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 120 | ← | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 | Archive 126 | → | Archive 130 |
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.
2000 president run AlexHilzim ( talk) 03:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do me a favor, go read Barack Obama's lead section, and then read Trump's. Do you notice a difference in tone or attitude? Do you get the feeling that Obama is some sort of political genius, whereas Trump is the spawn of Cthulhu? If you do, you're not alone. Whitewashing Trump's record is the last thing I want to do, but could we at least pretend to follow Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view? I know full objectivity is a lost cause, so I won't press it. But allow me to suggest a few corrections for the lead section so we can be consistent with President Obama:
The comparison with Obama is a false one, though. I agree that the lead for Obama should be consistent with Bush; a Democrat and a Republican, different policies, but both of them respectable presidents. What Ian.thomson says about false balance very much apploes. Trump, according to a lot of reliable sources, is much closer to a fascist demagogue than to a normal US president. It's an NPOV fact that he's a habitual lier who refuses to respect the US constitution, frequently dog whistles to outright fascists and neo-nazis, etc. Of course the lead will look different than Obama's. Even as someone who identifies as a rightwing conservative, I'd say Trump is much closer to Mussolini than to Obama. Jeppiz ( talk) 11:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the lead for Obama should be consistent with Bush- I wouldn't go even that far, believing that articles should be completely unencumbered by any such linkages. If there's anything in policy supporting cross-article comparisons like that, I'd like to see it.Otherwise, I'm piling on. Trump's lead is distinctly different from Obama's lead because Trump is not Obama, per sources (those last two words are essential; our personal views have to stay out of it). ― Mandruss ☎ 15:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Some of you are indeed interjecting your own personal feelings. The same occurred to me when I read that, as it does every time I read something like that. Nevertheless, the great predominance of reliable sources support that hard editorializing, so it would have been both accurate and proper with the addition of "per sources" (and I suspect that's what they meant, anyway).We have been through the "all presidents lie" thing again and again at this article and elsewhere, and there is overwhelming and persistent consensus that Trump's lying is something both unprecedented and dangerous – per sources – and that that's therefore a seriously false equivalence. To my knowledge no database of over 20,000 false and misleading statements, built by one of the most widely respected news organizations ever, largely uncontested beyond dismissively throwing it on the fake news pile with everything else, has ever been compiled for any other president in U.S. history, or anything remotely close to that. ― Mandruss ☎ 21:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
you very likely won't successfully get the lead amended until at least 6 months after Trump leaves officeis nonsensical considering the reality of the amendments that have actually occurred in the lead, long before 6 months after he leaves office, including the recent addition of COVID-19-related content and removal of net worth. But it does set up a convenient "see, I told you so" should a proposal fail to reach consensus to include, so there's that. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Jdcomix: About my removal in the article saying "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", as you understand, I removed it as I said and you agreed it broke WP:NPOV. I think that the sentence egregiously breaks that policy, both the wording of the policy and the spirit of it, and so the sentence either needs to be gone or extensively rewritten.
I however do have an issue with you reverting the edit even though you agree with it. WP:BRD suggests that making bold edits either improves Wikipedia or stimulates discussion. However, you reverting but agreeing with me means that I can't meaningfully discuss the issue with you, as there are no differences to settle. So I would prefer my edit to be reinstated so either a) the biased sentence stays gone or b) someone reverts me and discusses here why they think the edit should remain. Even if you think the edit will be reverted anyway, I think for the above reason it's better for someone who doesn't agree with me to revert the edit instead. Either way the page still gets reverted, so no difference is made to the article. -- Ted Edwards 21:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ORIGINAL EDIT SUGGESTION: "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."
HAKO9 RESPONDED: "see the discussion on this talk page above. There is a broad consensus among editors for inclusion of the descriptor with backing from sources [66], [67] , [68] , [69] , [70] , [71], to list a few.” (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC).
MY RESPONSE TO HAKO9’S RESPONSE: COVID-19 is a novel coronavirus. "A novel coronavirus is a new coronavirus that has not been previously identified," according to the CDC ( https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html). With my original edit suggestion in mind, one cannot unambiguously describe Trump’s reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic as “slow” since there is nothing to which his reaction can be compared. Describing Trump’s reaction as “slow” is based on flawed reasoning and no encyclopedia can be taken seriously when it's founded on unsound information. Also, all but one of those sources are liberal biased according to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/, invalidating their opinions and authority. Ktg.jr.md ( talk) 07:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Describing Trump’s reaction as "slow" is based on flawed reasoningis itself flawed reasoning when you're on a Wikipedia talk page. If a majority of reliable sources call it slow (or say similar things), we can call it slow whether you or anybody else agrees with them or not.
all but one of those sources are liberal biased according to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/- Incorrect. That site rates those six sources as follows:
invalidating their opinions and authority- Incorrect, per WP:BIASED. If we invalidated biased sources, there would be no reliable sources left. If you think "your" sources are unbiased, you should take a very hard look at your own bias.
To keep neutrality in this article, I believe the words of "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" should be changed. Something along the lines of "Trump had instituted policies to mitigate the threat of COVID-19 including (insert policies here). Many have criticized Trump, stating he acted slowly, he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments." The current state of the aforementioned line has had some controversies about it not being truly neutral on the matter, as well as not adding any of the polices he did enact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by State College CONELRAD ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the 2020 Presidential campaign subsection, opponent is incorrectly spelled as opponet. Please fix. Rohagr ( talk) 10:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wouldn’t COVID related stuff be more relevant in the health and lifestyle section, maybe not fully, but at least mentioned? Flalf Talk 18:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@
Soibangla: You
restored your text–including the Trump quote–with the edit summary that it is "important context." I can live with your opinion that it's necessary to spell out why Trump believes it's important to get his nominee confirmed immediately but is repeating his verbal flatulence du jour encyclopedic? The sentence works just as well without to overcome "this scam that the Democrats are pulling"
. And
this edit
this edit is pretty much repeating every lie he's uttered about his
non-existent America First Health Care Plan. If anywhere, it should go into the
Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign article because that joke of an executive order is nothing but empty campaign blather, probably written by Stephen Miller after Trump was made to shut up by that terrific lady at the townhall. I'm pretty sure that your intention wasn't to promote Trump's "vision" but that's what the paragraph does.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 15:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC) @
Soibangla: Sorry about that, wrong link.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 19:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Trump's new health-care planthat
isn't really a plan. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 07:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@ PackMecEng: My bad. Not what I meant. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Much of the content has remained static for literally years and it needs a major refresh. I'm attempting to do that, and now I see someone wants to take it all out. I suggest we need to talk about an overhaul here to prioritize and update the content. soibangla ( talk) 00:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
static for literally years– that's the nature of biography. But, if we're talking about an overhaul, I fully support an overhaul that removes much of the detail about his presidency and surrounding domestic and foreign relations and policy issues. This article does not need 487 words about "ISIS, Syria, and Afghanistan", for example, and other articles are better suited for that kind of information. I would expect to find that in a biography in book form, but we have far less space to work with here. As of this comment, the article is at 125% of the size at which it "Almost certainly should be divided" per guidelines, and growing. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&curid=4848272&diff=980866170&oldid=980865795
It corrects some significant flaws of the paragraph and should be restored
soibangla ( talk) 22:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Davide King changed the paragraphing of the lead section, by combining the first paragraph (two sentences saying he is president and before that was a businessman and television personality) with the second paragraph (about his early life and business ventures). I have changed it back to the longstanding version pending discussion here. I can understand the rationale for the change (a short paragraph of only two sentences would generally be frowned upon, and the change gives us a four paragraph lead instead of five). On the other hand, for such a highly visible and much-visited article (tens of thousands of views per day), it may make sense to set off what he is currently known for clearly and up front. The wording of the two sentences in the lead paragraph has been endlessly debated and now requires consensus to make any change at all. The short first paragraph has been in place for a long time - years - and IMO it would require consensus to change it. Thoughts? -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:24, 28 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 propose the line "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." be edited to express less of what could be considered bias, or just remove the line altogether. Char322 ( talk) 23:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. Sources seem clear in their characterization of Trump's response
EvergreenFir
(talk) 23:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Should the recent "peaceful transition of power" stuff be in this article or is it better suited for his other articles? It was recently added by
Soibangla
[2], I reverted stating lets hold off on this for now. right now it is clearly undue for this article
[3], and
Nomoskedasticity reinserted stating this part is okay
[4].
PackMecEng (
talk) 20:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng I don't see you have consensus to remove the content as you did earlier today. As you raised this issue, I recommend you self-revert and put this matter to a vote here. soibangla ( talk) 21:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
This does not seem to be going away. Extensive coverage after yesterday's debate. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The statement I'm referring to is this one:
"Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics."
I think it should be removed. While it might sound relevant right now, it lacks a lot of foresight, especially when quoting the media to make it even more hyperbolic and sensational. In this climate of public distrust, Wikipedia needs to remain as neutral as possible and stay away from polemics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.179.255.54 ( talk) 19:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I haven't really edited this article in any depth, but as a reader, I was thrown when the Table of Contents didn't immediately tell me where to find coverage of the President and First Family's health issues. I would encourage editors here to make it easier to find.
Feoffer (
talk) 06:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
"In foreign policy, Trump has pursued an America First agenda, withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He imposed import tariffs which triggered a trade war with China, moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and withdrew U.S. troops from northern Syria." Would it be appropriate to add the US-mediated Bahrain–Israel normalization agreement and Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement? As such, it would read "In foreign policy, Trump has pursued an America First agenda, withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He imposed import tariffs which triggered a trade war with China, moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, withdrew U.S. troops from northern Syria, and oversaw the normalization of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates & Bahrain." thorpewilliam ( talk) 07:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I added it. I should note that the "America First" descriptor is in the previous sentence, not the one where this was inserted into. thorpewilliam ( talk) 09:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Cullen328, instead of fixing a minor factual error, you removed a bunch of clearly relevant information from the "Positive COVID-19 test" section. I ask you to self-revert, as that is clearly information that should be present. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 22:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
why is that "blatantly inappropriate language?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&diff=981699233&oldid=981696462
From NYT source:
Mr. Meadows later tried to walk back his earlier comments. “The president is doing very well,” he told Reuters. “He is up and about and asking for documents to review. The doctors are very pleased with his vital signs. I have met with him on multiple occasions today on a variety of issues.”
soibangla ( talk) 22:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
IMO we should not try to put every day's news updates into this article. This is a biography and concerned with history. There is a separate article, linked in the Coronavirus section, where people can find all the day-to-day details. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article documents a
current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be
unreliable. The
latest updates to this article
may not reflect the most current information. |
How are we beyond that point? He's in hospital and his condition is deteriorating. Things could change in short order, therefore it's current affected.-- 46.7.63.144 ( talk) 00:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
You guys know the article better than I do but Trump just announced on Twitter that because Hope Hicks tested positive for COVID-19, Trump & Melania were entering quarantine. Tweet. Not sure whether this is notable or where. Just thought I'd share. Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to get something up instantly- Strongly object to getting stuff up instantly. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. ― Mandruss ☎ 05:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
FYI Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Donald_Trump_tests_positive_for_COVID-19 EvergreenFir (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
WH Physician has chimed in now-- MONGO ( talk) 05:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
[15] Soon each paragraph will mention it apparently. Needs to come out but I already removed similar from the lead so up to another if they wish.-- MONGO ( talk) 06:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it might be worth considering also whether this should be in multiple sections. While it might be a bit early to place it in the lead, having it also in the health section might make sense since someone reading the article could reasonably expect to find it there. I'm not sure if there's a specific guideline regarding this but I'm curious what you all think about it. ChromeGames923 ( talk · contribs) 06:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Would be worth adding his move to a military hospital today
There's definitely some disagreement as to where the test result should be mentioned. Personally I would imagine many readers coming to this page would look for it under Donald Trump#Health and lifestyle though the current version has it under Donald Trump#Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign, and obviously some have tried to insert into lede (and some have put in multiple sections). Interested in getting some consensus below. Glen ( talk) 07:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Could we all please resist any temptation to update this article based on the latest news report on whatever media. The main thrust of coverage so far is that the situation and its ramifications are unclear and under investigation. The only thing we seem to know is that the White House has not been forthcoming with the kind of information that would make the press' investigation quicker, easier, and perhaps more fruitful. SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
But this news has important political implications.Granted. On this topic, my objection is more NOTNEWS than RECENTISM. This could have waited a few days without doing significant harm to the nation or Wikipedia's reputation, and the resulting content would have been better as a result. Wikipedia should not be a place for readers to go for breaking news, no matter how much some of them want to do so. My strong opinion. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I write without a strong opinion, but a question or a suspicion. The post is prompted by @ Neutrality:'s recent edit of the Donald_Trump#Comments_about_women subsection, with the comment "I agree we can trim cites here, but let's get rid of Slate and Cosmo rather than NYT". I recognize the less-than-world class nature of the citations, but one of the reasons for those citations (which, I included them) was that they have extensive documentation/examples of what Trump has said about women; the citations gave the reader ready access to those examples. My reason for posting, however, is that I am wondering if the whole issue of Trump v. women isn't underrepresented in the article, and I have in mind the gender bias problem that Wikipedia has. People have been trimming and trimming, with the result that that subsection, and related subsections nearby, are small indeed - this section "Comments about women" is left with the one grotesque example of Trump's comment about Kelly after the debate. Trump's horrible history wrt women is extensive indeed - not only comments, but actions, rape allegations. Not just sexist, but misogynistic, a word which likely should be in the article. Clinton famously called him on it during their debate, you may recall. To my mind, it rises to the level of his racist views, which has warranted a sentence in the lead. (I've often thought that sentence should be "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as sexist, misogynistic, racially charged or racist." But after all the trimming, the issue is reduced to essentially a couple of footnotes. This is a biography of Trump - his history and who he is. What sayeth you fellow Wikipedians? Bdushaw ( talk) 08:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I meant, rather,- Sorry, I don't see any difference between what I said and what you clarified. Anyway, the article enjoys the frequent participation of multiple established editors of the female persuasion, so I guess this is a question for them. ― Mandruss ☎ 12:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
This article is now 129,769 characters, 20,203 words, 108 sections, 1,094 references of which only 966 are unique. This needs some serious trimming and splitting. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The technical issue is the most important one- Please elaborate on the technical issue. The answer to your question is no, because this has never been done before or anticipated. ― Mandruss ☎ 08:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The notion that Donald Trump has made "many false or misleading statements is not entirely true."
So please remove that statement. When statements are taken out of context, they can be construed to be true, while that is not really what he said. , Patriot2721 ( talk) 22:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Hospitalization with COVID-19: Does the verb "discharge" apply when you can order the hospital/your doctors to discharge you? The cited source ( WaPo) uses "discharged" in the caption of the photograph; in the text they say "returned to White House" and "a few hours before leaving." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk • contribs) 06:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
As suggested earlier, I made a clarification to the lead, [17] which was then moved and deleted. I don't think we should use the buzz phrase "America First" without at least some clarification as to what it is. Opinions? François Robere ( talk) 12:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Countless presidents have used "America first" or some variation thereof. It is nothing special, and certainly not leadworthy. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Trump has been subject to numerous conspiracy theories about possible connections to Russia which after a lengthy investigation found no evidence and the Ukraine stuff was because he was concerned about illegal racketeering. Guitarguy2323 ( talk) 23:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
How about the fact that Robert Muller said he found nothing? Guitarguy2323 ( talk) 00:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump was never personally under investigation until he fired Comey in May 2017, which raised obstruction concerns. The FBI investigated possible efforts by Russia to infiltrate the Trump campaign via people he had hired. I'd like to think good patriots would want the FBI to keep a foreign adversary from penetrating the inner circle of a man who might become president. soibangla ( talk) 00:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I see that two referenced sentences have been added to the lead’s second paragraph, about Sunday’s NYT articles reporting information gleaned from his tax returns. It is in the article too, of course, as required for something to be in the lead: a subsection has been opened under the "Business career" section, and a rather shaky sentence has been added to the "Wealth" section. I certainly agree with putting this in the article text, and I predict the material will be expanded as additional NYT articles are published. If secondary sources other than NYT report it heavily, or if it becomes a major election issue, it may well become important enough to include in the lead. However, I question adding this to the lead right away, especially two sentences (overkill) with references (we have avoided using references in the lead) based on a single source published only yesterday (NOTNEWS). I suspect this was put in the lead based on editors' opinions of how important the information is, rather than on the weight of coverage by Reliable Sources. I have not reverted this addition, but I would like to hear what other people think. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
ATM the article expounds on Trump's wealth in a subsection under "Personal life", but some of the information there is also relevant to the "Business career" section. How should we handle this without duplicates? François Robere ( talk) 21:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Is there some reason why we link to the Wikipedia articles on the work/publication in each of the 965 refs? I don't think it's necessary to have repetitive links, as many of these sources are repeated (i.e., New York Times is cited around 160 times, but the article on the newspaper is linked in every single ref). This doesn't seem very helpful to the average reader, and it presumably inhibits page loading times by quite a bit. We don't seen to do this in other articles. Neutrality talk 17:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
support the archive parameters. ―
Mandruss
☎ 23:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)While the difference is completely cosmetic and arbitrary today, that could change in the future.I think is salient, though I don't anticipate it changing from being consistent given that cite news was deliberately made consistent within the past few years, at least for the core citation details. I agree the most value is
much more easily separating "news" sources from "web" sources in the edit window - which is invaluable to many editors.which is subsequently used for e.g. citation review like Headbomb's. From memory, these citations also put out minor distinctive HTML s.t. one could reasonably highlight news sources in CSS vice those which are generic web sources. -- Izno ( talk) 17:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
|work=The New York Times
:<i>The New York Times</i>
|work=[[The New York Times]]
:<i><a href="/info/en/?search=The_New_York_Times" title="The New York Times">The New York Times</a></i>
|authorlink=Maggie Haberman
. If you don't want a link, you don't code the parameter. ―
Mandruss
☎ 00:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
References
work=[[
would locate all source links in |work=
parameters), I could probably remove all source links and all author links in 1–2 hours, assuming no edit conflicts during that time (in the wee hours my time, when I'm often awake anyway). And I would reluctantly do so if there were a consensus for it. So that's not an issue. ―
Mandruss
☎ 00:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Should we add section about his 3 nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize? 7rexkrilla ( talk) 13:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, a nomination is considered valid if it is submitted by a person who falls within one of the following categories:
Members of national assemblies and national governments (cabinet members/ministers) of sovereign states as well as current heads of states
Members of The International Court of Justice in The Hague and The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague
Members of l’Institut de Droit International
Members of the international board of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom
University professors, professors emeriti and associate professors of history, social sciences, law, philosophy, theology, and religion; university rectors and university directors (or their equivalents); directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes
Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
Members of the main board of directors or its equivalent of organizations that have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
Current and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee (proposals by current members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after 1 February)
Former advisers to the Norwegian Nobel Committee 7rexkrilla ( talk) 10:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Snopes: Trump Campaign Touts Nobel Peace Prize Nominations as ‘Big Thing,’ History Suggests Otherwise
https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/16/trump-nobel-peace-prize/
Despite Trump’s characterization of the nominations as a “big thing,” the bar for being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize is lower than many American voters might imagine, and the list of nominees is typically neither a short nor exclusive one. It has in the past even contained the names of some of the most reviled and controversial figures in 20th century history.
The total number of individuals eligible to nominate someone else for the Nobel Peace Prize is therefore likely to be greater than half a million, though this is only a rough estimate.
as a result of the very large pool of potential nominators, representing a wide range of viewpoints and expertise, the list of peace prize nominees is not always composed of worthy individuals. In the past, even some of the 20th century’s most controversial and reviled historical figures have managed to garner nominations, including:
Joseph Stalin — Responsible for the deaths of several million Soviet subjects, through political purges, enforced famine and starvation, and mass execution. Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 1945 and 1948.
Benito Mussolini — Brutal Italian fascist dictator. Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by two nominators, in 1935.
Josip Broz (“Tito”) — Controversial Yugoslav dictator who was declared “President for Life” towards the end of his nearly three decades of rule. His secret police violently suppressed dissent and opposition to his leadership. Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1963.
Rafael Trujillo — Dominican dictator whose 31-year reign, from 1930 to 1961, was characterized by exceptionally brutal and violent crackdowns on perceived dissenters and opponents, as well as the October 1937 Parsley Massacre, in which Trujillo ordered the execution of thousands of Haitians, many of them carried out with machetes. Received seven nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1936.
So, no. Don't add it. It's not a big deal. starship .paint ( talk) 03:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
C’mon guys — It’s obvious the vast majority of Wikipedia editors hate President Donald Trump but that’s no reason to say being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize is not a big deal. You guys add plenty of content about Trump that is far less significant, like eating fast food. [1] How do you expect to attract new users and donors when the average reader realizes its editors think eating a Big Mac is a bigger deal than a Nobel Peace Prize? One reason Trump was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership in brokering the Abraham Accords, bringing about the full normalization of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and marking a major step toward a more peaceful Middle East. [2] Even CNN thought it was Nobel worthy. [3] A Middle East peace agreement is a big deal, no matter how many Big Macs Trump has eaten, and it is for that reason President Trump’s Nobel Peace Prize nominations should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktg.jr.md ( talk • contribs) 05:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Soibangla: Do you have any objections to my trimming here, other than it being in one edit rather than spread across several? If there are no objections then I would ask you to self-revert, or for any other editor to revert that. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 22:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Can someone please restore this edit? These are constructive efforts at trimming the article, and the editor who reverted this has not given any reasons in the edit summary or in this talk page section. I would do it myself now that some time has passed but I am wary of 1RR. I won't necessarily take it as an endorsement of every alteration I made. Thanks. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
sweeping deletions of significant content that are better done incrementally."or discussed" reads like an afterthought to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The most commonly consumed type of citrus juice is orange juice. #49? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC), which as the name implies, is extracted from oranges
At the 2019 G7 summit, Trump skipped the sessions on climate change but said afterward during a press conference that he is an environmentalist., but not for deleting this sentence (see Starship.paint's comment):
Trump's energy policies aimed to boost the production and exports of coal, oil, and natural gas..Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 09:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 09:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The coal, oil, and natural gas boosting is crucial to understand his administration's policies. It should be kept. As is "let Obamacare fail". starship .paint ( talk) 08:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I've been looking at this odd looking section. Odd because we have these tiny, single paragraph subsections (to be compared with other huge subsections in the article; e.g., Pandemic). I thought of combining them into a single subsection like "Radio, television, and film". But I worry that the TV show "The Apprentice" was such a huge, important event for launching Trump's political career, as was the book "Art of the Deal". So I worry about reducing "The Apprentice" too much, and I am wondering if this section shouldn't be developed a bit more with the theme that "The Art" and "Apprentice" were significant factors in Trump's subsequent political career - both were vacuous self-promotion events, apparently, but both raised Trump's profile at the national level. Not knowing quite what to do, I make this posting. Bdushaw ( talk) 19:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[4] Please add to the foreign policy section under 'Afghanistan': In President Donald Trump’s August 2017 speech laying out a revised strategy for Afghanistan, he referred to a “political settlement” as an outcome of an “effective military effort,” but did not elaborate on what U.S. goals or conditions might be as part of this putative political process. Less than one year later, the Trump Administration decided to enter into direct negotiations with the Taliban, without the participation of Afghan government representatives. With little to no progress on the battlefield, the Trump Administration reversed the long-standing U.S. position prioritizing an “Afghan-led, Afghan-owned reconciliation process,” and the first high-level, direct U.S.-Taliban talks occurred in Doha, Qatar, in July 2018.2 The September 2018 appointment of Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, the Afghan-born former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, as Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation added momentum to this effort. Gg100699 ( talk) 19:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Gg100699 ( talk) 19:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not one to police on bias but I was surprised to see the blatant bias on an article that is protected to the level that it is. Contrast this with the article on Barack Obama where the introduction is noticeably more positive. Here are several sentences that are blatantly negative as well as not a defining characteristic worthy of the introduction section:
There is noticeably a small portion about how he was impeached, but the impeachment is absolutely noteworthy to the point where it should be mentioned. The aforementioned sentences violate WP:NPOV. Some of these sentences can also be written about other politicians (Joe Biden is on record having said, arguably more than Trump, many racially charged comments) and some of these comments are wrong (Trump banned travel from China in January which, despite my general disapproval of Trump's handling of COVID-19, is not at all a "slow reaction" to the COVID-19 pandemic).
Disclaimer: I voted for Donald Trump in both the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections and am a registered Republican. However, I believe that in this case my arguments about this article's bias against Donald Trump are strong enough to stand. -- zaiisao ( talk | contribs) 12:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Would you agree with the statement “Donald Trump is notable for following the norms, traditions and conventions of previous presidents?” soibangla ( talk) 18:24, 18 October 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 120 | ← | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 | Archive 126 | → | Archive 130 |
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.
2000 president run AlexHilzim ( talk) 03:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do me a favor, go read Barack Obama's lead section, and then read Trump's. Do you notice a difference in tone or attitude? Do you get the feeling that Obama is some sort of political genius, whereas Trump is the spawn of Cthulhu? If you do, you're not alone. Whitewashing Trump's record is the last thing I want to do, but could we at least pretend to follow Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view? I know full objectivity is a lost cause, so I won't press it. But allow me to suggest a few corrections for the lead section so we can be consistent with President Obama:
The comparison with Obama is a false one, though. I agree that the lead for Obama should be consistent with Bush; a Democrat and a Republican, different policies, but both of them respectable presidents. What Ian.thomson says about false balance very much apploes. Trump, according to a lot of reliable sources, is much closer to a fascist demagogue than to a normal US president. It's an NPOV fact that he's a habitual lier who refuses to respect the US constitution, frequently dog whistles to outright fascists and neo-nazis, etc. Of course the lead will look different than Obama's. Even as someone who identifies as a rightwing conservative, I'd say Trump is much closer to Mussolini than to Obama. Jeppiz ( talk) 11:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the lead for Obama should be consistent with Bush- I wouldn't go even that far, believing that articles should be completely unencumbered by any such linkages. If there's anything in policy supporting cross-article comparisons like that, I'd like to see it.Otherwise, I'm piling on. Trump's lead is distinctly different from Obama's lead because Trump is not Obama, per sources (those last two words are essential; our personal views have to stay out of it). ― Mandruss ☎ 15:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Some of you are indeed interjecting your own personal feelings. The same occurred to me when I read that, as it does every time I read something like that. Nevertheless, the great predominance of reliable sources support that hard editorializing, so it would have been both accurate and proper with the addition of "per sources" (and I suspect that's what they meant, anyway).We have been through the "all presidents lie" thing again and again at this article and elsewhere, and there is overwhelming and persistent consensus that Trump's lying is something both unprecedented and dangerous – per sources – and that that's therefore a seriously false equivalence. To my knowledge no database of over 20,000 false and misleading statements, built by one of the most widely respected news organizations ever, largely uncontested beyond dismissively throwing it on the fake news pile with everything else, has ever been compiled for any other president in U.S. history, or anything remotely close to that. ― Mandruss ☎ 21:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
you very likely won't successfully get the lead amended until at least 6 months after Trump leaves officeis nonsensical considering the reality of the amendments that have actually occurred in the lead, long before 6 months after he leaves office, including the recent addition of COVID-19-related content and removal of net worth. But it does set up a convenient "see, I told you so" should a proposal fail to reach consensus to include, so there's that. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Jdcomix: About my removal in the article saying "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", as you understand, I removed it as I said and you agreed it broke WP:NPOV. I think that the sentence egregiously breaks that policy, both the wording of the policy and the spirit of it, and so the sentence either needs to be gone or extensively rewritten.
I however do have an issue with you reverting the edit even though you agree with it. WP:BRD suggests that making bold edits either improves Wikipedia or stimulates discussion. However, you reverting but agreeing with me means that I can't meaningfully discuss the issue with you, as there are no differences to settle. So I would prefer my edit to be reinstated so either a) the biased sentence stays gone or b) someone reverts me and discusses here why they think the edit should remain. Even if you think the edit will be reverted anyway, I think for the above reason it's better for someone who doesn't agree with me to revert the edit instead. Either way the page still gets reverted, so no difference is made to the article. -- Ted Edwards 21:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ORIGINAL EDIT SUGGESTION: "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."
HAKO9 RESPONDED: "see the discussion on this talk page above. There is a broad consensus among editors for inclusion of the descriptor with backing from sources [66], [67] , [68] , [69] , [70] , [71], to list a few.” (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC).
MY RESPONSE TO HAKO9’S RESPONSE: COVID-19 is a novel coronavirus. "A novel coronavirus is a new coronavirus that has not been previously identified," according to the CDC ( https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html). With my original edit suggestion in mind, one cannot unambiguously describe Trump’s reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic as “slow” since there is nothing to which his reaction can be compared. Describing Trump’s reaction as “slow” is based on flawed reasoning and no encyclopedia can be taken seriously when it's founded on unsound information. Also, all but one of those sources are liberal biased according to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/, invalidating their opinions and authority. Ktg.jr.md ( talk) 07:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Describing Trump’s reaction as "slow" is based on flawed reasoningis itself flawed reasoning when you're on a Wikipedia talk page. If a majority of reliable sources call it slow (or say similar things), we can call it slow whether you or anybody else agrees with them or not.
all but one of those sources are liberal biased according to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/- Incorrect. That site rates those six sources as follows:
invalidating their opinions and authority- Incorrect, per WP:BIASED. If we invalidated biased sources, there would be no reliable sources left. If you think "your" sources are unbiased, you should take a very hard look at your own bias.
To keep neutrality in this article, I believe the words of "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" should be changed. Something along the lines of "Trump had instituted policies to mitigate the threat of COVID-19 including (insert policies here). Many have criticized Trump, stating he acted slowly, he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments." The current state of the aforementioned line has had some controversies about it not being truly neutral on the matter, as well as not adding any of the polices he did enact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by State College CONELRAD ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the 2020 Presidential campaign subsection, opponent is incorrectly spelled as opponet. Please fix. Rohagr ( talk) 10:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wouldn’t COVID related stuff be more relevant in the health and lifestyle section, maybe not fully, but at least mentioned? Flalf Talk 18:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@
Soibangla: You
restored your text–including the Trump quote–with the edit summary that it is "important context." I can live with your opinion that it's necessary to spell out why Trump believes it's important to get his nominee confirmed immediately but is repeating his verbal flatulence du jour encyclopedic? The sentence works just as well without to overcome "this scam that the Democrats are pulling"
. And
this edit
this edit is pretty much repeating every lie he's uttered about his
non-existent America First Health Care Plan. If anywhere, it should go into the
Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign article because that joke of an executive order is nothing but empty campaign blather, probably written by Stephen Miller after Trump was made to shut up by that terrific lady at the townhall. I'm pretty sure that your intention wasn't to promote Trump's "vision" but that's what the paragraph does.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 15:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC) @
Soibangla: Sorry about that, wrong link.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 19:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Trump's new health-care planthat
isn't really a plan. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 07:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@ PackMecEng: My bad. Not what I meant. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Much of the content has remained static for literally years and it needs a major refresh. I'm attempting to do that, and now I see someone wants to take it all out. I suggest we need to talk about an overhaul here to prioritize and update the content. soibangla ( talk) 00:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
static for literally years– that's the nature of biography. But, if we're talking about an overhaul, I fully support an overhaul that removes much of the detail about his presidency and surrounding domestic and foreign relations and policy issues. This article does not need 487 words about "ISIS, Syria, and Afghanistan", for example, and other articles are better suited for that kind of information. I would expect to find that in a biography in book form, but we have far less space to work with here. As of this comment, the article is at 125% of the size at which it "Almost certainly should be divided" per guidelines, and growing. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&curid=4848272&diff=980866170&oldid=980865795
It corrects some significant flaws of the paragraph and should be restored
soibangla ( talk) 22:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Davide King changed the paragraphing of the lead section, by combining the first paragraph (two sentences saying he is president and before that was a businessman and television personality) with the second paragraph (about his early life and business ventures). I have changed it back to the longstanding version pending discussion here. I can understand the rationale for the change (a short paragraph of only two sentences would generally be frowned upon, and the change gives us a four paragraph lead instead of five). On the other hand, for such a highly visible and much-visited article (tens of thousands of views per day), it may make sense to set off what he is currently known for clearly and up front. The wording of the two sentences in the lead paragraph has been endlessly debated and now requires consensus to make any change at all. The short first paragraph has been in place for a long time - years - and IMO it would require consensus to change it. Thoughts? -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:24, 28 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 propose the line "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." be edited to express less of what could be considered bias, or just remove the line altogether. Char322 ( talk) 23:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. Sources seem clear in their characterization of Trump's response
EvergreenFir
(talk) 23:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Should the recent "peaceful transition of power" stuff be in this article or is it better suited for his other articles? It was recently added by
Soibangla
[2], I reverted stating lets hold off on this for now. right now it is clearly undue for this article
[3], and
Nomoskedasticity reinserted stating this part is okay
[4].
PackMecEng (
talk) 20:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng I don't see you have consensus to remove the content as you did earlier today. As you raised this issue, I recommend you self-revert and put this matter to a vote here. soibangla ( talk) 21:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
This does not seem to be going away. Extensive coverage after yesterday's debate. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The statement I'm referring to is this one:
"Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics."
I think it should be removed. While it might sound relevant right now, it lacks a lot of foresight, especially when quoting the media to make it even more hyperbolic and sensational. In this climate of public distrust, Wikipedia needs to remain as neutral as possible and stay away from polemics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.179.255.54 ( talk) 19:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I haven't really edited this article in any depth, but as a reader, I was thrown when the Table of Contents didn't immediately tell me where to find coverage of the President and First Family's health issues. I would encourage editors here to make it easier to find.
Feoffer (
talk) 06:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
"In foreign policy, Trump has pursued an America First agenda, withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He imposed import tariffs which triggered a trade war with China, moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and withdrew U.S. troops from northern Syria." Would it be appropriate to add the US-mediated Bahrain–Israel normalization agreement and Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement? As such, it would read "In foreign policy, Trump has pursued an America First agenda, withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He imposed import tariffs which triggered a trade war with China, moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, withdrew U.S. troops from northern Syria, and oversaw the normalization of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates & Bahrain." thorpewilliam ( talk) 07:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I added it. I should note that the "America First" descriptor is in the previous sentence, not the one where this was inserted into. thorpewilliam ( talk) 09:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Cullen328, instead of fixing a minor factual error, you removed a bunch of clearly relevant information from the "Positive COVID-19 test" section. I ask you to self-revert, as that is clearly information that should be present. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 22:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
why is that "blatantly inappropriate language?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&diff=981699233&oldid=981696462
From NYT source:
Mr. Meadows later tried to walk back his earlier comments. “The president is doing very well,” he told Reuters. “He is up and about and asking for documents to review. The doctors are very pleased with his vital signs. I have met with him on multiple occasions today on a variety of issues.”
soibangla ( talk) 22:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
IMO we should not try to put every day's news updates into this article. This is a biography and concerned with history. There is a separate article, linked in the Coronavirus section, where people can find all the day-to-day details. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article documents a
current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be
unreliable. The
latest updates to this article
may not reflect the most current information. |
How are we beyond that point? He's in hospital and his condition is deteriorating. Things could change in short order, therefore it's current affected.-- 46.7.63.144 ( talk) 00:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
You guys know the article better than I do but Trump just announced on Twitter that because Hope Hicks tested positive for COVID-19, Trump & Melania were entering quarantine. Tweet. Not sure whether this is notable or where. Just thought I'd share. Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to get something up instantly- Strongly object to getting stuff up instantly. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. ― Mandruss ☎ 05:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
FYI Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Donald_Trump_tests_positive_for_COVID-19 EvergreenFir (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
WH Physician has chimed in now-- MONGO ( talk) 05:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
[15] Soon each paragraph will mention it apparently. Needs to come out but I already removed similar from the lead so up to another if they wish.-- MONGO ( talk) 06:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it might be worth considering also whether this should be in multiple sections. While it might be a bit early to place it in the lead, having it also in the health section might make sense since someone reading the article could reasonably expect to find it there. I'm not sure if there's a specific guideline regarding this but I'm curious what you all think about it. ChromeGames923 ( talk · contribs) 06:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Would be worth adding his move to a military hospital today
There's definitely some disagreement as to where the test result should be mentioned. Personally I would imagine many readers coming to this page would look for it under Donald Trump#Health and lifestyle though the current version has it under Donald Trump#Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign, and obviously some have tried to insert into lede (and some have put in multiple sections). Interested in getting some consensus below. Glen ( talk) 07:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Could we all please resist any temptation to update this article based on the latest news report on whatever media. The main thrust of coverage so far is that the situation and its ramifications are unclear and under investigation. The only thing we seem to know is that the White House has not been forthcoming with the kind of information that would make the press' investigation quicker, easier, and perhaps more fruitful. SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
But this news has important political implications.Granted. On this topic, my objection is more NOTNEWS than RECENTISM. This could have waited a few days without doing significant harm to the nation or Wikipedia's reputation, and the resulting content would have been better as a result. Wikipedia should not be a place for readers to go for breaking news, no matter how much some of them want to do so. My strong opinion. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I write without a strong opinion, but a question or a suspicion. The post is prompted by @ Neutrality:'s recent edit of the Donald_Trump#Comments_about_women subsection, with the comment "I agree we can trim cites here, but let's get rid of Slate and Cosmo rather than NYT". I recognize the less-than-world class nature of the citations, but one of the reasons for those citations (which, I included them) was that they have extensive documentation/examples of what Trump has said about women; the citations gave the reader ready access to those examples. My reason for posting, however, is that I am wondering if the whole issue of Trump v. women isn't underrepresented in the article, and I have in mind the gender bias problem that Wikipedia has. People have been trimming and trimming, with the result that that subsection, and related subsections nearby, are small indeed - this section "Comments about women" is left with the one grotesque example of Trump's comment about Kelly after the debate. Trump's horrible history wrt women is extensive indeed - not only comments, but actions, rape allegations. Not just sexist, but misogynistic, a word which likely should be in the article. Clinton famously called him on it during their debate, you may recall. To my mind, it rises to the level of his racist views, which has warranted a sentence in the lead. (I've often thought that sentence should be "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as sexist, misogynistic, racially charged or racist." But after all the trimming, the issue is reduced to essentially a couple of footnotes. This is a biography of Trump - his history and who he is. What sayeth you fellow Wikipedians? Bdushaw ( talk) 08:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I meant, rather,- Sorry, I don't see any difference between what I said and what you clarified. Anyway, the article enjoys the frequent participation of multiple established editors of the female persuasion, so I guess this is a question for them. ― Mandruss ☎ 12:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
This article is now 129,769 characters, 20,203 words, 108 sections, 1,094 references of which only 966 are unique. This needs some serious trimming and splitting. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The technical issue is the most important one- Please elaborate on the technical issue. The answer to your question is no, because this has never been done before or anticipated. ― Mandruss ☎ 08:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The notion that Donald Trump has made "many false or misleading statements is not entirely true."
So please remove that statement. When statements are taken out of context, they can be construed to be true, while that is not really what he said. , Patriot2721 ( talk) 22:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Hospitalization with COVID-19: Does the verb "discharge" apply when you can order the hospital/your doctors to discharge you? The cited source ( WaPo) uses "discharged" in the caption of the photograph; in the text they say "returned to White House" and "a few hours before leaving." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk • contribs) 06:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
As suggested earlier, I made a clarification to the lead, [17] which was then moved and deleted. I don't think we should use the buzz phrase "America First" without at least some clarification as to what it is. Opinions? François Robere ( talk) 12:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Countless presidents have used "America first" or some variation thereof. It is nothing special, and certainly not leadworthy. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Trump has been subject to numerous conspiracy theories about possible connections to Russia which after a lengthy investigation found no evidence and the Ukraine stuff was because he was concerned about illegal racketeering. Guitarguy2323 ( talk) 23:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
How about the fact that Robert Muller said he found nothing? Guitarguy2323 ( talk) 00:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump was never personally under investigation until he fired Comey in May 2017, which raised obstruction concerns. The FBI investigated possible efforts by Russia to infiltrate the Trump campaign via people he had hired. I'd like to think good patriots would want the FBI to keep a foreign adversary from penetrating the inner circle of a man who might become president. soibangla ( talk) 00:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I see that two referenced sentences have been added to the lead’s second paragraph, about Sunday’s NYT articles reporting information gleaned from his tax returns. It is in the article too, of course, as required for something to be in the lead: a subsection has been opened under the "Business career" section, and a rather shaky sentence has been added to the "Wealth" section. I certainly agree with putting this in the article text, and I predict the material will be expanded as additional NYT articles are published. If secondary sources other than NYT report it heavily, or if it becomes a major election issue, it may well become important enough to include in the lead. However, I question adding this to the lead right away, especially two sentences (overkill) with references (we have avoided using references in the lead) based on a single source published only yesterday (NOTNEWS). I suspect this was put in the lead based on editors' opinions of how important the information is, rather than on the weight of coverage by Reliable Sources. I have not reverted this addition, but I would like to hear what other people think. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
ATM the article expounds on Trump's wealth in a subsection under "Personal life", but some of the information there is also relevant to the "Business career" section. How should we handle this without duplicates? François Robere ( talk) 21:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Is there some reason why we link to the Wikipedia articles on the work/publication in each of the 965 refs? I don't think it's necessary to have repetitive links, as many of these sources are repeated (i.e., New York Times is cited around 160 times, but the article on the newspaper is linked in every single ref). This doesn't seem very helpful to the average reader, and it presumably inhibits page loading times by quite a bit. We don't seen to do this in other articles. Neutrality talk 17:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
support the archive parameters. ―
Mandruss
☎ 23:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)While the difference is completely cosmetic and arbitrary today, that could change in the future.I think is salient, though I don't anticipate it changing from being consistent given that cite news was deliberately made consistent within the past few years, at least for the core citation details. I agree the most value is
much more easily separating "news" sources from "web" sources in the edit window - which is invaluable to many editors.which is subsequently used for e.g. citation review like Headbomb's. From memory, these citations also put out minor distinctive HTML s.t. one could reasonably highlight news sources in CSS vice those which are generic web sources. -- Izno ( talk) 17:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
|work=The New York Times
:<i>The New York Times</i>
|work=[[The New York Times]]
:<i><a href="/info/en/?search=The_New_York_Times" title="The New York Times">The New York Times</a></i>
|authorlink=Maggie Haberman
. If you don't want a link, you don't code the parameter. ―
Mandruss
☎ 00:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
References
work=[[
would locate all source links in |work=
parameters), I could probably remove all source links and all author links in 1–2 hours, assuming no edit conflicts during that time (in the wee hours my time, when I'm often awake anyway). And I would reluctantly do so if there were a consensus for it. So that's not an issue. ―
Mandruss
☎ 00:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Should we add section about his 3 nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize? 7rexkrilla ( talk) 13:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, a nomination is considered valid if it is submitted by a person who falls within one of the following categories:
Members of national assemblies and national governments (cabinet members/ministers) of sovereign states as well as current heads of states
Members of The International Court of Justice in The Hague and The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague
Members of l’Institut de Droit International
Members of the international board of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom
University professors, professors emeriti and associate professors of history, social sciences, law, philosophy, theology, and religion; university rectors and university directors (or their equivalents); directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes
Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
Members of the main board of directors or its equivalent of organizations that have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
Current and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee (proposals by current members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after 1 February)
Former advisers to the Norwegian Nobel Committee 7rexkrilla ( talk) 10:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Snopes: Trump Campaign Touts Nobel Peace Prize Nominations as ‘Big Thing,’ History Suggests Otherwise
https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/16/trump-nobel-peace-prize/
Despite Trump’s characterization of the nominations as a “big thing,” the bar for being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize is lower than many American voters might imagine, and the list of nominees is typically neither a short nor exclusive one. It has in the past even contained the names of some of the most reviled and controversial figures in 20th century history.
The total number of individuals eligible to nominate someone else for the Nobel Peace Prize is therefore likely to be greater than half a million, though this is only a rough estimate.
as a result of the very large pool of potential nominators, representing a wide range of viewpoints and expertise, the list of peace prize nominees is not always composed of worthy individuals. In the past, even some of the 20th century’s most controversial and reviled historical figures have managed to garner nominations, including:
Joseph Stalin — Responsible for the deaths of several million Soviet subjects, through political purges, enforced famine and starvation, and mass execution. Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 1945 and 1948.
Benito Mussolini — Brutal Italian fascist dictator. Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by two nominators, in 1935.
Josip Broz (“Tito”) — Controversial Yugoslav dictator who was declared “President for Life” towards the end of his nearly three decades of rule. His secret police violently suppressed dissent and opposition to his leadership. Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1963.
Rafael Trujillo — Dominican dictator whose 31-year reign, from 1930 to 1961, was characterized by exceptionally brutal and violent crackdowns on perceived dissenters and opponents, as well as the October 1937 Parsley Massacre, in which Trujillo ordered the execution of thousands of Haitians, many of them carried out with machetes. Received seven nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1936.
So, no. Don't add it. It's not a big deal. starship .paint ( talk) 03:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
C’mon guys — It’s obvious the vast majority of Wikipedia editors hate President Donald Trump but that’s no reason to say being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize is not a big deal. You guys add plenty of content about Trump that is far less significant, like eating fast food. [1] How do you expect to attract new users and donors when the average reader realizes its editors think eating a Big Mac is a bigger deal than a Nobel Peace Prize? One reason Trump was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership in brokering the Abraham Accords, bringing about the full normalization of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and marking a major step toward a more peaceful Middle East. [2] Even CNN thought it was Nobel worthy. [3] A Middle East peace agreement is a big deal, no matter how many Big Macs Trump has eaten, and it is for that reason President Trump’s Nobel Peace Prize nominations should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktg.jr.md ( talk • contribs) 05:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Soibangla: Do you have any objections to my trimming here, other than it being in one edit rather than spread across several? If there are no objections then I would ask you to self-revert, or for any other editor to revert that. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 22:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Can someone please restore this edit? These are constructive efforts at trimming the article, and the editor who reverted this has not given any reasons in the edit summary or in this talk page section. I would do it myself now that some time has passed but I am wary of 1RR. I won't necessarily take it as an endorsement of every alteration I made. Thanks. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
sweeping deletions of significant content that are better done incrementally."or discussed" reads like an afterthought to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The most commonly consumed type of citrus juice is orange juice. #49? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC), which as the name implies, is extracted from oranges
At the 2019 G7 summit, Trump skipped the sessions on climate change but said afterward during a press conference that he is an environmentalist., but not for deleting this sentence (see Starship.paint's comment):
Trump's energy policies aimed to boost the production and exports of coal, oil, and natural gas..Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 09:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 09:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The coal, oil, and natural gas boosting is crucial to understand his administration's policies. It should be kept. As is "let Obamacare fail". starship .paint ( talk) 08:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I've been looking at this odd looking section. Odd because we have these tiny, single paragraph subsections (to be compared with other huge subsections in the article; e.g., Pandemic). I thought of combining them into a single subsection like "Radio, television, and film". But I worry that the TV show "The Apprentice" was such a huge, important event for launching Trump's political career, as was the book "Art of the Deal". So I worry about reducing "The Apprentice" too much, and I am wondering if this section shouldn't be developed a bit more with the theme that "The Art" and "Apprentice" were significant factors in Trump's subsequent political career - both were vacuous self-promotion events, apparently, but both raised Trump's profile at the national level. Not knowing quite what to do, I make this posting. Bdushaw ( talk) 19:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[4] Please add to the foreign policy section under 'Afghanistan': In President Donald Trump’s August 2017 speech laying out a revised strategy for Afghanistan, he referred to a “political settlement” as an outcome of an “effective military effort,” but did not elaborate on what U.S. goals or conditions might be as part of this putative political process. Less than one year later, the Trump Administration decided to enter into direct negotiations with the Taliban, without the participation of Afghan government representatives. With little to no progress on the battlefield, the Trump Administration reversed the long-standing U.S. position prioritizing an “Afghan-led, Afghan-owned reconciliation process,” and the first high-level, direct U.S.-Taliban talks occurred in Doha, Qatar, in July 2018.2 The September 2018 appointment of Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, the Afghan-born former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, as Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation added momentum to this effort. Gg100699 ( talk) 19:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Gg100699 ( talk) 19:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not one to police on bias but I was surprised to see the blatant bias on an article that is protected to the level that it is. Contrast this with the article on Barack Obama where the introduction is noticeably more positive. Here are several sentences that are blatantly negative as well as not a defining characteristic worthy of the introduction section:
There is noticeably a small portion about how he was impeached, but the impeachment is absolutely noteworthy to the point where it should be mentioned. The aforementioned sentences violate WP:NPOV. Some of these sentences can also be written about other politicians (Joe Biden is on record having said, arguably more than Trump, many racially charged comments) and some of these comments are wrong (Trump banned travel from China in January which, despite my general disapproval of Trump's handling of COVID-19, is not at all a "slow reaction" to the COVID-19 pandemic).
Disclaimer: I voted for Donald Trump in both the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections and am a registered Republican. However, I believe that in this case my arguments about this article's bias against Donald Trump are strong enough to stand. -- zaiisao ( talk | contribs) 12:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Would you agree with the statement “Donald Trump is notable for following the norms, traditions and conventions of previous presidents?” soibangla ( talk) 18:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)