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 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 |
The lead here doesn't summarise the contents of the article, at all. It's woefully lacking, especially when compared to any other president's article (which are quite elaborate on primary aspects of their presidency). Just a few points off the top of my head:
The existence of Presidency of Donald Trump is a pretty poor argument for an insufficient lead. This article should still summarise its contents, and such an argument wouldn't even be consistent; This article, for some odd reason, chooses to mention things like recognising moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but omits any mention of the wall or the shutdown, which is just bizarre since the former is far more minute than the latter. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 19:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
the only thing he is really going to be remembered for in history is the fact that the was a US President— has been made several times in several forms, but I would like to see someone provide evidence for this. Reagan is remembered for his entertainment career. Eisenhower is remembered for his military career. With regard to the way we treat other US Presidents, I think that editors are overstating the case. The lead in the George H. W. Bush article has an opening paragraph, then a paragraph about his pre-presidential life, then a paragraph about his presidency, and then a paragraph about his post-presidential activities. There is no reason for the presidency to overwhelm the lead.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 04:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Shorter lead (thought starter)
| ||
---|---|---|
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality. Trump was born and raised in Queens, and received a bachelor's degree in economics from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He became president of his father's real-estate business in 1971, renamed it The Trump Organization, and expanded its operations from Queens and Brooklyn into Manhattan. Trump later started various side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies. He produced and hosted The Apprentice, a reality television series, from 2003 to 2015. As of 2020, Forbes estimated his net worth to be $2.1 billion. Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. He entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and was elected in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, although he lost the popular vote. He became the oldest first-term U.S. president, and the first without prior military or government service. His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist. During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries. He enacted a tax-cut package for individuals and businesses, rescinding the individual health insurance mandate penalty. He appointed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. 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. He imposed import tariffs which triggered a trade war with China, replaced NAFTA with USMCA, recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and withdrew U.S. troops from northern Syria. Trump met thrice with North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un, but talks on denuclearization broke down in 2019. Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. The House of Representatives impeached him in December 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate acquitted him of both charges in February 2020.
|
Trump's career mechanisms have been compared to the 1957 film A Face in the Crowd starring Andy Griffith. [1] 109.41.1.184 ( talk) 21:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
References
As noted, the article is too long. It seems to me the main issue is not to trim the text here and there, but to develop an alternate organization for the article. In the presidency section, for example, there is one paragraph associated with each "Main" article...that will never do! There are too many "Main" articles! So, one idea that I throw out there, not yet advocating for it, is to replace the presidency section with something like the lead from the presidency article (a huge lead...) and develop a table to summarize all the "Main"s. Given there already is a Main for the presidency, that section should really be just a summary of the main themes of the presidency. I'd be in favor of Trump's Covid-19 narrative having its own section, since that has been an important and primary Trump "thing". Bdushaw ( talk) 09:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I've proposed this before, but it has been ignored. I shall do it again anyway. This article should follow a strict version of summary style. Every single paragraph in this article (with the exception of the lead) should be adapted from the lead of a sub article. Many of these sub articles already exist, but some will need to be created. These would include, but not necessarily be limited to:
That would end up being an article body somewhere in the region of 22-25 paragraphs, a fraction of the current size. It's just absurd that we try to cram everything in to this one article. It's so unnecessary. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
the daily news feed approach that has plagued this article ever since Trump entered politics.If you can't get a clear buy-in that that approach is not appropriate at this article (the truth is that that approach should not be used at any main BLP), there's little point in doing anything else. But most editors don't know how to edit any other way, so that buy-in will always be very difficult. It's a sticky problem, and it's always important to keep in mind that some nuts can't be cracked. ― Mandruss ☎ 16:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
succinctly-written introduction ... that hits all the key highlights.I took a quick look at the first paragraph of Early career. Sources for the first three sentences are Parade, The Art of Deal, and the National Enquirer. The Art of the Deal, pg. 46, is listed as the source for "Elizabeth Trump & Son." The name isn't mentioned there (or anywhere else in the book, AFAIK), and the company was called Trump Management at least as far back as 1960. Swifton Village - would take too long to parse that. The next two sentences cite a couple of NYT articles, but one of them deals with something unrelated to Trump's early career and the other one with his short-lived attempt to become a Broadway producer. Hitting the key highlights in the lead: Elizabeth Trump and Son again; the company wasn't renamed, they started to use an umbrella brand name for their registered companies (The Trump Organization Inc. wasn't registered until 1981);
He rose to public prominence after concluding a number of successful real estate deals in Manhattan and New York City,in NY maybe and successful and deals needs to be qualified
and his company now owns and develops lodging and golf courses around the world.they manage lodging, don't own most of it, they manage golf courses, own most but not all of them. 72 days to go until the election - let's wait it out. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC) BTW, what are you proposing to keep? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Note b is incorrect. Not all states give their full electoral votes on a 'winner take all' basis. Maine and Nebraska give their two electoral votes representing the senate on a 'winner take 2' basis, then give their remaining electoral votes on a 'congressional district' basis. For example, in 2016 Maine gave its two at-large electoral votes and one of its congressional district electoral votes to Clinton, but the other electoral vote in one congressional district went to Trump. Can someone with edit privileges please correct this Note b. American In Brazil ( talk) 13:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
on mobile apologize for misspellings whatnot - I bless your revert as specifically requested, given that you disagree with my bold edit. I understand your concern. Could we replace usually with most states? It would then not imply a time-series usually, and we could optionally get rid of the faithless electors bit? Hipocrite ( talk) 10:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Proposed:Presidential elections in the United States are decided by the Electoral College, in which each state names a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress, and all delegates from each state usually vote for the winner of the local state vote (except for faithless electors). Consequently, it is possible for the president-elect to have received fewer votes from the country's total population (the popular vote). This situation has occurred five times since 1824.
― Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Presidential elections in the United States are decided by the Electoral College. Each state names a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress, and (in most states) all delegates vote for the winner of the local state vote. Consequently, it is possible for the president-elect to have received fewer votes from the country's total population (the popular vote). This situation has occurred five times since 1824.
Note b is simply wrong.We understand that's your position. So far, you have no support for such a rigid position from other editors. Hipocrite has agreed to my compromise proposal [6] – three days after their edit [7] that you are willfully misrepresenting as their current position. If nothing changes by the time this thread is automatically archived by the bot, I will implement my compromise proposal above on the strength of that agreement. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, can we try for more light and less heat? @ American In Brazil: have you reviewed the proposed change by @ Mandruss: above? Do you agree it's an incremental improvement? If you do, we can probably make that change right now! If you don't, what compromise change do you believe everyone would think is an incremental improvement, noting that your concern is about factual accuracy, while Mandruss is concerned about the targeting of the footnote (for users who don't already know about the EC), and appears to have relented on "usually" vs "most states?" Hipocrite ( talk) 09:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Presidential elections in the United States are decided by the Electoral College. Each state is allocated a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress, and (in most states) all delegates vote for the winner of the local state vote. Consequently, it is possible for the president-elect to have received fewer votes from the country's total population (the popular vote). This is the fifth such occasion.
I don't see why there is a controversy among Wikipedians about a footnote being concise and precise. I would support the language proposed by Scijessey if the parenthesis stated: "(in all but two states)". American In Brazil ( talk) 23:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add that he attended Fordham University in his alma mater section. Replace Wharton School with the University of Pennsylvania. SuperG0d420 ( talk) 21:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk) 21:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)I added some info on Trump's COVID-19 response in the lead and made the wording clearer, since I saw that it was already in the lead and needed some improvement. If it is opposed by most people, then revert it and I would be happy to discuss it. Bill Williams ( talk) 09:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
The RfC is closed now with the conclusion that a statement should be included in the lead, but the wording is not yet settled. I support including the present wording in the lead, which had broad, though not unanimous, support, and that it be used as a "first draft" of the statement that we can work from to evolve towards more settled text. I note again that a statement in the lead must reflect the text in the article. Many text suggestions have been made that do not accurately reflect the weighting of topics in the article. For example "blaming china" is just not that prominent in the article, so it should not be in the lead; if you really want "blaming china" (or whatever) then you should edit the article with supporting references to show that that is a prominent issue. I also urge a responsible party to include the appropriate hidden statements next to the lead sentence stating that changes should be agreed upon by consensus (or however it is stated). Bdushaw ( talk) 18:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus has any bearing on this (hence taking it to the talk page), but I would like to suggest a change to the punctuation used in the statement ""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.". Personally I think the use of a semi-colon makes more sense than a full stop as the sentences are so closely linked, which would read as follows: "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 are people's thoughts on this? Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 21:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I would like to request that an excerpt of the introductory paragraph about his presidency, specifically the excerpt describing his response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States be removed or changed, as it appears to be one-sided, heavily opinionated, and based off reports from media outlets that are critical of Trump rather than any known facts.
- Ardapel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardapel ( talk • contribs) 01:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
If anyone wants to clean them up (I have done a little), this is a list of possible duplicate URL references in the article that might be mergeable (probably with some false positives):
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-ancestral-german-home-of-the-trumps
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/business/media/trump-sells-miss-universe-organization-to-wme-img-talent-agency.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/29/us/politics/fact-checking-president-trump-through-his-first-100-days.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/12/trump-shithole-comment-reaction-337926
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/05/01/president-trumps-first-100-days-the-fact-check-tally/
Pol098 (
talk) 18:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The sentence, "Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic” should be removed. “Slowly” is a relative term and is used without proper context, rendering it an ambiguous sentence and, likely, misleading in this case. Ktg.jr.md ( talk) 03:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
References
Shouldn't the lede mention that he is the Republican nominee for the 2020 presidential election? Right now, it only tangentially mentions the election, and not even that he's an active candidate. ɱ (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
overwhelming press coverage for the 2020 election, few people who care about politics need to be told that Trump is the GOP candidate, and it is probably not lead-worthy, and certainly not first-paragraph-worthy. Regardless, this is the main account of Trump's entire life and should not be the main go-to for current events merely because it's the article many readers initially go to. The election article is prominently linked as a hatnote in the appropriate section. ― Mandruss ☎ 05:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
This is a stupid argument. Notability doesn't work that way, we don't omit that he's the president because "everyone knows that". Mentioning a person running for reelection, especially for the presidency, is a crucial aspect of their life as we know it right now, obviously to be updated by its success or failure even if we do nothing today. ɱ (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
In April 2011, he announced that he would be running for re-election in 2012.If you want to use that as a blueprint, then we’d have to say: Trump filed his official 2020 candidacy paperwork with the FEC on January 20, 2017, and held his first campaign rally in February of that year (the Florida rally on February 18 was paid for by his campaign). [10] Chronologically, this would belong at the beginning of the third paragraph, being the very first act during his presidency. I don't think it's lead-worthy; he made it clear to all the world from day one of his first term that he was running for a second term by campaigning. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Any update on this, if people think it's fine to simply add he is "the Republican Party nominee for the 2020 presidential election"? Really should be common sense for a presidential nomination from either major party here, and evidently removed by mistake the last time. ɱ (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I support Trump. But please tell me why specifically the allegations were made to the President? SALivesMatter ( talk) 10:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove “Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.” 50.24.110.37 ( talk) 07:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The attempts to add an infobox caption have increased in frequency of late, presumably because someone recently added captions to the BLPs of a number of other U.S. presidents (and others are apparently trying to enforce the non-existent guideline that U.S. presidents' BLPs should be consistent in such details). We can't sustain a caption-free image indefinitely with fuzzy rationales like this, in my opinion. I think we should establish a clearer consensus that would support a list item. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Proposing to merge this into the next sentence, so it would read like:
He entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and was elected in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest first-term U.S. president, [a], the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to be elected without winning the popular vote.
Reasons are because (a) the second sentence compares the unusualness of his election to past presidents, so this statement fits in nicely and more appropriately to this sentence, and (b) the current version just reads iffy. Stole this from similar wording at George W. Bush. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Notes
the second sentence compares the unusualness of his election to past presidents. That's the so-called "surprise victory" (it was only a surprise to some pundits) and losing the popular vote by a wide margin. You'd have to remove both: "He won the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and won over the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton ." Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
@ BLDM: First revert: [11]; second one: [12]. You may want to revert yourself. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
JLo-Watson: The claim that Trump renamed his father's company appears to be based on the book Art of the Deal which says: We had no formal name for the company ... so I began to call it the Trump Organization.
His father owned a number of separate business entities. There was no umbrella company that owned a number of subsidiaries. Fred Trump and the newspapers had occasionally used the names Fred C. Trump Organization, Fred Trump Organization, and Trump Organization when informally referring to Fred's real estate business entities as far back as the 50s.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Trump incorporated an entity called The Trump Organization in 1981: The Trump Organization was not incorporated and is not a corporation. It is a umbrella name for hundreds of separately titled business ventures, and it is privately owned. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Incorporation is the legal process used to form a corporate entity or company. A corporation is the resulting legal entity that separates the firm's assets and income from its owners and investors.( [13]) If corporations don't issue stock, i.e., go public, they don't have to release their balance sheets or the names of the owner(s) or how much they owe to banks, Scrooge McDuck, or Igor Oligarch. The Trump Organization and other Trump-owned and Trump Organization-owned businesses didn't issue stock, so Trump has been able to hide his actual wealth (or lack thereof). At first the name was a marketing tool but they incorporated in 1981 ( Bloomberg). I don’t know whether this search result link will work. If not, go to NY entity search and search for The Trump Organization. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how we can say Trump initially ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, at least without even mentioning the fact that Fauci has publicly said that Trump followed all of the NIH initial recommendations. Am I missing something here? That is a direct contradiction of what we have in the page. Anon0098 ( talk) 23:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Why were the office and distinctions succession boxes deleted out of this article? It's in all the other US presidents bios. GoodDay ( talk) 17:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I removed two more, at Joe Biden & Hillary Clinton, since they likely get more viewers. GoodDay ( talk) 14:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
'restoring' the info in this articlejust to make it
a lot easierfor you to achieve your out-of-step consistency. ― Mandruss ☎ 14:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
― Mandruss ☎ 14:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Widespread good things should persist because they are good, not because they are widespread. "This is how it's normally done" is a terrible argument for anything, allowing widespread bad things to persist. Instead of making that argument, explain why it's better than the alternatives. Change is not a bad thing, and resistance to change impedes progress.
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.
Heading modified from "Let's take another stab at consensus for the correct University name in the Infobox. "The Wharton School" or "The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania?"" per WP:TPO. ― Mandruss ☎ 07:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Heading modification reverted by OP here. ― Mandruss ☎ 06:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
It has been two years since a narrow consensus was reached on whether or not to include Fordham in the infobox. It was only a slight "no" at the
time. Also around that time, there was another close vote on whether or not to include the
degree in the infobox. So, I think the time may be ripe to revisit both questions. For example, where else on any other subject infoboxes do we list undergraduate major? Or even the graduate major for that matter?
But for now, there is another issue that has really never been resolved by consensus: the correct name of the institution to be used in the infobox. "The Wharton School" is an abbreviation, not the full correct name. As our own article shows, that is the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Again, where else are we using school name abbreviations in infoboxes? Full names appear to be common practice throughout the project.
So should we use the full name: Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in the Infobox. Yes or No? Thanks. X4n6 ( talk) 03:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
where else are we using school name abbreviations in infoboxes?I don't know, but how often is the full name seven words and 50 characters in length? How often is the full name given in two other places in prose, including one in the lead? Thus the fallacy of citing precedent as an argument, looking at only one factor, rather than assessing cases individually on their own merits. "The Wharton School" is not an incorrect name; it is simply less than the full, official, formal name, and that's okay especially in an already-long infobox. ― Mandruss ☎ 08:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Wharton School (BS). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Wharton School, no "the". It's an unambiguous term and the WP:COMMONNAME, so no need to use the longer title just since it's official. For precedent, we don't use
Columbia University in the City of New York, even though that's the official name of that institution. I'm open to being persuaded to
University of Pennsylvania, so if the discussion veers toward that being the central question, consider me neutral. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 11:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
There is no other named business school where Alumni are listed as having their Alma Mater be the business school as opposed to the university except for Wharton, which has about 50% compliance with the standard. Other schools with equally-famous named business schools are Booth (UChicago), Stern (NYU), Kellog (Northwestern) and Sloan (MIT). Another parallel is how we use university name when people go to colleges - "Harvard University," does not grant any degrees at all - undergraduate degrees come from "Harvard College," yet we list Harvard University as the Alma Mater of every Harvard undergrad from Harvard College through the phDs granted by the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. I suggest we move this article (and I'll be approaching a more centralized discussion to standardize the other wharton grads) to the Wikipedia standard "University of Pennsylvania (BS)," similar to the format of Alex_Gorsky, Jon_Huntsman_Sr. and who knows how many others. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for the solid input. Since the only alternative to Wharton School (or Wharton), appears to be the University of Pennsylvania, can we see if we have significant consensus for that change? Could everyone please vote one last time?
* University of Pennsylvania - or even Penn or UPenn would also work for me (especially since the name is long). But only because those alternates are in the school's article. As several folks have said, we generally list the University not any individual school in the infobox. Which, I suppose, is why we don't see Medill, Annenberg, the former Boalt Hall, Harvard Kennedy, ad nauseum there. And surprisingly, there's nothing I found in the MOS. Perhaps our discussion here will lead to a formal rule or some guidance there as well. X4n6 ( talk) 11:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
In Trump reacted slowly to the
COVID-19 pandemic
in the lead, I tried linking to
U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic over "reacted slowly", since that's where
Donald Trump and the Covid-19 pandemic redirects, following
Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_121#Splitting_Covid-19 this earlier discussion.
Emir of Wikipedia reverted me, with edit summary article is about the federal government as whole, not specifically Trump
. I note that
Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic also exists, but that's a little too narrow, since his reaction includes more than just his communications. I think the federal response page is okay, since Trump is the head of the U.S. federal government, so he is ultimately responsible for and directing its actions. What do you all think about which page we should link here? {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 19:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
An article today in the NY Times on how Trump is using media to manipulate public opinion - inciting and demonizing - reminded me of a long-standing objection to how this article is organized. Trump's main thing is this sort of manipulation - dropping verbal firebombs as a distraction and to set people off. It's his main thing, I say - he has been amazingly innovative at exploiting media, and, as noted before, he spends a large fraction of each day doing it ( 90 tweets the other day!). I think the tactic deserves its own section. So, just penciling how something might look, I suggest a new main section entitled "Use of print, television, rallies and social media", perhaps below "Presidency", to include the present subsections in "Public profile": Social media, False statements, Promotion of conspiracy theories, Relationship with the press, and Allegations of inciting violence. These topics are the main action of Trump, yet they are buried within this "Public profile" section. The new section would then need some development about that, perhaps taking relevant material from the other sections. Bdushaw ( talk) 12:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
When an adjective is comprised of two words, a hyphen in between them is required to show the pairing. In the article copy (section “False statements”) that reads, “far reaching effects,” the adjective, far-reaching, has been misspelled. Its entry in Wiktionary proves as much. [1]
References
Apachegila ( talk) 15:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Heading modified from "Inaccurate information about Trump's statements about slowing down of testing" per WP:TALKNEW bullet 5. Please keep headings neutral. ― Mandruss ☎ 11:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
The article says " He told a June rally that "I said to my people, 'Slow the testing down please,' " later clarifying he had not actually given such an order" But the citation given for this statement says the exact opposite. The title of the cited article is " "Trump now says he wasn't kidding when he told officials to slow down coronavirus testing, contradicting staff", and the lede of the cited article says "President Donald Trump now says that he was not kidding when he told rallygoers over the weekend that he asked staff to slow down coronavirus testing, undercutting senior members of his own administration who said the comment was made in jest." It goes on to quote statements by White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and White House trade adviser Peter Navarro claiming that Trump was joking, but quotes Trump as saying "'I don't kid, let me just tell you, let me make it clear,' Trump told a reporter on Monday, when asked again if he was kidding" This is in direct contradiction to the sentence in the article that cites this reference. I think "later clarifying he had not actually given such an order" should either be deleted, or replaced by a more accurate statement, such as "later clarifying that claims by advisors that this was a joke were untrue, and confirming that he had requested a slowdown in testing. Andylatto ( talk) 07:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't catch can someone please co operate and help me understand? WarrickEcoCity ( talk) 14:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't this guy's level of control over the beliefs of 60 million people qualify as "cult leader"?
Could that term be used in his bio? since it's so grammatically accurate?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/03/trump-american-war-dead-losers-suckers-report — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.47.82 ( talk) 20:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Is the War dead scandal covered anywhere in this page or related pages? I could not find something in this regard. -- Mhhossein talk 13:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
"Trump hired a "Faux-Bama" to participate in a video in which Trump "ritualistically belittled the first black president and then fired him."
ref. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/05/politics/michael-cohen-book-trump-white-house/index.html Should be mentioned in the main article. 82.131.146.165 ( talk) 13:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I've been reading over the Pandemic section and found that the existing WHO discussion was rather missing the mark; not consistent with the citations. I've developed the story a bit further - I am unsure of a few points/phrasing; I am sure people will correct me. I am in favor of including statements that counter Trump's assertions, rather than just stating Trump's assertions. I've also introduced sub-sub-section headings to the Pandemic section. The Pandemic section is presently roughly chronological, which means it behaves in editing almost like an endless and ever-growing list. Seems to me the section would be better organized around specific topics (Task force, WHO, Testing, Mask wearing, etc.), which might also allow for some additional trimming. See how you like it... At least the WHO discussion is a bit more accurate now, I hope, IMO. Bdushaw ( talk) 15:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i saw grammar and tried to fix it but couldnt so can i please have edits Pingywingy ( talk) 01:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Could we expand the lead to include the descriptor “accused rapist” about our subject? See here, for example: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/ex-model-amy-dorris-alleges-trump-sexually-assaulted-her-1997-n1240291 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 ( talk) 21:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
There is no elaboration on the fact checkers mentioned on Donald J. Trump's page. There are no sources, no references, and no links. These fact checkers would be more appropriately titled, 'left-wing alignment checkers'. MichaelFSnake662 ( talk) 08:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The second body paragraph of the lead states "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." It seems quite unclear what precisely the "phenomenon" being referred to here is and hence should be better worded. thorpewilliam ( talk) 08:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "Excessive detail for this one-page biography of Trump (not a history of U.S. foreign policy during his presidency)". I think it is relevant and should be included. U.S. Presidents have more power and responsibility in foreign and defense policy than in domestic affairs.
NBC News: "The groundbreaking agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates has delivered a political lifeline to Israel's embattled prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and represents President Donald Trump's first genuine foreign policy success, regional analysts and former U.S. officials said. Apart from the immediate boost for Trump and for Netanyahu, who both face political headwinds over their response to the coronavirus pandemic, the agreement signals a potential realignment for the Middle East and a victory for Israel's decades-long effort to secure diplomatic recognition from Arab governments, experts said." [14]
Israel and the United Arab Emirates have agreed to begin normalizing relations in a historic Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement brokered by President Trump. [1] [2]
References
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 09:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Unlike Egypt and Jordan, the only Arab countries with which Jerusalem has official ties, Israel and the United Arab Emirates were never at war. Officials in Jerusalem, Abu Dhabi and Washington, which brokered the deal, have nonetheless insisted on referring to it as a “peace deal.” While a deal to normalize diplomatic relations was announced last month, the countries have yet to hash out an actual detailed agreement, which is expected to be signed in a White House ceremony.[1]
References
Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
It’s a genuine historic accomplishment that’s unambiguously good for the United States. It will bolster Israel’s security and wellbeing, a longstanding vital interest of the United States. It will contribute to peace and stability in the broader Middle East, not only by indefinitely forestalling a potentially destabilizing unilateral assertion of Israeli sovereignty over parts of the West Bank, but by giving the UAE and other modernizing Gulf states full access to the region’s dominant military and intelligence power, and to its most technologically advanced economy. It will worry, isolate, and enhance deterrence against Iran, the United States’ most dangerous regional adversary. And it reaffirms Washington’s still-unrivaled ability to serve as a force for good in alleviating some of the world’s most intractable conflicts. ... The agreement will rightly garner virtually unanimous support across the U.S. political spectrum. As Joe Biden, the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, indicated in his response to the announcement, the effort to advance peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors has been a top priority for administrations of both parties going back decades. [1]
References
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 06:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Elephants in the Room is a blog about U.S. foreign policy in the age of Trump, written by experienced GOP policymakers, scholars, and others not currently working in the new administration.. John P. Hannah, VP Dick Cheney’s national security advisor from 2005-2009, works for the anti-Iran lobbying group Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Assume lots of bias. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Israel and the Gulf state of Bahrain have reached a landmark deal to fully normalise their relations, US President Donald Trump has announced. "The second Arab country to make peace with Israel in 30 days," he tweeted. For decades, most Arab states have boycotted Israel, insisting they would only establish ties after the Palestinian dispute was settled. But last month the United Arab Emirates (UAE) agreed to normalise its relationship with Israel. There had been much speculation that Bahrain might follow suit. Mr Trump, who presented his Middle East peace plan in January aimed at resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict, helped broker both accords. Bahrain is only the fourth Arab country in the Middle East - after the UAE, Egypt and Jordan - to recognise Israel since its founding in 1948. [1]
References
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 10:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The statement that Trump lost the popular vote has been raised twice above. Do we really need this (and its note) in the lead? It has no consequence. In fact, as a piece of information, it is misleading. Trump won via the electoral college system, which has been the system for electing presidents for over a century. It's like saying the Kansas City Chiefs wouldn't have won the Super Bowl if it had been a soccer match. I don't know if that's true, but it's irrelevant. The voting statistics are relevant, but they belong in the section about the election.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 06:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with Jack Upland. Putting it in the lede gives it undue weight, and the combined impact of this undue weight and the word although seems like POV-pushing to me. The clause suggests that Trump's victory was of questionable validity, which is not something we should be stating in wiki-voice. Perhaps something like "He entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and was elected in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Liberal commentators subsequently drew attention to the popular vote, where Trump won fewer votes than Clinton." would be an appropriate compromise, though tbh I'd favour just removing the offending clause. — Kilopylae ( talk) 18:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
In other articles on politicians widely viewed as far-right, the body and lead sections quite clearly identify them as far-right. In this lengthy article, the term is barely mentioned. It is briefly mentioned somewhere in the body that he became the preferred candidate of the alt-right, but his key role in the alt-right movement (that came to prominence largely through him) is so important that it should be mentioned in the lead section. The term Trumpism, although well-established in scholarship and with its own WP article, isn't mentioned either. We need some material on his political ideology as it has emerged in practice, i.e. on Trumpism and how it relates to the wider alt-right and far right. -- Tataral ( talk) 05:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Remember Wikipedia's due weight policy. While some people may believe him to be far right he has not been described this way by any major or reputable organizations that I know of. Mossypiglet ( talk) 03:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The info about Netanyahu showing Trump a fake video removed here: [15] belongs in the article because it influenced Trumps political positions in the Arab-Israeli conflict. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to mention Donald Trump's downplay of the pandemic? Here is a paragraph I made on the matter:
In a series of 18 interviews from December 5, 2019 to July 21, 2020 between Donald Trump and Bob Woodward, Trump admits that he deceived the public about the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. On February 7, he told Woodward, "This is deadly stuff. You just breathe the air and that's how it's passed. And so that's a very tricky one. That's a very delicate one. It's also more deadly than even your strenuous flu." On March 19, he said in another interview, "I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic." Audio recordings of these interviews were released on September 9, 2020.
Here are the URLs of the references I would insert with the paragraph:
edition
www
www
www
I don't agree, of course. It seems clear that a significant motivation, if not THE motivation for Trump in his handling of the pandemic was universally how it would affect his reelection - all the way back in January-February: testing, treatments, vaccines, etc. - all pressed in response to election timing. The Woodward book and its recordings are fairly stunning, undermining Trump's statements over the previous several months and coming in the heat of the campaign. I've been reverted out, though the material was well sourced, and of primary importance. I will exercise my one revert option; my wording could be revised, but I think the theme is solid. Bdushaw ( talk) 22:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC) (See the recent additions on Political pressure on health agencies...in time for the RNC, political manipulation, not to mention the pressure to have a vaccine before election day, which we've not covered yet.) Bdushaw ( talk) 22:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone have any further objections (or unwavering mentioned objections) to adding the sentence "Despite Trump believing that the COVID-19 virus would be a serious issue, he regularly downplayed the seriousness, claiming that he didn't want to cause panic" at the end of the opening paragraph of the COVID-19 pandemic section? TheGEICOgecko ( talk) 05:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
In a series of interviews with Bob Woodward, Trump described COVID-19 as "more deadly than even your strenuous flus" while publicly saying the virus was "very much under control." Later, Trump stated "I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don't want to create a panic."( source) -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted back my edit on this topic. I've read the concerns of others and am frankly baffled... I see opinions, assertions of "speculative", "too much detail", "too long", etc., none of which makes any sense to me. The concern written above is vague and general, IMO, and has no specific complaint to reply to. The entry in question is six well-sourced sentences - the sources were selected from several available to preclude over-citation WP:DUE. The section shows the consequences of the accumulation of Trump's behavior regarding the pandemic, as described in the preceding sections. As noted above, many, if not most, of Trump's actions have been about preserving his chances of re-election; witness the false claims of treatments (often related to political events) and the extraordinary pressure to produce a vaccine prior to the November election. Ludicrous claims of similarity to Roosevelt and Churchill go straight to Trump's character. I could go on... Incidentally, Woodward's book is meant to be released today; he concludes, mostly on the basis of the pandemic response, that Trump is "not fit to lead", which is extraordinary. Bdushaw ( talk) 15:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
{{
Main}}
hatnote links. The article is now at 124% of the size at which it
"Almost certainly should be divided" – up from the recent 121% largely due to COVID-19 content – and climbing, and there would not be a size problem if the space were being used appropriately. After Trump leaves office, and to a large extent after the election if he wins it, that detail will no longer have a purpose here and will be gutted with little objection. That fact in itself should be enough to tell experienced editors it's an improper use of BLP space. ―
Mandruss
☎ 16:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)It's only a link in the infobox but many users may not see this. It should be made a link as "Queens" is. Mossypiglet ( talk) 03:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
As mentioned above, there is consideration of removing the WikiLink for New York City in the infobox, as it may violate
MOS:OVERLINK. As the Manual of Style states:
"Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked:
Thoughts on removing the NYC WikiLink? Support or oppose? TheGEICOgecko ( talk) 21:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The WikiLink of New York City in the infobox breaks the Manual of Style (see MOS:OVERLINK), as it states that well known places, explicitly including New York City, should not be linked "unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article." The context of the article is Donald Trump's birthplace, which is not relevant enough. There is unanimous consensus on the removal of the WikiLink in question, and so it will be removed, and the consensus on Trump's birthplace will be changed. TheGEICOgecko ( talk) 06:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay so maybe I am going crazy but I seem to remember our precious Donald Trump being fully protected. It is now extended-confirmed protected. What happened? I can't find any discussion of this anywhere or I wouldn't be posting this.
Mossypiglet ( talk) 02:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Trump should get the category of American anti-socialists, especially as he has been critical of the left-wing to far-left policies of countries like Venezuela and China, being critical of Bernie Sanders's role in making socialism prevalent again in American politics, and even calling Joe Biden a "trojan horse for socialism" in his RNC 2020 speech. Sources can be seen here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/how-trump-runs-against-socialism-without-a-socialist-opponent/2020/08/24/5e8ee016-e649-11ea-bf44-0d31c85838a5_story.html and https://www.cbsnews.com/video/trump-says-socialism-is-one-of-the-most-serious-challenges-world-faces/ Josharaujo1115 ( talk) 03:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. ―
Mandruss
☎ 03:29, 20 September 2020 (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 115 | ← | Archive 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 |
The lead here doesn't summarise the contents of the article, at all. It's woefully lacking, especially when compared to any other president's article (which are quite elaborate on primary aspects of their presidency). Just a few points off the top of my head:
The existence of Presidency of Donald Trump is a pretty poor argument for an insufficient lead. This article should still summarise its contents, and such an argument wouldn't even be consistent; This article, for some odd reason, chooses to mention things like recognising moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but omits any mention of the wall or the shutdown, which is just bizarre since the former is far more minute than the latter. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 19:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
the only thing he is really going to be remembered for in history is the fact that the was a US President— has been made several times in several forms, but I would like to see someone provide evidence for this. Reagan is remembered for his entertainment career. Eisenhower is remembered for his military career. With regard to the way we treat other US Presidents, I think that editors are overstating the case. The lead in the George H. W. Bush article has an opening paragraph, then a paragraph about his pre-presidential life, then a paragraph about his presidency, and then a paragraph about his post-presidential activities. There is no reason for the presidency to overwhelm the lead.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 04:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Shorter lead (thought starter)
| ||
---|---|---|
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality. Trump was born and raised in Queens, and received a bachelor's degree in economics from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He became president of his father's real-estate business in 1971, renamed it The Trump Organization, and expanded its operations from Queens and Brooklyn into Manhattan. Trump later started various side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies. He produced and hosted The Apprentice, a reality television series, from 2003 to 2015. As of 2020, Forbes estimated his net worth to be $2.1 billion. Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. He entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and was elected in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, although he lost the popular vote. He became the oldest first-term U.S. president, and the first without prior military or government service. His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist. During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries. He enacted a tax-cut package for individuals and businesses, rescinding the individual health insurance mandate penalty. He appointed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. 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. He imposed import tariffs which triggered a trade war with China, replaced NAFTA with USMCA, recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and withdrew U.S. troops from northern Syria. Trump met thrice with North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un, but talks on denuclearization broke down in 2019. Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. The House of Representatives impeached him in December 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate acquitted him of both charges in February 2020.
|
Trump's career mechanisms have been compared to the 1957 film A Face in the Crowd starring Andy Griffith. [1] 109.41.1.184 ( talk) 21:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
References
As noted, the article is too long. It seems to me the main issue is not to trim the text here and there, but to develop an alternate organization for the article. In the presidency section, for example, there is one paragraph associated with each "Main" article...that will never do! There are too many "Main" articles! So, one idea that I throw out there, not yet advocating for it, is to replace the presidency section with something like the lead from the presidency article (a huge lead...) and develop a table to summarize all the "Main"s. Given there already is a Main for the presidency, that section should really be just a summary of the main themes of the presidency. I'd be in favor of Trump's Covid-19 narrative having its own section, since that has been an important and primary Trump "thing". Bdushaw ( talk) 09:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I've proposed this before, but it has been ignored. I shall do it again anyway. This article should follow a strict version of summary style. Every single paragraph in this article (with the exception of the lead) should be adapted from the lead of a sub article. Many of these sub articles already exist, but some will need to be created. These would include, but not necessarily be limited to:
That would end up being an article body somewhere in the region of 22-25 paragraphs, a fraction of the current size. It's just absurd that we try to cram everything in to this one article. It's so unnecessary. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
the daily news feed approach that has plagued this article ever since Trump entered politics.If you can't get a clear buy-in that that approach is not appropriate at this article (the truth is that that approach should not be used at any main BLP), there's little point in doing anything else. But most editors don't know how to edit any other way, so that buy-in will always be very difficult. It's a sticky problem, and it's always important to keep in mind that some nuts can't be cracked. ― Mandruss ☎ 16:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
succinctly-written introduction ... that hits all the key highlights.I took a quick look at the first paragraph of Early career. Sources for the first three sentences are Parade, The Art of Deal, and the National Enquirer. The Art of the Deal, pg. 46, is listed as the source for "Elizabeth Trump & Son." The name isn't mentioned there (or anywhere else in the book, AFAIK), and the company was called Trump Management at least as far back as 1960. Swifton Village - would take too long to parse that. The next two sentences cite a couple of NYT articles, but one of them deals with something unrelated to Trump's early career and the other one with his short-lived attempt to become a Broadway producer. Hitting the key highlights in the lead: Elizabeth Trump and Son again; the company wasn't renamed, they started to use an umbrella brand name for their registered companies (The Trump Organization Inc. wasn't registered until 1981);
He rose to public prominence after concluding a number of successful real estate deals in Manhattan and New York City,in NY maybe and successful and deals needs to be qualified
and his company now owns and develops lodging and golf courses around the world.they manage lodging, don't own most of it, they manage golf courses, own most but not all of them. 72 days to go until the election - let's wait it out. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC) BTW, what are you proposing to keep? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Note b is incorrect. Not all states give their full electoral votes on a 'winner take all' basis. Maine and Nebraska give their two electoral votes representing the senate on a 'winner take 2' basis, then give their remaining electoral votes on a 'congressional district' basis. For example, in 2016 Maine gave its two at-large electoral votes and one of its congressional district electoral votes to Clinton, but the other electoral vote in one congressional district went to Trump. Can someone with edit privileges please correct this Note b. American In Brazil ( talk) 13:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
on mobile apologize for misspellings whatnot - I bless your revert as specifically requested, given that you disagree with my bold edit. I understand your concern. Could we replace usually with most states? It would then not imply a time-series usually, and we could optionally get rid of the faithless electors bit? Hipocrite ( talk) 10:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Proposed:Presidential elections in the United States are decided by the Electoral College, in which each state names a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress, and all delegates from each state usually vote for the winner of the local state vote (except for faithless electors). Consequently, it is possible for the president-elect to have received fewer votes from the country's total population (the popular vote). This situation has occurred five times since 1824.
― Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Presidential elections in the United States are decided by the Electoral College. Each state names a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress, and (in most states) all delegates vote for the winner of the local state vote. Consequently, it is possible for the president-elect to have received fewer votes from the country's total population (the popular vote). This situation has occurred five times since 1824.
Note b is simply wrong.We understand that's your position. So far, you have no support for such a rigid position from other editors. Hipocrite has agreed to my compromise proposal [6] – three days after their edit [7] that you are willfully misrepresenting as their current position. If nothing changes by the time this thread is automatically archived by the bot, I will implement my compromise proposal above on the strength of that agreement. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, can we try for more light and less heat? @ American In Brazil: have you reviewed the proposed change by @ Mandruss: above? Do you agree it's an incremental improvement? If you do, we can probably make that change right now! If you don't, what compromise change do you believe everyone would think is an incremental improvement, noting that your concern is about factual accuracy, while Mandruss is concerned about the targeting of the footnote (for users who don't already know about the EC), and appears to have relented on "usually" vs "most states?" Hipocrite ( talk) 09:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Presidential elections in the United States are decided by the Electoral College. Each state is allocated a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress, and (in most states) all delegates vote for the winner of the local state vote. Consequently, it is possible for the president-elect to have received fewer votes from the country's total population (the popular vote). This is the fifth such occasion.
I don't see why there is a controversy among Wikipedians about a footnote being concise and precise. I would support the language proposed by Scijessey if the parenthesis stated: "(in all but two states)". American In Brazil ( talk) 23:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add that he attended Fordham University in his alma mater section. Replace Wharton School with the University of Pennsylvania. SuperG0d420 ( talk) 21:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk) 21:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)I added some info on Trump's COVID-19 response in the lead and made the wording clearer, since I saw that it was already in the lead and needed some improvement. If it is opposed by most people, then revert it and I would be happy to discuss it. Bill Williams ( talk) 09:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
The RfC is closed now with the conclusion that a statement should be included in the lead, but the wording is not yet settled. I support including the present wording in the lead, which had broad, though not unanimous, support, and that it be used as a "first draft" of the statement that we can work from to evolve towards more settled text. I note again that a statement in the lead must reflect the text in the article. Many text suggestions have been made that do not accurately reflect the weighting of topics in the article. For example "blaming china" is just not that prominent in the article, so it should not be in the lead; if you really want "blaming china" (or whatever) then you should edit the article with supporting references to show that that is a prominent issue. I also urge a responsible party to include the appropriate hidden statements next to the lead sentence stating that changes should be agreed upon by consensus (or however it is stated). Bdushaw ( talk) 18:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus has any bearing on this (hence taking it to the talk page), but I would like to suggest a change to the punctuation used in the statement ""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.". Personally I think the use of a semi-colon makes more sense than a full stop as the sentences are so closely linked, which would read as follows: "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 are people's thoughts on this? Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 21:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I would like to request that an excerpt of the introductory paragraph about his presidency, specifically the excerpt describing his response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States be removed or changed, as it appears to be one-sided, heavily opinionated, and based off reports from media outlets that are critical of Trump rather than any known facts.
- Ardapel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardapel ( talk • contribs) 01:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
If anyone wants to clean them up (I have done a little), this is a list of possible duplicate URL references in the article that might be mergeable (probably with some false positives):
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-ancestral-german-home-of-the-trumps
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/business/media/trump-sells-miss-universe-organization-to-wme-img-talent-agency.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/29/us/politics/fact-checking-president-trump-through-his-first-100-days.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/12/trump-shithole-comment-reaction-337926
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/05/01/president-trumps-first-100-days-the-fact-check-tally/
Pol098 (
talk) 18:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The sentence, "Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic” should be removed. “Slowly” is a relative term and is used without proper context, rendering it an ambiguous sentence and, likely, misleading in this case. Ktg.jr.md ( talk) 03:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
References
Shouldn't the lede mention that he is the Republican nominee for the 2020 presidential election? Right now, it only tangentially mentions the election, and not even that he's an active candidate. ɱ (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
overwhelming press coverage for the 2020 election, few people who care about politics need to be told that Trump is the GOP candidate, and it is probably not lead-worthy, and certainly not first-paragraph-worthy. Regardless, this is the main account of Trump's entire life and should not be the main go-to for current events merely because it's the article many readers initially go to. The election article is prominently linked as a hatnote in the appropriate section. ― Mandruss ☎ 05:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
This is a stupid argument. Notability doesn't work that way, we don't omit that he's the president because "everyone knows that". Mentioning a person running for reelection, especially for the presidency, is a crucial aspect of their life as we know it right now, obviously to be updated by its success or failure even if we do nothing today. ɱ (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
In April 2011, he announced that he would be running for re-election in 2012.If you want to use that as a blueprint, then we’d have to say: Trump filed his official 2020 candidacy paperwork with the FEC on January 20, 2017, and held his first campaign rally in February of that year (the Florida rally on February 18 was paid for by his campaign). [10] Chronologically, this would belong at the beginning of the third paragraph, being the very first act during his presidency. I don't think it's lead-worthy; he made it clear to all the world from day one of his first term that he was running for a second term by campaigning. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Any update on this, if people think it's fine to simply add he is "the Republican Party nominee for the 2020 presidential election"? Really should be common sense for a presidential nomination from either major party here, and evidently removed by mistake the last time. ɱ (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I support Trump. But please tell me why specifically the allegations were made to the President? SALivesMatter ( talk) 10:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove “Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.” 50.24.110.37 ( talk) 07:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The attempts to add an infobox caption have increased in frequency of late, presumably because someone recently added captions to the BLPs of a number of other U.S. presidents (and others are apparently trying to enforce the non-existent guideline that U.S. presidents' BLPs should be consistent in such details). We can't sustain a caption-free image indefinitely with fuzzy rationales like this, in my opinion. I think we should establish a clearer consensus that would support a list item. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Proposing to merge this into the next sentence, so it would read like:
He entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and was elected in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest first-term U.S. president, [a], the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to be elected without winning the popular vote.
Reasons are because (a) the second sentence compares the unusualness of his election to past presidents, so this statement fits in nicely and more appropriately to this sentence, and (b) the current version just reads iffy. Stole this from similar wording at George W. Bush. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Notes
the second sentence compares the unusualness of his election to past presidents. That's the so-called "surprise victory" (it was only a surprise to some pundits) and losing the popular vote by a wide margin. You'd have to remove both: "He won the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and won over the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton ." Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
@ BLDM: First revert: [11]; second one: [12]. You may want to revert yourself. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
JLo-Watson: The claim that Trump renamed his father's company appears to be based on the book Art of the Deal which says: We had no formal name for the company ... so I began to call it the Trump Organization.
His father owned a number of separate business entities. There was no umbrella company that owned a number of subsidiaries. Fred Trump and the newspapers had occasionally used the names Fred C. Trump Organization, Fred Trump Organization, and Trump Organization when informally referring to Fred's real estate business entities as far back as the 50s.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Trump incorporated an entity called The Trump Organization in 1981: The Trump Organization was not incorporated and is not a corporation. It is a umbrella name for hundreds of separately titled business ventures, and it is privately owned. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Incorporation is the legal process used to form a corporate entity or company. A corporation is the resulting legal entity that separates the firm's assets and income from its owners and investors.( [13]) If corporations don't issue stock, i.e., go public, they don't have to release their balance sheets or the names of the owner(s) or how much they owe to banks, Scrooge McDuck, or Igor Oligarch. The Trump Organization and other Trump-owned and Trump Organization-owned businesses didn't issue stock, so Trump has been able to hide his actual wealth (or lack thereof). At first the name was a marketing tool but they incorporated in 1981 ( Bloomberg). I don’t know whether this search result link will work. If not, go to NY entity search and search for The Trump Organization. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how we can say Trump initially ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, at least without even mentioning the fact that Fauci has publicly said that Trump followed all of the NIH initial recommendations. Am I missing something here? That is a direct contradiction of what we have in the page. Anon0098 ( talk) 23:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Why were the office and distinctions succession boxes deleted out of this article? It's in all the other US presidents bios. GoodDay ( talk) 17:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I removed two more, at Joe Biden & Hillary Clinton, since they likely get more viewers. GoodDay ( talk) 14:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
'restoring' the info in this articlejust to make it
a lot easierfor you to achieve your out-of-step consistency. ― Mandruss ☎ 14:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
― Mandruss ☎ 14:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Widespread good things should persist because they are good, not because they are widespread. "This is how it's normally done" is a terrible argument for anything, allowing widespread bad things to persist. Instead of making that argument, explain why it's better than the alternatives. Change is not a bad thing, and resistance to change impedes progress.
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.
Heading modified from "Let's take another stab at consensus for the correct University name in the Infobox. "The Wharton School" or "The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania?"" per WP:TPO. ― Mandruss ☎ 07:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Heading modification reverted by OP here. ― Mandruss ☎ 06:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
It has been two years since a narrow consensus was reached on whether or not to include Fordham in the infobox. It was only a slight "no" at the
time. Also around that time, there was another close vote on whether or not to include the
degree in the infobox. So, I think the time may be ripe to revisit both questions. For example, where else on any other subject infoboxes do we list undergraduate major? Or even the graduate major for that matter?
But for now, there is another issue that has really never been resolved by consensus: the correct name of the institution to be used in the infobox. "The Wharton School" is an abbreviation, not the full correct name. As our own article shows, that is the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Again, where else are we using school name abbreviations in infoboxes? Full names appear to be common practice throughout the project.
So should we use the full name: Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in the Infobox. Yes or No? Thanks. X4n6 ( talk) 03:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
where else are we using school name abbreviations in infoboxes?I don't know, but how often is the full name seven words and 50 characters in length? How often is the full name given in two other places in prose, including one in the lead? Thus the fallacy of citing precedent as an argument, looking at only one factor, rather than assessing cases individually on their own merits. "The Wharton School" is not an incorrect name; it is simply less than the full, official, formal name, and that's okay especially in an already-long infobox. ― Mandruss ☎ 08:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Wharton School (BS). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Wharton School, no "the". It's an unambiguous term and the WP:COMMONNAME, so no need to use the longer title just since it's official. For precedent, we don't use
Columbia University in the City of New York, even though that's the official name of that institution. I'm open to being persuaded to
University of Pennsylvania, so if the discussion veers toward that being the central question, consider me neutral. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 11:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
There is no other named business school where Alumni are listed as having their Alma Mater be the business school as opposed to the university except for Wharton, which has about 50% compliance with the standard. Other schools with equally-famous named business schools are Booth (UChicago), Stern (NYU), Kellog (Northwestern) and Sloan (MIT). Another parallel is how we use university name when people go to colleges - "Harvard University," does not grant any degrees at all - undergraduate degrees come from "Harvard College," yet we list Harvard University as the Alma Mater of every Harvard undergrad from Harvard College through the phDs granted by the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. I suggest we move this article (and I'll be approaching a more centralized discussion to standardize the other wharton grads) to the Wikipedia standard "University of Pennsylvania (BS)," similar to the format of Alex_Gorsky, Jon_Huntsman_Sr. and who knows how many others. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for the solid input. Since the only alternative to Wharton School (or Wharton), appears to be the University of Pennsylvania, can we see if we have significant consensus for that change? Could everyone please vote one last time?
* University of Pennsylvania - or even Penn or UPenn would also work for me (especially since the name is long). But only because those alternates are in the school's article. As several folks have said, we generally list the University not any individual school in the infobox. Which, I suppose, is why we don't see Medill, Annenberg, the former Boalt Hall, Harvard Kennedy, ad nauseum there. And surprisingly, there's nothing I found in the MOS. Perhaps our discussion here will lead to a formal rule or some guidance there as well. X4n6 ( talk) 11:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
In Trump reacted slowly to the
COVID-19 pandemic
in the lead, I tried linking to
U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic over "reacted slowly", since that's where
Donald Trump and the Covid-19 pandemic redirects, following
Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_121#Splitting_Covid-19 this earlier discussion.
Emir of Wikipedia reverted me, with edit summary article is about the federal government as whole, not specifically Trump
. I note that
Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic also exists, but that's a little too narrow, since his reaction includes more than just his communications. I think the federal response page is okay, since Trump is the head of the U.S. federal government, so he is ultimately responsible for and directing its actions. What do you all think about which page we should link here? {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 19:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
An article today in the NY Times on how Trump is using media to manipulate public opinion - inciting and demonizing - reminded me of a long-standing objection to how this article is organized. Trump's main thing is this sort of manipulation - dropping verbal firebombs as a distraction and to set people off. It's his main thing, I say - he has been amazingly innovative at exploiting media, and, as noted before, he spends a large fraction of each day doing it ( 90 tweets the other day!). I think the tactic deserves its own section. So, just penciling how something might look, I suggest a new main section entitled "Use of print, television, rallies and social media", perhaps below "Presidency", to include the present subsections in "Public profile": Social media, False statements, Promotion of conspiracy theories, Relationship with the press, and Allegations of inciting violence. These topics are the main action of Trump, yet they are buried within this "Public profile" section. The new section would then need some development about that, perhaps taking relevant material from the other sections. Bdushaw ( talk) 12:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
When an adjective is comprised of two words, a hyphen in between them is required to show the pairing. In the article copy (section “False statements”) that reads, “far reaching effects,” the adjective, far-reaching, has been misspelled. Its entry in Wiktionary proves as much. [1]
References
Apachegila ( talk) 15:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Heading modified from "Inaccurate information about Trump's statements about slowing down of testing" per WP:TALKNEW bullet 5. Please keep headings neutral. ― Mandruss ☎ 11:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
The article says " He told a June rally that "I said to my people, 'Slow the testing down please,' " later clarifying he had not actually given such an order" But the citation given for this statement says the exact opposite. The title of the cited article is " "Trump now says he wasn't kidding when he told officials to slow down coronavirus testing, contradicting staff", and the lede of the cited article says "President Donald Trump now says that he was not kidding when he told rallygoers over the weekend that he asked staff to slow down coronavirus testing, undercutting senior members of his own administration who said the comment was made in jest." It goes on to quote statements by White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and White House trade adviser Peter Navarro claiming that Trump was joking, but quotes Trump as saying "'I don't kid, let me just tell you, let me make it clear,' Trump told a reporter on Monday, when asked again if he was kidding" This is in direct contradiction to the sentence in the article that cites this reference. I think "later clarifying he had not actually given such an order" should either be deleted, or replaced by a more accurate statement, such as "later clarifying that claims by advisors that this was a joke were untrue, and confirming that he had requested a slowdown in testing. Andylatto ( talk) 07:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't catch can someone please co operate and help me understand? WarrickEcoCity ( talk) 14:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't this guy's level of control over the beliefs of 60 million people qualify as "cult leader"?
Could that term be used in his bio? since it's so grammatically accurate?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/03/trump-american-war-dead-losers-suckers-report — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.47.82 ( talk) 20:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Is the War dead scandal covered anywhere in this page or related pages? I could not find something in this regard. -- Mhhossein talk 13:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
"Trump hired a "Faux-Bama" to participate in a video in which Trump "ritualistically belittled the first black president and then fired him."
ref. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/05/politics/michael-cohen-book-trump-white-house/index.html Should be mentioned in the main article. 82.131.146.165 ( talk) 13:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I've been reading over the Pandemic section and found that the existing WHO discussion was rather missing the mark; not consistent with the citations. I've developed the story a bit further - I am unsure of a few points/phrasing; I am sure people will correct me. I am in favor of including statements that counter Trump's assertions, rather than just stating Trump's assertions. I've also introduced sub-sub-section headings to the Pandemic section. The Pandemic section is presently roughly chronological, which means it behaves in editing almost like an endless and ever-growing list. Seems to me the section would be better organized around specific topics (Task force, WHO, Testing, Mask wearing, etc.), which might also allow for some additional trimming. See how you like it... At least the WHO discussion is a bit more accurate now, I hope, IMO. Bdushaw ( talk) 15:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i saw grammar and tried to fix it but couldnt so can i please have edits Pingywingy ( talk) 01:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Could we expand the lead to include the descriptor “accused rapist” about our subject? See here, for example: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/ex-model-amy-dorris-alleges-trump-sexually-assaulted-her-1997-n1240291 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 ( talk) 21:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
There is no elaboration on the fact checkers mentioned on Donald J. Trump's page. There are no sources, no references, and no links. These fact checkers would be more appropriately titled, 'left-wing alignment checkers'. MichaelFSnake662 ( talk) 08:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The second body paragraph of the lead states "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." It seems quite unclear what precisely the "phenomenon" being referred to here is and hence should be better worded. thorpewilliam ( talk) 08:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "Excessive detail for this one-page biography of Trump (not a history of U.S. foreign policy during his presidency)". I think it is relevant and should be included. U.S. Presidents have more power and responsibility in foreign and defense policy than in domestic affairs.
NBC News: "The groundbreaking agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates has delivered a political lifeline to Israel's embattled prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and represents President Donald Trump's first genuine foreign policy success, regional analysts and former U.S. officials said. Apart from the immediate boost for Trump and for Netanyahu, who both face political headwinds over their response to the coronavirus pandemic, the agreement signals a potential realignment for the Middle East and a victory for Israel's decades-long effort to secure diplomatic recognition from Arab governments, experts said." [14]
Israel and the United Arab Emirates have agreed to begin normalizing relations in a historic Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement brokered by President Trump. [1] [2]
References
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 09:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Unlike Egypt and Jordan, the only Arab countries with which Jerusalem has official ties, Israel and the United Arab Emirates were never at war. Officials in Jerusalem, Abu Dhabi and Washington, which brokered the deal, have nonetheless insisted on referring to it as a “peace deal.” While a deal to normalize diplomatic relations was announced last month, the countries have yet to hash out an actual detailed agreement, which is expected to be signed in a White House ceremony.[1]
References
Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
It’s a genuine historic accomplishment that’s unambiguously good for the United States. It will bolster Israel’s security and wellbeing, a longstanding vital interest of the United States. It will contribute to peace and stability in the broader Middle East, not only by indefinitely forestalling a potentially destabilizing unilateral assertion of Israeli sovereignty over parts of the West Bank, but by giving the UAE and other modernizing Gulf states full access to the region’s dominant military and intelligence power, and to its most technologically advanced economy. It will worry, isolate, and enhance deterrence against Iran, the United States’ most dangerous regional adversary. And it reaffirms Washington’s still-unrivaled ability to serve as a force for good in alleviating some of the world’s most intractable conflicts. ... The agreement will rightly garner virtually unanimous support across the U.S. political spectrum. As Joe Biden, the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, indicated in his response to the announcement, the effort to advance peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors has been a top priority for administrations of both parties going back decades. [1]
References
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 06:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Elephants in the Room is a blog about U.S. foreign policy in the age of Trump, written by experienced GOP policymakers, scholars, and others not currently working in the new administration.. John P. Hannah, VP Dick Cheney’s national security advisor from 2005-2009, works for the anti-Iran lobbying group Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Assume lots of bias. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Israel and the Gulf state of Bahrain have reached a landmark deal to fully normalise their relations, US President Donald Trump has announced. "The second Arab country to make peace with Israel in 30 days," he tweeted. For decades, most Arab states have boycotted Israel, insisting they would only establish ties after the Palestinian dispute was settled. But last month the United Arab Emirates (UAE) agreed to normalise its relationship with Israel. There had been much speculation that Bahrain might follow suit. Mr Trump, who presented his Middle East peace plan in January aimed at resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict, helped broker both accords. Bahrain is only the fourth Arab country in the Middle East - after the UAE, Egypt and Jordan - to recognise Israel since its founding in 1948. [1]
References
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 10:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The statement that Trump lost the popular vote has been raised twice above. Do we really need this (and its note) in the lead? It has no consequence. In fact, as a piece of information, it is misleading. Trump won via the electoral college system, which has been the system for electing presidents for over a century. It's like saying the Kansas City Chiefs wouldn't have won the Super Bowl if it had been a soccer match. I don't know if that's true, but it's irrelevant. The voting statistics are relevant, but they belong in the section about the election.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 06:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with Jack Upland. Putting it in the lede gives it undue weight, and the combined impact of this undue weight and the word although seems like POV-pushing to me. The clause suggests that Trump's victory was of questionable validity, which is not something we should be stating in wiki-voice. Perhaps something like "He entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and was elected in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Liberal commentators subsequently drew attention to the popular vote, where Trump won fewer votes than Clinton." would be an appropriate compromise, though tbh I'd favour just removing the offending clause. — Kilopylae ( talk) 18:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
In other articles on politicians widely viewed as far-right, the body and lead sections quite clearly identify them as far-right. In this lengthy article, the term is barely mentioned. It is briefly mentioned somewhere in the body that he became the preferred candidate of the alt-right, but his key role in the alt-right movement (that came to prominence largely through him) is so important that it should be mentioned in the lead section. The term Trumpism, although well-established in scholarship and with its own WP article, isn't mentioned either. We need some material on his political ideology as it has emerged in practice, i.e. on Trumpism and how it relates to the wider alt-right and far right. -- Tataral ( talk) 05:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Remember Wikipedia's due weight policy. While some people may believe him to be far right he has not been described this way by any major or reputable organizations that I know of. Mossypiglet ( talk) 03:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The info about Netanyahu showing Trump a fake video removed here: [15] belongs in the article because it influenced Trumps political positions in the Arab-Israeli conflict. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to mention Donald Trump's downplay of the pandemic? Here is a paragraph I made on the matter:
In a series of 18 interviews from December 5, 2019 to July 21, 2020 between Donald Trump and Bob Woodward, Trump admits that he deceived the public about the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. On February 7, he told Woodward, "This is deadly stuff. You just breathe the air and that's how it's passed. And so that's a very tricky one. That's a very delicate one. It's also more deadly than even your strenuous flu." On March 19, he said in another interview, "I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic." Audio recordings of these interviews were released on September 9, 2020.
Here are the URLs of the references I would insert with the paragraph:
edition
www
www
www
I don't agree, of course. It seems clear that a significant motivation, if not THE motivation for Trump in his handling of the pandemic was universally how it would affect his reelection - all the way back in January-February: testing, treatments, vaccines, etc. - all pressed in response to election timing. The Woodward book and its recordings are fairly stunning, undermining Trump's statements over the previous several months and coming in the heat of the campaign. I've been reverted out, though the material was well sourced, and of primary importance. I will exercise my one revert option; my wording could be revised, but I think the theme is solid. Bdushaw ( talk) 22:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC) (See the recent additions on Political pressure on health agencies...in time for the RNC, political manipulation, not to mention the pressure to have a vaccine before election day, which we've not covered yet.) Bdushaw ( talk) 22:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone have any further objections (or unwavering mentioned objections) to adding the sentence "Despite Trump believing that the COVID-19 virus would be a serious issue, he regularly downplayed the seriousness, claiming that he didn't want to cause panic" at the end of the opening paragraph of the COVID-19 pandemic section? TheGEICOgecko ( talk) 05:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
In a series of interviews with Bob Woodward, Trump described COVID-19 as "more deadly than even your strenuous flus" while publicly saying the virus was "very much under control." Later, Trump stated "I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don't want to create a panic."( source) -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted back my edit on this topic. I've read the concerns of others and am frankly baffled... I see opinions, assertions of "speculative", "too much detail", "too long", etc., none of which makes any sense to me. The concern written above is vague and general, IMO, and has no specific complaint to reply to. The entry in question is six well-sourced sentences - the sources were selected from several available to preclude over-citation WP:DUE. The section shows the consequences of the accumulation of Trump's behavior regarding the pandemic, as described in the preceding sections. As noted above, many, if not most, of Trump's actions have been about preserving his chances of re-election; witness the false claims of treatments (often related to political events) and the extraordinary pressure to produce a vaccine prior to the November election. Ludicrous claims of similarity to Roosevelt and Churchill go straight to Trump's character. I could go on... Incidentally, Woodward's book is meant to be released today; he concludes, mostly on the basis of the pandemic response, that Trump is "not fit to lead", which is extraordinary. Bdushaw ( talk) 15:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
{{
Main}}
hatnote links. The article is now at 124% of the size at which it
"Almost certainly should be divided" – up from the recent 121% largely due to COVID-19 content – and climbing, and there would not be a size problem if the space were being used appropriately. After Trump leaves office, and to a large extent after the election if he wins it, that detail will no longer have a purpose here and will be gutted with little objection. That fact in itself should be enough to tell experienced editors it's an improper use of BLP space. ―
Mandruss
☎ 16:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)It's only a link in the infobox but many users may not see this. It should be made a link as "Queens" is. Mossypiglet ( talk) 03:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
As mentioned above, there is consideration of removing the WikiLink for New York City in the infobox, as it may violate
MOS:OVERLINK. As the Manual of Style states:
"Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked:
Thoughts on removing the NYC WikiLink? Support or oppose? TheGEICOgecko ( talk) 21:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The WikiLink of New York City in the infobox breaks the Manual of Style (see MOS:OVERLINK), as it states that well known places, explicitly including New York City, should not be linked "unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article." The context of the article is Donald Trump's birthplace, which is not relevant enough. There is unanimous consensus on the removal of the WikiLink in question, and so it will be removed, and the consensus on Trump's birthplace will be changed. TheGEICOgecko ( talk) 06:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay so maybe I am going crazy but I seem to remember our precious Donald Trump being fully protected. It is now extended-confirmed protected. What happened? I can't find any discussion of this anywhere or I wouldn't be posting this.
Mossypiglet ( talk) 02:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Trump should get the category of American anti-socialists, especially as he has been critical of the left-wing to far-left policies of countries like Venezuela and China, being critical of Bernie Sanders's role in making socialism prevalent again in American politics, and even calling Joe Biden a "trojan horse for socialism" in his RNC 2020 speech. Sources can be seen here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/how-trump-runs-against-socialism-without-a-socialist-opponent/2020/08/24/5e8ee016-e649-11ea-bf44-0d31c85838a5_story.html and https://www.cbsnews.com/video/trump-says-socialism-is-one-of-the-most-serious-challenges-world-faces/ Josharaujo1115 ( talk) 03:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. ―
Mandruss
☎ 03:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
|