should be on what is acceptable under BLP, and ensuring that coverage is DUE.
CaptainEek
Edits Ho Cap'n!
⚓ 16:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
BLP issues remain", would I be correct to interpret that to mean that the community needs to come to a consensus on whether my proposal adheres to BLP, not that you are stating BLP "problems" necessarily remain? Kolya Butternut ( talk) 17:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
1) IMO it obviously violates BLP to ... report that other people are speculating, about a person's mental health absent any actual evidence." To confirm, you disagree with this portion of her comment ? Kolya Butternut ( talk) 17:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I’m going to step in here.
Kolya, you proposed a week ago to include a sentence “Trump’s temperament and mental status have been a regular topic of public discussion.” It was discussed. One IP agreed. Four people so far have disagreed: Jack Upland, Markbassett, Scjessey, and myself. You then pinged CaptainEek, the closer of the previous RfC - the one which established the current consensus not to include a paragraph about Trump’s mental health. You asked CaptainEek whether your proposed text avoids the policy problems they discussed in their lengthy and detailed RfC close. They gave you a detailed reply, concluding my close summarized that folks felt we could not create a neutral, BLP conforming paragraph given the sources available
. You asked them repeatedly for clarification, five times now. They reaffirmed that they did not feel your proposed statement would be allowed under that RfC, but you are still challenging. Enough already. Stop
badgering CaptainEek, who has been very patient and courteous and has given direct replies to your questions, and recognize that your proposed addition has not received support here. Time to
drop the stick. (I am speaking here as an editor, not an admin. If you feel that I am too
WP:INVOLVED to object to your line of questioning, and if you choose to continue it, I will be glad to take your conduct to the community for an independent verdict.) --
MelanieN (
talk) 01:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
If you feel that I am too WP:INVOLVED to object to your line of questioning, and if you choose to continue it, I will be glad to take your conduct to the community for an independent verdict." as a threat. Please stop trying to shut down a good faith discussion which happens to challenge something you have fought very long and hard against. I'm sure the community would also appreciate clarification before their time is wasted on a burdensome close review that I hope will not be necessary. Now, there are a couple things still left to discuss.
This act of Congress was proposed because, as CBS reports:Trump's first use of the term was in response to allegations of mental health problems in the recently published book Fire and Fury, which was followed by extensive discussion of the subject on cable news. On January 6, 2018 Trump tweeted "Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.... I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star... to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!"[2] He has described himself as an "extremely stable genius" or "true stable genius" on several subsequent occasions.[4] On one such occasion he also called on multiple members of his staff to testify that he was calm and under control.
I do not believe this is gossip. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 02:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)"The President believes he is a 'stable genius.' I do not," [Democratic Pennsylvania Rep. Brendan] Boyle said in a statement. "Before voting for the highest office in the land, Americans have a right to know whether an individual has the physical and mental fitness to serve as President of the United States. While it is necessary to take the current President's concerning behavior seriously and I support legislation to address these ongoing concerns, I believe we must also be proactive and do all we can to ensure a situation like this does not arise again." [19]
Discussion can be found here. Casprings ( talk) 16:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The photo is pretty clearly an attempt to have Trump linked with Saudi royalty through the use of a photo taken at a White House dinner hosted by Reagan, to which Trump was merely attending. In fact he's hardly in the photo, standing awkwardly in the back. A reversal of this photo to the former photo of Trump merely meeting Reagan is appropriate. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken ( talk) 20:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
an attempt to have Trump linked with Saudi royaltyI don't understand, especially since we have so many other juicy details (first foreign presidential trip, the arms deal Pompeo tried to rush through, etc.). That being said, it is Ivana and Fahd in the foreground with Trump in the background. Shouldn't Trump be more prominently featured in a picture on his page? – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
juicy detailsyou are touting are related to Trump's presidency, this is a photo from the mid-1980s. Even discarding that, when Trump's hardly in the photo itself, how is this in anyway a good fit for his biography page? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken ( talk) 12:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
"Trump's hardly in the photo..."- I can clearly see his entire person, and I can clearly see he is involved in the greeting process. I would argue the image is flattering to Trump, as it shows him engaging with world leaders, bolstering his claim of "experience" in such matters. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
bolstering his claim of "experience". Deadpan snark aside, this is a BLP violation and needs removal. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken ( talk) 12:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
drop the stick, take a gander at BLP#Images whose concern for an image's potential misuse of out-of-context situations is exactly the issue I'm taking up here. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken ( talk) 13:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Cool down, folks! — JFG talk 06:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
It’s hard for me to figure what this picture - showing barely-visible private citizen Trump and his wife in a receiving line in 1985 - adds to the article. It has nothing to do with the section where it is included, namely “Wealth”. We already have a picture of Trump as president with the Saudi king in 2017; that’s far more appropriate and relevant, and it shows Trump prominently instead of in the background. I say we delete this one. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC) P.S. I don't see any BLP issue here. It's just a lousy photo in an article that already has plenty of photos. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
President Ronald Reagan Shaking Hands with Donald Trump at a Reception for Members of The "Friends of Art and Preservation in Embassies" Foundation in The Blue Room. First time I even heard of the foundation but then I don't have any spare $50,000 steel sculptures cluttering up the house. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC) State dinner - that's the pinnacle of social climbing. I enlarged the image slightly and changed the caption. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Mandruss and Scjessey: For those of you bewailing the lack of pre-presidential pictures: so go ahead and add some more already! Here are some possibilities from Commons: Trump with Bill Clinton in 2000 , Trump playing golf with Mark Wahlberg in a 2006 Pro-Am tournament, Trump with Dennis Rodman in 2009. We can do so much better than this oh-there-he-is-in-the-background picture. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
It needs more images pre-presidency, not less.So I was trying to suggest ways you could deal with what you feel is a lack here. And I was suggesting you could add them as the ADDITIONAL pictures you say you want, not as replacements for this one - which I think should be replaced by the similar-but-better Trump-with-Reagan picture. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC) P.S. Your argument for removing the Celebrity Golf Tournament article was
The article contains plenty of other images of a middle-aged Trump.What has changed, so that you now feel this Trump-in-the-background receiving line picture is essential? -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Interesting discussion, but I can't really tell who is arguing to keep this photo and who is arguing to remove it. Let's keep on discussing above, but I can't tell the players without a scorecard. Let's see who is saying what. Who knows, maybe it will turn out we are really all on the same side. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
an attempt to have Trump linked with Saudi royaltyis pure speculation. (Why would we even need such an attempt when we have the "orb" picture in the Foreign policy section?) "Wealth" is as good as any section to show Donald and Ivana Trump in the reception line of the state dinner then-President Reagan hosted for Saudi King Fahd on February 11, 1985. It's a picture from the National Archives, listed unter the title "State Visit of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia State Dinner Receiving Line with Ivana Trump and Donald Trump in East Room." Trump and wife were guests. The Reagan Library has a video of the dinner on Youtube. At 23:10, you can see Ivana Trump (blond hair, bare shoulders, dark dress with sash) seated at a table. If the camera had panned a little further to the right, it would have shown Donald Trump. When was the last time any of us got to attend a state dinner for a visiting head of state - or had a spread of our opulent 1985 abodes featured in the Architectural Digest? The article features pictures of Trump's star on the Walk of Fame and of a bunch of building's that had his name on them at one time or another. Any of them are better candidates for removal. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss the content, not other users. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hello, I just wanted to point out that "According to Trump, they was so close that Cohn sometimes waived fees due to their friendship." is not correct. It's "they were". I know this is a minor detail but I could not change it myself. FDDATHOMAS ( talk) 17:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
President Obama is 6'1" and when trump and President Obama stand side by side, trump is shorter. Therefore trump can NOT be 6'3" 2600:1006:B113:27ED:3C48:98CF:DD7D:88BF ( talk) 15:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I plan to edit the following text in the section about Trump’s religion.
Original: Trump is a Presbyterian and as a child was confirmed at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens.[35] In the 1970s, his parents joined the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan.[36] The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale,[35] ministered to Trump's family and mentored him until Peale's death in 1993.
Revision: When asked, Trump identifies as a Presbyterian, although no evidence has been published that he is now a member of any church. As a teenager he was confirmed at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens. In the 1970s, his parents joined the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan, when Trump was in his late twenties.[36] The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale,[35] ministered to Trump's family and was an influence until Peale's death in 1993.
Defense (I write as a former Presbyterian pastor):
In the original form, “Trump is a Presbyterian” overstates the case. No evidence has been published that he is now a member of any church, Presbyterian or otherwise. All that can accurately be said is that he has a Presbyterian background. My revision limits itself to his responses when asked about religion. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/state/donald-trump-religion/
“…as a child was confirmed”: A photo of the event, dated 1959 makes Trump 13. I changed the wording to the more specific “teenager.” https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/state/donald-trump-religion/
“In the 1970s, his parents joined the Marble Collegiate Church….” Trump would have been 25 at the youngest. It fills out the picture of his religious influences to state his approximate age.
“The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale,[35] … mentored him…” The verb “mentored” is too strong. Peale had an influence through his famous “power of positive thinking,” but no evidence has been produced that there was a mentoring relationship. I changed the word to “influence.”
Bookman1968 ( talk) 14:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
claims [that he is] a stable genius, the best president the U.S. has ever seenwith his religious personal life. What benefit is Trump going to see from claiming to be a Presbyterian? Please do tell I'm very curious. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken ( talk) 18:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
There was once a point in time we'd discuss controversial edits before implementing them. Your opposition is noted, you're outnumbered 4:1, and I don't believe you have cited policy. starship .paint ( talk) 14:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Trump identifies as Presbyterian; as a teenager he was confirmed at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens. [1] In the 1970s, his parents joined the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan, which was not a Presbyterian church, but belonged to the Reformed Church in America denomination. [1] [2] The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale, [1] ministered to Trump's family until Peale's death in 1993. [2] Trump has described Peale as a mentor to him. [3] In 2015, after Trump said: "I go to Marble Collegiate Church", the church reacted by stating that he "is not an active member" of the church. [4]
References
starship .paint ( talk) 02:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
References
as a teenager he was confirmed at the First Presbyterian Church? When you're around 13, you're a teenager...? starship .paint ( talk) 08:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
It describes itself as the oldest continuously worshiping Presbyterian congregation in the country. Mr. Trump was confirmed there in 1959, around the time he turned 13.starship .paint ( talk) 04:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Trump identifies as Presbyterian. He went to Sunday school and was confirmed in 1959 at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens. [1] [2] In the 1970s, his parents joined the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan, which belongs to the Reformed Church. [1] [3] The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale, [1] ministered to Trump's family until Peale's death in 1993. [3] Trump has described Peale as a mentor. [4] Trump has highlighted Peale's writing on The Power of Positive Thinking, and acknowledged that he learned from Peale to "never think of the negative", and that "the mind can overcome any obstacle". [2] [4] In 2015, after Trump said: "I go to Marble Collegiate Church", the church reacted by stating that he "is not an active member" of the church. [2]
I thought that since Trump cited Peale as a mentor, one further sentence on what he said he learned from Peale would be appropriate. starship .paint ( talk) 02:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
@
Urgal:: You violated active arbitration remedies, 24-hrd BDR cycle with this edit:
[27] and 1RR with this one:
[28]. You should have brought your interpretation of consensus 30 to this Talk page before your first revert. Also, on behalf of the editors involved in the discussions to reach consensus, thank you very much for your comment (the current version sounds like it was written by a person with trump derangement syndrome
).
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 10:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 10:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@ MrX: I just noticed that the editor was blocked for a second revert in this article. It seems to me that that was the fourth revert in a four-hour period, or is my understanding of 1RR (and 24-hrs BRD) wrong? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC) First revert: [29], second: [30], third: [31], fourth: [32]. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
If I'm right, could someone please remove the half-sentence [33] the editor added to the lead? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second. Oh well, tomorrow is another day. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:49, 30 May 2020 (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.
There needs to be something here about his state of mind..he`s obviously cracking up..it`s only a matter of time before it`s going to be too obvious to ignore 2600:1702:2340:9470:D928:9254:9253:635E ( talk) 23:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
In the lead section, there used to be a footnote explaining what the "popular vote" means in the context of U.S. presidential elections. Was there a discussion to remove the footnote, or was that just a bold edit I missed? I think it's wrong to say "but he lost the popular vote" if we do not explain to readers that the U.S. electoral process for the presidency IS NOT a "popular vote". Given that readers from many countries are indeed more familiar with a two-round suffrage universel direct presidential election, we should EITHER explain the U.S. process OR refrain from mentioning that Trump "lost" some irrelevant count of votes. — JFG talk 06:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
See "Trump's first ghostwritten book, The Art of the Deal (1987), was on the New York Times Best Seller list for 48 weeks. According to The New Yorker, "The book expanded Trump's renown far beyond New York City, promoting an image of himself as a successful dealmaker and tycoon." Tony Schwartz, who is credited as co-author, later said he did all the writing, backed by Howard Kaminsky, then-head of Random House, the book's publisher.[185]"
The wording is a bit unclear. Did Trump claim he wrote part or most of the book? QuackGuru ( talk) 15:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
See "According to The New Yorker, "The book expanded Trump's renown far beyond New York City, promoting an image of himself as a successful dealmaker and tycoon." I could not find the exact quote. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Would someone please remove "The Honorable" from the top of the infobox? It's ridiculous on many levels, and it has been edit warred into the current revision. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 12:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Starship.paint: I just removed another "too long" tag added by a drive-by editor. You've been adding a lot of material recently. It's difficult to keep up with it, and kudos to your your diligence, but do we really need this much detail in this top article? This one, for example, and all those minutiae on a wall that hasn't been built. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The header *is* dated info,but
Work on the body first.I agreed with that sentiment, because the article was not updated on many aspects of immigration. (1) There was nothing in the body on migrant detentions. (2) There was nothing in the body on family separations. (3) There was nothing in the body on the wall. (4) There was nothing on the national emergency on the southern border (5) The section on the government shutdown only had the start, no consequences, no end. Therefore, I simply had to introduce the content. Better that I over-write and you trim it, than there's no content at all. I've trimmed the part you pointed out. starship .paint ( talk) 09:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Is there any mention of the protests ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:69E9:6D24:2624:228B ( talk) 21:42, 3 June 2020 (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.
Should the term "United States" be changed to "United States of America"? As a non-American, I can say that the term "America" or "USA" is used much more than simply "United States" which sounds shorthand. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Gandydancer: It's probably Trump's bible, i.e., a leather-bound copy of the Art of the Deal, but you're right. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
“Is that your Bible?” a reporter is heard asking Mr Trump during the moment. He responded: “It’s a Bible.”
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: - The Independent. starship .paint ( talk) 16:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The line referencing Trump's net worth should be removed due to the high unreliability of this information and extreme lack of poof on anything related to his finances or corporate dealing. At least more context is needed to accurately reflect the uncertainty of his financial situation such as listing it as a range of $150 million up to $X or give context to his known hundreds of millions of dollars in debt and inability to generate large amounts of cash when needed. Jonnyrecluse ( talk) 17:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. See
WP:EDITREQ#Planning a request. Given the nature of this article and its subject, there are very few substantive changes to this article that would be considered uncontroversial. ‑‑
ElHef (
Meep?) 20:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
President is 75 years old 99.70.215.162 ( talk) 04:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The president is 75 years old. 99.70.215.162 ( talk) 16:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
No. 74 years from 1946 (his year of birth) is this year. Do the math. Crboyer ( talk) 16:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The article exceeds the limit on post-expand include size, again, and has done since mid-day 30 May UTC. Three templates at the end of the article are currently broken, and more will be broken as the article continues to grow. The most recent in the long series of recurring discussions is here. ― Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
Navboxes}}
consume 21.6% of the PEIS limit. ―
Mandruss
☎ 02:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Post‐expand include size: 1893639/2097152 bytes
--
Scjessey (
talk) 12:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
2097151/2097152 bytes
and three broken templates to 1893639/2097152 bytes
and zero broken templates. --
Scjessey (
talk) 15:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC) {{
Navboxes}}
(titled "Leadership roles") costs 161,420 bytes of PEIS, or 7.7% of the limit. After
this removal of the other {{
Navboxes}}
, the article is now at 90.3% of the limit. ―
Mandruss
☎ 16:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
fully savedwas this, which was not a
{{
Navboxes}}
. But even that should have reduced PEIS. ―
Mandruss
☎ 19:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
Navboxes}}
costs as much as about 104 cite templates and the other one about 188. And, if Scjessey's removal holds, we currently have room for about 130 more cite templates before busting the limit again. If all of my testing and arithmetic is correct. ―
Mandruss
☎ 17:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)@ Mandruss, MrX, and Scjessey: I've also removed the leadership roles navigation box and made a formal proposal below. starship .paint ( talk) 02:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
In light of the above findings: (1) our article is exceeding the post-expand include size, purely because of templates, which include references and navboxes. (2) The navboxes take up around 290 references' worth of post-expand include size. (3) We've already tried to condense the article, most of the content already has child articles, the latest being: Media career of Donald Trump.
Therefore it is proposed that all navigation templates from the bottom of the article are removed except Template:Donald Trump, as that is the most relevant navigation template to this article. The navboxes removed [43] [44] are those related to U.S. Presidents, 2016 election, the GOP, Time Person of the Year, leading NATO, G8, G20, APEC. starship .paint ( talk) 02:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
{{Navboxes |list1 = {{US Presidents}} {{United States presidential election, 2016}} {{Republican Party (United States)}} {{Time Persons of the Year}} }} {{Navboxes |title=Leadership roles |list1 = {{Current NATO leaders}} {{G8 Leaders}} {{List of Current Heads of State of G20}} {{List of Current Heads of Government of G20}} {{Current G20 Leaders}} {{APEC Leaders}} }}
{{
Navboxes}}
now, the other only if and when we exceed the limit again. I would argue that I'm really tired of this problem and neither {{
Navboxes}}
is really needed. With the two removals, we now have room for ~235 more cite templates and I don't expect us to ever need more than ~1,090 citations. (The difference between 235 and PrimeHunter's 293 indicates that we were well over the limit before the removals.) In other words, this solution finally puts this issue to bed. ―
Mandruss
☎ 14:41, 6 June 2020 (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.
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Trump, D. J.. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 16#Trump, D. J. until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The muller investigation found no proof of Russian collusion. This article is personal opinion. 2603:9000:E808:E500:C14B:DEC7:F7FF:D04C ( talk) 19:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I have restored the arduously and exhaustively discussed wording "Trump was slow" and removed the overnight change to the weasel attribution of "slow". Anyone who wishes to review the talk archives should bear in mind that users Amorals and Bsubrpime are blocked sockpuppet accounts. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
When Trump spoke in Switzerland, weeks’ worth of warning signs already had been raised. In the ensuing month, before the president first addressed the crisis from the White House, key steps to prepare the nation for the coming pandemic were not taken. Life-saving medical equipment was not stockpiled. Travel largely continued unabated. Vital public health data from China was not provided or was deemed untrustworthy. A White House riven by rivalries and turnover was slow to act. Urgent warnings were ignored by a president consumed by his impeachment trial and intent on protecting a robust economy that he viewed as central to his reelection chances.
Throughout January, as Mr. Trump repeatedly played down the seriousness of the virus and focused on other issues, an array of figures inside his government — from top White House advisers to experts deep in the cabinet departments and intelligence agencies — identified the threat, sounded alarms and made clear the need for aggressive action. The president, though, was slow to absorb the scale of the risk and to act accordingly, focusing instead on controlling the message, protecting gains in the economy and batting away warnings from senior officials. It was a problem, he said, that had come out of nowhere and could not have been foreseen.
Indeed, it is because of Trump’s slow response to the pandemic that “social distancing” is now required on such a large scale.
The move follows weeks of Trump’s escalating attacks on the U.N. health organization as he has sought to deflect scrutiny of his own administration's slow response to the outbreak.
The U.S. government has been sharply criticized for its slow response to the virus, particularly when it comes to testing.
At some point down the road, there will be time to calculate the cost in U.S. lives and money of Trump’s delayed response to the coronavirus.
... and the public agrees
[46] Nearly two-thirds of Americans say President Donald Trump was too slow in taking major steps to address the threat to the United States
. Please don't again only point to the China travel restriction. He was slow on many other things, as the AP wrote above, and therefore overall slow.
starship
.paint (
talk) 05:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The article should make note of that. [47] It's obviously of long-term encyclopedic value to note in a president's bio whether a "recession" began under his tenure. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The economic expansion that began in June 2009 continued through Trump's first three years in office. This ended in February 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic sparked a recession.
added. starship .paint ( talk) 08:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I suggest a change in the lede sentence from: In foreign policy, Trump has pursued an America First agenda, withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. Suggestion: In foreign policy, Trump has pursued a populist agenda termed America First, withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Iran nuclear deal, and renegotiating the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Justifications: the language America First agenda is misleading and potentially POV. It is an agenda, and it is termed "America First". That Trump has adopted populism is already established; here is an example. Seems to me the NAFTA renegotiation is important enough to include in the lede in this context. Bdushaw ( talk) 09:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
So I went to clean up some of the text in the lede and saw all manner of Cassandra warnings...holy crackers! Obviously this must proceed in microincrements. Here is a proposed change. The lede presently has: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. What I would like to say is: (In a new, separate paragraph) Often employing the social media platform Twitter, Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The misinformation has been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. Justifications: the use of Twitter and misinformation is one of Trump's salient features. I believe Twitter ought to be mentioned, and the issue is important enough to warrant a separate paragraph. I have a problem with the logic of the phrase "statements have been documented" - the statements have not been documented, rather the errors in the statements have been. Since we can't use the "L" word, I propose "misinformation", or otherwise "errors in the statements"; as you see, if we can't use the English language fully, the wording gets awkward. I have also contemplating adding a sentence such as: This misinformation serves to promote his public image or political agenda. (I likely won't be with this article long...this sort of political cesspool is not my thing.) Bdushaw ( talk) 09:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I have a problem with the logic of the phrase "statements have been documented" - the statements have not been documented, rather the errors in the statements have been.Discussion of that point can be found at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 95#Alternative wording #3. It never really went anywhere, we were already struggling for consensus on anything, and the current text is what we ended up with. Notably, nobody suggested "misinformation". Now, absent all the other complication, I might support that change. I would like to see other reactions.
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 115 | Archive 116 | Archive 117 | Archive 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120 | → | Archive 125 |
add a category List of actor-politicians Aero44 ( talk) 16:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
All this discussion above is basically moot. Per
WP:COPDEF, "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics.
" Trump's status as an "actor" is most certainly not a defining characteristic; therefore, he should not be categorized as such. --
Scjessey (
talk) 20:38, 23 May 2020 (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.
The lead section states, in its paragraph about Trump's political rise:
Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics.
I move to strike the second sentence, yielding the abridged text:
Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency.
We already state as fact, in wikivoice, that Trump spews a lot of garbage. It is unnecessary to further justify this characterization by invoking fact-checkers and the media for a whole extra sentence. Curious readers can read the linked dedicated article: Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, which would arguably be even more prominent with the single-sentence, straight-to-the-point version. — JFG talk 07:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
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.
Is there an article on Trump's executive order? For a reaction section this could be added: " President's power does not extend to threatening or shutting down social media platforms. But we should fear this in every country. Worst case scenario is that platforms don't have courage to tell Trump to go away, that they begin to adapt policies to his whims because he is a lunatic," Wales said. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The suggestion for an article is way premature. Right now this is just one of many controversial executive orders he has made. It may blow up into a notable case, particularly if it sparks notable lawsuits, or it may turn out to be a nothingburger. A sentence in the Presidency article is about all it rates right now. -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Nariyahok ( talk) 20:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
i feel like i should edit this to talk more about his personal life and how he has helped this country very much
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.
This shouldnt be included in the lead, as its based on opinions rather than facts: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist. "
WP:RACIST states "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist [...] may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject [...]" /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels
it is surely not widely used to describe Trump and the sources are questionable too, therefore its necessary to remove the line. I know you guys hate the guts of this guy but wikipedia articles have to be written from a neutral perspective SmooveMike ( talk) 11:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I know you guys hate the guts of this guy, nice Trump quote. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC) (aka editor reads-a-lot)
User:SmooveMike - you're not going to get far on Wikipedia saying The sources are only one thing
. Reliable sources are everything here. As for articles have to be written from a neutral perspective
, yes, we must neutrally reflect the POV of the sources, but the end product is not necessarily neutral. That is, if the sources say "happy", we say "happy", we don't say "emotionless". If they say "happy" and we say "emotionless", we have failed to neutrally reflect the sources.
starship
.paint (
talk) 12:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
SmooveMike, if you’re going to jump into highly controversial articles on your first day here, you might take some time to read the policies and guidelines and the lengthy talk page discussions detailing the consensus behind the current state of the article. O3000 ( talk) 13:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I had attempted to add this subsection:
Personal image
Since running for president, [1] Trump's temperament and mental status has been a regular topic of public discussion. [2] [3] Trump has responded by saying that he has a "great temperament" [4] and is a "very stable genius". [5]
A 2020 Pew Research Center survey found that most Americans would describe Trump as "self-centered". [6]
Sources
- ^ Levin, Aaron (25 August 2016). "History of Goldwater Rule Recalled as Media Try to Diagnose Trump". Psychiatric News. American Psychiatric Association. doi: 10.1176/appi.pn.2016.9a13. Retrieved 25 April 2020.
- ^ Maza, Carlos (24 January 2018). "The awkward debate over Trump's mental fitness". Vox. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
- ^ Rucker, Philip; Parker, Ashley (8 January 2018). "The White House struggles to silence talk of Trump's mental fitness". Washington Post. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
- ^ Cillizza, Chris (1 August 2016). "Donald Trump's ABC interview may be his best/worst yet". Washington Post. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
- ^ Baker, Peter; Haberman, Maggie (6 January 2018). "Trump, Defending His Mental Fitness, Says He's a 'Very Stable Genius'". New York Times. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
- ^ "Few Americans Express Positive Views of Trump's Conduct in Office". Pew Research Center. 5 March 2020. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
While this would be a change to Consensus item 39, "Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health", I do not think it goes against the rationale of the relevant RfC
close discussion, because this section does not describe Trump's mental health itself (besides Trump's self-description as "very stable"), it merely informs the reader of this very noteworthy story about his public image. There is no "armchair diagnosis
", and per
WP:WEIGHT "we should include a paragraph just because of the sheer volume of coverage.
" We could also include more about his personal image similar to
George W. Bush#Cultural and political image. Thoughts?
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Removed last sentence from proposal as UNDUE.
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 02:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Since running for president, Trump's temperament and mental status has been a regular topic of public discussion." Kolya Butternut ( talk) 01:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Scjessey, you participated in the relevant RfC; what are your thoughts on these changes to address what had been previously opposed? Kolya Butternut ( talk) 13:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I oppose this addition, for two reasons. One, I still oppose writing anything about his supposed mental state (I have my own opinion on the subject, but IMO none of that kind of speculation belongs here). I don't believe we've ever done that for other presidents. Even when there is a whole article, like Public image of George W. Bush, we talk about his intelligence but not his mental health. Basically, I reaffirm the consensus statement as it stands. Two, it really adds nothing to his biography to say "there has been discussion about his temperament and mental status" and "this is what he says about himself". Thank you for striking the public opinion poll. If we're not allowing analyses from mental health professionals, we should certainly not post the results of popular polls. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines", or for a topic within an article, WP:WEIGHT guidelines. Similar information is included about Hillary Clinton in her presidential campaign article: "
Despite this letter [from her physician], rumors and conspiracy theories concerning Clinton's health proliferated online. In August 2016, Trump questioned Hillary's stamina and Sean Hannity called for Clinton to release her medical records, fueling these theories." [15] And as for the poll, that was not an "analysis" of Trump's mental health; it was a public opinion poll about his personality and temperament, i.e., his public image. I did not remove it because it did not represent the opinions of experts; I removed it because including that opinion alone created a WP:BLPBALANCE problem. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 18:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
report that other people are speculating" about someone's mental health with evidence that they are in fact speculating.
2)sounds like Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but George Bush is not a comparator here; as far as I know his mental health has not received coverage in RS. I referenced George Bush only to show an example of a "Personal image" subsection. Obama's image section is less personal: Barack Obama#Cultural and political image Joe Biden is also WP:OTHER, and obviously the weight is quite different here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolya Butternut ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
CaptainEek, does my proposed text above avoid the policy problems discussed in your RfC close? Note the sourcing published by the APA itself. I wonder if we were to consider the hypothetical of a notable individual who is 100% of the time identified with the perception of having mental illness, what would Wikipedia do in that situation? My thought is that we would not try to inform readers about his mental health itself; we would inform readers about this aspect of his life story. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 19:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I think there could be some carefully worded addition at some point in the future. I don't think this addition is carefully worded enough, and I think it doesn't provide DUE weight. I think a more solid version should be work-shopped prior to any new RfC. Such a version probably needs to be paragraph length, and summarize a good dozen or two sources. However, my viewpoint should not be the overriding factor here. My close was merely a summary of the arguments presented at the RfC, and reflected a very, very difficult discussion. Most importantly: my close summarized that folks felt we could not create a neutral, BLP conforming paragraph given the sources available. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 20:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Kolya Butternut, The RfC stated The question here is whether we should have something or nothing.
, and my reading of consensus was at the time: nothing. Now I do agree that the old one was on the basis of of issues like MEDRS and PSCI. The suggested text you left on my talk page does not violate either of those policies. That does not mean I support or oppose the addition mind you, I have no strong personal opinion on the matter, which is why I closed the discussion in the first place. You've asked me to amend my close, that would be a pretty unusual step, especially so long after its been closed. But I can help interpret it: the close and RfC were focused on an in-depth discussion including sources that speculated directly about his mental health, and that is what one of the big concerns was. My close was based greatly on those arguments, such as that armchair diagnosis, as so many were trying to do, was
WP:FRINGE. Avoiding such sources and discussion would be a must for any addition. And your addition has done a good job staying away from that.
But as Melanie points out above, and I pointed out in my close, BLP issues remain, even when FRINGE sources are discounted. As I said in my close If Trump were a historical figure, we could write much more on his mental health. But since he's still kicking, we have to be much more precise.
Here is where changing consensus might come into play. Since you are seeking to add this section, the
WP:ONUS is on you to find support. Since it does not include FRINGE items, it is not totally against my close, and it could be the "carefully worded addition" I suggest. But I am not, and cannot be, the person to unilaterally say if its appropriate. This is where you need broader community input. The last RfC was definite: armchair diagnosis is FRINGE, and the issue needs to exactingly follow BLP. Current discussion should be on what is acceptable under BLP, and ensuring that coverage is DUE.
CaptainEek
Edits Ho Cap'n!
⚓ 16:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
BLP issues remain", would I be correct to interpret that to mean that the community needs to come to a consensus on whether my proposal adheres to BLP, not that you are stating BLP "problems" necessarily remain? Kolya Butternut ( talk) 17:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
1) IMO it obviously violates BLP to ... report that other people are speculating, about a person's mental health absent any actual evidence." To confirm, you disagree with this portion of her comment ? Kolya Butternut ( talk) 17:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I’m going to step in here.
Kolya, you proposed a week ago to include a sentence “Trump’s temperament and mental status have been a regular topic of public discussion.” It was discussed. One IP agreed. Four people so far have disagreed: Jack Upland, Markbassett, Scjessey, and myself. You then pinged CaptainEek, the closer of the previous RfC - the one which established the current consensus not to include a paragraph about Trump’s mental health. You asked CaptainEek whether your proposed text avoids the policy problems they discussed in their lengthy and detailed RfC close. They gave you a detailed reply, concluding my close summarized that folks felt we could not create a neutral, BLP conforming paragraph given the sources available
. You asked them repeatedly for clarification, five times now. They reaffirmed that they did not feel your proposed statement would be allowed under that RfC, but you are still challenging. Enough already. Stop
badgering CaptainEek, who has been very patient and courteous and has given direct replies to your questions, and recognize that your proposed addition has not received support here. Time to
drop the stick. (I am speaking here as an editor, not an admin. If you feel that I am too
WP:INVOLVED to object to your line of questioning, and if you choose to continue it, I will be glad to take your conduct to the community for an independent verdict.) --
MelanieN (
talk) 01:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
If you feel that I am too WP:INVOLVED to object to your line of questioning, and if you choose to continue it, I will be glad to take your conduct to the community for an independent verdict." as a threat. Please stop trying to shut down a good faith discussion which happens to challenge something you have fought very long and hard against. I'm sure the community would also appreciate clarification before their time is wasted on a burdensome close review that I hope will not be necessary. Now, there are a couple things still left to discuss.
This act of Congress was proposed because, as CBS reports:Trump's first use of the term was in response to allegations of mental health problems in the recently published book Fire and Fury, which was followed by extensive discussion of the subject on cable news. On January 6, 2018 Trump tweeted "Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.... I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star... to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!"[2] He has described himself as an "extremely stable genius" or "true stable genius" on several subsequent occasions.[4] On one such occasion he also called on multiple members of his staff to testify that he was calm and under control.
I do not believe this is gossip. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 02:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)"The President believes he is a 'stable genius.' I do not," [Democratic Pennsylvania Rep. Brendan] Boyle said in a statement. "Before voting for the highest office in the land, Americans have a right to know whether an individual has the physical and mental fitness to serve as President of the United States. While it is necessary to take the current President's concerning behavior seriously and I support legislation to address these ongoing concerns, I believe we must also be proactive and do all we can to ensure a situation like this does not arise again." [19]
Discussion can be found here. Casprings ( talk) 16:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The photo is pretty clearly an attempt to have Trump linked with Saudi royalty through the use of a photo taken at a White House dinner hosted by Reagan, to which Trump was merely attending. In fact he's hardly in the photo, standing awkwardly in the back. A reversal of this photo to the former photo of Trump merely meeting Reagan is appropriate. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken ( talk) 20:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
an attempt to have Trump linked with Saudi royaltyI don't understand, especially since we have so many other juicy details (first foreign presidential trip, the arms deal Pompeo tried to rush through, etc.). That being said, it is Ivana and Fahd in the foreground with Trump in the background. Shouldn't Trump be more prominently featured in a picture on his page? – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
juicy detailsyou are touting are related to Trump's presidency, this is a photo from the mid-1980s. Even discarding that, when Trump's hardly in the photo itself, how is this in anyway a good fit for his biography page? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken ( talk) 12:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
"Trump's hardly in the photo..."- I can clearly see his entire person, and I can clearly see he is involved in the greeting process. I would argue the image is flattering to Trump, as it shows him engaging with world leaders, bolstering his claim of "experience" in such matters. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
bolstering his claim of "experience". Deadpan snark aside, this is a BLP violation and needs removal. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken ( talk) 12:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
drop the stick, take a gander at BLP#Images whose concern for an image's potential misuse of out-of-context situations is exactly the issue I'm taking up here. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken ( talk) 13:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Cool down, folks! — JFG talk 06:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
It’s hard for me to figure what this picture - showing barely-visible private citizen Trump and his wife in a receiving line in 1985 - adds to the article. It has nothing to do with the section where it is included, namely “Wealth”. We already have a picture of Trump as president with the Saudi king in 2017; that’s far more appropriate and relevant, and it shows Trump prominently instead of in the background. I say we delete this one. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC) P.S. I don't see any BLP issue here. It's just a lousy photo in an article that already has plenty of photos. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
President Ronald Reagan Shaking Hands with Donald Trump at a Reception for Members of The "Friends of Art and Preservation in Embassies" Foundation in The Blue Room. First time I even heard of the foundation but then I don't have any spare $50,000 steel sculptures cluttering up the house. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC) State dinner - that's the pinnacle of social climbing. I enlarged the image slightly and changed the caption. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Mandruss and Scjessey: For those of you bewailing the lack of pre-presidential pictures: so go ahead and add some more already! Here are some possibilities from Commons: Trump with Bill Clinton in 2000 , Trump playing golf with Mark Wahlberg in a 2006 Pro-Am tournament, Trump with Dennis Rodman in 2009. We can do so much better than this oh-there-he-is-in-the-background picture. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
It needs more images pre-presidency, not less.So I was trying to suggest ways you could deal with what you feel is a lack here. And I was suggesting you could add them as the ADDITIONAL pictures you say you want, not as replacements for this one - which I think should be replaced by the similar-but-better Trump-with-Reagan picture. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC) P.S. Your argument for removing the Celebrity Golf Tournament article was
The article contains plenty of other images of a middle-aged Trump.What has changed, so that you now feel this Trump-in-the-background receiving line picture is essential? -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Interesting discussion, but I can't really tell who is arguing to keep this photo and who is arguing to remove it. Let's keep on discussing above, but I can't tell the players without a scorecard. Let's see who is saying what. Who knows, maybe it will turn out we are really all on the same side. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
an attempt to have Trump linked with Saudi royaltyis pure speculation. (Why would we even need such an attempt when we have the "orb" picture in the Foreign policy section?) "Wealth" is as good as any section to show Donald and Ivana Trump in the reception line of the state dinner then-President Reagan hosted for Saudi King Fahd on February 11, 1985. It's a picture from the National Archives, listed unter the title "State Visit of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia State Dinner Receiving Line with Ivana Trump and Donald Trump in East Room." Trump and wife were guests. The Reagan Library has a video of the dinner on Youtube. At 23:10, you can see Ivana Trump (blond hair, bare shoulders, dark dress with sash) seated at a table. If the camera had panned a little further to the right, it would have shown Donald Trump. When was the last time any of us got to attend a state dinner for a visiting head of state - or had a spread of our opulent 1985 abodes featured in the Architectural Digest? The article features pictures of Trump's star on the Walk of Fame and of a bunch of building's that had his name on them at one time or another. Any of them are better candidates for removal. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Discuss the content, not other users. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hello, I just wanted to point out that "According to Trump, they was so close that Cohn sometimes waived fees due to their friendship." is not correct. It's "they were". I know this is a minor detail but I could not change it myself. FDDATHOMAS ( talk) 17:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
President Obama is 6'1" and when trump and President Obama stand side by side, trump is shorter. Therefore trump can NOT be 6'3" 2600:1006:B113:27ED:3C48:98CF:DD7D:88BF ( talk) 15:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I plan to edit the following text in the section about Trump’s religion.
Original: Trump is a Presbyterian and as a child was confirmed at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens.[35] In the 1970s, his parents joined the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan.[36] The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale,[35] ministered to Trump's family and mentored him until Peale's death in 1993.
Revision: When asked, Trump identifies as a Presbyterian, although no evidence has been published that he is now a member of any church. As a teenager he was confirmed at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens. In the 1970s, his parents joined the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan, when Trump was in his late twenties.[36] The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale,[35] ministered to Trump's family and was an influence until Peale's death in 1993.
Defense (I write as a former Presbyterian pastor):
In the original form, “Trump is a Presbyterian” overstates the case. No evidence has been published that he is now a member of any church, Presbyterian or otherwise. All that can accurately be said is that he has a Presbyterian background. My revision limits itself to his responses when asked about religion. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/state/donald-trump-religion/
“…as a child was confirmed”: A photo of the event, dated 1959 makes Trump 13. I changed the wording to the more specific “teenager.” https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/state/donald-trump-religion/
“In the 1970s, his parents joined the Marble Collegiate Church….” Trump would have been 25 at the youngest. It fills out the picture of his religious influences to state his approximate age.
“The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale,[35] … mentored him…” The verb “mentored” is too strong. Peale had an influence through his famous “power of positive thinking,” but no evidence has been produced that there was a mentoring relationship. I changed the word to “influence.”
Bookman1968 ( talk) 14:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
claims [that he is] a stable genius, the best president the U.S. has ever seenwith his religious personal life. What benefit is Trump going to see from claiming to be a Presbyterian? Please do tell I'm very curious. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken ( talk) 18:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
There was once a point in time we'd discuss controversial edits before implementing them. Your opposition is noted, you're outnumbered 4:1, and I don't believe you have cited policy. starship .paint ( talk) 14:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Trump identifies as Presbyterian; as a teenager he was confirmed at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens. [1] In the 1970s, his parents joined the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan, which was not a Presbyterian church, but belonged to the Reformed Church in America denomination. [1] [2] The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale, [1] ministered to Trump's family until Peale's death in 1993. [2] Trump has described Peale as a mentor to him. [3] In 2015, after Trump said: "I go to Marble Collegiate Church", the church reacted by stating that he "is not an active member" of the church. [4]
References
starship .paint ( talk) 02:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
References
as a teenager he was confirmed at the First Presbyterian Church? When you're around 13, you're a teenager...? starship .paint ( talk) 08:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
It describes itself as the oldest continuously worshiping Presbyterian congregation in the country. Mr. Trump was confirmed there in 1959, around the time he turned 13.starship .paint ( talk) 04:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Trump identifies as Presbyterian. He went to Sunday school and was confirmed in 1959 at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens. [1] [2] In the 1970s, his parents joined the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan, which belongs to the Reformed Church. [1] [3] The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale, [1] ministered to Trump's family until Peale's death in 1993. [3] Trump has described Peale as a mentor. [4] Trump has highlighted Peale's writing on The Power of Positive Thinking, and acknowledged that he learned from Peale to "never think of the negative", and that "the mind can overcome any obstacle". [2] [4] In 2015, after Trump said: "I go to Marble Collegiate Church", the church reacted by stating that he "is not an active member" of the church. [2]
I thought that since Trump cited Peale as a mentor, one further sentence on what he said he learned from Peale would be appropriate. starship .paint ( talk) 02:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
@
Urgal:: You violated active arbitration remedies, 24-hrd BDR cycle with this edit:
[27] and 1RR with this one:
[28]. You should have brought your interpretation of consensus 30 to this Talk page before your first revert. Also, on behalf of the editors involved in the discussions to reach consensus, thank you very much for your comment (the current version sounds like it was written by a person with trump derangement syndrome
).
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 10:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 10:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@ MrX: I just noticed that the editor was blocked for a second revert in this article. It seems to me that that was the fourth revert in a four-hour period, or is my understanding of 1RR (and 24-hrs BRD) wrong? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC) First revert: [29], second: [30], third: [31], fourth: [32]. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
If I'm right, could someone please remove the half-sentence [33] the editor added to the lead? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second. Oh well, tomorrow is another day. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:49, 30 May 2020 (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.
There needs to be something here about his state of mind..he`s obviously cracking up..it`s only a matter of time before it`s going to be too obvious to ignore 2600:1702:2340:9470:D928:9254:9253:635E ( talk) 23:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
In the lead section, there used to be a footnote explaining what the "popular vote" means in the context of U.S. presidential elections. Was there a discussion to remove the footnote, or was that just a bold edit I missed? I think it's wrong to say "but he lost the popular vote" if we do not explain to readers that the U.S. electoral process for the presidency IS NOT a "popular vote". Given that readers from many countries are indeed more familiar with a two-round suffrage universel direct presidential election, we should EITHER explain the U.S. process OR refrain from mentioning that Trump "lost" some irrelevant count of votes. — JFG talk 06:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
See "Trump's first ghostwritten book, The Art of the Deal (1987), was on the New York Times Best Seller list for 48 weeks. According to The New Yorker, "The book expanded Trump's renown far beyond New York City, promoting an image of himself as a successful dealmaker and tycoon." Tony Schwartz, who is credited as co-author, later said he did all the writing, backed by Howard Kaminsky, then-head of Random House, the book's publisher.[185]"
The wording is a bit unclear. Did Trump claim he wrote part or most of the book? QuackGuru ( talk) 15:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
See "According to The New Yorker, "The book expanded Trump's renown far beyond New York City, promoting an image of himself as a successful dealmaker and tycoon." I could not find the exact quote. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Would someone please remove "The Honorable" from the top of the infobox? It's ridiculous on many levels, and it has been edit warred into the current revision. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 12:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Starship.paint: I just removed another "too long" tag added by a drive-by editor. You've been adding a lot of material recently. It's difficult to keep up with it, and kudos to your your diligence, but do we really need this much detail in this top article? This one, for example, and all those minutiae on a wall that hasn't been built. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The header *is* dated info,but
Work on the body first.I agreed with that sentiment, because the article was not updated on many aspects of immigration. (1) There was nothing in the body on migrant detentions. (2) There was nothing in the body on family separations. (3) There was nothing in the body on the wall. (4) There was nothing on the national emergency on the southern border (5) The section on the government shutdown only had the start, no consequences, no end. Therefore, I simply had to introduce the content. Better that I over-write and you trim it, than there's no content at all. I've trimmed the part you pointed out. starship .paint ( talk) 09:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Is there any mention of the protests ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:69E9:6D24:2624:228B ( talk) 21:42, 3 June 2020 (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.
Should the term "United States" be changed to "United States of America"? As a non-American, I can say that the term "America" or "USA" is used much more than simply "United States" which sounds shorthand. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Gandydancer: It's probably Trump's bible, i.e., a leather-bound copy of the Art of the Deal, but you're right. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
“Is that your Bible?” a reporter is heard asking Mr Trump during the moment. He responded: “It’s a Bible.”
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: - The Independent. starship .paint ( talk) 16:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The line referencing Trump's net worth should be removed due to the high unreliability of this information and extreme lack of poof on anything related to his finances or corporate dealing. At least more context is needed to accurately reflect the uncertainty of his financial situation such as listing it as a range of $150 million up to $X or give context to his known hundreds of millions of dollars in debt and inability to generate large amounts of cash when needed. Jonnyrecluse ( talk) 17:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. See
WP:EDITREQ#Planning a request. Given the nature of this article and its subject, there are very few substantive changes to this article that would be considered uncontroversial. ‑‑
ElHef (
Meep?) 20:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
President is 75 years old 99.70.215.162 ( talk) 04:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The president is 75 years old. 99.70.215.162 ( talk) 16:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
No. 74 years from 1946 (his year of birth) is this year. Do the math. Crboyer ( talk) 16:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The article exceeds the limit on post-expand include size, again, and has done since mid-day 30 May UTC. Three templates at the end of the article are currently broken, and more will be broken as the article continues to grow. The most recent in the long series of recurring discussions is here. ― Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
Navboxes}}
consume 21.6% of the PEIS limit. ―
Mandruss
☎ 02:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Post‐expand include size: 1893639/2097152 bytes
--
Scjessey (
talk) 12:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
2097151/2097152 bytes
and three broken templates to 1893639/2097152 bytes
and zero broken templates. --
Scjessey (
talk) 15:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC) {{
Navboxes}}
(titled "Leadership roles") costs 161,420 bytes of PEIS, or 7.7% of the limit. After
this removal of the other {{
Navboxes}}
, the article is now at 90.3% of the limit. ―
Mandruss
☎ 16:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
fully savedwas this, which was not a
{{
Navboxes}}
. But even that should have reduced PEIS. ―
Mandruss
☎ 19:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
Navboxes}}
costs as much as about 104 cite templates and the other one about 188. And, if Scjessey's removal holds, we currently have room for about 130 more cite templates before busting the limit again. If all of my testing and arithmetic is correct. ―
Mandruss
☎ 17:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)@ Mandruss, MrX, and Scjessey: I've also removed the leadership roles navigation box and made a formal proposal below. starship .paint ( talk) 02:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
In light of the above findings: (1) our article is exceeding the post-expand include size, purely because of templates, which include references and navboxes. (2) The navboxes take up around 290 references' worth of post-expand include size. (3) We've already tried to condense the article, most of the content already has child articles, the latest being: Media career of Donald Trump.
Therefore it is proposed that all navigation templates from the bottom of the article are removed except Template:Donald Trump, as that is the most relevant navigation template to this article. The navboxes removed [43] [44] are those related to U.S. Presidents, 2016 election, the GOP, Time Person of the Year, leading NATO, G8, G20, APEC. starship .paint ( talk) 02:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
{{Navboxes |list1 = {{US Presidents}} {{United States presidential election, 2016}} {{Republican Party (United States)}} {{Time Persons of the Year}} }} {{Navboxes |title=Leadership roles |list1 = {{Current NATO leaders}} {{G8 Leaders}} {{List of Current Heads of State of G20}} {{List of Current Heads of Government of G20}} {{Current G20 Leaders}} {{APEC Leaders}} }}
{{
Navboxes}}
now, the other only if and when we exceed the limit again. I would argue that I'm really tired of this problem and neither {{
Navboxes}}
is really needed. With the two removals, we now have room for ~235 more cite templates and I don't expect us to ever need more than ~1,090 citations. (The difference between 235 and PrimeHunter's 293 indicates that we were well over the limit before the removals.) In other words, this solution finally puts this issue to bed. ―
Mandruss
☎ 14:41, 6 June 2020 (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.
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Trump, D. J.. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 16#Trump, D. J. until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The muller investigation found no proof of Russian collusion. This article is personal opinion. 2603:9000:E808:E500:C14B:DEC7:F7FF:D04C ( talk) 19:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I have restored the arduously and exhaustively discussed wording "Trump was slow" and removed the overnight change to the weasel attribution of "slow". Anyone who wishes to review the talk archives should bear in mind that users Amorals and Bsubrpime are blocked sockpuppet accounts. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
When Trump spoke in Switzerland, weeks’ worth of warning signs already had been raised. In the ensuing month, before the president first addressed the crisis from the White House, key steps to prepare the nation for the coming pandemic were not taken. Life-saving medical equipment was not stockpiled. Travel largely continued unabated. Vital public health data from China was not provided or was deemed untrustworthy. A White House riven by rivalries and turnover was slow to act. Urgent warnings were ignored by a president consumed by his impeachment trial and intent on protecting a robust economy that he viewed as central to his reelection chances.
Throughout January, as Mr. Trump repeatedly played down the seriousness of the virus and focused on other issues, an array of figures inside his government — from top White House advisers to experts deep in the cabinet departments and intelligence agencies — identified the threat, sounded alarms and made clear the need for aggressive action. The president, though, was slow to absorb the scale of the risk and to act accordingly, focusing instead on controlling the message, protecting gains in the economy and batting away warnings from senior officials. It was a problem, he said, that had come out of nowhere and could not have been foreseen.
Indeed, it is because of Trump’s slow response to the pandemic that “social distancing” is now required on such a large scale.
The move follows weeks of Trump’s escalating attacks on the U.N. health organization as he has sought to deflect scrutiny of his own administration's slow response to the outbreak.
The U.S. government has been sharply criticized for its slow response to the virus, particularly when it comes to testing.
At some point down the road, there will be time to calculate the cost in U.S. lives and money of Trump’s delayed response to the coronavirus.
... and the public agrees
[46] Nearly two-thirds of Americans say President Donald Trump was too slow in taking major steps to address the threat to the United States
. Please don't again only point to the China travel restriction. He was slow on many other things, as the AP wrote above, and therefore overall slow.
starship
.paint (
talk) 05:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The article should make note of that. [47] It's obviously of long-term encyclopedic value to note in a president's bio whether a "recession" began under his tenure. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The economic expansion that began in June 2009 continued through Trump's first three years in office. This ended in February 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic sparked a recession.
added. starship .paint ( talk) 08:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I suggest a change in the lede sentence from: In foreign policy, Trump has pursued an America First agenda, withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. Suggestion: In foreign policy, Trump has pursued a populist agenda termed America First, withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Iran nuclear deal, and renegotiating the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Justifications: the language America First agenda is misleading and potentially POV. It is an agenda, and it is termed "America First". That Trump has adopted populism is already established; here is an example. Seems to me the NAFTA renegotiation is important enough to include in the lede in this context. Bdushaw ( talk) 09:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
So I went to clean up some of the text in the lede and saw all manner of Cassandra warnings...holy crackers! Obviously this must proceed in microincrements. Here is a proposed change. The lede presently has: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. What I would like to say is: (In a new, separate paragraph) Often employing the social media platform Twitter, Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The misinformation has been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. Justifications: the use of Twitter and misinformation is one of Trump's salient features. I believe Twitter ought to be mentioned, and the issue is important enough to warrant a separate paragraph. I have a problem with the logic of the phrase "statements have been documented" - the statements have not been documented, rather the errors in the statements have been. Since we can't use the "L" word, I propose "misinformation", or otherwise "errors in the statements"; as you see, if we can't use the English language fully, the wording gets awkward. I have also contemplating adding a sentence such as: This misinformation serves to promote his public image or political agenda. (I likely won't be with this article long...this sort of political cesspool is not my thing.) Bdushaw ( talk) 09:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I have a problem with the logic of the phrase "statements have been documented" - the statements have not been documented, rather the errors in the statements have been.Discussion of that point can be found at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 95#Alternative wording #3. It never really went anywhere, we were already struggling for consensus on anything, and the current text is what we ended up with. Notably, nobody suggested "misinformation". Now, absent all the other complication, I might support that change. I would like to see other reactions.