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 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 |
The "succeeded by" field should be removed from Trump's infobox, as he is still the U.S. President and has not yet been succeeded by anyone. DanJWilde ( talk) 12:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
A grammar argument: The infobox item "succeeded by" is past tense, suggesting that the succession has already happened. Since it has not yet happened, IMO we should not put a name there until the president-elect has actually become the president. As for the current situation, the article is still locked, but we may be approaching consensus to remove Biden's name from the "succeeded by" box. That will be up to whatever uninvolved administrator evaluates this discussion. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
The infobox item "succeeded by" is past tenseBeat you by 19 hours. [1] ― Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
listing the successor when known happens virtually every time- Here are two alternative rebuttals, take your pick. (It's unfortunate that process is still so unclear after 19 years, but I don't run the place (also unfortunate).)
|successor=
parameter description.Can we apply consensus to Mike Pence's page? I started the same argument over there regarding VP-elect Kamala Harris. -- Tytrox ( talk) 23:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@ GorillaWarfare: Hi, GW! Sorry to bother you, but I'm hoping to get an interim ruling on this question of whether to put Biden in the infobox as successor, or not. We do not seem to have a consensus one way or the other by head count (I get five to include, seven to omit); the arguments on the omit side cite wikipedia guidelines, and on the include side, call it a common-sense argument; both are valid. But I wondered if you can give us a guideline on what the status of the article should be while the question is debated? I ask because people are continuing to add it and remove it. If we had an interim guideline we could put an invisible comment in the field. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Omit or include.
{{
Infobox officeholder}}
guidance: Arguments that we should disregard that long-standing guidance are uncompelling. Editors arguing that the guidance needs updating to reflect common practice are welcome to try that and see if the community accepts it. If they are successful, I will support inclusion here. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)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.
This is simple matter, please don't make it complicated.I couldn't agree more. Follow guidelines unless you can make a case for a single-instance exception to them. If you disagree with a guideline or feel it no longer reflects common practice, seek to change it. There is nothing "complicated" about that, and it's the approach that best promotes site-wide consistency (which, I would argue, is a Good Thing for the encyclopedia). IAR is meant to allow exceptions to the PAGs, not to allow blanket disregard for one because we disagree with it. ― Mandruss ☎ 13:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
Infobox officeholder}}
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.PackMecEng ( talk) 20:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Then how come every single candidate who lost re-election this month has their successor listed in their infobox?Well, my best guess is that editors there were not aware of the template guidance. If they had been, I think most of them would have supported omission because they believe in generally following guidelines for the sake of site-wide consistency. That's been my experience. The guidance is oddly placed at the end of the template doc's lead, rather than as part of the
|successor=
parameter description, so it could be easily missed even by editors who know about template doc and how to view it.Either every other page is wrong, or this one is.Agree, and I'd say the former. As I've said previously, if any editor believes that a large number of errors resulting from editor unawareness (as opposed to fully informed decisions) means they are no longer errors, they are free to seek to change the template doc to reflect that. Until that is successful, my preference is to follow the doc, not the errors (and correcting the errors would not be an enormous task). ― Mandruss ☎ 09:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
|successor=
parameter usage to determine what they should do. In this case, it's even worse: an editor would have to conduct a survey of all |successor=
parameter usage between elections and transitions, researching edit histories and old revisions. That would be utterly unworkable, and something only Wikipedia could come up with (or only en-wiki; I don't know whether, say, the Germans have more sense). ―
Mandruss
☎ 10:15, 10 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.
Here's a proposed RfC for Template talk:Infobox officeholder, discussed above. Suggestions for improvement welcome. As I commented above, this article's discussion should not wait for the outcome of the RfC, and the article can be changed with no fuss if the RfC outcome is different. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
(rfc|bio|pol)
This RfC is about the
|successor=
parameter of{{ infobox officeholder}}
. When present, this field displays as Succeeded by in the infobox. When an incumbent loses re-election, should the parameter be filled in immediately or wait until the successor takes office? 16:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- BACKGROUND
- The infobox template doc currently says: "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."
- There is apparently quite a bit of precedent for filling in the parameter immediately, adding "(elect)" following the successor's name. The "(elect)" is then removed when the transition takes place.
- The template doc guidance is oddly placed at the end of the doc's lead, rather than in the
|successor=
parameter description, so it would be easy to miss. It is unknown whether editors creating the precedents were aware of its existence, or whether such awareness would have affected their edits.- In a discussion at Talk:Donald Trump, some of the disagreement centers around the interpretation of the phrase Succeeded by, some editors saying it's past tense and should be treated as such, others saying it can mean "to be succeeded by" when "(elect)" is shown.
- The goal of this RfC is to establish a community consensus for site-wide consistency in these situations, one way or the other. ― Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion - Perhaps one of the possible options for an RfC could be to add a parameter to the infobox for "elected successor" or "to be succeeded by"? Jr8825 • Talk 16:36, 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. |
Add his multiple accounts of molestation and suggested rape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.248.160 ( talk • contribs)
Already done This is covered under Donald_Trump#Misogyny_and_allegations_of_sexual_assault_and_sexual_misconduct. — Czello 11:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Some level of fraud has been inherent to elections of this scale, and, indeed, the use of mail-in ballots does increase the opportunity for this to took place. I refer to the comments of Attorney General Barr, saying prior to any federal investigation that fraud will be found. However, widespread fraud is far less common; this is where Trump's claims are unsubstantiated. As such, I suggest changing the sentence from "He has made unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud, mounted a series of legal challenges to the results, and ordered White House officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition." to "He has made unsubstantiated accusations of widespread electoral fraud, mounted a series of legal challenges to the results, and ordered White House officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition." thorpewilliam ( talk) 01:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
indeed, the use of mail-in ballots does increase the opportunity for (fraud) to took place.Studies suggest the opposite. [5] [6] And I agree with Jr8825 about not including "widespread". It's not just that he hasn't shown "widespread" fraud; he basically hasn't shown any fraud at all. Federal officials - yes, people in Trump's own administration - have said this was the best run and most secure election in history. [7] -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
At the end of 2.3 Legal Affairs and Bankruptcies, it says, "In May, DC District Court judge Amit Mehta ruled that Mazars must comply with the subpoena, and judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District Court of New York ruled that the banks must also comply." The use of "also" at the end of the sentence implies that the banks and something else have to comply with the subpoena. This is not the case: it is the judge that is different, not the banks. Therefore, for clarity, I propose changing this sentence to: "In May, DC District Court judge Amit Mehta ruled that Mazars must comply with the subpoena, and judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District Court of New York also ruled that the banks must comply." In this sentence, the word "also" comes before "ruled" instead of "comply." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrytzkalmyr ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
6.6 Racial Views: "Trump's comments in reaction to the 2017 Charlottesville far-right rally were interpreted, by some, as implying a moral equivalence between white supremacist demonstrators and counter-protesters." "by some" is not an appositive or parenthetical element, so the commas are not correctly placed. The sentence should read as follows: "Trump's comments in reaction to the 2017 Charlottesville far-right rally were interpreted by some as implying a moral equivalence between white supremacist demonstrators and counter-protesters," with the commas around "by some" removed. Mrytzkalmyr ( talk) 20:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
From the lead: "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics." From 6.3 False Statements: "As president, Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks. The misinformation has been documented by fact-checkers; academics and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics." This is largely word-for-word. Do we really need the same thing twice? I think we should at least rephrase it. Mrytzkalmyr ( talk) 20:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The third paragraph goes from his political positions to the 2016 election results to protests to lies to racist statements. I fail to see how these are connected. Should we try to reorganize the introduction to make it more connected? Mrytzkalmyr ( talk) 16:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
tq2}}
template for easy readability. ―
Mandruss
☎ 00:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)You have GOT to source this line, in the last paragraph before the fold, "Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic". What is 'slowly'? His administration addressed the issue in January 2020, when the virus was in its infancy. Yes, he handled the outbreak poorly, but that's easy to say in hindsight. I would argue that he reacted quickly but ineffectively to COVID-19. -- Sebanderson ( talk) 15:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
At the end of every President's intro section, there has been a short blurb about whether or not their presidency is regarded as favorable, unfavorable, or mediocre. When will we add Trump's evaluation and how will it be decided what is put? CoryJosh ( talk) 01:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
IMO we shouldn't be reporting any evaluations of his presidency or place in history until he has been out of office for at least a year. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:24, 16 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 can’t we add Joe Biden’s name as the successor. Trump lost the electoral college. Why can’t we add Biden as Joe Biden (Elect). Pls let’s add it so we can move on. Michaeljacksonfan104 ( talk) 21:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Now, it’s official. It is not disputed anymore. Emily Murphy confirmed Biden as the winner. Michaeljacksonfan104 ( talk) 23:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The transition has begun a few minutes ago. It’s time to do so Michaeljacksonfan104 ( talk) 23:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
it’s official. It is not disputed anymore.Unless and until that trend makes a dramatic reversal, we are not putting anything in that field until Biden takes office. That's how things work at Wikipedia. Please drop the stick. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks greatly for the explanation. My greatest apologies. When I saw Obama’s article in 2016, It did list Donald Trump as the president elect so it did establish confusion for me. Michaeljacksonfan104 ( talk) 00:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh sincere apologies. My brain isn’t operating sufficiently at the moment. Michaeljacksonfan104 ( talk) 00:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Does the phrase "Trump reacted slowly" meet the following 3 tests against main components of our WP:NPOV policy?
If editors feel that the phrasing may fail tests B or C, would the following be an improvement:
Suggestions for alternative wording:
Note on current consensus: Current consensus #48 states "there is no consensus on specific wording" on COVID-19 in the lead. It identifies the current phrasing as the "status-quo", retained on the basis of the extensive discussion surrounding it, rather than an explicit consensus in favour of it; some editors have expressed the view that a consensus would be required before making substantive changes. Following the closer's comments at the RfC, closed on 23 August, this section intends to focus on identifying and improving specific problems with the wording. It does not seek to overturn any aspect of CC#48. Jr8825 • Talk 14:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The issue is tricky because it is an assessment of the degree that Trump was viewed as slow. The classic example is we do not say "the earth is widely viewed as round", although flat earthers might like to have "the earth is sometimes viewed as flat" - rather, in wikivoice, "the earth is round". In the Trump case we are attempting to assess whether RS is sufficiently unambiguous that the question has no significant lingering doubt. I would say so - but we can look for citations that argue that the proper response was to go slow... If it were me, just now, I would attempt an entirely new statement, updated to the recent facts, and not belabor this particular point. The facts are, however, bad for Trump, politically - seems unavoidable. Bdushaw ( talk) 16:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Another way the issue might be approached is if we say "critics say" (or whatever) to then actually be able to list those critics. For the statement in question you have, e.g. "NY Times, WA Post, health officials, doctors, New England Journal of Medicine, etc etc say..." The list is long indeed - so seems to me we can drop "critics say" (or whatever). Bdushaw ( talk) 16:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Just some ideas: the statement "Trump's pandemic response was ineffective..." does bypass the "slow" question, though it could still be construed as an opinion (I don't think it is, but others may). The phrase "widely criticized across the political spectrum" (above) is more a statement as to a political assessment of the man, than a characterization of a particular response per se. One factor important here and elsewhere in the article, but not described properly yet, is the degree to which people respond to the actions and statements of a president. Trump's rhetoric and examples were picked up on by many people, leading to such poor pandemic response (in Red states particularly); people follow their leader; even globally people have followed Trump. Rallies, take malaria drugs, no masks, no social distancing, it's no problem if you are macho enough, etc. All eventually leading to the present dangerous circumstance of runaway infections, even prior to the start of the dangerous winter season, c.f., recent Fouci statements. So a phrase something like "Trump set dangerous examples in pandemic response" may be in order. Then there is an abrogation of Federal leadership/coordination with respect to such things as scarcity of personal protection equipment, states fending for themselves, etc, indeed an abrogation of any Federal response at all at the moment. Perhaps still too early for such an effort, but our prior Discussion featured a table of various possibilities, which allowed editors to see all the possibilities and state their preferences. In short, beyond the "slow" question, there are a wide range of possibilities as to a revised statement, if people want to open this Pandora's box. Bdushaw ( talk) 21:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
And extraordinary pressure to open economies early, a source of much of the present problem. That particular issue occurred toward the tail end of our previous discussions, I believe. Bdushaw ( talk) 21:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Support Attribution is required. This is an assessment, and users here have been sloppy to treat it as fact, because that assessment varies slightly from source to source. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 01:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I haven't been part of this discussion but I was pinged to it. I'm going to say this very loudly: Do not change the article while this discussion is underway. There has been edit warring over this, and if there is any more of it I am going to request full protection again. This sentence has been formally discussed and formally closed several times; there was virtually unanimous support for saying something in the lead, and a majority but not a formal consensus for what became the status quo wording: Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.
(BTW somebody said I wrote that version; actually that version was written by
User:Neutrality as an improvement on something I had proposed, and I immediately agreed with their version.) If you have a different opinion or a better way to word it, by all means propose it here and let's discuss it. That’s how this discussion was started, by
User:Jr8825, and by all means let’s continue it. Maybe we can come up with a better wording. If so, it should be clearly proposed and debated, as the previous discussions were, and not implemented unless and until there appears to be considerable support for it. --
MelanieN (
talk) 16:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I am unsure of suggestions for a way forward, but I will say some things that may be indisputable. It seems to me this "slow" business is intractable and we should try a different approach. Things have evolved since the status quo statement was derived, and for all this effort we may be better off striving for a new, updated statement that describes COVID-19 and Trump, a defining problem for the Trump administration. A good place to start would be "Trump downplayed the danger" (hence minimized the Federal response) since he explicitly says as much. RE "slow" and "weasel words", I suspect the problem is more general - that there will always be those that want the weasel words in characterizing Trump's response, however that is done, and those that see sufficient sourcing that the additional wording should be left out. We should be able to find factual wording, less about characterization more about factual, that allows us to leave out the "weasel words". Indisputable is the existence of the election campaign and how that influenced Trump, e.g., the dangerous rallies, statements about vaccines sooner rather than later. A final indisputable fact is a consequence of the lack of a sufficient Federal response is the present runaway infection rate and lack of an updated strategy for dealing with it; the Trump administration has thrown its hands up. Can we devise a suitable statement that is so sufficiently factual as to avoid assessments/opinions? Bdushaw ( talk) 17:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.to
Trump downplayed the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.? – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump downplayed its threat and minimized the Federal response; he ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, politicized pandemic mitigation measures in the run up to the 2020 election, and promoted false information about unproven treatments, the availability of testing, and vaccine timelines.Perhaps something along those lines, encompassing the 11 months of pandemic? A severe constraint, and a source of conflict, is that a statement for the lead has to be concise, hence the statement is easily uncomfortably pointed. Bdushaw ( talk) 18:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump downplayed its threat; he ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, politicized mitigation measures in the run up to the 2020 election, and promoted false information about unproven treatments, testing, and vaccines.Bdushaw ( talk) 18:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump downplayed its threat and did not orchestrate any effective virus mitigation measures; he ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, politicized mitigation measures in the run up to the 2020 election, and promoted false information about unproven treatments, testing, and vaccines.The "2020 election" phrase gives a logical lead in to the election sentences presently in the lead. We leave out canceling the pandemic program in Fall 2019, withdrawing from WHO, and continuing to try to delete the ACA. Bdushaw ( talk) 19:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
"Support there has been a fair amount of debate over this sentence. "Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was/has been ineffective, he downplayed..." seems like a fair compromise. It is difficult to measure if it was specifically exacerbated but there seems to be enough consensus that it at least was inneffective to stop the spread throughout the country. Anon0098 ( talk) 20:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Another thing to bear in mind is that we will likely have to have an RfC for any statement that seems like it might be successful, unless there is obvious support for it/minimal objections to it. Bdushaw ( talk) 21:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
A table to be kept at the bottom of this Talk section to keep track of the various options. The aim here is for the table to help evolution toward a consensus statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdushaw ( talk • contribs) 11:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Version | Lead Text | +Politicized? | Notes/Supported by Article? |
---|---|---|---|
SQ | Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. | Status quo | |
A1 | In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump initially downplayed the threat to public health, ignored or contradicted recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. | Only avoiding "slow" | |
A2 | Trump downplayed the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. | Only avoiding "slow" | |
B | Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump downplayed its threat; he ignored or contradicted recommendations from health officials, politicized mitigation measures in the run up to the 2020 election, and promoted false information about unproven treatments, testing, and vaccines. | Y | |
C1 | Trump did not mount any effective measures to mitigate the spread of the virus, instead adopting a policy of denial and distraction. | "Any effective measures" First sentence | |
C2 | Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump downplayed its threat and did not implement any effective virus mitigation measures; he ignored or contradicted recommendations from health officials, politicized mitigation measures in the run up to the 2020 election, and promoted false information about unproven treatments, testing, and vaccines. | Y | "Any effective measures" Text needs work |
D | Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was ineffective, he downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. | "Response ... ineffective" | |
Z | Template |
I don't think we should keep this table on the talk page. There appears to be no consensus for changing the text, and unlike other text that's glued in place with claims of "implicit consensus" (AKA old age), this bit was thoughtully widely and deeply discussed on this talk page. It's always good to improve any part of the article, but I would not elevate or prioritize this based only on the preference of a few editors who periodically test the waters. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Ref. these edits: [10], [11]. The info is newspaper-ish, but I edited instead of removing it. Barr isn't dumb, just unethical, placating the toddler-in-chief while maintaining plausible deniability with the two big ifs ("if there are any", "if true"). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The first sentence of the COVID-19 Pandemic section says, "In December 2019, the pandemic of COVID-19 coronavirus erupted in Wuhan, China; the virus spread worldwide within weeks." In December 2019, COVID-19 was not a pandemic; rather, as explained later in the section, it was classified as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. I suggest changing it to "In December 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus erupted in Wuhan, China; the virus spread worldwide within weeks." Note that I said SARS-CoV-2, as this is the virus, while COVID-19 is the disease it causes. Mrytzkalmyr ( talk) 20:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
What is this adding to the article? Yes, there's that whole scandal, but why the photo? Mrytzkalmyr ( talk) 17:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
At the beginning of "2018-2019 federal government shutdown," it says that Trump wanted 5.6 billion dollars in federal funds for the border wall. At the beginning of "National emergency regarding the southern border," it says he wanted 5.7 billion dollars. Both should say 5.7 billion dollars. I have looked at other sources and have confirmed that it was 5.7 billion, but the CNBC source that is cited for the second number is fine, I think. The NYT article that the first number (5.6 billion) is attributed to takes a quote from Trump where he said that he was asking for 5.6 billion dollars. The White House officially asked Congress for 5.7 billion dollars, however. If you would like another source, here it is: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/06/trump-emergency-border-wall-government-shutdown-1082712. Mrytzkalmyr ( talk) 02:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Should we add a sentence to the "2020 election" section about how, following the election, Trump fired multiple administration officials, sometimes replacing them with Trump loyalists? "Over the past week, President Trump has axed his defense secretary and other top Pentagon aides, his second-in-command at the U.S. Agency for International Development, two top Homeland Security officials, a senior climate scientist and the leader of the agency that safeguards nuclear weapons." [12]. "The Trump administration has carried out sweeping changes atop the Defense Department's civilian leadership structure, removing several of its most senior officials and replacing them with perceived loyalists to the President. The flurry of changes, announced by the Department of Defense in a statement roughly 24 hours after President Donald Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper, has put officials inside the Pentagon on edge and fueled a growing sense of alarm among military and civilian officials, who are concerned about what could come next. Four senior civilian officials have been fired or have resigned since Monday, including Esper, his chief of staff and the top officials overseeing policy and intelligence. They were replaced by perceived Trump loyalists, including a controversial figure who promoted fringe conspiracy theories and called former President Barack Obama a terrorist." [13] -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Buried in the RfC is the phrase "the current president." This directly contradicts WP:DATED, which disallows terms like "current," "recent" and "now." Everything in Wikipedia is presumed to be current. We don't say, for example, that, " The Good Doctor is a current American medical drama series."
I understand my edit was reverted because "current" was included among a myriad of other points in multi-pronged RfC. But it's still non-MOS and it hardly seems controversial or contentious to remove that word. The phrase "Donald Trump is the US president" is exactly the same as "Donald Trump is the current US president." The very word "is" indicates "current".-- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
...terms such as now, currently, to date, so far, soon, and recently should usually be avoided in favor of phrases such as during the 1990s, since 2010, and in August 1969. For current and future events, use phrases like as of November 2020 or since the beginning of 2020 to signal the time-dependence of the information....
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.
Hello! in the 2020 Presidential election section of the article after the sentence "In what The New York Times called an "extraordinary breach of presidential decorum" I would like to add the following sentence "Some media outlets have likened the President's post-election actions to a mild coup d'etat attempt"(it doesn't have to be after that particular sentence but it should be in that section) these are my references https://globalnews.ca/news/7485331/donald-trump-election-loss-claims/ https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/11/trump-failed-coup-danger.html Black roses124 ( talk) 04:22, 27 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 whole page is so outrageously biased and flat out dishonest that I had to look twice to make sure this was really Wiki and not a spoof page.
I have taken the liberty of publishing the Talk link on numerous social media outlets so others can see exactly what you people do here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.38.245 ( talk) 06:07, 28 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. |
Please remove the bias and outright lies from this page. The whole opinion piece before the contents needs to be reviewed and much of it deleted as untrue. Your bias is GLARING and if you want to continue to enjoy a reputation for solid information you'll reconsider your political agenda and leave it out of your pages. 72.181.38.245 ( talk) 05:55, 28 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.
In my opinion, this article is biased. There are comments that have been made on this page that support me. There is a whole section of false statements that Donald Trump has made, why not have a whole section of true statements that he has made? It is one-sided. This is blatant bias, and there should be a review of some sort, bearing in mind, others on this talk page ave highlighted bias and the fact that Trump is a very significant figure, this should be addressed. DukeBiggie1 ( talk) 18:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
This article is clearly left-wing- If so, it's because reliable sources are left-wing, and that's Wikipedia policy, as indicated on the "Response" page I linked for you above. Did you read it? If you read it, did you take some time to actually think about it? Did you read the NPOV policy page? Did you read any of the past discussions about this on this page? The problem with all such complaints like yours is that they arrive with a preconceived mind-set about bias and no amount of reasoning or education can change it. Many of the regulars at this article, including me, are weary of spending our unpaid volunteer time trying to reason with people who are dead-set on a particular viewpoint, and who are not particularly interested in Wikipedia policy. That's why
arguments are being put aside quite quickly.As stated on the "Response" page, you are free to make specific, policy-based suggestions for improvement to this article, but general complaints about bias are not useful. ― Mandruss ☎ 19:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a section on his falsehoods because he has told more of them than any public figure in anyone’s living memory, and likely in all American history, and maybe even in modern world history, and to deny this is to be stunningly ignorant or hyperpartisan, or both. It is a core character trait that distinguishes him from all other current or historical public figures who can be named, and this objective observation has nothing to do with politics. It. Is. Reality. soibangla ( talk) 20:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
they see things through the filter of their POV: "And you don't? Kindly dismount your high horse, sir." Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias is the best we can do and the best we should try to do on this particular page, and it lets the reader know they can raise the issue at VPP if they care to try. If they go there, you and BMK are welcome to try to convince them with essays like that. This is not the place. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The last paragraph in the intro section seems very controversial, biased, and in an accusing tone. My personal thoughts (non favorable) to the subject aside Wikipedia should be based on facts and not bias one way or the other. I am requesting either that the paragraph is taken out completely or that it is completely rewritten to take the accusations away and report on the facts. 67.80.108.160 ( talk) 08:39, 16 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.
Should the text below be added under the "Foreign policy" section? Please refer to article's history and the above talk-page section for details.
On August 13, 2020, Trump announced that the United Arab Emirates and Israel were to normalize relations under the Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement. [1] The normalization agreement between Bahrain and Israel was announced by Trump on September 11, 2020. [2] On October 23, 2020, Trump announced that Sudan will start to normalize ties with Israel, making it the third Arab state to do so as part of the Trump administration-brokered Abraham Accords. [3]
References
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 11:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
may prove to be the most significant foreign policy achievement of his first term(from this article by a left-leaning news source). I wouldn't call "the most significant foreign policy achievement of his first term" something that's insignificant. Here's the BBC explaining why they matter, which is separate from the BBC article Tobby included in the RFC to begin with. The NYT even quotes Nancy Pelosi herself as saying it was "an important day". The biographies of many other people include their greatest achievements, and there's a consensus in the news media that this may be the best foreign policy achievement during his time in office - that is certainly biographically significant more so than the rest of that section now. The section does quite a thorough job of covering his "negative" achievements in foreign policy (ex: withdrawal from treaties, etc) - but per WP:DUE it must also cover his positive policy achievements such as this - especially when the news considers it almost unanimously the "most positive" thing he's done in his term in office. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 20:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"Calling that a "relatively insignificant foreign policy" is just nonsensical."None of these countries where geopolitical adversaries of Israel. If Trump had brokered a peace deal between Israel and Syria, for example, that would be meaningful. -- Scjessey ( talk) 21:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
On August 13, 2020, Trump and the leaders of the United Arab Emirates and Israel announced they had reached an agreement to normalize diplomatic relations under the Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement. This was followed by a similar agreement between Bahrain and Israel, announced by Trump on September 11, 2020. On October 23, 2020, Trump announced that Sudan will start to normalize ties with Israel, making it the third Arab state to do so as part of the Abraham Accords, which have been called potentially the most significant foreign policy achievement of Trump during his four year term as president.- with the same citations already given in the original RFC and in my reply above (specifically citing the last part (most significant) to Vox)? If people think my wording is an improvement please feel free to do what you will with it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 13:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
given the other information currently in this article.And what if I also oppose much of that other information, for the same reason? Should I remain silent and surrender to that slippery slope? I disagree that DUE and SS
mandateany such thing – I dearly wish policy were so clear, with nice bright lines for us to follow – but I'm prepared to accept the judgment of
whoever closes/acts on this RfC. ― Mandruss ☎ 10:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Biden praised the agreement as a "welcome, brave, and badly-needed act of statesmanship.", which to the quick glance makes it appear that Joe Biden is praising the only named person, Trump's, statesmanship. In reality, per the source, Biden was singling out the UAE directly,
Today, Israel and the United Arab Emirates have taken a historic step to bridge the deep divides of the Middle East. The UAE’s offer to publicly recognize the State of Israel is a welcome, brave, and badly-needed act of statesmanship.. ValarianB ( talk)
"Its is one of the reasons he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize"LOL no it isn't. He was nominated by the same whack job who did it last time before the agreement. -- Scjessey ( talk) 22:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Saudia Arabia's top diplomat on Thursday called for direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, while again suggesting the kingdom won't normalize ties with the Jewish state until the decades-old conflict is resolved. In an interview with a US-based think tank, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud underlined the kingdom’s support for the Arab Peace Initiative, which sees a Palestinian state as a prerequisite to rapprochement between Israel and the Arab world.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 21:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
the Sudanese public [is] largely opposed to normalization of ties with Israel. Trump announcements "that XYZ were to/ will start to" are not significant enough events in Trump's biography unless RS report that these "deals" led to peace in the Middle East, e.g. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC) 21:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk)
they have almost ZERO impact on Trump's life.: Irrelevant. The vast majority of what is in our "presidency" section has zero impact on his life. Shall we remove our entire coverage of immigration? Of "energy and climate"? Of health care, gay rights, abortion? None of those things seem to impact him personally. Significant actions as president are always included in that president's biography. That's because they become part of the person's legacy. I agree it would not make the lead, but that's not what this discussion is about. This material is proposed to be added to the "Foreign policy" section of the text. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I apologize if this was not the intent of the editor but the fifth paragraph on this subject seemed leaning towards the left, democratic side. It gave an opinion on how the President has been handling the COVID-19 pandemic, a very controversial subject within itself, especially when it comes to how the people in charge have been dealing with it. Many people have been arguing on the topic of how President Donald J. Trump has been handling this crisis, especially Red v. Blue. I just thought the paragraph could be a little more from a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swrld ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 23 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 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 |
The "succeeded by" field should be removed from Trump's infobox, as he is still the U.S. President and has not yet been succeeded by anyone. DanJWilde ( talk) 12:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
A grammar argument: The infobox item "succeeded by" is past tense, suggesting that the succession has already happened. Since it has not yet happened, IMO we should not put a name there until the president-elect has actually become the president. As for the current situation, the article is still locked, but we may be approaching consensus to remove Biden's name from the "succeeded by" box. That will be up to whatever uninvolved administrator evaluates this discussion. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
The infobox item "succeeded by" is past tenseBeat you by 19 hours. [1] ― Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
listing the successor when known happens virtually every time- Here are two alternative rebuttals, take your pick. (It's unfortunate that process is still so unclear after 19 years, but I don't run the place (also unfortunate).)
|successor=
parameter description.Can we apply consensus to Mike Pence's page? I started the same argument over there regarding VP-elect Kamala Harris. -- Tytrox ( talk) 23:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@ GorillaWarfare: Hi, GW! Sorry to bother you, but I'm hoping to get an interim ruling on this question of whether to put Biden in the infobox as successor, or not. We do not seem to have a consensus one way or the other by head count (I get five to include, seven to omit); the arguments on the omit side cite wikipedia guidelines, and on the include side, call it a common-sense argument; both are valid. But I wondered if you can give us a guideline on what the status of the article should be while the question is debated? I ask because people are continuing to add it and remove it. If we had an interim guideline we could put an invisible comment in the field. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Omit or include.
{{
Infobox officeholder}}
guidance: Arguments that we should disregard that long-standing guidance are uncompelling. Editors arguing that the guidance needs updating to reflect common practice are welcome to try that and see if the community accepts it. If they are successful, I will support inclusion here. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)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.
This is simple matter, please don't make it complicated.I couldn't agree more. Follow guidelines unless you can make a case for a single-instance exception to them. If you disagree with a guideline or feel it no longer reflects common practice, seek to change it. There is nothing "complicated" about that, and it's the approach that best promotes site-wide consistency (which, I would argue, is a Good Thing for the encyclopedia). IAR is meant to allow exceptions to the PAGs, not to allow blanket disregard for one because we disagree with it. ― Mandruss ☎ 13:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
Infobox officeholder}}
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.PackMecEng ( talk) 20:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Then how come every single candidate who lost re-election this month has their successor listed in their infobox?Well, my best guess is that editors there were not aware of the template guidance. If they had been, I think most of them would have supported omission because they believe in generally following guidelines for the sake of site-wide consistency. That's been my experience. The guidance is oddly placed at the end of the template doc's lead, rather than as part of the
|successor=
parameter description, so it could be easily missed even by editors who know about template doc and how to view it.Either every other page is wrong, or this one is.Agree, and I'd say the former. As I've said previously, if any editor believes that a large number of errors resulting from editor unawareness (as opposed to fully informed decisions) means they are no longer errors, they are free to seek to change the template doc to reflect that. Until that is successful, my preference is to follow the doc, not the errors (and correcting the errors would not be an enormous task). ― Mandruss ☎ 09:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
|successor=
parameter usage to determine what they should do. In this case, it's even worse: an editor would have to conduct a survey of all |successor=
parameter usage between elections and transitions, researching edit histories and old revisions. That would be utterly unworkable, and something only Wikipedia could come up with (or only en-wiki; I don't know whether, say, the Germans have more sense). ―
Mandruss
☎ 10:15, 10 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.
Here's a proposed RfC for Template talk:Infobox officeholder, discussed above. Suggestions for improvement welcome. As I commented above, this article's discussion should not wait for the outcome of the RfC, and the article can be changed with no fuss if the RfC outcome is different. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
(rfc|bio|pol)
This RfC is about the
|successor=
parameter of{{ infobox officeholder}}
. When present, this field displays as Succeeded by in the infobox. When an incumbent loses re-election, should the parameter be filled in immediately or wait until the successor takes office? 16:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- BACKGROUND
- The infobox template doc currently says: "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."
- There is apparently quite a bit of precedent for filling in the parameter immediately, adding "(elect)" following the successor's name. The "(elect)" is then removed when the transition takes place.
- The template doc guidance is oddly placed at the end of the doc's lead, rather than in the
|successor=
parameter description, so it would be easy to miss. It is unknown whether editors creating the precedents were aware of its existence, or whether such awareness would have affected their edits.- In a discussion at Talk:Donald Trump, some of the disagreement centers around the interpretation of the phrase Succeeded by, some editors saying it's past tense and should be treated as such, others saying it can mean "to be succeeded by" when "(elect)" is shown.
- The goal of this RfC is to establish a community consensus for site-wide consistency in these situations, one way or the other. ― Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion - Perhaps one of the possible options for an RfC could be to add a parameter to the infobox for "elected successor" or "to be succeeded by"? Jr8825 • Talk 16:36, 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. |
Add his multiple accounts of molestation and suggested rape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.248.160 ( talk • contribs)
Already done This is covered under Donald_Trump#Misogyny_and_allegations_of_sexual_assault_and_sexual_misconduct. — Czello 11:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Some level of fraud has been inherent to elections of this scale, and, indeed, the use of mail-in ballots does increase the opportunity for this to took place. I refer to the comments of Attorney General Barr, saying prior to any federal investigation that fraud will be found. However, widespread fraud is far less common; this is where Trump's claims are unsubstantiated. As such, I suggest changing the sentence from "He has made unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud, mounted a series of legal challenges to the results, and ordered White House officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition." to "He has made unsubstantiated accusations of widespread electoral fraud, mounted a series of legal challenges to the results, and ordered White House officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition." thorpewilliam ( talk) 01:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
indeed, the use of mail-in ballots does increase the opportunity for (fraud) to took place.Studies suggest the opposite. [5] [6] And I agree with Jr8825 about not including "widespread". It's not just that he hasn't shown "widespread" fraud; he basically hasn't shown any fraud at all. Federal officials - yes, people in Trump's own administration - have said this was the best run and most secure election in history. [7] -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
At the end of 2.3 Legal Affairs and Bankruptcies, it says, "In May, DC District Court judge Amit Mehta ruled that Mazars must comply with the subpoena, and judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District Court of New York ruled that the banks must also comply." The use of "also" at the end of the sentence implies that the banks and something else have to comply with the subpoena. This is not the case: it is the judge that is different, not the banks. Therefore, for clarity, I propose changing this sentence to: "In May, DC District Court judge Amit Mehta ruled that Mazars must comply with the subpoena, and judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District Court of New York also ruled that the banks must comply." In this sentence, the word "also" comes before "ruled" instead of "comply." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrytzkalmyr ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
6.6 Racial Views: "Trump's comments in reaction to the 2017 Charlottesville far-right rally were interpreted, by some, as implying a moral equivalence between white supremacist demonstrators and counter-protesters." "by some" is not an appositive or parenthetical element, so the commas are not correctly placed. The sentence should read as follows: "Trump's comments in reaction to the 2017 Charlottesville far-right rally were interpreted by some as implying a moral equivalence between white supremacist demonstrators and counter-protesters," with the commas around "by some" removed. Mrytzkalmyr ( talk) 20:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
From the lead: "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics." From 6.3 False Statements: "As president, Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks. The misinformation has been documented by fact-checkers; academics and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics." This is largely word-for-word. Do we really need the same thing twice? I think we should at least rephrase it. Mrytzkalmyr ( talk) 20:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The third paragraph goes from his political positions to the 2016 election results to protests to lies to racist statements. I fail to see how these are connected. Should we try to reorganize the introduction to make it more connected? Mrytzkalmyr ( talk) 16:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
tq2}}
template for easy readability. ―
Mandruss
☎ 00:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)You have GOT to source this line, in the last paragraph before the fold, "Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic". What is 'slowly'? His administration addressed the issue in January 2020, when the virus was in its infancy. Yes, he handled the outbreak poorly, but that's easy to say in hindsight. I would argue that he reacted quickly but ineffectively to COVID-19. -- Sebanderson ( talk) 15:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
At the end of every President's intro section, there has been a short blurb about whether or not their presidency is regarded as favorable, unfavorable, or mediocre. When will we add Trump's evaluation and how will it be decided what is put? CoryJosh ( talk) 01:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
IMO we shouldn't be reporting any evaluations of his presidency or place in history until he has been out of office for at least a year. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:24, 16 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 can’t we add Joe Biden’s name as the successor. Trump lost the electoral college. Why can’t we add Biden as Joe Biden (Elect). Pls let’s add it so we can move on. Michaeljacksonfan104 ( talk) 21:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Now, it’s official. It is not disputed anymore. Emily Murphy confirmed Biden as the winner. Michaeljacksonfan104 ( talk) 23:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The transition has begun a few minutes ago. It’s time to do so Michaeljacksonfan104 ( talk) 23:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
it’s official. It is not disputed anymore.Unless and until that trend makes a dramatic reversal, we are not putting anything in that field until Biden takes office. That's how things work at Wikipedia. Please drop the stick. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks greatly for the explanation. My greatest apologies. When I saw Obama’s article in 2016, It did list Donald Trump as the president elect so it did establish confusion for me. Michaeljacksonfan104 ( talk) 00:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh sincere apologies. My brain isn’t operating sufficiently at the moment. Michaeljacksonfan104 ( talk) 00:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Does the phrase "Trump reacted slowly" meet the following 3 tests against main components of our WP:NPOV policy?
If editors feel that the phrasing may fail tests B or C, would the following be an improvement:
Suggestions for alternative wording:
Note on current consensus: Current consensus #48 states "there is no consensus on specific wording" on COVID-19 in the lead. It identifies the current phrasing as the "status-quo", retained on the basis of the extensive discussion surrounding it, rather than an explicit consensus in favour of it; some editors have expressed the view that a consensus would be required before making substantive changes. Following the closer's comments at the RfC, closed on 23 August, this section intends to focus on identifying and improving specific problems with the wording. It does not seek to overturn any aspect of CC#48. Jr8825 • Talk 14:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The issue is tricky because it is an assessment of the degree that Trump was viewed as slow. The classic example is we do not say "the earth is widely viewed as round", although flat earthers might like to have "the earth is sometimes viewed as flat" - rather, in wikivoice, "the earth is round". In the Trump case we are attempting to assess whether RS is sufficiently unambiguous that the question has no significant lingering doubt. I would say so - but we can look for citations that argue that the proper response was to go slow... If it were me, just now, I would attempt an entirely new statement, updated to the recent facts, and not belabor this particular point. The facts are, however, bad for Trump, politically - seems unavoidable. Bdushaw ( talk) 16:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Another way the issue might be approached is if we say "critics say" (or whatever) to then actually be able to list those critics. For the statement in question you have, e.g. "NY Times, WA Post, health officials, doctors, New England Journal of Medicine, etc etc say..." The list is long indeed - so seems to me we can drop "critics say" (or whatever). Bdushaw ( talk) 16:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Just some ideas: the statement "Trump's pandemic response was ineffective..." does bypass the "slow" question, though it could still be construed as an opinion (I don't think it is, but others may). The phrase "widely criticized across the political spectrum" (above) is more a statement as to a political assessment of the man, than a characterization of a particular response per se. One factor important here and elsewhere in the article, but not described properly yet, is the degree to which people respond to the actions and statements of a president. Trump's rhetoric and examples were picked up on by many people, leading to such poor pandemic response (in Red states particularly); people follow their leader; even globally people have followed Trump. Rallies, take malaria drugs, no masks, no social distancing, it's no problem if you are macho enough, etc. All eventually leading to the present dangerous circumstance of runaway infections, even prior to the start of the dangerous winter season, c.f., recent Fouci statements. So a phrase something like "Trump set dangerous examples in pandemic response" may be in order. Then there is an abrogation of Federal leadership/coordination with respect to such things as scarcity of personal protection equipment, states fending for themselves, etc, indeed an abrogation of any Federal response at all at the moment. Perhaps still too early for such an effort, but our prior Discussion featured a table of various possibilities, which allowed editors to see all the possibilities and state their preferences. In short, beyond the "slow" question, there are a wide range of possibilities as to a revised statement, if people want to open this Pandora's box. Bdushaw ( talk) 21:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
And extraordinary pressure to open economies early, a source of much of the present problem. That particular issue occurred toward the tail end of our previous discussions, I believe. Bdushaw ( talk) 21:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Support Attribution is required. This is an assessment, and users here have been sloppy to treat it as fact, because that assessment varies slightly from source to source. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 01:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I haven't been part of this discussion but I was pinged to it. I'm going to say this very loudly: Do not change the article while this discussion is underway. There has been edit warring over this, and if there is any more of it I am going to request full protection again. This sentence has been formally discussed and formally closed several times; there was virtually unanimous support for saying something in the lead, and a majority but not a formal consensus for what became the status quo wording: Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.
(BTW somebody said I wrote that version; actually that version was written by
User:Neutrality as an improvement on something I had proposed, and I immediately agreed with their version.) If you have a different opinion or a better way to word it, by all means propose it here and let's discuss it. That’s how this discussion was started, by
User:Jr8825, and by all means let’s continue it. Maybe we can come up with a better wording. If so, it should be clearly proposed and debated, as the previous discussions were, and not implemented unless and until there appears to be considerable support for it. --
MelanieN (
talk) 16:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I am unsure of suggestions for a way forward, but I will say some things that may be indisputable. It seems to me this "slow" business is intractable and we should try a different approach. Things have evolved since the status quo statement was derived, and for all this effort we may be better off striving for a new, updated statement that describes COVID-19 and Trump, a defining problem for the Trump administration. A good place to start would be "Trump downplayed the danger" (hence minimized the Federal response) since he explicitly says as much. RE "slow" and "weasel words", I suspect the problem is more general - that there will always be those that want the weasel words in characterizing Trump's response, however that is done, and those that see sufficient sourcing that the additional wording should be left out. We should be able to find factual wording, less about characterization more about factual, that allows us to leave out the "weasel words". Indisputable is the existence of the election campaign and how that influenced Trump, e.g., the dangerous rallies, statements about vaccines sooner rather than later. A final indisputable fact is a consequence of the lack of a sufficient Federal response is the present runaway infection rate and lack of an updated strategy for dealing with it; the Trump administration has thrown its hands up. Can we devise a suitable statement that is so sufficiently factual as to avoid assessments/opinions? Bdushaw ( talk) 17:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.to
Trump downplayed the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.? – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump downplayed its threat and minimized the Federal response; he ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, politicized pandemic mitigation measures in the run up to the 2020 election, and promoted false information about unproven treatments, the availability of testing, and vaccine timelines.Perhaps something along those lines, encompassing the 11 months of pandemic? A severe constraint, and a source of conflict, is that a statement for the lead has to be concise, hence the statement is easily uncomfortably pointed. Bdushaw ( talk) 18:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump downplayed its threat; he ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, politicized mitigation measures in the run up to the 2020 election, and promoted false information about unproven treatments, testing, and vaccines.Bdushaw ( talk) 18:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump downplayed its threat and did not orchestrate any effective virus mitigation measures; he ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, politicized mitigation measures in the run up to the 2020 election, and promoted false information about unproven treatments, testing, and vaccines.The "2020 election" phrase gives a logical lead in to the election sentences presently in the lead. We leave out canceling the pandemic program in Fall 2019, withdrawing from WHO, and continuing to try to delete the ACA. Bdushaw ( talk) 19:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
"Support there has been a fair amount of debate over this sentence. "Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was/has been ineffective, he downplayed..." seems like a fair compromise. It is difficult to measure if it was specifically exacerbated but there seems to be enough consensus that it at least was inneffective to stop the spread throughout the country. Anon0098 ( talk) 20:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Another thing to bear in mind is that we will likely have to have an RfC for any statement that seems like it might be successful, unless there is obvious support for it/minimal objections to it. Bdushaw ( talk) 21:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
A table to be kept at the bottom of this Talk section to keep track of the various options. The aim here is for the table to help evolution toward a consensus statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdushaw ( talk • contribs) 11:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Version | Lead Text | +Politicized? | Notes/Supported by Article? |
---|---|---|---|
SQ | Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. | Status quo | |
A1 | In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump initially downplayed the threat to public health, ignored or contradicted recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. | Only avoiding "slow" | |
A2 | Trump downplayed the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. | Only avoiding "slow" | |
B | Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump downplayed its threat; he ignored or contradicted recommendations from health officials, politicized mitigation measures in the run up to the 2020 election, and promoted false information about unproven treatments, testing, and vaccines. | Y | |
C1 | Trump did not mount any effective measures to mitigate the spread of the virus, instead adopting a policy of denial and distraction. | "Any effective measures" First sentence | |
C2 | Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump downplayed its threat and did not implement any effective virus mitigation measures; he ignored or contradicted recommendations from health officials, politicized mitigation measures in the run up to the 2020 election, and promoted false information about unproven treatments, testing, and vaccines. | Y | "Any effective measures" Text needs work |
D | Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was ineffective, he downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. | "Response ... ineffective" | |
Z | Template |
I don't think we should keep this table on the talk page. There appears to be no consensus for changing the text, and unlike other text that's glued in place with claims of "implicit consensus" (AKA old age), this bit was thoughtully widely and deeply discussed on this talk page. It's always good to improve any part of the article, but I would not elevate or prioritize this based only on the preference of a few editors who periodically test the waters. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Ref. these edits: [10], [11]. The info is newspaper-ish, but I edited instead of removing it. Barr isn't dumb, just unethical, placating the toddler-in-chief while maintaining plausible deniability with the two big ifs ("if there are any", "if true"). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The first sentence of the COVID-19 Pandemic section says, "In December 2019, the pandemic of COVID-19 coronavirus erupted in Wuhan, China; the virus spread worldwide within weeks." In December 2019, COVID-19 was not a pandemic; rather, as explained later in the section, it was classified as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. I suggest changing it to "In December 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus erupted in Wuhan, China; the virus spread worldwide within weeks." Note that I said SARS-CoV-2, as this is the virus, while COVID-19 is the disease it causes. Mrytzkalmyr ( talk) 20:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
What is this adding to the article? Yes, there's that whole scandal, but why the photo? Mrytzkalmyr ( talk) 17:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
At the beginning of "2018-2019 federal government shutdown," it says that Trump wanted 5.6 billion dollars in federal funds for the border wall. At the beginning of "National emergency regarding the southern border," it says he wanted 5.7 billion dollars. Both should say 5.7 billion dollars. I have looked at other sources and have confirmed that it was 5.7 billion, but the CNBC source that is cited for the second number is fine, I think. The NYT article that the first number (5.6 billion) is attributed to takes a quote from Trump where he said that he was asking for 5.6 billion dollars. The White House officially asked Congress for 5.7 billion dollars, however. If you would like another source, here it is: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/06/trump-emergency-border-wall-government-shutdown-1082712. Mrytzkalmyr ( talk) 02:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Should we add a sentence to the "2020 election" section about how, following the election, Trump fired multiple administration officials, sometimes replacing them with Trump loyalists? "Over the past week, President Trump has axed his defense secretary and other top Pentagon aides, his second-in-command at the U.S. Agency for International Development, two top Homeland Security officials, a senior climate scientist and the leader of the agency that safeguards nuclear weapons." [12]. "The Trump administration has carried out sweeping changes atop the Defense Department's civilian leadership structure, removing several of its most senior officials and replacing them with perceived loyalists to the President. The flurry of changes, announced by the Department of Defense in a statement roughly 24 hours after President Donald Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper, has put officials inside the Pentagon on edge and fueled a growing sense of alarm among military and civilian officials, who are concerned about what could come next. Four senior civilian officials have been fired or have resigned since Monday, including Esper, his chief of staff and the top officials overseeing policy and intelligence. They were replaced by perceived Trump loyalists, including a controversial figure who promoted fringe conspiracy theories and called former President Barack Obama a terrorist." [13] -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Buried in the RfC is the phrase "the current president." This directly contradicts WP:DATED, which disallows terms like "current," "recent" and "now." Everything in Wikipedia is presumed to be current. We don't say, for example, that, " The Good Doctor is a current American medical drama series."
I understand my edit was reverted because "current" was included among a myriad of other points in multi-pronged RfC. But it's still non-MOS and it hardly seems controversial or contentious to remove that word. The phrase "Donald Trump is the US president" is exactly the same as "Donald Trump is the current US president." The very word "is" indicates "current".-- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
...terms such as now, currently, to date, so far, soon, and recently should usually be avoided in favor of phrases such as during the 1990s, since 2010, and in August 1969. For current and future events, use phrases like as of November 2020 or since the beginning of 2020 to signal the time-dependence of the information....
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.
Hello! in the 2020 Presidential election section of the article after the sentence "In what The New York Times called an "extraordinary breach of presidential decorum" I would like to add the following sentence "Some media outlets have likened the President's post-election actions to a mild coup d'etat attempt"(it doesn't have to be after that particular sentence but it should be in that section) these are my references https://globalnews.ca/news/7485331/donald-trump-election-loss-claims/ https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/11/trump-failed-coup-danger.html Black roses124 ( talk) 04:22, 27 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 whole page is so outrageously biased and flat out dishonest that I had to look twice to make sure this was really Wiki and not a spoof page.
I have taken the liberty of publishing the Talk link on numerous social media outlets so others can see exactly what you people do here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.38.245 ( talk) 06:07, 28 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. |
Please remove the bias and outright lies from this page. The whole opinion piece before the contents needs to be reviewed and much of it deleted as untrue. Your bias is GLARING and if you want to continue to enjoy a reputation for solid information you'll reconsider your political agenda and leave it out of your pages. 72.181.38.245 ( talk) 05:55, 28 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.
In my opinion, this article is biased. There are comments that have been made on this page that support me. There is a whole section of false statements that Donald Trump has made, why not have a whole section of true statements that he has made? It is one-sided. This is blatant bias, and there should be a review of some sort, bearing in mind, others on this talk page ave highlighted bias and the fact that Trump is a very significant figure, this should be addressed. DukeBiggie1 ( talk) 18:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
This article is clearly left-wing- If so, it's because reliable sources are left-wing, and that's Wikipedia policy, as indicated on the "Response" page I linked for you above. Did you read it? If you read it, did you take some time to actually think about it? Did you read the NPOV policy page? Did you read any of the past discussions about this on this page? The problem with all such complaints like yours is that they arrive with a preconceived mind-set about bias and no amount of reasoning or education can change it. Many of the regulars at this article, including me, are weary of spending our unpaid volunteer time trying to reason with people who are dead-set on a particular viewpoint, and who are not particularly interested in Wikipedia policy. That's why
arguments are being put aside quite quickly.As stated on the "Response" page, you are free to make specific, policy-based suggestions for improvement to this article, but general complaints about bias are not useful. ― Mandruss ☎ 19:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a section on his falsehoods because he has told more of them than any public figure in anyone’s living memory, and likely in all American history, and maybe even in modern world history, and to deny this is to be stunningly ignorant or hyperpartisan, or both. It is a core character trait that distinguishes him from all other current or historical public figures who can be named, and this objective observation has nothing to do with politics. It. Is. Reality. soibangla ( talk) 20:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
they see things through the filter of their POV: "And you don't? Kindly dismount your high horse, sir." Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias is the best we can do and the best we should try to do on this particular page, and it lets the reader know they can raise the issue at VPP if they care to try. If they go there, you and BMK are welcome to try to convince them with essays like that. This is not the place. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The last paragraph in the intro section seems very controversial, biased, and in an accusing tone. My personal thoughts (non favorable) to the subject aside Wikipedia should be based on facts and not bias one way or the other. I am requesting either that the paragraph is taken out completely or that it is completely rewritten to take the accusations away and report on the facts. 67.80.108.160 ( talk) 08:39, 16 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.
Should the text below be added under the "Foreign policy" section? Please refer to article's history and the above talk-page section for details.
On August 13, 2020, Trump announced that the United Arab Emirates and Israel were to normalize relations under the Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement. [1] The normalization agreement between Bahrain and Israel was announced by Trump on September 11, 2020. [2] On October 23, 2020, Trump announced that Sudan will start to normalize ties with Israel, making it the third Arab state to do so as part of the Trump administration-brokered Abraham Accords. [3]
References
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 11:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
may prove to be the most significant foreign policy achievement of his first term(from this article by a left-leaning news source). I wouldn't call "the most significant foreign policy achievement of his first term" something that's insignificant. Here's the BBC explaining why they matter, which is separate from the BBC article Tobby included in the RFC to begin with. The NYT even quotes Nancy Pelosi herself as saying it was "an important day". The biographies of many other people include their greatest achievements, and there's a consensus in the news media that this may be the best foreign policy achievement during his time in office - that is certainly biographically significant more so than the rest of that section now. The section does quite a thorough job of covering his "negative" achievements in foreign policy (ex: withdrawal from treaties, etc) - but per WP:DUE it must also cover his positive policy achievements such as this - especially when the news considers it almost unanimously the "most positive" thing he's done in his term in office. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 20:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"Calling that a "relatively insignificant foreign policy" is just nonsensical."None of these countries where geopolitical adversaries of Israel. If Trump had brokered a peace deal between Israel and Syria, for example, that would be meaningful. -- Scjessey ( talk) 21:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
On August 13, 2020, Trump and the leaders of the United Arab Emirates and Israel announced they had reached an agreement to normalize diplomatic relations under the Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement. This was followed by a similar agreement between Bahrain and Israel, announced by Trump on September 11, 2020. On October 23, 2020, Trump announced that Sudan will start to normalize ties with Israel, making it the third Arab state to do so as part of the Abraham Accords, which have been called potentially the most significant foreign policy achievement of Trump during his four year term as president.- with the same citations already given in the original RFC and in my reply above (specifically citing the last part (most significant) to Vox)? If people think my wording is an improvement please feel free to do what you will with it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 13:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
given the other information currently in this article.And what if I also oppose much of that other information, for the same reason? Should I remain silent and surrender to that slippery slope? I disagree that DUE and SS
mandateany such thing – I dearly wish policy were so clear, with nice bright lines for us to follow – but I'm prepared to accept the judgment of
whoever closes/acts on this RfC. ― Mandruss ☎ 10:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Biden praised the agreement as a "welcome, brave, and badly-needed act of statesmanship.", which to the quick glance makes it appear that Joe Biden is praising the only named person, Trump's, statesmanship. In reality, per the source, Biden was singling out the UAE directly,
Today, Israel and the United Arab Emirates have taken a historic step to bridge the deep divides of the Middle East. The UAE’s offer to publicly recognize the State of Israel is a welcome, brave, and badly-needed act of statesmanship.. ValarianB ( talk)
"Its is one of the reasons he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize"LOL no it isn't. He was nominated by the same whack job who did it last time before the agreement. -- Scjessey ( talk) 22:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Saudia Arabia's top diplomat on Thursday called for direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, while again suggesting the kingdom won't normalize ties with the Jewish state until the decades-old conflict is resolved. In an interview with a US-based think tank, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud underlined the kingdom’s support for the Arab Peace Initiative, which sees a Palestinian state as a prerequisite to rapprochement between Israel and the Arab world.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 21:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
the Sudanese public [is] largely opposed to normalization of ties with Israel. Trump announcements "that XYZ were to/ will start to" are not significant enough events in Trump's biography unless RS report that these "deals" led to peace in the Middle East, e.g. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC) 21:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk)
they have almost ZERO impact on Trump's life.: Irrelevant. The vast majority of what is in our "presidency" section has zero impact on his life. Shall we remove our entire coverage of immigration? Of "energy and climate"? Of health care, gay rights, abortion? None of those things seem to impact him personally. Significant actions as president are always included in that president's biography. That's because they become part of the person's legacy. I agree it would not make the lead, but that's not what this discussion is about. This material is proposed to be added to the "Foreign policy" section of the text. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I apologize if this was not the intent of the editor but the fifth paragraph on this subject seemed leaning towards the left, democratic side. It gave an opinion on how the President has been handling the COVID-19 pandemic, a very controversial subject within itself, especially when it comes to how the people in charge have been dealing with it. Many people have been arguing on the topic of how President Donald J. Trump has been handling this crisis, especially Red v. Blue. I just thought the paragraph could be a little more from a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swrld ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)