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 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 | → | Archive 135 |
I noticed this photo was removed. The user's explanation was that "It's not his childhood home - maybe his toddlerhood home." This is not a valid reason to remove it. I would suggest re-wording the caption to "early childhood home." Should this photo be kept? Bergeronpp ( talk) 21:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
It's of interest to whom? To the anonymous current owner who bought it for 2.14 million dollars (about 2½ times the going rate) and wasn't able to sell it for 2.9 million? To the blocked sockpuppet account who gave it its own Wikipedia article? To the vandal who edited
Residences of Donald Trump to turn the 23-room mansion into a modest nine-room
Colonial Revival house
that, over several decades, Trump's parents gradually retrofitted ... into a 23-room mansion
, using this–uh–
source? BTW, it may not look particularly big or grand on that deceiving picture but it's a 2,000 sq.ft (~185 m²), five-bedroom house (the NY Times called it "relatively modest" - link see above). It's also interesting that it doesn't look like a particularly big or grand house.
That, I suspect, may be the reason it was added to this page a few times - to show the alleged humble origins of the self-professed self-made man, from "relatively modest" rags to riches. As for space, it would be competing for space with the infoboxes and Trump's yearbook photo.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC) I dunno, slap some gingerbread cookies on the house in that photo and you can practically see the witch beckoning to Hansel and Gretel.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence for the expansion information being falsified: The editor used one result of a google search for "Jamaica" as the source for the edit, never mind that those snippets from Wayne Barrett's 1992 Trump biography mention neither the mansion on Midland Parkway nor the house on Wareham Place. Where is the source for Trump's parents turning a nine-room house into a 23-room house over the course of several decades? That's too specific for an honest mistake. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Add the section: “Loser.com” phenomenon Shortly after major news outlets called the 2020 US presidential election for Joe Biden (who was Trump’s rival candidate), on Monday 9 November 2020, it was noticed that loser.com redirects to Trump’s Wikipedia page.
This is at least the second time that Trump has run afoul of this website. In 2016, after Trump came in second during the Iowa Caucus , Loser.com redirected viewers to Trump’s Wikipedia page.
The website Loser.com has been owned by comedian Brian Connelly since 1995. The website has been used to troll various people and organizations over the years, such as Kanye West, Wikileaks, and U.S. President Barack Obama.
References: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/loser-com-trump-wikipedia-page/, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/loser-website-trump-wikipedia-page-us-election-b1720938.html, https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/losercom-redirects-to-trumps-wikipedia-page/ar-BB1aUmLW, https://time.com/4204929/donald-trump-trolled-loser-wikipedia/ 176.203.219.26 ( talk) 08:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Trump’s voter fraud comments are baseless and without evidence. It should not be added to this article Michaeljacksonfan104 ( talk) 21:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Looking over this evolving section, it seems to me there ought to be a separate, clear, brief paragraph to the effect that Trump lost the election, "the most secure election in U.S. history", with the vote count XXX to XXX. AFTER that paragraph, the Trump shenanigans can be described, Trump refused to accept, etc. Such an reorganization seemed a bit too bold for me to do on my own. I had in mind forming the new paragraph by drawing bits from existing sentences, and there already is a citation for "the most secure election in U.S. history". I suppose there has already been discussion about whether to include the vote count, which is why it isn't in the article. I say this from the point of view that about half of U.S. voters may not believe the election results, may have believed Trump's rhetoric, so the result should be as clear and unambiguous as possible in this article. As it is now, it's still a little confused. Bdushaw ( talk) 17:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
|
I've made the revision I was suggesting above as tentative - it makes sense to me; revert if inappropriate. I realized early on that no one would know what I was talking about unless I did the edit. I am concerned about the effects of the Trumpist disinformation machine (a term used in many RSs!) and would prefer this clear statement of the election results. I noted the 2016 election results gave the voting numbers, so I've included them as well, for consistency. Bdushaw ( talk) 22:52, 23 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 NOT OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT. CHANGE THIS. I WILL BE LETTING OTHERS KNOW TOO. 2601:582:4801:2B0:39C6:5681:5725:EAFC ( talk) 19:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template."After Trump lost the election by nearly 10 million votes, he attempted a thinly-veiled dictatorial coup to remain in power, demanding that the votes not be counted and the election not be validated." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 ( talk) 16:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done Not even remotely close to being neutral. The information on his actions after the election are already detailed. — Czello 16:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I propose we create a stand-alone article titled "Attempted coup in the United States, 2020". All in favor?
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
37.153.217.192 ( talk) 10:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Loser.com
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
pls JoeBidenfan ( talk) 14:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Anything written should be from first hand knowledge and factual information, not assumption or here-say, and this article is explicitly biased. Please make adjustments to make this article to be non-biased, factual information and remove the statement, stating President Trump made false statements, because there is no proof the statements were false! Txgalinar ( talk) 22:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To whom it may concern, I want to request a edit for The Donald Trump article. I know you only want I person to be neutral and I will try my best. SuperSonicPlus ( talk) 14:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Should the final sentence of the lead "...and ordered White House officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition
" be revised considering the GSA ascertainment this Monday?
NO MORE HEROES
⚘ TALK 20:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
And today:A special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller found that Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election under the belief that it would be politically advantageous, but did not find sufficient evidence to press charges of criminal conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice, and his report neither indicted nor exonerated Trump on that count. A 2019 House of Representatives impeachment inquiry found that Trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Ukraine to help his re-election bid and then obstructed the inquiry itself. The House impeached Trump on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate acquitted him of both charges on February 5, 2020.
The no-cooperate order was deemed lead-worthy only because it was current. Now it isn't. You may note that the lead omits tons of things that areA special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller found that Trump and his campaign benefited from Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, but did not find sufficient evidence to press charges of criminal conspiracy or coordination with Russia. [a] Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice, and his report neither indicted nor exonerated Trump on that offense. After Trump solicited Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden, the House of Representatives impeached him in December 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate acquitted him of both charges in February 2020.
properly part of history, and it's still a pretty long lead. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I do not need to edit, but this following I quoted is biased. "He downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing." Trump did downplay the COVID pandemic, however, it should be written as Trump misinformed the threat of the coronavirus and made false remarks without health expert recommendations. I am a Republican, but I am willing to edit neutral articles. I would appreciate it if someone could make the word choice weaker, for example changed "downplayed" to "misinformed". 73.137.126.204 ( talk) 02:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down...
BOB WOODWARD: Yes.
TRUMP: ...Because I don't want to create a panic.
I suggest adding the last two sentences of the lead (Trump lost the
2020 presidential election to
Joe Biden but refused to concede defeat. He made unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud, mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results, and ordered government officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition.
to the first paragraph. It's such an extraordinary occurrence that it should not be buried in the sixth paragraph at the end of a very long lead. Comments?
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 17:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with the other replies. It is extremely significant, but it’s not really relevant to who he is in the most general terms. I also think that the fact that the leading paragraphs conclude with it means that it also gets significant emphasis, as it should. So yeah, the current spot seems ideal to me. Cpotisch ( talk) 02:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Currently links to Residences of Donald Trump. The article lists the residences where Trump has lived in the past; apartments for rent and a mansion (Seven Springs) he's never lived at, AFAIK; and three places where he lives when he's there: the White House, Mar-a-Lago, Trump Tower. It doesn't mention Bedminster, NJ, where he has a mansion on the grounds of his golf club and where has been staying several times during his presidency. If I look at "residence" in the infobox of someone's bio, I expect to see that person's current residence, not the real estate he owns or where he lived in the past. Since article and infobox size are both issues, I've restricted the list to his current business and primary personal residences. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
After most swing states have certified their results, is it time to update the tab that says president and put, “succeeded by: joe biden?” Mikeybeckjr1 ( talk) 17:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Need to put: Succeeded by: Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. Amt71279 ( talk) 22:50, 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.
Doing what the title says, because every other president has it and this is an oversight — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:BC40:C6AF:94F:D784:2E9E:D016 ( talk) 00:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
“Although many have speculated Trump will run again in 2024 after his staggering defeat by nearly 10 million votes in the 2020 (the largest vote margin against an incumbent ever), he is widely expected to be in prison (if not dead) by that time for his sundry crimes and misdemeanors committed while in office.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.244.145.61 ( talk) 17:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. ―
Mandruss
☎ 17:46, 2 December 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. |
There is no legal evidence that shows the Russia theory that helped trump win election. There is factual information that the democrats led by Hilary and Biden actually involved Russia and are behind it. 2603:9000:5903:32D3:88C0:FB40:3C44:C622 ( talk) 03:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. ―
Mandruss
☎ 06:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)So we just gonna go full conspiracy nuts? and also with proper sourcing thats not full blown left wing tds? How the mighty have fallen :( Guitarguy2323 ( talk) 15:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
|
I think it is clear this has been said, by a lot of sources, and no valid reason for exclusion has been provided. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Slatersteven. This is very well sourced and it's hardly disputed that it has been described as an attempted coup. It is also highly notable, as no President has ever done something even remotely similar. It certainly belongs in the article. (On a side-note, it's less than 24h since I warned the OP for abusing WP:SOAP in a different article). Jeppiz ( talk) 17:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Comes off as WP:WEASEL. Also the sources should be a bit better for such a bit claim. For example unattributed opinion columns are not great. The first Washington Post article comes close but punts it with a "according to historians and other experts". Everything else are just opinion columns. PackMecEng ( talk) 18:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
There is exactly no valid process reason to revert a perfectly legitimate BRD challenge – regardless of positions on the content question. Content and process are two different things. I've already asked Jeppiz to self-revert at their UTP. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
There are a ton of sources, look through this lot https://www.google.com/search?q=Donald+Trump+%2B+coup&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBGB925GB925&ei=nAW4X4C6F7PIxgO4i4CIDw&start=0&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiA-PWc25HtAhUzpHEKHbgFAPE4FBDy0wN6BAgHEDc&biw=1280&bih=824. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Just now from the Associated Press: Trump to meet Michigan leaders in bid to subvert election "Subverting election" is not that different from "coup"... Extraordinary language applied to the present president. Bdushaw ( talk) 18:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
And from 43 minutes ago [ [2]]. Slatersteven ( talk)
a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics, which this could be. There is no requirement that a coup has to be violent – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
"meant to evoke images of soldiers and tanks surrounding the White House": 1) No, that is not what "coup" means (necessarily). 2) No, it was not "meant" like that in any way when I wrote it and added it to the article. 3) There is no evidence that any of the commentators who have used the term meant anything like that. A coup can be carried out with other means than tanks and doesn't have to involve the military, although it could be less likely to succeed without military support. -- Tataral ( talk) 20:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
should not appear in this way in the lead.Also disputed is the related body content. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The "coup" wording has little support. Per Snoogs immediately above, do editors support "anti-democratic efforts to overturn the results of the election"? SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
This is as democratic as it gets. Also no. Accepting the outcome of presidential elections is an unwritten norm losers honored without a law compelling them to do so. It’s not illegal for Trump to file frivolous lawsuits. His lawyers, however, are officers of the court and can’t make
baseless arguments under oathin court if they don’t want to risk their reputations (with the judges, their colleagues, and the public) and possibly their admittance to the bar. That’s why the lawyers who initially represented Trump withdrew from the lawsuits and why Giuliani, Powell, Ellis, et al allege fraud and conspiracies at news conferences and other media appearances but not in court, because there they’d have to back them up with evidence ( [4]). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
As the GSA has now initiated the transition process with Trump's publicly-expressed approval, I suggest changing the last sentence in the lead to read "Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat. He made unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud, mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results, and ordered government officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition for over two weeks after the result was called by major outlets." I will wait at least 24 hours to do so myself, as per remedy guidelines laid out to me. Regards, thorpewilliam ( talk) 04:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Lead content | Grade | Notes |
---|---|---|
Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden | B | That might be inferred from the body content, but it requires quite a bit of inference. The closest we really get to that in the body is to say that Biden is the projected winner. |
but refused to concede defeat | A | "In response to the networks projecting Biden the winner days later, Trump said, "this election is far from over" and alleged election fraud without providing evidence." |
He made unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud | A | "His legal team led by Rudy Giuliani made numerous false and unsubstantiated assertions revolving around an international communist conspiracy, rigged voting machines and polling place fraud to claim the election had been stolen from Trump." |
mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results | A | "He said he would continue legal challenges in key states, but most of them have been dismissed by the courts." |
ordered government officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition | A | "He blocked government officials from cooperating in the presidential transition of Joe Biden" |
for over two weeks after the result was called by major outlets | D | I can't get there even with inference. |
― Mandruss ☎ 05:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
ordered government officials not to cooperate: Changed verb to 'blocked'. I didn’t pay attention to the verb when I changed White House officials to government officials. (Is there even a difference between blocking and ordering in this government-by-tweet? Also, why didn’t you just change it yourself?:) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
This article has 500,787 bytes of markup; that's far too large. The page should be heavily trimmed and/ or split into several parts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Since it doesn't mention transclusion, I assume it means periodic copy-and-paste. But it appears my idea wasn't as radical, nor as easy, as was suggested. ― Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Since the lead of any article should be the best summary of the article, it can be convenient to use the subarticle's lead as the content in the summary section, with a {{ main}} hatnote pointing to the subarticle.
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He is not the current president 2601:603:187F:4F30:B438:467A:38E4:5C00 ( talk) 16:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the link of "45th" (List of presidents of the United States) in the lead section for consistency with other presidents. I think this is the only president article that has that link in his ordinal number. PyroFloe ( talk) 13:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@
PackMecEng: You
reverted my edit with the summary going back to previous wording on opening
without explaining the reason. I
added the info you deleted when I removed the lengthy info on the Kelly incident with this explanation: Adding the general description from NY Times subtitle, trimming Kelly incident which was mostly speculation about what he did or didn't mean
. The way the section is written now, it seems to imply that Trump’s history consists of the pussy-grabber tape and the 26 allegations of sexual assault. However, per the two cited RS and others, there are many other verified–i.e., not merely alledged she said/he said–incidents (tweeted by him, speaking to the press) where he insulted and demeaned women. IMO, that needs to be addressed. What is your issue with my original edit?
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
"mocking their bodily functions, demeaning their looks or comparing them to animals."Also since it is a quote it should be attributed to who said it. I would argue it is not a defining feature about him. On a related note I think the section heading in the article should be updated to be more in line with the main article on the subject and not accuse him of Misogyny in a section heading. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
not a defining feature—if you are referring to his decades-long history of sexist and/or derogatory remarks about women I'd ask you to define "defining." The title was changed in this edit which combined the sections Comments about women and Allegations of sexual assault and sexual misconduct. Now that the two sections have been combined, the new section isn't just about the sexual misconduct (bit of a euphemism for one rape accusation and more than 20 accusations of sexual assault, I would think), it's also about that long history of lewd, crude, etc. talk. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Trump's excuse for the Access Hollywood tape was locker-room talk—difficult to make when you call in to a radio or TV show. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
and calling them namespart. With the defining feature I mean the phrase I removed was not a special or major aspect of his Misogyny and allegations of sexual assault and misconduct. I still favor shortening the section heading, because again we should not be calling him a misogynist in Wikipedia's voice in a section heading. I might even be okay with a rephrase like "Allegations of sexual assault, misconduct, and misogyny". Though I think it could be shortened more. Either "Allegations of sexual assault and misogyny" or "Allegations of sexual misconduct and misogyny". PackMecEng ( talk) 18:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
There's a noticeable difference between his insults for men (lying Ted, little Marco, sleepy Joe) and for women (horseface; fat, ugly face), so I think we need some examples. The heading is very long but the name-calling is not an allegation. Asking other editors to weigh in on both of these issues. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
original research: You mean me comparing the—uh—quality of his insults for men (moonbeam) with that for women (skank)? There are sources but I wasn't proposing to add that to the article. The name-calling isn't an allegation, it's a fact, as per the 117 sources for the list of nicknames article you mentioned. I haven't looked at them yet—there's a difference between insults Trump has used repeatedly and those he used once. Still waiting for input from other editors. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the section deserves a general rethink/rework. I am not sure I agree with the merge of insult/misogyny and sexual assault sections. I originally began the section with a long list of women personalities and politicians who were the butt of Trump's insults. I see now the section has been "trimmed" out of existence... This is a biography of Trump and his behaviour towards women is a defining characteristic. The article has been "trimmed" [using quotes to convey my derision...] back to just the sexual assault elements. If we have to, perhaps an RfC to explicitly acknowledge that Trump's insulting behaviour and comments should be properly described? The "menstrual blood" incident was infamous, an Clinton called out Trump's behaviour during one of their debates. Its something for Wikipedia to minimize all this. (There are other places to more effectively trim this long article!) Bdushaw ( talk) 17:48, 1 December 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 think we should add the caption "Official portrait, 2017" to the picture to the right of the lede as we have done with other politicians. Mrytzkalmyr ( talk) 23:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Please include. Many have called the euphoric national mood following Trump's ouster a "reverse 9/11 situation." 108.30.187.155 ( talk) 16:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Right now NAFTA is referred to by its acronym in the lead, yet the USMCA is referred to by its full title right after. I think to keep consistency NAFTA should instead be referred to as "The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)" in that sentence. Basil the Bat Lord ( talk) 12:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Done -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I need people to see if it should be tagged with {{POV}}
, because I've seen numerous complaints about this page's neutrality, and I have seen it myself and doesn't seem that neutral. Is it ok for me to tag it with {{POV}}
?
a gd fan (
talk) 15:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The Trump presidency is winding down and he is now in a lame-duck session. With all former Presidents, the success of their Presidency, according to historians and political scientists, is included. Of all the major surveys of historians done, Trump consistently is ranked as one of the worst Presidents in American history. See [8], [9], [10], [11]. Therefore, I believe that a sentence stating "His presidency is generally viewed as one of the worst in American history by historians and political scientists." should be included. Please let me know your thoughts. Pennsylvania2 ( talk) 17:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Strongly opposed. It will be a decade or more before any semblance of unbiased review could be possible in this instance and there is already a lot of reassessments of many past presidents based on their positions on white supremacy (Wilson) and slavery (Jefferson) as well as Indian rights (Grant).-- MONGO ( talk) 16:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for all the WP:OR opinions, but how about investigating the sourcing -- away from daily journalism, etc. -- and see whether this is NPOV based on what sources are discovered. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it is a waste of time arguing against the inevitable, regardless of how sensible and erudite the arguments are.make me want a list item. Nothing is "inevitable" when it violates a clear consensus, at least not at this article, and we (usually) don't tolerate frequent re-raisings of settled issues. That's what I like about working at this article, and why I avoid other AP articles. That said, I don't think a list item that read The article will omit anything about Trump being one of the worst presidents in history, for now. would be of much use, since "for now" is too vague to be useful. We would still end up with a steady stream of "Are we there yet?" threads. If we could establish a clear consensus for a minimum wait period, such as January 20, 2022, that would be more workable. I still don't think one year would be nearly long enough – Trump is not going to let us begin to get over him so soon – but it would be better than nothing and I would support it if it meant a clear consensus. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
As I explained in the previous discussion, inclusion of material like this is based on the apparent consensus of reliable sources, not on the passage of time or any arbitrary date. Trump is not Obama, and if there is a consensus of reliable sources there is no reason to arbitrarily wait a year; in fact it would not be in the spirit of Wikipedia's principles to ignore a consensus of reliable sources.
We already include material on this topic e.g. in Historical rankings of presidents of the United States which discusses an APSA poll among political scientists specializing in the American presidency with Trump appearing in the last position. The broader point that Trump's presidency is not viewed favourably by scholars (and other sources) is entirely uncontroversial, and unlike previous presidents, reliable sources have already had much time to form a firm opinion of his presidency since he is so extreme and not a normal American or Western politician.
As a matter of principle, we are not required to wait until a politician leaves office to discuss their rule. For example in the article Vladimir Putin we discuss his legacy and the broader impact of his rule (e.g. "Under Putin's leadership, Russia has experienced democratic backsliding"). Putin and similar articles are more relevant comparisons than Obama.
That said, and mainly since it requires some work to figure out the exact wording, I don't think it is necessary to add this sentence on Trump's presidency being seen unfavourably here before he leaves office. But this is something we need to discuss over the coming months, and it would be appropriate to add it to the article at some point during the first half of 2021. If someone are willing to do the work—find relevant sources, work on the best possible wording on the talk page—there is no reason to prevent them from doing that, even if we'll wait until (early) next year before we add it to the article. -- Tataral ( talk) 10:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
As I explained in the previous discussion, inclusion of material like this is based on the apparent consensus of reliable sources, not on the passage of time or any arbitrary date.If it seems nobody is paying attention to your "explanation", it may be because your "explanation" is not correct. While V is crucial, and WEIGHT is important, they are NOT the only things we are allowed to consider, and "the passage of time" is NOT an illegitimate argument as you claim. If you need a written policy, try WP:VNOT. ― Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the notion of waiting some time before giving him any historical ranking - to wait for the dust to settle down, the partisan fevers to subside a little, and some longer-term, more scholarly perspective to come into play. I do favor putting something in the "consensus" section, but I'm not sure we have a consensus just yet. If we do it should not prejudge what will be said, so I do not favor the proposed The article will omit anything about Trump being one of the worst presidents in history, for now.
It should say something like Consensus is not to add anything just yet about Trump's historical ranking among presidents.
--
MelanieN (
talk) 19:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The first sitting U.S. president to receive three different nominations from three different countries for the prestigious 2021 Nobel Peace Prize. https://richmond.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-oct-8-2020-trump-gets-3-nominations-for-2021-nobel-peace/article_bd21748d-882d-5005-836b-4b6c15c0503e.html Robinrobin ( talk) 00:41, 6 December 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.
@ Jeromi Mikhael: Please revert this edit. Your edit summary says that you made grammar changes. Quite a few of those changes aren't, 'though. Some examples:
"in excess of ninety percent"changed to
"more than ninety percent". It's a direct Trump quote.
a U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian general and Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimanichanged to
a U.S. airstrike that killed an Iranian general and Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani. The general/Quds commander is one and the same person. Your version says that an Iranian commander as well as a Quds force commander, a Popular Mobilization Forces commander, and eight other people were killed.
ordered the headmaster of the school, Evan Jones, to give him Trump's academic records so he could keep them secrethas a different meaning than
ordered the headmaster of the school, Evan Jones, to give him Trump's academic records to keep them secret.
Trump said injuries were not "very serious"changed to
Trump said injuries were not "severe". This was another direct Trump quote ("I don’t consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries I have seen.")
Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Requesting someone change "Foundation: section to Wikipedia-standard "Philanthropy" section, and include his $100,000 donation to the Penn Club of New York. [1] [2] [3]
References
Right now, there is scarcely any mention of the economy under Trump. This is very odd since (rightly or wrongly) RS talk about the performance of the economy under a president all the time, and the public judges him on it.
IMO, we need to discuss in the lede the following four points regarding the economy: 1) By the end of his Administration, Trump was presiding over an economy in recession, that had lost jobs 2) Conversely, in the first three years of the Administration, the economy was strong by all conventional metrics 3) Trump supporters say that the weak economy with which Trump ended his term is entirely attributable to Covid 4) Critics of Trump argue that Trump bears a considerable amount of responsibility for the weak economy, supposedly because of his poor response to COVID-19.
By the way this information could be added to the lede without a whole new paragraph. Play around with the possibilities, ladies and gentlemen. CozyandDozy ( talk) 04:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
First, this lede is terribly written and way too long. Compare the six paragraphs to the five on Barack Obama or the four on George W. Bush. In general, the problem arises from people placing too much emphasis on the day to day hysterias of the Trump era and not taking a long view on the important things that happened in his Administration.
Second, Trump's lawsuits are a joke and don't deserve a lede mention. We should only have one sentence about this nonsense, e.g. "Trump refused to concede to Biden, and promoted conspiracy theories about the 2020 election in which Biden defeated him." CozyandDozy ( talk) 04:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
"Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden" should be changed to "Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Democratic nominee Biden". JJARichardson ( talk) 16:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I think this should be changed to "as of December 2020 has refused to concede defeat," per this guideline. Anyone object? ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 23:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat." There's no reason at this point to expect that he ever will; if he does, of course, we can always update it, but the current (and proposed) wording both carry the implication that he will at some point, which isn't necessarily true. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
a) Everyone knows he hasn’t conceded, so we aren’t adding any information. b) Concession is not required or legally meaningful. c) It will be changed shortly, not close to passing WP:10YT. WP:NODEADLINE O3000 ( talk) 20:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I think User:ONUnicorn is absolutely right. We always try to avoid temporal terms like "currently" or "now" or "so far", because they assume a time frame which may or may not be known to the reader, and are just not encyclopedic. I think it should be changed to "but as of (insert current date template) he has refused to concede defeat." Alternatively, we could simplify things by going with User:Aquillion's suggestion "refused to concede defeat". The "as of" construction suggests that we are holding our breath, sure that he will concede any day now; I think most of us here are pretty sure that he never will. So all in all I think I prefer the second suggestion. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, look. There is substantial sources saying that this is disputed. The best thing to do is to say that there are two main schools of thoughts, one from the defeat side and the other from the won side. There is a substantial indifferent-concerned school of thought, too.
Daily Wire and Anthony Brian Logan are two main sources that have shown consistent arguments that either the election is uncertain or Trump won.
R&R Law Group has been reviewing the lawsuits and has found legitimate questions of fraud that SHOULD be investigated. They, of course, are a law group and maintain a neutral stance as an observer trying to figure out what the government is doing. (The use of "we" is used since while it is they who talked about, I also am on the side that there is merit to these particular legal theories.) *We have #suitcasegate in Georgia, with probable malfeasance by the election officials after the election collection date.
So the additional caveat of "unsubstantiated allegations of electoral fraud" is incorrect. The three sources I mentioned are on Youtube. Why should I bother getting links to them if you are likely to ignore me? Do it yourself. 2600:8800:5E06:601:697D:353A:CE27:E539 ( talk) 03:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I've revised the text to give a number for the lawsuits that Trump has filed. I'd like to change the phrase "mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results" to "filed numerous unsuccessful legal challenges to the results". I modestly object to the use of the word "series", since that indicates a plan or sequence of law suits, whereas I don't think that's the case. "mounted" is a little odd as well. Anyways, following directions to discuss first as requested in the lead. Bdushaw ( talk) 04:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Its a valid point that most of the lawsuits are not Trump himself. A look at the cites shows its Trump, his campaign, state congressmen, states attornies general, private citizens, etc filing the law suits. Sources use "Trump or his allies", perhaps "Trump or his Republican allies filed numerous unsuccessful legal challenges to the results"? Unsure of the value of having the article text describe the wide nature of those filing the lawsuits. Bdushaw ( talk) 16:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
C'mon, folks, stop with the talk fork. Go !vote at the village pump RfC if you want to espouse your wisdom. ( non-admin closure) {{u| Sdkb}} talk 22:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Joe Biden should be linked as Trump's successor in the infobox. The Electoral College has voted at this point. Successors to incumbents are linked in every other case in American politics — including all the members-elect of the next Congress, as well as, historically, Trump on Obama's page when he was elected, and all other American officials-elect. To ignore this consistent and longstanding practice is absurd. Trump's successor should not be linked only in the bottom of the lead. D. Benjamin Miller ( talk) 00:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia– I support mention of the "successor-elect" somewhere in prose (and this article does so), but I oppose the idea that that requires inclusion in the infobox. I think they can have different criteria for inclusion, with a higher bar for the infobox because of its limited space and necessary absence of nuance and context. When I framed the RfC, it was not my intent to address prose content, and I think I made that sufficiently clear. ― Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm with the "lets wait" team. In the Trump 2016 election, we waited until january 20th. No reason we shouldn't do the same here. Coltsfan ( talk) 14:49, 15 December 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 think we should note in the first paragraph that he was defeated and will be a one-term president. He won't be in office anymore in 37 days, and one-termers are quite rare, so it seems important enough that it should be listed very early on. Thoughts? Cpotisch ( talk) 22:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
being extraordinary is not a good reason to include something in the first paragraph, with which you appeared to agree. It now appears that either you didn't fully understand my point, or you're prepared to set it aside for something you consider sufficiently extraordinary. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat. He made unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud, mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results, and ordered government officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition.
to
Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat. He made unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud, mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results, and ordered government officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition. citation needed Qbmaster ( talk) 22:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{subst:trim|1=
I want to add good thoughts about Donald Trump. All tho I may not support him but all people should get a chance to have somethings good written about them.
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.
Any thoughts on shortening a statement in the lead section as follows?
This would go down from 33 words to 22 words; it would preserve the most important bits (i.e., the level/rate of falsehoods is unprecedented) while omitting the unremarkable/obvious (the fact that these falsehoods have been documented - obviously they have been or else we wouldn't be making a reference to it in the Wikipedia bio). Neutrality talk 01:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
the fact that these falsehoods have been documented - obviously they have been or else we wouldn't be making a reference to it in the Wikipedia bio- I'd disagree with that statement. We might be saying that because reliable sources have said that without any documented fact-checking (or at least without anything remotely approaching the scale of what WaPo et al have done). We do that kind of thing all the time. We generally don't require sources to prove the truth of what they say. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Of course, we’re learning that Donald Trump and those around him lie about everything and don’t care at all about endangering other people. But that’s more of a confirmation than a revelation — we basically already knew that, although we didn’t expect such graphic evidence.I wonder why the statement is restricted to the two official campaigns and the presidency. This is his general bio, not the "Presidency of" article, and he's been making documented false statements since at least the 80s. If we remove the fact-checkers, shouldn't we remove the campaigns and the presidency, as well, and simply say that he's made many false and misleading statements before and during his presidency (to be changed to "before, during and after his presidency" sooner or later?) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality's wording is correct: "to a degree unprecedented". "All politicians lie", but Trump doesn't just lie more than others, he rarely tells the truth. He is in a different universe, where hardly a single molecule of truth exists. It's a foreign concept to him. -- Valjean ( talk) 01:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
to some extent they will be justified. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
tq}}
.Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fact-checkers (WaPo, Toronto Star, et al) have not actually compared Trump to his predecessors. I don't know that anybody has at the item level, as if that were even possible or useful given that presidents haven't always made multiple public statements per day that were immediately fact-checked. That wasn't even feasible until the widespread use of computers, roughly 1980s (or maybe advent of the internet, mid-1990s). Any "verifiability" we have that Trump is unprecedented is from sources other than the fact-checker databases, and we accept their analysis without actual proof. ―
Mandruss
☎ 21:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Then why do we currently say that in the article?That's my point, which may have been unclear. I was responding only to your bolded comment, and the article does not currently say that Trump's "unprecedence" has been confirmed by fact-checkers. It says that the media have widely described Trump as unprecedented and the false and misleading statements have been documented by fact-checkers – not the same thing. You may be equating fact-checkers with reliable sources, and I'm not. That was not the intent of the phrase in the 2019 discussion, as I understood it. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia (editors) is unabashedly on the side of the fact that the sky is blue and that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale.There are a number of editors who are unable to check their POV about this at the door. Somehow that POV never makes it into mainspace, which suggests that "Wikipedia (editors)" is not
unabashedly on the side ofit, your view notwithstanding. Apparently "Wikipedia (editors)" feels that such strong statements are not supportable by Wikipedia policy. I happen to agree that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale, as well as a number of other really bad things, but I know my opinion is irrelevant here and it's crucial to understand that. I save that for discussions among family and friends. I happen to agree that RS supports the kind of content currently in this article about that, but that is quite different from wildly irresponsible statements about blue sky "fact" that
Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale.― Mandruss ☎ 05:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale., but our sources would justify saying that
Trump has made-- Valjean ( talk) 05:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)manyfalse or misleading statements on a scale described as "unprecedented" in American politics.
I agree with Neutrality. Let's reboot and get back to the source for the "unprecedented" wording. It isn't used in a willy nilly fashion.
That is the sense in which we should continue to use the word. Trump isn't even close to anyone else. He's off the charts dishonest. -- Valjean ( talk) 02:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
References
It has long been a truism that politicians lie, but with the entry of Donald Trump into the U.S. political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented [...] Donald Trump is different. By all metrics and counting schemes, his lies are off the charts. We simply have not seen such an accomplished and effective liar before in U.S. politics.
Trump isn't even close to anyone else. He's off the charts dishonest.are pure POV and have no place in any Wikipedia content discussion. That one simultaneously cites one source – or a hundred sources – does not make that appropriate. ― Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Media outlets have widely considered Trump as largely unprecedented in making false and misleading statements during his 2016 election campaign and his presidency., because this is what reliable sources say. We shouldn't go beyond objective reliable sources. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 05:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump has madeI have stricken "many" as "scale" covers that aspect. "Described" refers to the fact that sources do this so we don't need to mention them. When we say the "sky is blue", we don't say that "reliable sources say the sky is blue." -- Valjean ( talk) 05:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)manyfalse or misleading statements on a scale described as "unprecedented" in American politics.
Trump has made misleading and false statements on a scale described as "unprecedented" by various media outlets.Onetwothreeip ( talk) 06:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
endless disruption, changes to consensus content are easily reverted without counting against 1RR. Persistent re-reverting by the "drive by" would earn a DS block, although that never happens when they are referred to the ArbCom restrictions and/or the #Current consensus list; the first revert is almost always enough. This has been proven to be a non-issue at this article. ― Mandruss ☎ 07:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
readerswho have WP:ECP status. ― Mandruss ☎ 07:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Bdushaw ( talk) 19:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Does widespread RS agreement make "unprecedented" a "fact" for the purposes of this bullet? Apparently not, or we wouldn't have the passage "However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be [...] where justified, described as widespread views, etc." Since it's entirely unproveable, "unprecedented" will always be an "opinion" for the purposes of this bullet, despite the fact that the opinion is widely held. So I disagree that that qualification doesn't need to be there. In any case, there is nothing factually incorrect about the status quo language and we are beating our heads against a wall in an effort to save 11 words in the lead, a lead that many or most editors insist is not overly long. Those 11 words certainly do not constitute undue weight for this issue. ― Mandruss ☎ 09:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."
Avoid stating facts as opinions. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as, which is partially WP:PEACOCK stuff (it hypes how important it is) and partially describing facts as opinions ("the media have widely described"). Also, the current wording is inaccurate in that academic sources have also described it that way; but more generally, when something is essentially universally described a certain way by high-quality sources, it is inappropriate to characterize it as "described." Some people above have argued that this fact must always be framed as an opinion, but they haven't presented any actual reason why this would be the case (and, notably, they seem to implicitly concede that it is treated as fact by the overwhelming majority of sources.) If we go by that standard, any editor could, based on their personal feelings, term any fact covered by sources as a mere opinion and insist that we cover it as such - the flipside of "don't state opinions as facts" is "don't state facts as opinions"; and we rely on sourcing to determine which is which, not the gut feelings of editors. The sourcing here indicates that this is a fact. -- Aquillion ( talk) 02:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Slight Consensus was for substantiating the "unprecedented" claim by citing fact-checkers. This was argued for mainly to avoid WP:WEASEL. Most seemed receptive to this logic.It was only part of the discussion, and there was only slight consensus for it. A full discussion just on that part has taken place here, and editors feel WP:WEASEL isn't a problem. So I personally disagree there is insufficient justification to overturn that consensus. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 02:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Does this need an RfC? Opinion above appears to be split, with most supporting the proposal (numerically, about 9 or 10 editors), but a substantial minority (numerically, about 4 or 5 editors) opposing it. Neutrality talk 22:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I note the present lead has "campaign", singular, while the suggested text was corrected to "campaigns", plural. (And I note to all that it is lead, rather than lede. WP:Manual of Style/Lead section) The lead wikilinks campaign to Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign. Might I suggest a revision to " 2016 and 2020 campaigns", where now the years wikilink to the appropriate article? (There could be a 2024 campaign, but we can defer that problem to a later date.) Alternatively, and redundantly but more clear, one could write " 2016 campaign and 2020 campaign". Bdushaw ( talk) 12:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
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 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 | → | Archive 135 |
I noticed this photo was removed. The user's explanation was that "It's not his childhood home - maybe his toddlerhood home." This is not a valid reason to remove it. I would suggest re-wording the caption to "early childhood home." Should this photo be kept? Bergeronpp ( talk) 21:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
It's of interest to whom? To the anonymous current owner who bought it for 2.14 million dollars (about 2½ times the going rate) and wasn't able to sell it for 2.9 million? To the blocked sockpuppet account who gave it its own Wikipedia article? To the vandal who edited
Residences of Donald Trump to turn the 23-room mansion into a modest nine-room
Colonial Revival house
that, over several decades, Trump's parents gradually retrofitted ... into a 23-room mansion
, using this–uh–
source? BTW, it may not look particularly big or grand on that deceiving picture but it's a 2,000 sq.ft (~185 m²), five-bedroom house (the NY Times called it "relatively modest" - link see above). It's also interesting that it doesn't look like a particularly big or grand house.
That, I suspect, may be the reason it was added to this page a few times - to show the alleged humble origins of the self-professed self-made man, from "relatively modest" rags to riches. As for space, it would be competing for space with the infoboxes and Trump's yearbook photo.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC) I dunno, slap some gingerbread cookies on the house in that photo and you can practically see the witch beckoning to Hansel and Gretel.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence for the expansion information being falsified: The editor used one result of a google search for "Jamaica" as the source for the edit, never mind that those snippets from Wayne Barrett's 1992 Trump biography mention neither the mansion on Midland Parkway nor the house on Wareham Place. Where is the source for Trump's parents turning a nine-room house into a 23-room house over the course of several decades? That's too specific for an honest mistake. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Add the section: “Loser.com” phenomenon Shortly after major news outlets called the 2020 US presidential election for Joe Biden (who was Trump’s rival candidate), on Monday 9 November 2020, it was noticed that loser.com redirects to Trump’s Wikipedia page.
This is at least the second time that Trump has run afoul of this website. In 2016, after Trump came in second during the Iowa Caucus , Loser.com redirected viewers to Trump’s Wikipedia page.
The website Loser.com has been owned by comedian Brian Connelly since 1995. The website has been used to troll various people and organizations over the years, such as Kanye West, Wikileaks, and U.S. President Barack Obama.
References: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/loser-com-trump-wikipedia-page/, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/loser-website-trump-wikipedia-page-us-election-b1720938.html, https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/losercom-redirects-to-trumps-wikipedia-page/ar-BB1aUmLW, https://time.com/4204929/donald-trump-trolled-loser-wikipedia/ 176.203.219.26 ( talk) 08:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Trump’s voter fraud comments are baseless and without evidence. It should not be added to this article Michaeljacksonfan104 ( talk) 21:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Looking over this evolving section, it seems to me there ought to be a separate, clear, brief paragraph to the effect that Trump lost the election, "the most secure election in U.S. history", with the vote count XXX to XXX. AFTER that paragraph, the Trump shenanigans can be described, Trump refused to accept, etc. Such an reorganization seemed a bit too bold for me to do on my own. I had in mind forming the new paragraph by drawing bits from existing sentences, and there already is a citation for "the most secure election in U.S. history". I suppose there has already been discussion about whether to include the vote count, which is why it isn't in the article. I say this from the point of view that about half of U.S. voters may not believe the election results, may have believed Trump's rhetoric, so the result should be as clear and unambiguous as possible in this article. As it is now, it's still a little confused. Bdushaw ( talk) 17:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
|
I've made the revision I was suggesting above as tentative - it makes sense to me; revert if inappropriate. I realized early on that no one would know what I was talking about unless I did the edit. I am concerned about the effects of the Trumpist disinformation machine (a term used in many RSs!) and would prefer this clear statement of the election results. I noted the 2016 election results gave the voting numbers, so I've included them as well, for consistency. Bdushaw ( talk) 22:52, 23 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 NOT OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT. CHANGE THIS. I WILL BE LETTING OTHERS KNOW TOO. 2601:582:4801:2B0:39C6:5681:5725:EAFC ( talk) 19:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template."After Trump lost the election by nearly 10 million votes, he attempted a thinly-veiled dictatorial coup to remain in power, demanding that the votes not be counted and the election not be validated." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 ( talk) 16:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done Not even remotely close to being neutral. The information on his actions after the election are already detailed. — Czello 16:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I propose we create a stand-alone article titled "Attempted coup in the United States, 2020". All in favor?
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
37.153.217.192 ( talk) 10:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Loser.com
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
pls JoeBidenfan ( talk) 14:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Anything written should be from first hand knowledge and factual information, not assumption or here-say, and this article is explicitly biased. Please make adjustments to make this article to be non-biased, factual information and remove the statement, stating President Trump made false statements, because there is no proof the statements were false! Txgalinar ( talk) 22:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To whom it may concern, I want to request a edit for The Donald Trump article. I know you only want I person to be neutral and I will try my best. SuperSonicPlus ( talk) 14:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Should the final sentence of the lead "...and ordered White House officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition
" be revised considering the GSA ascertainment this Monday?
NO MORE HEROES
⚘ TALK 20:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
And today:A special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller found that Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election under the belief that it would be politically advantageous, but did not find sufficient evidence to press charges of criminal conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice, and his report neither indicted nor exonerated Trump on that count. A 2019 House of Representatives impeachment inquiry found that Trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Ukraine to help his re-election bid and then obstructed the inquiry itself. The House impeached Trump on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate acquitted him of both charges on February 5, 2020.
The no-cooperate order was deemed lead-worthy only because it was current. Now it isn't. You may note that the lead omits tons of things that areA special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller found that Trump and his campaign benefited from Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, but did not find sufficient evidence to press charges of criminal conspiracy or coordination with Russia. [a] Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice, and his report neither indicted nor exonerated Trump on that offense. After Trump solicited Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden, the House of Representatives impeached him in December 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate acquitted him of both charges in February 2020.
properly part of history, and it's still a pretty long lead. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I do not need to edit, but this following I quoted is biased. "He downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing." Trump did downplay the COVID pandemic, however, it should be written as Trump misinformed the threat of the coronavirus and made false remarks without health expert recommendations. I am a Republican, but I am willing to edit neutral articles. I would appreciate it if someone could make the word choice weaker, for example changed "downplayed" to "misinformed". 73.137.126.204 ( talk) 02:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down...
BOB WOODWARD: Yes.
TRUMP: ...Because I don't want to create a panic.
I suggest adding the last two sentences of the lead (Trump lost the
2020 presidential election to
Joe Biden but refused to concede defeat. He made unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud, mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results, and ordered government officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition.
to the first paragraph. It's such an extraordinary occurrence that it should not be buried in the sixth paragraph at the end of a very long lead. Comments?
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 17:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with the other replies. It is extremely significant, but it’s not really relevant to who he is in the most general terms. I also think that the fact that the leading paragraphs conclude with it means that it also gets significant emphasis, as it should. So yeah, the current spot seems ideal to me. Cpotisch ( talk) 02:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Currently links to Residences of Donald Trump. The article lists the residences where Trump has lived in the past; apartments for rent and a mansion (Seven Springs) he's never lived at, AFAIK; and three places where he lives when he's there: the White House, Mar-a-Lago, Trump Tower. It doesn't mention Bedminster, NJ, where he has a mansion on the grounds of his golf club and where has been staying several times during his presidency. If I look at "residence" in the infobox of someone's bio, I expect to see that person's current residence, not the real estate he owns or where he lived in the past. Since article and infobox size are both issues, I've restricted the list to his current business and primary personal residences. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
After most swing states have certified their results, is it time to update the tab that says president and put, “succeeded by: joe biden?” Mikeybeckjr1 ( talk) 17:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Need to put: Succeeded by: Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. Amt71279 ( talk) 22:50, 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.
Doing what the title says, because every other president has it and this is an oversight — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:BC40:C6AF:94F:D784:2E9E:D016 ( talk) 00:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
“Although many have speculated Trump will run again in 2024 after his staggering defeat by nearly 10 million votes in the 2020 (the largest vote margin against an incumbent ever), he is widely expected to be in prison (if not dead) by that time for his sundry crimes and misdemeanors committed while in office.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.244.145.61 ( talk) 17:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. ―
Mandruss
☎ 17:46, 2 December 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. |
There is no legal evidence that shows the Russia theory that helped trump win election. There is factual information that the democrats led by Hilary and Biden actually involved Russia and are behind it. 2603:9000:5903:32D3:88C0:FB40:3C44:C622 ( talk) 03:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. ―
Mandruss
☎ 06:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)So we just gonna go full conspiracy nuts? and also with proper sourcing thats not full blown left wing tds? How the mighty have fallen :( Guitarguy2323 ( talk) 15:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
|
I think it is clear this has been said, by a lot of sources, and no valid reason for exclusion has been provided. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Slatersteven. This is very well sourced and it's hardly disputed that it has been described as an attempted coup. It is also highly notable, as no President has ever done something even remotely similar. It certainly belongs in the article. (On a side-note, it's less than 24h since I warned the OP for abusing WP:SOAP in a different article). Jeppiz ( talk) 17:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Comes off as WP:WEASEL. Also the sources should be a bit better for such a bit claim. For example unattributed opinion columns are not great. The first Washington Post article comes close but punts it with a "according to historians and other experts". Everything else are just opinion columns. PackMecEng ( talk) 18:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
There is exactly no valid process reason to revert a perfectly legitimate BRD challenge – regardless of positions on the content question. Content and process are two different things. I've already asked Jeppiz to self-revert at their UTP. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
There are a ton of sources, look through this lot https://www.google.com/search?q=Donald+Trump+%2B+coup&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBGB925GB925&ei=nAW4X4C6F7PIxgO4i4CIDw&start=0&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiA-PWc25HtAhUzpHEKHbgFAPE4FBDy0wN6BAgHEDc&biw=1280&bih=824. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Just now from the Associated Press: Trump to meet Michigan leaders in bid to subvert election "Subverting election" is not that different from "coup"... Extraordinary language applied to the present president. Bdushaw ( talk) 18:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
And from 43 minutes ago [ [2]]. Slatersteven ( talk)
a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics, which this could be. There is no requirement that a coup has to be violent – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
"meant to evoke images of soldiers and tanks surrounding the White House": 1) No, that is not what "coup" means (necessarily). 2) No, it was not "meant" like that in any way when I wrote it and added it to the article. 3) There is no evidence that any of the commentators who have used the term meant anything like that. A coup can be carried out with other means than tanks and doesn't have to involve the military, although it could be less likely to succeed without military support. -- Tataral ( talk) 20:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
should not appear in this way in the lead.Also disputed is the related body content. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The "coup" wording has little support. Per Snoogs immediately above, do editors support "anti-democratic efforts to overturn the results of the election"? SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
This is as democratic as it gets. Also no. Accepting the outcome of presidential elections is an unwritten norm losers honored without a law compelling them to do so. It’s not illegal for Trump to file frivolous lawsuits. His lawyers, however, are officers of the court and can’t make
baseless arguments under oathin court if they don’t want to risk their reputations (with the judges, their colleagues, and the public) and possibly their admittance to the bar. That’s why the lawyers who initially represented Trump withdrew from the lawsuits and why Giuliani, Powell, Ellis, et al allege fraud and conspiracies at news conferences and other media appearances but not in court, because there they’d have to back them up with evidence ( [4]). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
As the GSA has now initiated the transition process with Trump's publicly-expressed approval, I suggest changing the last sentence in the lead to read "Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat. He made unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud, mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results, and ordered government officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition for over two weeks after the result was called by major outlets." I will wait at least 24 hours to do so myself, as per remedy guidelines laid out to me. Regards, thorpewilliam ( talk) 04:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Lead content | Grade | Notes |
---|---|---|
Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden | B | That might be inferred from the body content, but it requires quite a bit of inference. The closest we really get to that in the body is to say that Biden is the projected winner. |
but refused to concede defeat | A | "In response to the networks projecting Biden the winner days later, Trump said, "this election is far from over" and alleged election fraud without providing evidence." |
He made unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud | A | "His legal team led by Rudy Giuliani made numerous false and unsubstantiated assertions revolving around an international communist conspiracy, rigged voting machines and polling place fraud to claim the election had been stolen from Trump." |
mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results | A | "He said he would continue legal challenges in key states, but most of them have been dismissed by the courts." |
ordered government officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition | A | "He blocked government officials from cooperating in the presidential transition of Joe Biden" |
for over two weeks after the result was called by major outlets | D | I can't get there even with inference. |
― Mandruss ☎ 05:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
ordered government officials not to cooperate: Changed verb to 'blocked'. I didn’t pay attention to the verb when I changed White House officials to government officials. (Is there even a difference between blocking and ordering in this government-by-tweet? Also, why didn’t you just change it yourself?:) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
This article has 500,787 bytes of markup; that's far too large. The page should be heavily trimmed and/ or split into several parts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Since it doesn't mention transclusion, I assume it means periodic copy-and-paste. But it appears my idea wasn't as radical, nor as easy, as was suggested. ― Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Since the lead of any article should be the best summary of the article, it can be convenient to use the subarticle's lead as the content in the summary section, with a {{ main}} hatnote pointing to the subarticle.
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He is not the current president 2601:603:187F:4F30:B438:467A:38E4:5C00 ( talk) 16:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the link of "45th" (List of presidents of the United States) in the lead section for consistency with other presidents. I think this is the only president article that has that link in his ordinal number. PyroFloe ( talk) 13:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@
PackMecEng: You
reverted my edit with the summary going back to previous wording on opening
without explaining the reason. I
added the info you deleted when I removed the lengthy info on the Kelly incident with this explanation: Adding the general description from NY Times subtitle, trimming Kelly incident which was mostly speculation about what he did or didn't mean
. The way the section is written now, it seems to imply that Trump’s history consists of the pussy-grabber tape and the 26 allegations of sexual assault. However, per the two cited RS and others, there are many other verified–i.e., not merely alledged she said/he said–incidents (tweeted by him, speaking to the press) where he insulted and demeaned women. IMO, that needs to be addressed. What is your issue with my original edit?
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
"mocking their bodily functions, demeaning their looks or comparing them to animals."Also since it is a quote it should be attributed to who said it. I would argue it is not a defining feature about him. On a related note I think the section heading in the article should be updated to be more in line with the main article on the subject and not accuse him of Misogyny in a section heading. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
not a defining feature—if you are referring to his decades-long history of sexist and/or derogatory remarks about women I'd ask you to define "defining." The title was changed in this edit which combined the sections Comments about women and Allegations of sexual assault and sexual misconduct. Now that the two sections have been combined, the new section isn't just about the sexual misconduct (bit of a euphemism for one rape accusation and more than 20 accusations of sexual assault, I would think), it's also about that long history of lewd, crude, etc. talk. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Trump's excuse for the Access Hollywood tape was locker-room talk—difficult to make when you call in to a radio or TV show. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
and calling them namespart. With the defining feature I mean the phrase I removed was not a special or major aspect of his Misogyny and allegations of sexual assault and misconduct. I still favor shortening the section heading, because again we should not be calling him a misogynist in Wikipedia's voice in a section heading. I might even be okay with a rephrase like "Allegations of sexual assault, misconduct, and misogyny". Though I think it could be shortened more. Either "Allegations of sexual assault and misogyny" or "Allegations of sexual misconduct and misogyny". PackMecEng ( talk) 18:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
There's a noticeable difference between his insults for men (lying Ted, little Marco, sleepy Joe) and for women (horseface; fat, ugly face), so I think we need some examples. The heading is very long but the name-calling is not an allegation. Asking other editors to weigh in on both of these issues. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
original research: You mean me comparing the—uh—quality of his insults for men (moonbeam) with that for women (skank)? There are sources but I wasn't proposing to add that to the article. The name-calling isn't an allegation, it's a fact, as per the 117 sources for the list of nicknames article you mentioned. I haven't looked at them yet—there's a difference between insults Trump has used repeatedly and those he used once. Still waiting for input from other editors. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the section deserves a general rethink/rework. I am not sure I agree with the merge of insult/misogyny and sexual assault sections. I originally began the section with a long list of women personalities and politicians who were the butt of Trump's insults. I see now the section has been "trimmed" out of existence... This is a biography of Trump and his behaviour towards women is a defining characteristic. The article has been "trimmed" [using quotes to convey my derision...] back to just the sexual assault elements. If we have to, perhaps an RfC to explicitly acknowledge that Trump's insulting behaviour and comments should be properly described? The "menstrual blood" incident was infamous, an Clinton called out Trump's behaviour during one of their debates. Its something for Wikipedia to minimize all this. (There are other places to more effectively trim this long article!) Bdushaw ( talk) 17:48, 1 December 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 think we should add the caption "Official portrait, 2017" to the picture to the right of the lede as we have done with other politicians. Mrytzkalmyr ( talk) 23:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Please include. Many have called the euphoric national mood following Trump's ouster a "reverse 9/11 situation." 108.30.187.155 ( talk) 16:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Right now NAFTA is referred to by its acronym in the lead, yet the USMCA is referred to by its full title right after. I think to keep consistency NAFTA should instead be referred to as "The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)" in that sentence. Basil the Bat Lord ( talk) 12:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Done -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I need people to see if it should be tagged with {{POV}}
, because I've seen numerous complaints about this page's neutrality, and I have seen it myself and doesn't seem that neutral. Is it ok for me to tag it with {{POV}}
?
a gd fan (
talk) 15:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The Trump presidency is winding down and he is now in a lame-duck session. With all former Presidents, the success of their Presidency, according to historians and political scientists, is included. Of all the major surveys of historians done, Trump consistently is ranked as one of the worst Presidents in American history. See [8], [9], [10], [11]. Therefore, I believe that a sentence stating "His presidency is generally viewed as one of the worst in American history by historians and political scientists." should be included. Please let me know your thoughts. Pennsylvania2 ( talk) 17:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Strongly opposed. It will be a decade or more before any semblance of unbiased review could be possible in this instance and there is already a lot of reassessments of many past presidents based on their positions on white supremacy (Wilson) and slavery (Jefferson) as well as Indian rights (Grant).-- MONGO ( talk) 16:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for all the WP:OR opinions, but how about investigating the sourcing -- away from daily journalism, etc. -- and see whether this is NPOV based on what sources are discovered. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it is a waste of time arguing against the inevitable, regardless of how sensible and erudite the arguments are.make me want a list item. Nothing is "inevitable" when it violates a clear consensus, at least not at this article, and we (usually) don't tolerate frequent re-raisings of settled issues. That's what I like about working at this article, and why I avoid other AP articles. That said, I don't think a list item that read The article will omit anything about Trump being one of the worst presidents in history, for now. would be of much use, since "for now" is too vague to be useful. We would still end up with a steady stream of "Are we there yet?" threads. If we could establish a clear consensus for a minimum wait period, such as January 20, 2022, that would be more workable. I still don't think one year would be nearly long enough – Trump is not going to let us begin to get over him so soon – but it would be better than nothing and I would support it if it meant a clear consensus. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
As I explained in the previous discussion, inclusion of material like this is based on the apparent consensus of reliable sources, not on the passage of time or any arbitrary date. Trump is not Obama, and if there is a consensus of reliable sources there is no reason to arbitrarily wait a year; in fact it would not be in the spirit of Wikipedia's principles to ignore a consensus of reliable sources.
We already include material on this topic e.g. in Historical rankings of presidents of the United States which discusses an APSA poll among political scientists specializing in the American presidency with Trump appearing in the last position. The broader point that Trump's presidency is not viewed favourably by scholars (and other sources) is entirely uncontroversial, and unlike previous presidents, reliable sources have already had much time to form a firm opinion of his presidency since he is so extreme and not a normal American or Western politician.
As a matter of principle, we are not required to wait until a politician leaves office to discuss their rule. For example in the article Vladimir Putin we discuss his legacy and the broader impact of his rule (e.g. "Under Putin's leadership, Russia has experienced democratic backsliding"). Putin and similar articles are more relevant comparisons than Obama.
That said, and mainly since it requires some work to figure out the exact wording, I don't think it is necessary to add this sentence on Trump's presidency being seen unfavourably here before he leaves office. But this is something we need to discuss over the coming months, and it would be appropriate to add it to the article at some point during the first half of 2021. If someone are willing to do the work—find relevant sources, work on the best possible wording on the talk page—there is no reason to prevent them from doing that, even if we'll wait until (early) next year before we add it to the article. -- Tataral ( talk) 10:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
As I explained in the previous discussion, inclusion of material like this is based on the apparent consensus of reliable sources, not on the passage of time or any arbitrary date.If it seems nobody is paying attention to your "explanation", it may be because your "explanation" is not correct. While V is crucial, and WEIGHT is important, they are NOT the only things we are allowed to consider, and "the passage of time" is NOT an illegitimate argument as you claim. If you need a written policy, try WP:VNOT. ― Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the notion of waiting some time before giving him any historical ranking - to wait for the dust to settle down, the partisan fevers to subside a little, and some longer-term, more scholarly perspective to come into play. I do favor putting something in the "consensus" section, but I'm not sure we have a consensus just yet. If we do it should not prejudge what will be said, so I do not favor the proposed The article will omit anything about Trump being one of the worst presidents in history, for now.
It should say something like Consensus is not to add anything just yet about Trump's historical ranking among presidents.
--
MelanieN (
talk) 19:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The first sitting U.S. president to receive three different nominations from three different countries for the prestigious 2021 Nobel Peace Prize. https://richmond.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-oct-8-2020-trump-gets-3-nominations-for-2021-nobel-peace/article_bd21748d-882d-5005-836b-4b6c15c0503e.html Robinrobin ( talk) 00:41, 6 December 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.
@ Jeromi Mikhael: Please revert this edit. Your edit summary says that you made grammar changes. Quite a few of those changes aren't, 'though. Some examples:
"in excess of ninety percent"changed to
"more than ninety percent". It's a direct Trump quote.
a U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian general and Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimanichanged to
a U.S. airstrike that killed an Iranian general and Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani. The general/Quds commander is one and the same person. Your version says that an Iranian commander as well as a Quds force commander, a Popular Mobilization Forces commander, and eight other people were killed.
ordered the headmaster of the school, Evan Jones, to give him Trump's academic records so he could keep them secrethas a different meaning than
ordered the headmaster of the school, Evan Jones, to give him Trump's academic records to keep them secret.
Trump said injuries were not "very serious"changed to
Trump said injuries were not "severe". This was another direct Trump quote ("I don’t consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries I have seen.")
Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Requesting someone change "Foundation: section to Wikipedia-standard "Philanthropy" section, and include his $100,000 donation to the Penn Club of New York. [1] [2] [3]
References
Right now, there is scarcely any mention of the economy under Trump. This is very odd since (rightly or wrongly) RS talk about the performance of the economy under a president all the time, and the public judges him on it.
IMO, we need to discuss in the lede the following four points regarding the economy: 1) By the end of his Administration, Trump was presiding over an economy in recession, that had lost jobs 2) Conversely, in the first three years of the Administration, the economy was strong by all conventional metrics 3) Trump supporters say that the weak economy with which Trump ended his term is entirely attributable to Covid 4) Critics of Trump argue that Trump bears a considerable amount of responsibility for the weak economy, supposedly because of his poor response to COVID-19.
By the way this information could be added to the lede without a whole new paragraph. Play around with the possibilities, ladies and gentlemen. CozyandDozy ( talk) 04:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
First, this lede is terribly written and way too long. Compare the six paragraphs to the five on Barack Obama or the four on George W. Bush. In general, the problem arises from people placing too much emphasis on the day to day hysterias of the Trump era and not taking a long view on the important things that happened in his Administration.
Second, Trump's lawsuits are a joke and don't deserve a lede mention. We should only have one sentence about this nonsense, e.g. "Trump refused to concede to Biden, and promoted conspiracy theories about the 2020 election in which Biden defeated him." CozyandDozy ( talk) 04:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
"Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden" should be changed to "Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Democratic nominee Biden". JJARichardson ( talk) 16:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I think this should be changed to "as of December 2020 has refused to concede defeat," per this guideline. Anyone object? ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 23:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat." There's no reason at this point to expect that he ever will; if he does, of course, we can always update it, but the current (and proposed) wording both carry the implication that he will at some point, which isn't necessarily true. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
a) Everyone knows he hasn’t conceded, so we aren’t adding any information. b) Concession is not required or legally meaningful. c) It will be changed shortly, not close to passing WP:10YT. WP:NODEADLINE O3000 ( talk) 20:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I think User:ONUnicorn is absolutely right. We always try to avoid temporal terms like "currently" or "now" or "so far", because they assume a time frame which may or may not be known to the reader, and are just not encyclopedic. I think it should be changed to "but as of (insert current date template) he has refused to concede defeat." Alternatively, we could simplify things by going with User:Aquillion's suggestion "refused to concede defeat". The "as of" construction suggests that we are holding our breath, sure that he will concede any day now; I think most of us here are pretty sure that he never will. So all in all I think I prefer the second suggestion. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, look. There is substantial sources saying that this is disputed. The best thing to do is to say that there are two main schools of thoughts, one from the defeat side and the other from the won side. There is a substantial indifferent-concerned school of thought, too.
Daily Wire and Anthony Brian Logan are two main sources that have shown consistent arguments that either the election is uncertain or Trump won.
R&R Law Group has been reviewing the lawsuits and has found legitimate questions of fraud that SHOULD be investigated. They, of course, are a law group and maintain a neutral stance as an observer trying to figure out what the government is doing. (The use of "we" is used since while it is they who talked about, I also am on the side that there is merit to these particular legal theories.) *We have #suitcasegate in Georgia, with probable malfeasance by the election officials after the election collection date.
So the additional caveat of "unsubstantiated allegations of electoral fraud" is incorrect. The three sources I mentioned are on Youtube. Why should I bother getting links to them if you are likely to ignore me? Do it yourself. 2600:8800:5E06:601:697D:353A:CE27:E539 ( talk) 03:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I've revised the text to give a number for the lawsuits that Trump has filed. I'd like to change the phrase "mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results" to "filed numerous unsuccessful legal challenges to the results". I modestly object to the use of the word "series", since that indicates a plan or sequence of law suits, whereas I don't think that's the case. "mounted" is a little odd as well. Anyways, following directions to discuss first as requested in the lead. Bdushaw ( talk) 04:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Its a valid point that most of the lawsuits are not Trump himself. A look at the cites shows its Trump, his campaign, state congressmen, states attornies general, private citizens, etc filing the law suits. Sources use "Trump or his allies", perhaps "Trump or his Republican allies filed numerous unsuccessful legal challenges to the results"? Unsure of the value of having the article text describe the wide nature of those filing the lawsuits. Bdushaw ( talk) 16:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
C'mon, folks, stop with the talk fork. Go !vote at the village pump RfC if you want to espouse your wisdom. ( non-admin closure) {{u| Sdkb}} talk 22:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Joe Biden should be linked as Trump's successor in the infobox. The Electoral College has voted at this point. Successors to incumbents are linked in every other case in American politics — including all the members-elect of the next Congress, as well as, historically, Trump on Obama's page when he was elected, and all other American officials-elect. To ignore this consistent and longstanding practice is absurd. Trump's successor should not be linked only in the bottom of the lead. D. Benjamin Miller ( talk) 00:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia– I support mention of the "successor-elect" somewhere in prose (and this article does so), but I oppose the idea that that requires inclusion in the infobox. I think they can have different criteria for inclusion, with a higher bar for the infobox because of its limited space and necessary absence of nuance and context. When I framed the RfC, it was not my intent to address prose content, and I think I made that sufficiently clear. ― Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm with the "lets wait" team. In the Trump 2016 election, we waited until january 20th. No reason we shouldn't do the same here. Coltsfan ( talk) 14:49, 15 December 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 think we should note in the first paragraph that he was defeated and will be a one-term president. He won't be in office anymore in 37 days, and one-termers are quite rare, so it seems important enough that it should be listed very early on. Thoughts? Cpotisch ( talk) 22:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
being extraordinary is not a good reason to include something in the first paragraph, with which you appeared to agree. It now appears that either you didn't fully understand my point, or you're prepared to set it aside for something you consider sufficiently extraordinary. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat. He made unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud, mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results, and ordered government officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition.
to
Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat. He made unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud, mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results, and ordered government officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition. citation needed Qbmaster ( talk) 22:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{subst:trim|1=
I want to add good thoughts about Donald Trump. All tho I may not support him but all people should get a chance to have somethings good written about them.
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.
Any thoughts on shortening a statement in the lead section as follows?
This would go down from 33 words to 22 words; it would preserve the most important bits (i.e., the level/rate of falsehoods is unprecedented) while omitting the unremarkable/obvious (the fact that these falsehoods have been documented - obviously they have been or else we wouldn't be making a reference to it in the Wikipedia bio). Neutrality talk 01:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
the fact that these falsehoods have been documented - obviously they have been or else we wouldn't be making a reference to it in the Wikipedia bio- I'd disagree with that statement. We might be saying that because reliable sources have said that without any documented fact-checking (or at least without anything remotely approaching the scale of what WaPo et al have done). We do that kind of thing all the time. We generally don't require sources to prove the truth of what they say. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Of course, we’re learning that Donald Trump and those around him lie about everything and don’t care at all about endangering other people. But that’s more of a confirmation than a revelation — we basically already knew that, although we didn’t expect such graphic evidence.I wonder why the statement is restricted to the two official campaigns and the presidency. This is his general bio, not the "Presidency of" article, and he's been making documented false statements since at least the 80s. If we remove the fact-checkers, shouldn't we remove the campaigns and the presidency, as well, and simply say that he's made many false and misleading statements before and during his presidency (to be changed to "before, during and after his presidency" sooner or later?) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality's wording is correct: "to a degree unprecedented". "All politicians lie", but Trump doesn't just lie more than others, he rarely tells the truth. He is in a different universe, where hardly a single molecule of truth exists. It's a foreign concept to him. -- Valjean ( talk) 01:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
to some extent they will be justified. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
tq}}
.Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fact-checkers (WaPo, Toronto Star, et al) have not actually compared Trump to his predecessors. I don't know that anybody has at the item level, as if that were even possible or useful given that presidents haven't always made multiple public statements per day that were immediately fact-checked. That wasn't even feasible until the widespread use of computers, roughly 1980s (or maybe advent of the internet, mid-1990s). Any "verifiability" we have that Trump is unprecedented is from sources other than the fact-checker databases, and we accept their analysis without actual proof. ―
Mandruss
☎ 21:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Then why do we currently say that in the article?That's my point, which may have been unclear. I was responding only to your bolded comment, and the article does not currently say that Trump's "unprecedence" has been confirmed by fact-checkers. It says that the media have widely described Trump as unprecedented and the false and misleading statements have been documented by fact-checkers – not the same thing. You may be equating fact-checkers with reliable sources, and I'm not. That was not the intent of the phrase in the 2019 discussion, as I understood it. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia (editors) is unabashedly on the side of the fact that the sky is blue and that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale.There are a number of editors who are unable to check their POV about this at the door. Somehow that POV never makes it into mainspace, which suggests that "Wikipedia (editors)" is not
unabashedly on the side ofit, your view notwithstanding. Apparently "Wikipedia (editors)" feels that such strong statements are not supportable by Wikipedia policy. I happen to agree that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale, as well as a number of other really bad things, but I know my opinion is irrelevant here and it's crucial to understand that. I save that for discussions among family and friends. I happen to agree that RS supports the kind of content currently in this article about that, but that is quite different from wildly irresponsible statements about blue sky "fact" that
Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale.― Mandruss ☎ 05:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale., but our sources would justify saying that
Trump has made-- Valjean ( talk) 05:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)manyfalse or misleading statements on a scale described as "unprecedented" in American politics.
I agree with Neutrality. Let's reboot and get back to the source for the "unprecedented" wording. It isn't used in a willy nilly fashion.
That is the sense in which we should continue to use the word. Trump isn't even close to anyone else. He's off the charts dishonest. -- Valjean ( talk) 02:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
References
It has long been a truism that politicians lie, but with the entry of Donald Trump into the U.S. political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented [...] Donald Trump is different. By all metrics and counting schemes, his lies are off the charts. We simply have not seen such an accomplished and effective liar before in U.S. politics.
Trump isn't even close to anyone else. He's off the charts dishonest.are pure POV and have no place in any Wikipedia content discussion. That one simultaneously cites one source – or a hundred sources – does not make that appropriate. ― Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Media outlets have widely considered Trump as largely unprecedented in making false and misleading statements during his 2016 election campaign and his presidency., because this is what reliable sources say. We shouldn't go beyond objective reliable sources. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 05:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump has madeI have stricken "many" as "scale" covers that aspect. "Described" refers to the fact that sources do this so we don't need to mention them. When we say the "sky is blue", we don't say that "reliable sources say the sky is blue." -- Valjean ( talk) 05:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)manyfalse or misleading statements on a scale described as "unprecedented" in American politics.
Trump has made misleading and false statements on a scale described as "unprecedented" by various media outlets.Onetwothreeip ( talk) 06:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
endless disruption, changes to consensus content are easily reverted without counting against 1RR. Persistent re-reverting by the "drive by" would earn a DS block, although that never happens when they are referred to the ArbCom restrictions and/or the #Current consensus list; the first revert is almost always enough. This has been proven to be a non-issue at this article. ― Mandruss ☎ 07:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
readerswho have WP:ECP status. ― Mandruss ☎ 07:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Bdushaw ( talk) 19:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Does widespread RS agreement make "unprecedented" a "fact" for the purposes of this bullet? Apparently not, or we wouldn't have the passage "However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be [...] where justified, described as widespread views, etc." Since it's entirely unproveable, "unprecedented" will always be an "opinion" for the purposes of this bullet, despite the fact that the opinion is widely held. So I disagree that that qualification doesn't need to be there. In any case, there is nothing factually incorrect about the status quo language and we are beating our heads against a wall in an effort to save 11 words in the lead, a lead that many or most editors insist is not overly long. Those 11 words certainly do not constitute undue weight for this issue. ― Mandruss ☎ 09:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."
Avoid stating facts as opinions. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as, which is partially WP:PEACOCK stuff (it hypes how important it is) and partially describing facts as opinions ("the media have widely described"). Also, the current wording is inaccurate in that academic sources have also described it that way; but more generally, when something is essentially universally described a certain way by high-quality sources, it is inappropriate to characterize it as "described." Some people above have argued that this fact must always be framed as an opinion, but they haven't presented any actual reason why this would be the case (and, notably, they seem to implicitly concede that it is treated as fact by the overwhelming majority of sources.) If we go by that standard, any editor could, based on their personal feelings, term any fact covered by sources as a mere opinion and insist that we cover it as such - the flipside of "don't state opinions as facts" is "don't state facts as opinions"; and we rely on sourcing to determine which is which, not the gut feelings of editors. The sourcing here indicates that this is a fact. -- Aquillion ( talk) 02:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Slight Consensus was for substantiating the "unprecedented" claim by citing fact-checkers. This was argued for mainly to avoid WP:WEASEL. Most seemed receptive to this logic.It was only part of the discussion, and there was only slight consensus for it. A full discussion just on that part has taken place here, and editors feel WP:WEASEL isn't a problem. So I personally disagree there is insufficient justification to overturn that consensus. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 02:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Does this need an RfC? Opinion above appears to be split, with most supporting the proposal (numerically, about 9 or 10 editors), but a substantial minority (numerically, about 4 or 5 editors) opposing it. Neutrality talk 22:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I note the present lead has "campaign", singular, while the suggested text was corrected to "campaigns", plural. (And I note to all that it is lead, rather than lede. WP:Manual of Style/Lead section) The lead wikilinks campaign to Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign. Might I suggest a revision to " 2016 and 2020 campaigns", where now the years wikilink to the appropriate article? (There could be a 2024 campaign, but we can defer that problem to a later date.) Alternatively, and redundantly but more clear, one could write " 2016 campaign and 2020 campaign". Bdushaw ( talk) 12:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).