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 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | → | Archive 130 |
None of the sources in the political career section or article state that Trump had been a Democrat from birth to 1987, just that he officially registered as a Republican in 1987. The politifact source doesn't list any political affiliation before 1987. -- Steverci ( talk) 20:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
It goes without saying that Melanie is one of our most knowledgeable editors and as always I value her judgement. But I would like to discuss the delete of my Covig-19 pandemic section addition. By profession and my WP editing I am part of the medical profession, so I do possibly hold a bias on the importance of what the medical profession has to say about this presidency as we watch the deaths and other social consequences of this pandemic rise far above that of most other developed countries. IMO, since we have a section titled COVID-19 pandemic, should we not note what the medical community has to say about Trump's position? When the New England Journal of Medicine, widely believed to be the most prestigious medical journal in the world, speaks out for the first time in their over 200 years of existence, and the article has the signatures of every one of their editors, as happened only three times in their history, should not that be included in a section that has taken so many American lives, including according to their estimate, thousands more than it should have taken if he would have responded appropriately? Gandydancer ( talk) 21:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I felt it certainly was as important as all that other stuff.Exactly. See slippery slope. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
Main}}
and {{
Further}}
hatnote links – as they are intended to be used – and your 300 hits would be higher. ―
Mandruss
☎ 05:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
reflections on him personally- I'd be more receptive to that argument if the people making it were interested in removing some of the content that does not meet that definition. Like most of the Foreign policy section, for starters. ― Mandruss ☎ 05:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Mandruss but it is true of many of our articles, not just this one. Everyone is this discussion is pretty well-seasoned to the ways of this place and is well aware of the reasons this tends to happen, which I won't get into right now. But back to the coronavirus problem... Again, I'm going to harp away at this: When our two most prestigious medical/science journals place the blame squarely on Trump for a large part of this hellish situation we find ourselves in, we need to highlight it in our encyclopedia as well, IMO. I fully agree that this article is not the place to get deeply into the virus information and that the section should be cut to only a short mention with a see also note. I'd like to see short mention of the two journals but am aware that others may not agree to that. I'd also like to see the (poorly named) Communication section from the U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic article split out to its own article as I believe that it contains most of the stuff we've got here. Gandydancer ( talk) 17:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
But whatever their competence, governors do not have the tools that Washington controls. Instead of using those tools, the federal government has undermined them.starship .paint ( talk) 09:03, 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. |
[1] Please change "In April 2020, USAID extended the PREDICT program for six months.[704][705]" (COVID-19 pandemic > Pandemic response program terminated) to "The program was then extended twice for six months; Pooja Jhunjhunwala, a USAID spokeswoman said — first to finish some analyses, then to help other countries fight Covid-19.". Gg100699 ( talk) 20:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Gg100699 ( talk) 20:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
References
In the lead, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are listed as Trump's appointments to the Supreme Court. Shouldn't we add ACB to the list now as well? NationalInterest16 ( talk) 15:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Re: [4]
I am not BRD-reverting because of potential 1RR vio.
The first five words of the nutshell at WP:NPOV: "Articles must not take sides". How does it NOT take a side to refer to the Republican-controlled trial without also referring to the Democrat-controlled impeachment?
If the lead as written is inconsistent with the body (I'm not convinced that it is), then the body should change, not the lead.
It's my understanding that there is wide agreement the lead should refer to both or neither, and that "neither" is preferred for the sake of brevity. A similar edit was reverted without other objection on 1 Sep. [5] ― Mandruss ☎ 05:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Mandruss,
@Jack Upland: The statement in question is not about the whole impeachment, it is only about the trial where acquittal occurred. It is not "taking a side" at all and was purely factual. Also I wrote "Republican-controlled Senate" not "Republican-controlled trial", the latter phrasing is semantically faulty and alters the statement in a subtle way that helps your objection. I do see your point however and would be fine with "Democratic-controlled" House of Representative being added to the previous sentence as a compromise. In hindsight, I wish I had added that with my first edit.
Regardless of all that, the sentence "The Senate acquitted him of both charges in February 2020.", which might appear innocuous at-first-glance, I believe is not neutral. When reading it, people will assume it was a fair trial and the verdict was fair because being fair is a tacit assumption people make when reading about trials. It is that hidden assumption that turns it from simply a statement into a misleading enthymeme that helps people draw an unstated conclusion that Trump was innocent. THAT is bias. There was nothing normal about this trial although the lead might give readers that impression if they know nothing beforehand. With the sole exception of Romney, deliberation and voting was completely political. The statement, as it currently stands, appears downplay the contentious of the verdict as if saying "nothing more to see here folks" and ties everything up with a nice bow. But the rest of the article down below shows this is not the case and votes were along party lines and contentious and there's more to the story than simply a normal trial. The lead should not give the reader a false summary of the rest of the article. I believe my edit made the article MORE neutral, not less.
I've suggested one possible way to make my edit acceptable to you. I'm open to other rewordings that address my concerns. Or counterarguments. Jason Quinn ( talk) 07:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
people will assume it was a fair trialTo imply that it was not a fair trial is to take a side, and I'm fairly certain most Republicans would disagree.
unstated conclusion that Trump was innocentTo imply that Trump was not innocent is to take a side, and I'm fairly certain most Republicans would disagree. That I would strongly disagree with Republicans on both counts is entirely beside the point. I'm also fairly certain this is the whole point of NPOV's nutshell. I could accept referring to "both" but my preference is "neither" for brevity, as I said – leads are often forced to omit salient points because of very limited space. I will never accept referring to one without the other, not in this wikilife. ― Mandruss ☎ 07:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Is the photo op section really necessary? This article is excessively long, and the photo op was a trivial moment in a presidency filled with similarly shocking events. There are ten sections in the Presidency section, and the photo op is one of them. Is it really notable enough to be worth that much space? Thanoscar21 talk, contribs 23:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, later apologized for accompanying Trump on the walk and thereby "creat[ing] the perception of the military involved in domestic politics". [1]The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff apologizing for being duped by his Commander in Chief into being there is trivia to be trimmed while Trump's claim that he is an ally of peaceful protesters is somehow a vital piece of information? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Changing a 2-citation to a 3-citation bundle is hardly WP:OVERCITE as many other pages ( Barack Obama's and Mitt Romney's to name a few) have them. WP:OVERCITE is also an essay not a guideline, so that reason seems to be invalid. As for too much information, the article is certainly long, but adding Netanyahu to the list is hardly any difference. The Gallup poll addition is also significant; the Bush reference could be removed for length, but the poll is certainly equally if not more informative than the 2020 Pew poll. Donkey Hot-day ( talk) 13:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
References
We currently have a whole subsection in the Domestic policy section called "Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op." It includes two paragraphs and three external videos. It’s a level 4 heading which puts it in the same class as large issues like "Economy and trade", "Energy and climate", and "Health care". Per the discussion above all this seems like massive overkill. At the same time, we don’t have anything at all about the racial justice protests that have been such a huge thing this year. Maybe we should create a subsection about the Black Lives Matter protests, and make this Lafayette Square thing into a paragraph in that subsection. We could call the subsection "Social justice protests". Or maybe there is some better place for it. But I do think we should reduce our coverage about this incident and subsume it into a larger topic. Thoughts? -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
not essentially a federal issue- as if being a federal issue would automatically qualify something for this Trump biography. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not OK with it. ( MelanieN, there was a discussion less than a week ago, why start a new one? You don't seem to have read the Protests section which is about the protests in 2016 and 2017.) The importance of the event wasn't that there was a protest, it was the government's response to it (and General Milley's later apology). I don't see a consensus to add this event to the Protests section. 16:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) IMO it isn't even important what the reason for the protest was. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The Manual of Style says, In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order
(
MOS:BLPCHRONO). I understand this is often honoured in the breach, but I think the structure of this article could be improved. Someone who has no familiarity with Trump's life might have a lot of trouble following what happened. For example:
I believe the Foreign Policy section needs to be dramatically reduced as part of an overall strategy of sensible reduction. The vast majority of it is "important" in that it is well covered in reliable sources, but almost none of it is biographically significant to Donald Trump when taken in the context of his entire life. We have an excellent article at Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration that includes most, if not all the relevant material already, and we link to it. We do not need to duplicate its content here. The parts that are significant to Trump's presidency are ALSO properly covered in Presidency of Donald Trump. So my proposal, in a nutshell, is this:
I'm sure you will all agree this is pretty radical, but I would argue it fully embraces what the summary style guideline is trying to achieve, which this rather unwieldy article really needs. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
To those who are working on cutting the article now -- Are you sure you're not making the same mistake that started the last round of cutting, confusing code lentgth for word count. Are you sure it's the article text and not reference templates that are the bulk of the bit count? I'm concerned about cutting material that relates to Trump the man, his personal style and unique approaches to governance. Those facts are widely noted and relate to his biography much more than a recitation of dates and events, e.g. the wrestling stuff that I was recently removed without apparent objection. Love letters w. Kim, caging dark skinned infants, etc. is noteworthy description of Trump the man, regardless of whether these events also related to US governance and policy. And by the way, the latter is by no means clear. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The parent article should have general summary information, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article- this is not happening here. There is absolutely no reason that section on foreign policy with its own article should have any detail on the policy - it should summarize the foreign policy succinctly without getting into specifics. Another quote:
Sometimes editors will add details to a summary section without adding those facts to the more detailed article. To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section- this has happened here so much that it's insane. Everyone wants "their wording" or "their facts" in this article - and others don't challenge them on it enough. I commend any attempt to return the sections of this page to summary style by anyone and encourage new additions to this page to be heavily scrutinized to determine if they are in line with summary style or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 21:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@
SPECIFICO: "Are you sure you're not making the same mistake that started the last round of cutting, confusing code length for word count."
Actually, my motivation has absolutely nothing to do with article length or word count. It is entirely to do with the fact that almost none of the foreign policy section is biographically significant. It is significant to America. It is significant to the world. It is significant according to reliable sources. But it is not significant when trying to summarize Trump's entire life. --
Scjessey (
talk) 21:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate and support Scjessey's intention - this section can and should be streamlined. But foreign policy is a central part of any presidency (especially because US presidents have much more leeway there than in other policy areas), and Trump's presidency is the most important part of this article. Reducing the section to just one paragraph would mean that this topic area is not given its due weight. Recall also that per WP:SUMMARY, this article needs to be able to stand on its own as a self-contained unit.
One good approach to separating the wheat from the chaff in this section would be to distinguish things that Trump said from things that he actually did, and reduce coverage of the former. To take one example from the " ISIS, Syria, and Turkey" subsection, Trump's offensive comments about the Kurds (e.g. "suggested some of them were worse than ISIS" etc.), while notable, are less important than his decision to actually abandon them as US allies, with lasting geopolitical consequences.
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 08:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
If your point is that incremental reductions risk too much being thwarted by reverts- No, my point is that incremental reductions have proven ineffective at keeping the article to a reasonable size, mostly because most of the article's editors are very reactive to daily headlines, turning a biography into a news summary, instead of slowing down, stepping back, and taking a longer view. Every x incremental reduction is followed by 2x new content. This fact is readily apparent in the #Historical file size graph, and it is not going to be substantially changed by further incremental reductions. Your interpretation of PAGs differs from mine, and I've found it unproductive to debate unproveable interpretations. I stand by my position and I expect you will do the same. ― Mandruss ☎ 07:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Every x incremental reduction is followed by 2x new content. This fact is readily apparent ...- Even granting some rhetorical exaggeration, this is plainly wrong. Three months ago, the "Foreign policy" section had around 2430 words, two months ago, it was around 2709 words. One month ago it was down to around 2027 words, following incremental reductions by MrX (which including removing some longstanding content). Contrary to your theory, today the section is still just around 2131 words. I think you need to reexamine your assumptions about process.
"But foreign policy is a central part of any presidency"So what? This is the article about Trump, not his presidency. Besides, it is domestic policy (stock market, tax cuts, healthcare, civil unrest, COVID) that has dominated this particular presidency, not foreign policy. All we need is one paragraph. We can spend a bit of time crafting that paragraph, but all the rest of it can go. -- Scjessey ( talk) 20:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
"But foreign policy is a central part of any presidency (especially because US presidents have much more leeway there than in other policy areas), and Trump's presidency is the most important part of this article."
"But cutting foreign policy to one paragraph..."Have you read WP:SS? By shifting foreign policy entirely to the sub article and leaving only a summary, we are actually giving more room to an important topic without burdening what should be a focused biography. And hopefully, this would be just the first of many such moves. And again, you are equating the importance of foreign policy to the presidency to importance of foreign policy to Donald Trump. The two are not equal. -- Scjessey ( talk) 11:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
you are equating the importance of foreign policy to the presidency to importance of foreign policy to Donald Trump- this seems to be a strawman; Jack Upland's second comment had specifically emphasized the relevance of non-presidency aspects to Trump's biography.
To inform this discussion with some objective data, I took a quick look at the length of the foreign policy sections in the articles about all US presidents from the last half century:
Article section | Length (ca.) |
---|---|
Richard Nixon#Foreign policy | 2728 words |
Gerald Ford#Foreign policy | 1976 words |
Jimmy Carter#Foreign policy | 2293 words |
George H. W. Bush#Foreign affairs | 1588 words |
Bill Clinton#Military and foreign affairs | 1782 words |
George W. Bush#Foreign policy | 3326 words |
Barack Obama#Foreign policy | 3034 words |
Donald Trump#Foreign policy (current version) | 2030 words |
Donald Trump#Foreign policy (Scjessey's proposal) | 71 words |
(I left out Ronald Reagan for now, as the foreign policy content is spread across several sections in that article, but it's way over 2000 words as well.)
While precedent is of course not policy, this list illustrates that the assumption underlying the proposal, namely that the foreign policy work of US presidents should be regarded as almost entirely irrelevant to their biographies, is an extraordinary claim and needs further evidence before we can base content decisions on it. Furthermore, while it shouldn't be taken as an argument against removing material that is determined to be irrelevant, it's worth being aware that Donald Trump#Foreign policy already has below average size.
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 06:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Sigh. There's been a lot of unexpected pushback from my proposal after some initial support. It is clear to me that much of that pushback is coming from editors focused on how the article portrays Trump ("this bad thing he did must stay in!" and "this good thing he did must stay in!"), rather than editors more concerned with the Wikipedia project as a whole. That's disappointing. I think it would best if we put this trimming on the back burner until an election result has been announced. It will be much easier to do it then. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. To: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 46th and current president of the United States. =) 2407:7000:8C21:9394:B064:212A:C763:1A40 ( talk) 18:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
The verb "minimize" has two different definitions based on context:
1) reduce (something, especially something unwanted or unpleasant) to the smallest possible amount or degree. 2) represent or estimate at less than the true value or importance.
In the sentence: "Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored..."
The word "minimized" should be replaced with an unambiguous word, such as: "downplayed", "underplayed", or "understated" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperlight ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
The COVID-19 section for his presidency has no mention of the fact that he cut travel from most of China; it just says that he was "[initially] slow to address the spread of the disease, initially dismissing the imminent threat and ignoring calls for action from government health experts and Secretary Azar." So maybe, after that sentence, add something along the lines of this: However, Trump did restrict travel into the U.S from China in late January, and place many American travelers in quarantine. [1]
This way, it adds what he initially did about the pandemic, apart from downplaying it. Also, there is no mention of him killing that a-hole terrorist in the entire ARTICLE; for comparison, there's a mention of Obama killing that other a-hole terrorist in the lede.
So is there going to be any mention of those? The current version of it is clearly biased towards liberals. Sure, he's a controversial figure among pretty much everyone, but he has accomplished good things that should at least be listed. Hurricanehuron33 ( talk) 14:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Here's a proposal for him killing al-Baghdadi: Trump led the successful operation that led to the death of the terrorist al-Baghdadi. Hurricane huron 33 18:36, October 19 2020 (UTC)
You simply cannot decide what needs to be included and what needs to be excluded from the article based on what happens in an entirely different article. Criteria for inclusion should be based largely on its significance to the subject and the level of coverage in reliable sources. The death of Osama bin Laden was hugely consequential to Obama and his presidency, but the deaths of al-Baghdadi and Soleimani are nowhere near as significant to Trump, because there are other events in Trump's life than have effectively "drowned out" their importance. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I've restored a mention of the China travel ban in the opening paragraph of the COVID-19 section and the citation. I can't recall why it was removed - those that object can remove it again, while stating the justification. (And I agree with Scjessey - its rarely a good argument to be comparing with what other articles are doing.) Bdushaw ( talk) 13:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
What I wrote: "Effectively making it look like he did nothing to stop, or even TRY to stop the spread of COVID-19. Might as well close this discussion, since it seems like you just want to make it more biased towards liberals."
What you cared about: "liberals."
Am I the only one who sees this bias? Because that's disappointing if so. I'm trying to keep an neutral point of view here, but you're trying to protect the clear as day bias; really?
Hurricanehuron33 ( talk) 17:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
To add to this article: mention of Donald J. Trump's company called THC China Development (owned by Trump International Hotels Management, another company that needs a Wikipedia article). Source 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 01:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding
current consensus item 48, there was an
RFC that confirmed something should be added to the lead and later a
discussion regarding the wording which
Rosguill recently closed. After which
Sdkb updated the wording
here to say a specific wording had consensus. The question is does that wording have consensus and thus require a new consensus to change or can it be changed via normal editing? My read of the later closed discussion based on the first sentence of the close, While no single option drew a clear consensus here
, is it can be changed through normal editing and does not require a new consensus. This is related to
Mandruss's revert of
Wikieditor19920
here citing consensus for a specific wording. Thoughts?
PackMecEng (
talk) 17:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
It should not be significantly altered without prior consensus.when I originally added the consensus item (it was removed by Mandruss as redundant, not out of disagreement). The operative word here is
significantly: I would consider it okay to attempt small tweaks without prior discussion, but not more fundamental alterations. Wikieditor19920's modification is in the significant category, in my view, since it switches from stating in Wikipedia's voice that the response was slow to an attributed statement that the response was criticized by others for being slow. Also, I do think that the extraordinary length of the discussions that led to the status quo wording needs to be considered, since per WP:CONLEVEL, widespread discussion about an issue should not be usurped by a much smaller one (a bold edit being a discussion of one). {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing. That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion.We could try to parse whether or not the closes represent enough of a resolution to count, but I think the more WP:NOTBURO/ WP:COMMONSENSE way to go about it is to just acknowledge that, for a sentence that has been this contested/discussed, the best way to propose significant changes is through discussion first. Anyone is welcome to start that discussion in a new thread below (and doing so might help keep this meta-discussion more on topic). {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
So my takeaway from this is the RFC had consensus to include something but specifically declined to state what. Then the second discussion essentially closed no consensus so the status quo was left. Given that the current wording is not considered "clearly established" for the purposes of a 1RR exception per the DS for this page, since the provision consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion
is not met. I think the wording in the current consensus section should be updated to reflect that. Also since the wording change was challenged a discussion should be opened to see a path forward on it.
PackMecEng (
talk) 14:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
suggesting there is conensus where there is none.I'm afraid you are missing the point. I'm not suggesting there is consensus, I'm suggesting that
Direct answers are hard to come by these days. I'm at a loss to translate the above into what should happen to the consensus list now, so I'm backing away from trying to facilitate a resolution here. Do what you will, my friends. ― Mandruss ☎ 17:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The wording that resulted from extensive discussions is...to
There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is.... This shouldn't really change anything in practice, since per BRD, the proposed change still needs to be discussed before it can overturn the status quo. I agree with Rosguill above that we've had plenty enough discussion on procedure at this point; let's please consider this matter resolved and focus on the actual content questions at hand. If this thread continues drawing comments, someone uninvolved should hat it. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 04:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
In the "Political Career" section, in the "Political activities up to 2015" subsection, there is the sentence
"In 1987, Trump placed full-page advertisements in three major work"
The word "work" should be "newspapers"; this looks like an editing error.
I'd change it myself, but apparently and unsurprisingly there are some restrictions on who can edit this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andylatto ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
" 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." . He closed the US to China very early though, this doesn't read neutrally IMO.† Encyclopædius 16:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
"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." This sentence is in the 3rd paragraph of the article (the intro) and it's the only thing in the introduction that even mentions the coronavirus. The entire sentence is negative in nature. I'm not gonna say that it's not accurate, it may be, but it's giving undue weight (under
WP:NPOV) to liberal leaning sources. How about we delete it and come up with something that is proportionate to what actually happened. Discuss some of the objective policies that happened through the government that involved the virus like the
CARES Act, travel bans, etc. Lets do that instead of spilling out opinions from liberal leaning sources.
Iamreallygoodatcheckers (
talk) 21:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could someone please change
Trump adopted his
ghostwriter's phrase "truthful hyperbole" to describe his public speaking style.
to
Trump adopted
his ghostwriter's phrase "truthful hyperbole" to describe his public speaking style.
This seems more accurate to me, since ghostwriter does not necessarily mean Tony Schwartz, but his (Trump's) ghostwriter does.
User44654 (
talk) 22:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I reverted two edits that added content to the article on the basis they were not biographically significant enough to warrant inclusion. They have been talked up by the White House as consequential, but that is not the prevailing view in a preponderance of reliable sources. An argument could be made for one or two of the images, but I think there would need to be considerable discussion on the proposed content. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
References
References
References
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i need to fix teh grammar 86.16.255.40 ( talk) 18:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Multiple pending lawsuits allege that Trump is violating the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids presidents from taking money from foreign governments.
These lawsuits commenced in 2017. I don't know if they should still be called "pending". There is a whole paragraph on this under "Conflicts of Interest". I would think, given the ballooning size of the article and the fact that this clause has never been tested in court before, we should wait until there is an actual decision. Let's remember there's a
Legal affairs of Donald Trump.--
Jack Upland (
talk) 08:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Why do people keep using that argument?- Um...maybe because that's the policy-based argument? If there is any policy support for
news outlets love to do thatI would like to see it. ― Mandruss ☎ 02:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
That Trump is the target of multiple (more than one, Jack) lawsuits for violation of the Emoluments Clause is remarkable, given that no previous president has been in this position; however, unless there are consequences from these lawsuits it is difficult to see how these are going to be biographically significant enough to be in this article. Coverage in Business career of Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump would probably be more appropriate, so I would be in favor of seeing that content shifted out of this article per WP:SS. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Previous presidents in the modern era either divested their holdings or put them in blind trusts. What did medieval US presidents do? Without any definition of what the
modern erameans it's impossible to assess how abnormal Trump is.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 01:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump mocked the clause as "phony"is a little bit phony itself. The source doesn't exactly say that. Trump apparently said
You people with this phony Emoluments Clause. However, his lawyers said that he meant that the allegations were phony. Maybe it's best to use comments that are unambiguous.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 20:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change the sub-header 4.3, "Election to the presidency", to "2016 presidential election" in order to remove ambiguity surrounding the two elections he has partaken in. Ajshul 😀 ( talk) 14:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Former president 142.116.179.254 ( talk) 16:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald trump is now former president 786nab687 ( talk) 17:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to change the "current president" to "former president". Please don't do it before me. I want to be the first one to do it. Ethyl Alcoholic ( talk) 17:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Adding "according to whom?" as a citation under Biden as the President-Elect isn't vandalism to you? Alright then. -- 50.69.20.91 ( talk) 18:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Get rid of the "succeeded by" because the election is not official yet. Only media projected his win, not the legal votes. Still yet to have recounts in several states and legal court issues from voter fraud. Again, neither Trump nor Biden is official yet for 2020. 73.236.247.32 ( talk) 01:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Hmmmm Nonono12345678901234567890 ( talk) 07:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Former 45th president of the united states 2A02:A456:6297:1:D07F:DCA9:8595:F396 ( talk) 09:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Former 45th president of the united states 2A02:A456:6297:1:816E:30E8:852C:D8CB ( talk) 10:34, 8 November 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 understand that we have a lot of presumptive bots trying to fog the results of this election, but Biden needs to be listed as Trump's successor. We did it for Obama, we need to do it for Trump. Biden won. Also, I need to propose that the paragraph in the main section about "media outlets projecting Trump's loss" be changed immediately. The media didn't declare Biden the winner, the electoral college did - as did the voters. It's simple math and the way that certain mods on this site have attempted to fill this article with misinformation is transparent, to put it lightly. Your job is to depict information ACCURATELY - and there's literally no need for so much ambiguity. The election isn't undecided. Trump lost - so why exactly are some of you working to undermine that fact..? Just curious. -- 50.69.20.91 ( talk) 22:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under election 2020 -
In losing the public vote Donald Trump became the first American President to lose 2 popular votes. Quazal ( talk) 01:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. ―
Mandruss
☎ 01:18, 8 November 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 President's promotion of conspiracy theories has been central to his public image and political appeal from the beginning of his forays into GOP politics (in 2011 he was all about Birtherism). Now, Trump is ending his presidency with conspiracy theories about how the election was stolen from him. In his time in office, he has promoted numerous other conspiracy theories (e.g. that Bin Laden is not dead and that Obama Admin killed a body double). Therefore, I think that it is important to describe Trump as a conspiracy theorist in the lede and mention some of the conspiracies he has promoted (birther, election fraud, etc). I request the input of others, do you agree with me that a mention of Trump-as-conspiracy theorist belongs in the lede? Why or why not? CozyandDozy ( talk) 18:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Trump's responses spoke to what is a yearslong pattern of Trump directly espousing or leaning into conspiracy theories, often those that smear his political opponents or critics.
President Donald Trump has been a conspiracy theorist for years.
Throughout his presidency, on the campaign trail, and even in the years prior, Trump has floated theories fueled by the conspiratorial-minded corners of supermarket tabloids and the darkest corners of the internet.
Donald Trump [...] is a former birther who now improvises his own half-baked theories [...] his campaign message is effectively a conspiracy theory.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add {{ Current person}} Naleksuh ( talk) 23:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I've marked this as answered per the concerns above. I also think that, since this article is sysop-protected and not changing frequently, the template is probably not needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Donald Trump Wikipedia article, I would like you to add
to the templates. 260128207E80F5E5DAC0468A970A ( talk) 07:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the last paragraph in the lead statement, instead of In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, major news organizations have projected that Trump lost his bid for re-election., I think it would be better to say In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, major news organizations have projected that Trump was defeated by former vice president Joe Biden. or In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, major news organizations have projected that Trump lost his bid for re-election to former vice president Joe Biden.. Interstellarity ( talk) 21:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. "Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus." At this article, very little besides grammar, spelling, and punctuation fixes is uncontroversial. "Uncontroversial" means no reasonable editor would oppose, so discussion is unnecessary. As we've been discussing related content virtually non-stop since the election was called, discussion is clearly necessary for any such content. ―
Mandruss
☎ 21:54, 8 November 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.
Not mentioning at all that major networks have called the election in favor of Biden is a disservice to public discourse. Regardless of whether or not the Electoral college actually ends up electing Biden President, the fact that every major network has called the election is newsworthy and requires mentioning on this page at this point in time. Therefore, I urge a passage about this be included in the leed due to its huge implications, as well as in the body of the text. Please discuss here. Supertowel ( talk) 18:41, 7 November 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.
Why does the infobox not say that Joe Biden will succeed him as president? He IS the president-elect after all. cookie monster (2020) 755 03:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
There are several discussions about this above, such as #"Succeeded by" field. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
he is not longer the current president 92.219.137.94 ( talk) 09:04, 9 November 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 has been vandalized to make it look like Donald Trump won the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. Although Trump will be still be President until January 20th, 2021, he is still the outgoing President who will eventually be succeeded by Joe Biden. Omitting these facts from this article spreads misinformation and panders to Trump’s false claims that the election was stolen from him. Ascarboro97 ( talk) 14:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not denying Trump is currently President. I simply saying that the front page of this article should include the fact that Trump is bound to be succeeded by Biden, as Obama’s article said he was going to be succeeded by Trump after the 2016 election. Ascarboro97 ( talk) 15:05, 9 November 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.
Why? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:15, 9 November 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
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It does not say "Succeeded by Joe Biden (elect)" Sulayman Ali ( talk) 16:47, 9 November 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
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is probably WP: OR, but because Trump got at max 261 votes, I think we should add that his term ended(er, will end)on January 21, 2021(at 17:00 UTC to be exact!) HurricaneTracker495 ( talk) 01:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
Infobox officeholder}}
(my emphasis): "The infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor, or the end date of the term, until the transition actually takes place." FYI. ―
Mandruss
☎ 21:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
That should settle the question- I agree. Others disagree. See #Survey: "Succeeded by" field. FTR, I removed it pending consensus, not GW, and the EW ensued. GW just agreed with me. I like GW. ;) ― Mandruss ☎ 23:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I feel that it would be beneficial to note that President-elect Joe Biden would be the oldest President to be inaugurated on EFN note b.
Proposed edit: He became the oldest first-term U.S. president <-efn| Ronald Reagan was older upon his second-term inauguration. When inaugurated, Joe Biden would be the oldest first-term President at age 77-> and the first without prior military or government service. Paul Webb (PaulWebbtheTechExpert) ( talk) 17:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. ―
Mandruss
☎ 18:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Trump went to the University of Pennsylvania. He did not go to the Wharton School. The Wharton School is the graduate school of Business. Trump went to UPenn for undergraduate school. 23.28.130.43 ( talk) 00:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
President Trumps signature is inaccurate - has changed since beginning of presidency. Should be updated to match historical data (executive orders, letters, etc) - https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/trump-signature-16x-9_colorcorrected.jpeg?quality=75&strip=all&w=900&h=900&crop=1 YOU CAN FIND UPDATE IMAGE HERE. Thank you, BRAM BramTheAmerican ( talk) 02:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. ―
Mandruss
☎ 02:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
TheCatch21AndTheChaseFan ( talk) 03:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I want to change the time in office and what president is he succeding
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request that the page of Donald Trump be revised. It is quite obviously biased and ridden with subjective language and information. For example his response to COVID was “slow.” This is subjective. It goes on with just false information such as him promoting “false information” about medicinal therapies that were proposed by medical professionals. It is directly opposing its own argument or statement in the former sentence that says that he “ignored or contradicted” medical professionals advising him. It goes on to contradict by saying that he then promoted therapies in response. He had to have been listening to a medical professional about those therapies. I propose that you change this language to say “ he has been criticized for his response to the pandemic some reporting that his response was “slow” “ and “trump has promoted therapies under advisement of his chosen medical advisors prior to the release of the trialed therapy.” I didn’t even finish reading because the article is so obviously ridden with bias and false information that the editor arrogantly got from another biased source and posted on here as factual information. This page is proof that Wikipedia is participating in the echo chamber of false, biased, or taken-out-of-context information instead of reporting facts. Opinions are not facts. Please use “evidence-based practice.” No one comes to Wikipedia to read your opinion. Please use objective information and facts. I also noticed that the three countries that signed a peace treaty in the Middle East and the withdraw of the troops in the Middle East is conveniently left out. That is a great and historical accomplishment and should be in the main paragraph. I usually donate. I won’t be donating unless this is rectified.
It is dangerous to introduce your opinion as a fact. It is dangerous to take information out of context. This kind of thing where you present your opinion as a fact and conveniently leave out information that you don’t like is what happens in communist countries. This is the United States of America. This is not acceptable here. We the people deserve to know facts and derive our own opinion. Please make changes to use objective information and use research that is fact checked by other resources before reporting. Please take out information that you got from biased sources in the media. There are videos of almost everything now. Look up the FULL video and find what he actually said and post that in quotes. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was a non biased information source, not a magazine or newspaper reporting things they saw on the cable news.
I do not agree with this man, but the bias and false information presented above is dangerous. We will never be a nation that burns books and teaches false information because that is the practice of a communist nation. Thank you for your time. 50.27.27.29 ( talk) 01:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC) 50.27.27.29 ( talk) 01:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Trump “reacted slowly to Covid-19” is an absolute falsity and obviously and opinion rather than fact. Must be changed.
Trump “was defeated” in the election is also a falsity as the election is not over, and the electoral college has not proposed a president-elect. 2600:1012:B04B:B2D7:B503:EA3A:E1E0:A2FF ( talk) 14:24, 11 November 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 2020 election is a major event and should be mentioned in this article, even if its outcome is not yet known.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
For consideration to add to the article lede:
Following his defeat in the 2020 United States presidential election, Trump became the first United States President to serve a single term since the defeat of George H.W. Bush in the 1992 United States presidential election. He was succeeded by President-elect Joe Biden.
- Red marquis ( talk) 20:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Joe biden won election 786nab687 ( talk) 17:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Joe Biden has won this election. It is completely irresponsible to not make this clear in the article. 67.168.92.239 ( talk) 04:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
This entire page is biased against Trump and full of lies just like the Fake news on main media networks. The 2020 presidential election has not been finalized by the electoral colleges and the media has no right to spread such complete misinformation! Every president before Trump has had the right to recounts of Legal votes but everyone acts as if he cant. Do research on previous elections, things like fraudulent voting and recounts have always been talked about issues in nearly every single election but now that there is a president with Balls and a High enough IQ to use his rights, the left wants to rush Sleepy-joe in before the Fact that Donald Trump won on Nov 3rd and the Democrats fruads come out in court. Donald Trump has been the greatest president ever to hold office. Youwish14 ( talk) 03:58, 13 November 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 title seems to be in violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Yes, he's expected to leave office in 2021, but this gives the impression that it has already happened, and a lot can happen between now and 20 January 2021. I think it should say present until he actually leaves office. Adam9007 ( talk) 17:33, 7 November 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 understand there are strict rules around changing anything about the Coronavirus paragraph in the introduction. I don't want to change the wording at all but think it would be more suitable given the American focus of the info to include a link 'Covid-19 in the United States' rather than the general 'Covid-19 pandemic' article. Llewee ( talk) 16:51, 7 November 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 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | → | Archive 130 |
None of the sources in the political career section or article state that Trump had been a Democrat from birth to 1987, just that he officially registered as a Republican in 1987. The politifact source doesn't list any political affiliation before 1987. -- Steverci ( talk) 20:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
It goes without saying that Melanie is one of our most knowledgeable editors and as always I value her judgement. But I would like to discuss the delete of my Covig-19 pandemic section addition. By profession and my WP editing I am part of the medical profession, so I do possibly hold a bias on the importance of what the medical profession has to say about this presidency as we watch the deaths and other social consequences of this pandemic rise far above that of most other developed countries. IMO, since we have a section titled COVID-19 pandemic, should we not note what the medical community has to say about Trump's position? When the New England Journal of Medicine, widely believed to be the most prestigious medical journal in the world, speaks out for the first time in their over 200 years of existence, and the article has the signatures of every one of their editors, as happened only three times in their history, should not that be included in a section that has taken so many American lives, including according to their estimate, thousands more than it should have taken if he would have responded appropriately? Gandydancer ( talk) 21:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I felt it certainly was as important as all that other stuff.Exactly. See slippery slope. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
Main}}
and {{
Further}}
hatnote links – as they are intended to be used – and your 300 hits would be higher. ―
Mandruss
☎ 05:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
reflections on him personally- I'd be more receptive to that argument if the people making it were interested in removing some of the content that does not meet that definition. Like most of the Foreign policy section, for starters. ― Mandruss ☎ 05:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Mandruss but it is true of many of our articles, not just this one. Everyone is this discussion is pretty well-seasoned to the ways of this place and is well aware of the reasons this tends to happen, which I won't get into right now. But back to the coronavirus problem... Again, I'm going to harp away at this: When our two most prestigious medical/science journals place the blame squarely on Trump for a large part of this hellish situation we find ourselves in, we need to highlight it in our encyclopedia as well, IMO. I fully agree that this article is not the place to get deeply into the virus information and that the section should be cut to only a short mention with a see also note. I'd like to see short mention of the two journals but am aware that others may not agree to that. I'd also like to see the (poorly named) Communication section from the U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic article split out to its own article as I believe that it contains most of the stuff we've got here. Gandydancer ( talk) 17:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
But whatever their competence, governors do not have the tools that Washington controls. Instead of using those tools, the federal government has undermined them.starship .paint ( talk) 09:03, 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. |
[1] Please change "In April 2020, USAID extended the PREDICT program for six months.[704][705]" (COVID-19 pandemic > Pandemic response program terminated) to "The program was then extended twice for six months; Pooja Jhunjhunwala, a USAID spokeswoman said — first to finish some analyses, then to help other countries fight Covid-19.". Gg100699 ( talk) 20:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Gg100699 ( talk) 20:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
References
In the lead, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are listed as Trump's appointments to the Supreme Court. Shouldn't we add ACB to the list now as well? NationalInterest16 ( talk) 15:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Re: [4]
I am not BRD-reverting because of potential 1RR vio.
The first five words of the nutshell at WP:NPOV: "Articles must not take sides". How does it NOT take a side to refer to the Republican-controlled trial without also referring to the Democrat-controlled impeachment?
If the lead as written is inconsistent with the body (I'm not convinced that it is), then the body should change, not the lead.
It's my understanding that there is wide agreement the lead should refer to both or neither, and that "neither" is preferred for the sake of brevity. A similar edit was reverted without other objection on 1 Sep. [5] ― Mandruss ☎ 05:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Mandruss,
@Jack Upland: The statement in question is not about the whole impeachment, it is only about the trial where acquittal occurred. It is not "taking a side" at all and was purely factual. Also I wrote "Republican-controlled Senate" not "Republican-controlled trial", the latter phrasing is semantically faulty and alters the statement in a subtle way that helps your objection. I do see your point however and would be fine with "Democratic-controlled" House of Representative being added to the previous sentence as a compromise. In hindsight, I wish I had added that with my first edit.
Regardless of all that, the sentence "The Senate acquitted him of both charges in February 2020.", which might appear innocuous at-first-glance, I believe is not neutral. When reading it, people will assume it was a fair trial and the verdict was fair because being fair is a tacit assumption people make when reading about trials. It is that hidden assumption that turns it from simply a statement into a misleading enthymeme that helps people draw an unstated conclusion that Trump was innocent. THAT is bias. There was nothing normal about this trial although the lead might give readers that impression if they know nothing beforehand. With the sole exception of Romney, deliberation and voting was completely political. The statement, as it currently stands, appears downplay the contentious of the verdict as if saying "nothing more to see here folks" and ties everything up with a nice bow. But the rest of the article down below shows this is not the case and votes were along party lines and contentious and there's more to the story than simply a normal trial. The lead should not give the reader a false summary of the rest of the article. I believe my edit made the article MORE neutral, not less.
I've suggested one possible way to make my edit acceptable to you. I'm open to other rewordings that address my concerns. Or counterarguments. Jason Quinn ( talk) 07:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
people will assume it was a fair trialTo imply that it was not a fair trial is to take a side, and I'm fairly certain most Republicans would disagree.
unstated conclusion that Trump was innocentTo imply that Trump was not innocent is to take a side, and I'm fairly certain most Republicans would disagree. That I would strongly disagree with Republicans on both counts is entirely beside the point. I'm also fairly certain this is the whole point of NPOV's nutshell. I could accept referring to "both" but my preference is "neither" for brevity, as I said – leads are often forced to omit salient points because of very limited space. I will never accept referring to one without the other, not in this wikilife. ― Mandruss ☎ 07:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Is the photo op section really necessary? This article is excessively long, and the photo op was a trivial moment in a presidency filled with similarly shocking events. There are ten sections in the Presidency section, and the photo op is one of them. Is it really notable enough to be worth that much space? Thanoscar21 talk, contribs 23:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, later apologized for accompanying Trump on the walk and thereby "creat[ing] the perception of the military involved in domestic politics". [1]The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff apologizing for being duped by his Commander in Chief into being there is trivia to be trimmed while Trump's claim that he is an ally of peaceful protesters is somehow a vital piece of information? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Changing a 2-citation to a 3-citation bundle is hardly WP:OVERCITE as many other pages ( Barack Obama's and Mitt Romney's to name a few) have them. WP:OVERCITE is also an essay not a guideline, so that reason seems to be invalid. As for too much information, the article is certainly long, but adding Netanyahu to the list is hardly any difference. The Gallup poll addition is also significant; the Bush reference could be removed for length, but the poll is certainly equally if not more informative than the 2020 Pew poll. Donkey Hot-day ( talk) 13:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
References
We currently have a whole subsection in the Domestic policy section called "Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op." It includes two paragraphs and three external videos. It’s a level 4 heading which puts it in the same class as large issues like "Economy and trade", "Energy and climate", and "Health care". Per the discussion above all this seems like massive overkill. At the same time, we don’t have anything at all about the racial justice protests that have been such a huge thing this year. Maybe we should create a subsection about the Black Lives Matter protests, and make this Lafayette Square thing into a paragraph in that subsection. We could call the subsection "Social justice protests". Or maybe there is some better place for it. But I do think we should reduce our coverage about this incident and subsume it into a larger topic. Thoughts? -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
not essentially a federal issue- as if being a federal issue would automatically qualify something for this Trump biography. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not OK with it. ( MelanieN, there was a discussion less than a week ago, why start a new one? You don't seem to have read the Protests section which is about the protests in 2016 and 2017.) The importance of the event wasn't that there was a protest, it was the government's response to it (and General Milley's later apology). I don't see a consensus to add this event to the Protests section. 16:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) IMO it isn't even important what the reason for the protest was. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The Manual of Style says, In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order
(
MOS:BLPCHRONO). I understand this is often honoured in the breach, but I think the structure of this article could be improved. Someone who has no familiarity with Trump's life might have a lot of trouble following what happened. For example:
I believe the Foreign Policy section needs to be dramatically reduced as part of an overall strategy of sensible reduction. The vast majority of it is "important" in that it is well covered in reliable sources, but almost none of it is biographically significant to Donald Trump when taken in the context of his entire life. We have an excellent article at Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration that includes most, if not all the relevant material already, and we link to it. We do not need to duplicate its content here. The parts that are significant to Trump's presidency are ALSO properly covered in Presidency of Donald Trump. So my proposal, in a nutshell, is this:
I'm sure you will all agree this is pretty radical, but I would argue it fully embraces what the summary style guideline is trying to achieve, which this rather unwieldy article really needs. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
To those who are working on cutting the article now -- Are you sure you're not making the same mistake that started the last round of cutting, confusing code lentgth for word count. Are you sure it's the article text and not reference templates that are the bulk of the bit count? I'm concerned about cutting material that relates to Trump the man, his personal style and unique approaches to governance. Those facts are widely noted and relate to his biography much more than a recitation of dates and events, e.g. the wrestling stuff that I was recently removed without apparent objection. Love letters w. Kim, caging dark skinned infants, etc. is noteworthy description of Trump the man, regardless of whether these events also related to US governance and policy. And by the way, the latter is by no means clear. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The parent article should have general summary information, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article- this is not happening here. There is absolutely no reason that section on foreign policy with its own article should have any detail on the policy - it should summarize the foreign policy succinctly without getting into specifics. Another quote:
Sometimes editors will add details to a summary section without adding those facts to the more detailed article. To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section- this has happened here so much that it's insane. Everyone wants "their wording" or "their facts" in this article - and others don't challenge them on it enough. I commend any attempt to return the sections of this page to summary style by anyone and encourage new additions to this page to be heavily scrutinized to determine if they are in line with summary style or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 21:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@
SPECIFICO: "Are you sure you're not making the same mistake that started the last round of cutting, confusing code length for word count."
Actually, my motivation has absolutely nothing to do with article length or word count. It is entirely to do with the fact that almost none of the foreign policy section is biographically significant. It is significant to America. It is significant to the world. It is significant according to reliable sources. But it is not significant when trying to summarize Trump's entire life. --
Scjessey (
talk) 21:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate and support Scjessey's intention - this section can and should be streamlined. But foreign policy is a central part of any presidency (especially because US presidents have much more leeway there than in other policy areas), and Trump's presidency is the most important part of this article. Reducing the section to just one paragraph would mean that this topic area is not given its due weight. Recall also that per WP:SUMMARY, this article needs to be able to stand on its own as a self-contained unit.
One good approach to separating the wheat from the chaff in this section would be to distinguish things that Trump said from things that he actually did, and reduce coverage of the former. To take one example from the " ISIS, Syria, and Turkey" subsection, Trump's offensive comments about the Kurds (e.g. "suggested some of them were worse than ISIS" etc.), while notable, are less important than his decision to actually abandon them as US allies, with lasting geopolitical consequences.
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 08:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
If your point is that incremental reductions risk too much being thwarted by reverts- No, my point is that incremental reductions have proven ineffective at keeping the article to a reasonable size, mostly because most of the article's editors are very reactive to daily headlines, turning a biography into a news summary, instead of slowing down, stepping back, and taking a longer view. Every x incremental reduction is followed by 2x new content. This fact is readily apparent in the #Historical file size graph, and it is not going to be substantially changed by further incremental reductions. Your interpretation of PAGs differs from mine, and I've found it unproductive to debate unproveable interpretations. I stand by my position and I expect you will do the same. ― Mandruss ☎ 07:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Every x incremental reduction is followed by 2x new content. This fact is readily apparent ...- Even granting some rhetorical exaggeration, this is plainly wrong. Three months ago, the "Foreign policy" section had around 2430 words, two months ago, it was around 2709 words. One month ago it was down to around 2027 words, following incremental reductions by MrX (which including removing some longstanding content). Contrary to your theory, today the section is still just around 2131 words. I think you need to reexamine your assumptions about process.
"But foreign policy is a central part of any presidency"So what? This is the article about Trump, not his presidency. Besides, it is domestic policy (stock market, tax cuts, healthcare, civil unrest, COVID) that has dominated this particular presidency, not foreign policy. All we need is one paragraph. We can spend a bit of time crafting that paragraph, but all the rest of it can go. -- Scjessey ( talk) 20:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
"But foreign policy is a central part of any presidency (especially because US presidents have much more leeway there than in other policy areas), and Trump's presidency is the most important part of this article."
"But cutting foreign policy to one paragraph..."Have you read WP:SS? By shifting foreign policy entirely to the sub article and leaving only a summary, we are actually giving more room to an important topic without burdening what should be a focused biography. And hopefully, this would be just the first of many such moves. And again, you are equating the importance of foreign policy to the presidency to importance of foreign policy to Donald Trump. The two are not equal. -- Scjessey ( talk) 11:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
you are equating the importance of foreign policy to the presidency to importance of foreign policy to Donald Trump- this seems to be a strawman; Jack Upland's second comment had specifically emphasized the relevance of non-presidency aspects to Trump's biography.
To inform this discussion with some objective data, I took a quick look at the length of the foreign policy sections in the articles about all US presidents from the last half century:
Article section | Length (ca.) |
---|---|
Richard Nixon#Foreign policy | 2728 words |
Gerald Ford#Foreign policy | 1976 words |
Jimmy Carter#Foreign policy | 2293 words |
George H. W. Bush#Foreign affairs | 1588 words |
Bill Clinton#Military and foreign affairs | 1782 words |
George W. Bush#Foreign policy | 3326 words |
Barack Obama#Foreign policy | 3034 words |
Donald Trump#Foreign policy (current version) | 2030 words |
Donald Trump#Foreign policy (Scjessey's proposal) | 71 words |
(I left out Ronald Reagan for now, as the foreign policy content is spread across several sections in that article, but it's way over 2000 words as well.)
While precedent is of course not policy, this list illustrates that the assumption underlying the proposal, namely that the foreign policy work of US presidents should be regarded as almost entirely irrelevant to their biographies, is an extraordinary claim and needs further evidence before we can base content decisions on it. Furthermore, while it shouldn't be taken as an argument against removing material that is determined to be irrelevant, it's worth being aware that Donald Trump#Foreign policy already has below average size.
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 06:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Sigh. There's been a lot of unexpected pushback from my proposal after some initial support. It is clear to me that much of that pushback is coming from editors focused on how the article portrays Trump ("this bad thing he did must stay in!" and "this good thing he did must stay in!"), rather than editors more concerned with the Wikipedia project as a whole. That's disappointing. I think it would best if we put this trimming on the back burner until an election result has been announced. It will be much easier to do it then. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. To: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 46th and current president of the United States. =) 2407:7000:8C21:9394:B064:212A:C763:1A40 ( talk) 18:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
The verb "minimize" has two different definitions based on context:
1) reduce (something, especially something unwanted or unpleasant) to the smallest possible amount or degree. 2) represent or estimate at less than the true value or importance.
In the sentence: "Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored..."
The word "minimized" should be replaced with an unambiguous word, such as: "downplayed", "underplayed", or "understated" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperlight ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
The COVID-19 section for his presidency has no mention of the fact that he cut travel from most of China; it just says that he was "[initially] slow to address the spread of the disease, initially dismissing the imminent threat and ignoring calls for action from government health experts and Secretary Azar." So maybe, after that sentence, add something along the lines of this: However, Trump did restrict travel into the U.S from China in late January, and place many American travelers in quarantine. [1]
This way, it adds what he initially did about the pandemic, apart from downplaying it. Also, there is no mention of him killing that a-hole terrorist in the entire ARTICLE; for comparison, there's a mention of Obama killing that other a-hole terrorist in the lede.
So is there going to be any mention of those? The current version of it is clearly biased towards liberals. Sure, he's a controversial figure among pretty much everyone, but he has accomplished good things that should at least be listed. Hurricanehuron33 ( talk) 14:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Here's a proposal for him killing al-Baghdadi: Trump led the successful operation that led to the death of the terrorist al-Baghdadi. Hurricane huron 33 18:36, October 19 2020 (UTC)
You simply cannot decide what needs to be included and what needs to be excluded from the article based on what happens in an entirely different article. Criteria for inclusion should be based largely on its significance to the subject and the level of coverage in reliable sources. The death of Osama bin Laden was hugely consequential to Obama and his presidency, but the deaths of al-Baghdadi and Soleimani are nowhere near as significant to Trump, because there are other events in Trump's life than have effectively "drowned out" their importance. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I've restored a mention of the China travel ban in the opening paragraph of the COVID-19 section and the citation. I can't recall why it was removed - those that object can remove it again, while stating the justification. (And I agree with Scjessey - its rarely a good argument to be comparing with what other articles are doing.) Bdushaw ( talk) 13:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
What I wrote: "Effectively making it look like he did nothing to stop, or even TRY to stop the spread of COVID-19. Might as well close this discussion, since it seems like you just want to make it more biased towards liberals."
What you cared about: "liberals."
Am I the only one who sees this bias? Because that's disappointing if so. I'm trying to keep an neutral point of view here, but you're trying to protect the clear as day bias; really?
Hurricanehuron33 ( talk) 17:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
To add to this article: mention of Donald J. Trump's company called THC China Development (owned by Trump International Hotels Management, another company that needs a Wikipedia article). Source 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 01:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding
current consensus item 48, there was an
RFC that confirmed something should be added to the lead and later a
discussion regarding the wording which
Rosguill recently closed. After which
Sdkb updated the wording
here to say a specific wording had consensus. The question is does that wording have consensus and thus require a new consensus to change or can it be changed via normal editing? My read of the later closed discussion based on the first sentence of the close, While no single option drew a clear consensus here
, is it can be changed through normal editing and does not require a new consensus. This is related to
Mandruss's revert of
Wikieditor19920
here citing consensus for a specific wording. Thoughts?
PackMecEng (
talk) 17:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
It should not be significantly altered without prior consensus.when I originally added the consensus item (it was removed by Mandruss as redundant, not out of disagreement). The operative word here is
significantly: I would consider it okay to attempt small tweaks without prior discussion, but not more fundamental alterations. Wikieditor19920's modification is in the significant category, in my view, since it switches from stating in Wikipedia's voice that the response was slow to an attributed statement that the response was criticized by others for being slow. Also, I do think that the extraordinary length of the discussions that led to the status quo wording needs to be considered, since per WP:CONLEVEL, widespread discussion about an issue should not be usurped by a much smaller one (a bold edit being a discussion of one). {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing. That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion.We could try to parse whether or not the closes represent enough of a resolution to count, but I think the more WP:NOTBURO/ WP:COMMONSENSE way to go about it is to just acknowledge that, for a sentence that has been this contested/discussed, the best way to propose significant changes is through discussion first. Anyone is welcome to start that discussion in a new thread below (and doing so might help keep this meta-discussion more on topic). {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
So my takeaway from this is the RFC had consensus to include something but specifically declined to state what. Then the second discussion essentially closed no consensus so the status quo was left. Given that the current wording is not considered "clearly established" for the purposes of a 1RR exception per the DS for this page, since the provision consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion
is not met. I think the wording in the current consensus section should be updated to reflect that. Also since the wording change was challenged a discussion should be opened to see a path forward on it.
PackMecEng (
talk) 14:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
suggesting there is conensus where there is none.I'm afraid you are missing the point. I'm not suggesting there is consensus, I'm suggesting that
Direct answers are hard to come by these days. I'm at a loss to translate the above into what should happen to the consensus list now, so I'm backing away from trying to facilitate a resolution here. Do what you will, my friends. ― Mandruss ☎ 17:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The wording that resulted from extensive discussions is...to
There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is.... This shouldn't really change anything in practice, since per BRD, the proposed change still needs to be discussed before it can overturn the status quo. I agree with Rosguill above that we've had plenty enough discussion on procedure at this point; let's please consider this matter resolved and focus on the actual content questions at hand. If this thread continues drawing comments, someone uninvolved should hat it. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 04:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
In the "Political Career" section, in the "Political activities up to 2015" subsection, there is the sentence
"In 1987, Trump placed full-page advertisements in three major work"
The word "work" should be "newspapers"; this looks like an editing error.
I'd change it myself, but apparently and unsurprisingly there are some restrictions on who can edit this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andylatto ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
" 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." . He closed the US to China very early though, this doesn't read neutrally IMO.† Encyclopædius 16:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
"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." This sentence is in the 3rd paragraph of the article (the intro) and it's the only thing in the introduction that even mentions the coronavirus. The entire sentence is negative in nature. I'm not gonna say that it's not accurate, it may be, but it's giving undue weight (under
WP:NPOV) to liberal leaning sources. How about we delete it and come up with something that is proportionate to what actually happened. Discuss some of the objective policies that happened through the government that involved the virus like the
CARES Act, travel bans, etc. Lets do that instead of spilling out opinions from liberal leaning sources.
Iamreallygoodatcheckers (
talk) 21:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could someone please change
Trump adopted his
ghostwriter's phrase "truthful hyperbole" to describe his public speaking style.
to
Trump adopted
his ghostwriter's phrase "truthful hyperbole" to describe his public speaking style.
This seems more accurate to me, since ghostwriter does not necessarily mean Tony Schwartz, but his (Trump's) ghostwriter does.
User44654 (
talk) 22:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I reverted two edits that added content to the article on the basis they were not biographically significant enough to warrant inclusion. They have been talked up by the White House as consequential, but that is not the prevailing view in a preponderance of reliable sources. An argument could be made for one or two of the images, but I think there would need to be considerable discussion on the proposed content. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
References
References
References
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i need to fix teh grammar 86.16.255.40 ( talk) 18:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Multiple pending lawsuits allege that Trump is violating the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids presidents from taking money from foreign governments.
These lawsuits commenced in 2017. I don't know if they should still be called "pending". There is a whole paragraph on this under "Conflicts of Interest". I would think, given the ballooning size of the article and the fact that this clause has never been tested in court before, we should wait until there is an actual decision. Let's remember there's a
Legal affairs of Donald Trump.--
Jack Upland (
talk) 08:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Why do people keep using that argument?- Um...maybe because that's the policy-based argument? If there is any policy support for
news outlets love to do thatI would like to see it. ― Mandruss ☎ 02:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
That Trump is the target of multiple (more than one, Jack) lawsuits for violation of the Emoluments Clause is remarkable, given that no previous president has been in this position; however, unless there are consequences from these lawsuits it is difficult to see how these are going to be biographically significant enough to be in this article. Coverage in Business career of Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump would probably be more appropriate, so I would be in favor of seeing that content shifted out of this article per WP:SS. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Previous presidents in the modern era either divested their holdings or put them in blind trusts. What did medieval US presidents do? Without any definition of what the
modern erameans it's impossible to assess how abnormal Trump is.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 01:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump mocked the clause as "phony"is a little bit phony itself. The source doesn't exactly say that. Trump apparently said
You people with this phony Emoluments Clause. However, his lawyers said that he meant that the allegations were phony. Maybe it's best to use comments that are unambiguous.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 20:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change the sub-header 4.3, "Election to the presidency", to "2016 presidential election" in order to remove ambiguity surrounding the two elections he has partaken in. Ajshul 😀 ( talk) 14:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Former president 142.116.179.254 ( talk) 16:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald trump is now former president 786nab687 ( talk) 17:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to change the "current president" to "former president". Please don't do it before me. I want to be the first one to do it. Ethyl Alcoholic ( talk) 17:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Adding "according to whom?" as a citation under Biden as the President-Elect isn't vandalism to you? Alright then. -- 50.69.20.91 ( talk) 18:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Get rid of the "succeeded by" because the election is not official yet. Only media projected his win, not the legal votes. Still yet to have recounts in several states and legal court issues from voter fraud. Again, neither Trump nor Biden is official yet for 2020. 73.236.247.32 ( talk) 01:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Hmmmm Nonono12345678901234567890 ( talk) 07:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Former 45th president of the united states 2A02:A456:6297:1:D07F:DCA9:8595:F396 ( talk) 09:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Former 45th president of the united states 2A02:A456:6297:1:816E:30E8:852C:D8CB ( talk) 10:34, 8 November 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 understand that we have a lot of presumptive bots trying to fog the results of this election, but Biden needs to be listed as Trump's successor. We did it for Obama, we need to do it for Trump. Biden won. Also, I need to propose that the paragraph in the main section about "media outlets projecting Trump's loss" be changed immediately. The media didn't declare Biden the winner, the electoral college did - as did the voters. It's simple math and the way that certain mods on this site have attempted to fill this article with misinformation is transparent, to put it lightly. Your job is to depict information ACCURATELY - and there's literally no need for so much ambiguity. The election isn't undecided. Trump lost - so why exactly are some of you working to undermine that fact..? Just curious. -- 50.69.20.91 ( talk) 22:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under election 2020 -
In losing the public vote Donald Trump became the first American President to lose 2 popular votes. Quazal ( talk) 01:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. ―
Mandruss
☎ 01:18, 8 November 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 President's promotion of conspiracy theories has been central to his public image and political appeal from the beginning of his forays into GOP politics (in 2011 he was all about Birtherism). Now, Trump is ending his presidency with conspiracy theories about how the election was stolen from him. In his time in office, he has promoted numerous other conspiracy theories (e.g. that Bin Laden is not dead and that Obama Admin killed a body double). Therefore, I think that it is important to describe Trump as a conspiracy theorist in the lede and mention some of the conspiracies he has promoted (birther, election fraud, etc). I request the input of others, do you agree with me that a mention of Trump-as-conspiracy theorist belongs in the lede? Why or why not? CozyandDozy ( talk) 18:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Trump's responses spoke to what is a yearslong pattern of Trump directly espousing or leaning into conspiracy theories, often those that smear his political opponents or critics.
President Donald Trump has been a conspiracy theorist for years.
Throughout his presidency, on the campaign trail, and even in the years prior, Trump has floated theories fueled by the conspiratorial-minded corners of supermarket tabloids and the darkest corners of the internet.
Donald Trump [...] is a former birther who now improvises his own half-baked theories [...] his campaign message is effectively a conspiracy theory.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add {{ Current person}} Naleksuh ( talk) 23:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I've marked this as answered per the concerns above. I also think that, since this article is sysop-protected and not changing frequently, the template is probably not needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Donald Trump Wikipedia article, I would like you to add
to the templates. 260128207E80F5E5DAC0468A970A ( talk) 07:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the last paragraph in the lead statement, instead of In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, major news organizations have projected that Trump lost his bid for re-election., I think it would be better to say In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, major news organizations have projected that Trump was defeated by former vice president Joe Biden. or In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, major news organizations have projected that Trump lost his bid for re-election to former vice president Joe Biden.. Interstellarity ( talk) 21:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. "Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus." At this article, very little besides grammar, spelling, and punctuation fixes is uncontroversial. "Uncontroversial" means no reasonable editor would oppose, so discussion is unnecessary. As we've been discussing related content virtually non-stop since the election was called, discussion is clearly necessary for any such content. ―
Mandruss
☎ 21:54, 8 November 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.
Not mentioning at all that major networks have called the election in favor of Biden is a disservice to public discourse. Regardless of whether or not the Electoral college actually ends up electing Biden President, the fact that every major network has called the election is newsworthy and requires mentioning on this page at this point in time. Therefore, I urge a passage about this be included in the leed due to its huge implications, as well as in the body of the text. Please discuss here. Supertowel ( talk) 18:41, 7 November 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.
Why does the infobox not say that Joe Biden will succeed him as president? He IS the president-elect after all. cookie monster (2020) 755 03:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
There are several discussions about this above, such as #"Succeeded by" field. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
he is not longer the current president 92.219.137.94 ( talk) 09:04, 9 November 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 has been vandalized to make it look like Donald Trump won the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. Although Trump will be still be President until January 20th, 2021, he is still the outgoing President who will eventually be succeeded by Joe Biden. Omitting these facts from this article spreads misinformation and panders to Trump’s false claims that the election was stolen from him. Ascarboro97 ( talk) 14:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not denying Trump is currently President. I simply saying that the front page of this article should include the fact that Trump is bound to be succeeded by Biden, as Obama’s article said he was going to be succeeded by Trump after the 2016 election. Ascarboro97 ( talk) 15:05, 9 November 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.
Why? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:15, 9 November 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
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It does not say "Succeeded by Joe Biden (elect)" Sulayman Ali ( talk) 16:47, 9 November 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
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is probably WP: OR, but because Trump got at max 261 votes, I think we should add that his term ended(er, will end)on January 21, 2021(at 17:00 UTC to be exact!) HurricaneTracker495 ( talk) 01:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
Infobox officeholder}}
(my emphasis): "The infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor, or the end date of the term, until the transition actually takes place." FYI. ―
Mandruss
☎ 21:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
That should settle the question- I agree. Others disagree. See #Survey: "Succeeded by" field. FTR, I removed it pending consensus, not GW, and the EW ensued. GW just agreed with me. I like GW. ;) ― Mandruss ☎ 23:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I feel that it would be beneficial to note that President-elect Joe Biden would be the oldest President to be inaugurated on EFN note b.
Proposed edit: He became the oldest first-term U.S. president <-efn| Ronald Reagan was older upon his second-term inauguration. When inaugurated, Joe Biden would be the oldest first-term President at age 77-> and the first without prior military or government service. Paul Webb (PaulWebbtheTechExpert) ( talk) 17:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. ―
Mandruss
☎ 18:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Trump went to the University of Pennsylvania. He did not go to the Wharton School. The Wharton School is the graduate school of Business. Trump went to UPenn for undergraduate school. 23.28.130.43 ( talk) 00:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
President Trumps signature is inaccurate - has changed since beginning of presidency. Should be updated to match historical data (executive orders, letters, etc) - https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/trump-signature-16x-9_colorcorrected.jpeg?quality=75&strip=all&w=900&h=900&crop=1 YOU CAN FIND UPDATE IMAGE HERE. Thank you, BRAM BramTheAmerican ( talk) 02:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. ―
Mandruss
☎ 02:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
TheCatch21AndTheChaseFan ( talk) 03:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I want to change the time in office and what president is he succeding
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request that the page of Donald Trump be revised. It is quite obviously biased and ridden with subjective language and information. For example his response to COVID was “slow.” This is subjective. It goes on with just false information such as him promoting “false information” about medicinal therapies that were proposed by medical professionals. It is directly opposing its own argument or statement in the former sentence that says that he “ignored or contradicted” medical professionals advising him. It goes on to contradict by saying that he then promoted therapies in response. He had to have been listening to a medical professional about those therapies. I propose that you change this language to say “ he has been criticized for his response to the pandemic some reporting that his response was “slow” “ and “trump has promoted therapies under advisement of his chosen medical advisors prior to the release of the trialed therapy.” I didn’t even finish reading because the article is so obviously ridden with bias and false information that the editor arrogantly got from another biased source and posted on here as factual information. This page is proof that Wikipedia is participating in the echo chamber of false, biased, or taken-out-of-context information instead of reporting facts. Opinions are not facts. Please use “evidence-based practice.” No one comes to Wikipedia to read your opinion. Please use objective information and facts. I also noticed that the three countries that signed a peace treaty in the Middle East and the withdraw of the troops in the Middle East is conveniently left out. That is a great and historical accomplishment and should be in the main paragraph. I usually donate. I won’t be donating unless this is rectified.
It is dangerous to introduce your opinion as a fact. It is dangerous to take information out of context. This kind of thing where you present your opinion as a fact and conveniently leave out information that you don’t like is what happens in communist countries. This is the United States of America. This is not acceptable here. We the people deserve to know facts and derive our own opinion. Please make changes to use objective information and use research that is fact checked by other resources before reporting. Please take out information that you got from biased sources in the media. There are videos of almost everything now. Look up the FULL video and find what he actually said and post that in quotes. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was a non biased information source, not a magazine or newspaper reporting things they saw on the cable news.
I do not agree with this man, but the bias and false information presented above is dangerous. We will never be a nation that burns books and teaches false information because that is the practice of a communist nation. Thank you for your time. 50.27.27.29 ( talk) 01:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC) 50.27.27.29 ( talk) 01:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Trump “reacted slowly to Covid-19” is an absolute falsity and obviously and opinion rather than fact. Must be changed.
Trump “was defeated” in the election is also a falsity as the election is not over, and the electoral college has not proposed a president-elect. 2600:1012:B04B:B2D7:B503:EA3A:E1E0:A2FF ( talk) 14:24, 11 November 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 2020 election is a major event and should be mentioned in this article, even if its outcome is not yet known.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
For consideration to add to the article lede:
Following his defeat in the 2020 United States presidential election, Trump became the first United States President to serve a single term since the defeat of George H.W. Bush in the 1992 United States presidential election. He was succeeded by President-elect Joe Biden.
- Red marquis ( talk) 20:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Joe biden won election 786nab687 ( talk) 17:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Joe Biden has won this election. It is completely irresponsible to not make this clear in the article. 67.168.92.239 ( talk) 04:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
This entire page is biased against Trump and full of lies just like the Fake news on main media networks. The 2020 presidential election has not been finalized by the electoral colleges and the media has no right to spread such complete misinformation! Every president before Trump has had the right to recounts of Legal votes but everyone acts as if he cant. Do research on previous elections, things like fraudulent voting and recounts have always been talked about issues in nearly every single election but now that there is a president with Balls and a High enough IQ to use his rights, the left wants to rush Sleepy-joe in before the Fact that Donald Trump won on Nov 3rd and the Democrats fruads come out in court. Donald Trump has been the greatest president ever to hold office. Youwish14 ( talk) 03:58, 13 November 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 title seems to be in violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Yes, he's expected to leave office in 2021, but this gives the impression that it has already happened, and a lot can happen between now and 20 January 2021. I think it should say present until he actually leaves office. Adam9007 ( talk) 17:33, 7 November 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 understand there are strict rules around changing anything about the Coronavirus paragraph in the introduction. I don't want to change the wording at all but think it would be more suitable given the American focus of the info to include a link 'Covid-19 in the United States' rather than the general 'Covid-19 pandemic' article. Llewee ( talk) 16:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)