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 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 | Archive 131 | Archive 132 | → | Archive 135 |
Should his Twitter account in the External links sections be removed? – Davey2010 Talk 00:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
(I removed it however I was reverted citing consensus #9 to have his account here however it's now permantely suspended. – Davey2010 Talk 00:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC))
Sources
|
---|
|
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.
Sorry if this is too speculative. Since obviously we would cross that bridge when we come to it. But assuming that Donald Trump does eventually go to prison for the crimes he's committed in the white house, will this article's main image be his mug shot? Nikki Lee 1999 ( talk) 04:17, 13 January 2021 (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.
Donald Trump has proven to be a very controversial figure. In the eyes of the greater part of the democratic world, he has disgraced his country and sunk its reputation to that of a tinpot banana republic. That opinion may well change in time - I sincerely hope it does. Would it not be better to freeze this article for a year, perhaps choosing the day of his inauguration as the freeze point? Then after a year, with the benefit of hindsight, allow the page to develop? At present, too many emotions are running in too many directions for this page to be objective. Giano (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I have a serious question for this terminology's use, not just in this article, but also in any articles where it has been used to describe someone that was found guilty of crimes while the political leader of their country. When someone is facing impeachment, why must we say they were "impeached"? That term is for someone removed from their political office, I believe, not for someone who is facing impeachment. Should this terminology be reserved for those who were removed from office, not facing impeachment?
GUtt01 ( talk) 17:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM; no specific article suggestions in almost a week an instead a debate about Trump's time in office
|
---|
The article lists in great measure all of Trumps shortcomings but not once is there a mention of his historic peace deals with mean foreign nations, near doubling of the stock market during his term (I refer to the DJIA), limiting illegal immigration, lowering the unemployment rate significantly before the pandemic, and the list goes on. And no, I am not parroting what I heard from Trump, these are facts. I would venture to say that in history books the only thing that may even mention Trumps name will be about his foreign peace deals (UAE, Morocco, Saudi Arabia). Historians will not remember him for his tweets or his claims of a stolen election, or his controversial remarks. I am not saying this article must purely be singing his praises, but after reading it I honestly feel like I just read a page that should be titled “Why some people don’t like Trump”. I think there should be a little more balance, especially in regards to his historic peace deals which there was literally no mention of (that astounded me. We will talk about how he tweeted that the election was stolen, but we will not talk about how he normalized relations with the United Arab Emirates.) I would honestly say the two of the main functions of being President are to keep the economy strong and make peace with others countries. Not to appeal to people on a personal level, that they should love your personality, which is what most of this article attacks- his personality. Or completely opinionated and unfounded arguments, of which there are many (Trump is responsible for all the deaths of corona, Trump is the one who got people to storm the capitol, Trump is racist, Trump is homophobic, etc.) KayFein613 ( talk) 07:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
You mention the economy/unemployment rate from 2009-2020. Let's take a back to 2008, a year before President Obama took office, the unemployment rate was 5.8%, not until Obama's final 2 years did the unemployment rate get below that figure. However President Trump's term seen the unemployment rate continue downward until the global pandemic, and even then it still didn't get as high as most of the Obama administration years. My point is President Trump did alot of great things including creating jobs/economy but this page only seems to state negative info, but then tries to somehow insinuate President Obama had a helping hand in President Trump's terrific economy, mainly the unemployment numbers. MPMP21 ( talk) 13:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC) |
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have some new info on him!! ISDFmsocutefghjkfgh ( talk) 17:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace incumbent with will be succeeded by the 46th president of the United States, Joseph R. Biden Jr. This president is a lame duck and this article is inaccurate as it does not detail the successor to the office of the presidency. 73.40.185.243 ( talk) 04:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
impeached him again for "incitement of insurrection", making him
to
impeached him again for "incitement of insurrection," making him
Inploded ( talk) 21:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
In order to give regular editors the leeway they need to deal with an increase in unhelpful "drive-by" edits, I am temporarily suspending the one-revert rule that has been on this article. The "24-hour BRD" rule listed in the Discretionary Sanctions template at the top of this page still applies. Here's what this means in practice:
Put another way, reverts are linked to content. You can revert up to 3 different edits per day, but you can't add or remove the same content more than once per day.
Again, the purpose of this is to allow regular/experienced/content editors to deal with legitimately unhelpful or POV edits. It's not to give people more leeway in edit warring over content disputes that are under discussion or to engage in "tag-team edit warring" where editors take turns reverting the same content over and over. If I see that going on I will start blocking people's accounts, starting with the editors who are reverting against the status quo ante, those reverting against emerging consensus on the talk page, and those who are not using helpful WP:Edit summaries that clearly describe what they're doing and why they're doing it. ~ Awilley ( talk) 17:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Trump committed to an "orderly transition" of power in a statement after the violence and the joint session of Congress counted the vote of the Electoral College and certified Biden's victory needs to be in the lead.As the first time he has agreed to give power clearly sourced in WP:RS Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 01:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay that is fine then if the consenus is against it fine.Thanks.Will not be reintroduced by me .Thanks. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I feel that this should be included, especially if he ultimately follows through with it, but do not want to muck up the main page inappropriately.
Some variant of: Trump has announced that he will not attend the inauguration of Joseph Biden, the 46th President of the United States, marking the first time in 152 years that a departing President has refused to attend the inauguration of his successor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcmaney ( talk • contribs) 04:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
This removal of a short section on Trump's main donors [3] is totally unacceptable. Without his donors, he wouldn't have been able to have any presidential campaigns in the first place. It is necessary for us to mention the people behind him, particularly his most important donors. A lot of the content is less important than this material. The section should be reinstated immediately. -- Tataral ( talk) 05:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump brokered peace deals between Israel and the Arab nations of United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Bahrain, and Morocco. [4]
Trump was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in brokering the aforementioned peace deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. [5]
Trump also brokered an agreement that restored ties between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. [6]
These are major foreign policy achievements of the Trump administration, and they aren't mentioned in the wiki page. These foreign policy achievements should be mentioned alongside the other Middle East matters that are mentioned in the introductory section.
184.164.187.121 ( talk) 04:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
In essence , Onetwothreeip, these good things Trump has done, you will attribute to the executive government, but I’m sure you will be quick to blame the coronavirus on Trump, and the storm on the capitol, and pretty much anything bad that had happened during the Trump presidency? God help you. The double standard is unreal. Although I must admit that is an argument I haven’t heard before, to just attribute anything good Trump did to the executive government. You should suggest this to CNN I’m sure they would love to push this idea (although it’s probably better for them to just not mention all the peace deals in the first place, as has been their strategy so far). KayFein613 ( talk) 08:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: I appreciate that you dropped the argument attributing his accomplishments to the “executive government”. Now, about how most of the article is about the coronavirus pandemic, this is unfortunately completely true, it’s almost like we are pretending the 3 years before the pandemic did not happen. I am all for a separate article entitled “completely opinionated and often debated article that we will present as facts by quoting sources to websites that happen to agree with this view, about how Donald Trump handled the coronavirus pandemic”. In fact, in the article at hand, the economy should be an important talking point in articles about a president, as should peace deals (and no, it’s not as simple as “hey we’re not at war, naturally we must be at peace, let’s make a treaty”). Downplaying the deals is upsetting, and leaving them out completely is even worse. Let the reader decide whether he considers the deals important- it is certainly important enough to deserve a mention. Ignoring how the economy has doubled since in 2016 (looking at the DJIA for this stat), even with the pandemic, is also upsetting. Again, some will say he just continued what Obama started, but that is certainly not a reason to leave the fact out altogether. As of the pandemic itself, I don’t think Trump could have known how badly some governors would handle the whole restrictions and lockdowns situation, as we saw utter failures and gross negligence in many states, specifically New York. You must concur that governors were voted in by the people of only that state, and in fact should represent an even more specific view of what people in that state want in a leader. People in New York should have been happy that Governor Cuomo can make the decisions about corona, since they voted him in, but were as a whole actually against Trump, right? I do think President Trump is merely holding true to one of the Republican Party’s core beliefs, which is that States should get a lot of individual power in major decisions. On a national level, he did take action to cut off travel from China, set up a very widespread testing system (the reason behind the US having so many statistic cases- more testing, more reported cases), provide accelerated vaccine development motivation and delivered PPE to spots with major outbreaks. Essentially, everything short of a national lockdown and mask mandate, in keeping with the GOP’s position, mainly that that is up to the states. I do think he downplayed the virus, although that was only in statements, and I always judge president purely by their actions or lack of actions. Therefore, I really disliked the articles implications of basically blaming the entire coronavirus on Trump. If only there was such a scathing article blaming China for starting the virus in the first place. KayFein613 ( talk) 08:57, 10 January 2021 (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 don't want to get drawn into an edit War here. I saw that someone removed lame duck regarding Trump's presidency. I didn't simply revert it. I changed it and linked the Wikipedia page that defines what a lame duck is and I put back the word "current ". Clearly, Donald Trump is a lame duck president. He is currently the president and he is a lame duck. Jackhammer111 ( talk) 21:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, let's wait until January 20, 2021 (Noon EST), which will make the proposed "lame duck" label, moot. Dare I say it, no more quacking, after that ;) GoodDay ( talk) 17:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It's an extremely glaring omission that the term far-right isn't mentioned anywhere in the lead, not even once, not even buried in the third paragraph. We can no longer accept this. Reliable sources have overwhelmingly described Trump's policies and views as far-right, and we even describe many of his own lesser officials (like Stephen Miller) as far-right. As reliable sources have agreed on for years now, all supporters of Trump are by definition far-right (in Europe Trump has been considered completely toxic and radioactive, something they wouldn't touch with a barge pole, even in the mainstream conservative parties for years), he's far-right if there ever was a far-right politician in the US; the idea that Trumpism is not a far-right ideology is a fringe POV with no support in RS.
At the very minimum, we should change the sentence Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist
to Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, nationalist, and far-right
--
Tataral (
talk) 15:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
every single reliable source in EuropeAgain, simply untrue. I've read RSs myself that make an argument directly against this.
It's time for Wikipedia to take the mainstream perception and narrative in RS into account.We literally do. If there are any sources in the article right now you think aren't RS, feel free to start a discussion on them here.
Local US debates are less relevant, we're not here to please the far right in the US.Well I have good news for you, the far-right hates this article! — Czello 16:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
the idea that Trumpism is not a far-right ideology is a fringe POV with no support in RS.-- this is flat-out wrong; there are plenty of sources that call him something else (right wing populist, usually) and it's most certainly not a fringe view. The debates regarding his political views have taken place regularly here, the Trumpism page, and the Political positions of Donald Trump talk page (which doesn't call him far-right once, either).
As reliable sources have agreed on for years now, all supporters of Trump are by definition far-right-- this is also just simply untrue at all. There is no such consensus at all. How he's considered in Europe is also irrelevant. — Czello 16:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
"How he's considered in Europe is also irrelevant": Well, how telling, considering how many editors have pointed out US bias for years. How he is considered in Europe is more relevant than how he is considered domestically in his own country, just as our coverage of Putin is not based on Russian domestic propaganda but on the international view. This is not Wikipedia for the US. Europe is a larger region, and quite frankly European sources generally have more weight and credibility than local (often very biased) views in authoritarian states or less developed democracies, whether in the US or Russia. -- Tataral ( talk) 16:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
only that US perspectives shouldn't be the only views represented in the articleI'm afraid you've talked yourself into a corner here. Previously you stated that all RSs described Trump and his supporters as far-right, but if you want to get away from just US sources, you must therefore be conceding that there are some (US) sources that disagree with that label? I mean, there are European sources that disagree too, but that's another issue.
and the US far-rightWhat US far right sources are being used in the article currently?
it's about the global consensus in the same way that our critical coverage of Putin is about the global consensus in countries where freedom of speech existsYes, we're already doing that now. There are sources in this article that aren't American. No matter what the balance between American vs non American sources there is, it doesn't support your view that he's unanimously viewed as far-right. — Czello 17:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I've not seen any mainstream sources claiming he isn't far-right.Take a look at Trumpism and Political positions of Donald Trump, you'll see a bunch.
Even if not all sources don't use that specific term at all times, it doesn't mean that they view him as a centre-right politician.The options aren't just "centre-right" and "far-right", y'know. There is a space between them.
each and every source must have specifically declared him to be far-rightI never said that at all: I was disputing your claim that reliable sources "have agreed" on this for years (your words, not mine), which simply isn't true.
There is clearly global consensus that he is a far-right politician.There clearly is not, friend. Some call him far-right, some call him right wing populist, some call him a plutocrat. It's not a consensus. — Czello 17:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, nationalist, and far-right"). -- Tataral ( talk) 18:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
And the consensus among sources doesn't still support far-right, especially not to the point where it must be in the lead. It's obviously controversial. Currently this article describes him as "right-wing populist", and even goes out of its way to say "He supported or leaned toward varying political positions over time" and "described his positions as "eclectic, improvisational and often contradictory". These are the least controversial descriptors which are all supported by RSs -- to dismiss this in favour of shoe-horning far-right in there would be
WP:UNDUE. The term "consensus" doesn't mean that everyone, without exception, must agree
Yes, I know; but there isn't even a consensus when you keep this in mind. Again, it's clearly disputed which is why the more dedicated articles (the two I previously linked) dig into this in more detail. —
Czello 18:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The article on Putin is not written from the perspective of Russian Putinists, we are not going to write about Trump from a far-right Trumpist perspective either.We don't. The far-right hates this article.
For instance, our articles on the Putin regime almost completely disregard Russian state propaganda because it's a fringe view worldwide.Where in this article is there US "state propaganda"? — Czello 16:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
less developed, less democratic country. I mean yeah they have their problems but they are still mostly above 3rd world countries. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Tataral: you're doing your case no favours by saying this view is "overwhelming" among RS. At most, you could make the case that RS overwhelmingly describe him as indulging/appeasing/pandering/catering to the far-right. And which RS are saying all supporters of Trump are by definition far-right? I had scour through JSTOR a few months ago and my impression was that while the news media is continually hardening its stance on Trump, the academic sources are more explicit. His political style is described as authoritarian and fascistic by a number of professors. I gathered a few sources here. A distinction should be made between his rhetoric/political style and his personal views and/or policies as a whole; he's described (by journalists and academics alike) as an egotist rather than an ideologue. Also, 'far-right' and 'populist' are both problematically nebulous terms (right-wing populism ≠ far-right, despite the strong overlap). Anyway, the academic coverage is still very much in its infancy, as it grows it will become clearer if this warrants inclusion in this article. For now, I think the best place for discussion is Trumpism. Jr8825 • Talk 18:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Add me to the list of editors here who disagree that all RSes say Trump or all Trump supporters are "far right", and who think that labelling biography subjects (or their supporters) with labels like "far right" is generally not productive or helpful. That said, I think enough RSes say something about Trump's relationships with (1) "right of center", (2) "conservatives", (3) "right wing", and (4) "far right", that the lead could be improved by adding a summary of those relationships. However, that would have to be done only after a careful source analysis and expansion/revision of the body (which somewhat covers those relationships but not completely). Levivich harass/ hound 20:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Even if sources were to label him as far-right, and I agree that this is certainly not demonstrated to our standards, we can still choose whether or not we find it to be the most informative description. There are no uses of the term on the article of Adolf Hitler. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 01:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of what Tataral says, including "far-right" in the lede doesn't imply that all Trump's supporters are far-right (which would clearly be inappropriate). I think "populist and nationalist" is probably the best explanation for the lede, but would consider "far-right" if there are good sources. A quick Google search confirms that some of his supporters are far-right, but doesn't give sources saying he is. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
TBH, he out-left the left, concerning the $2,000 stimulus checks & the $740 billion military budget. GoodDay ( talk) 03:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm writing from a European perspective. From a European perspective, all Trump supporters are seen as inherently and self-evidently far-right by any quality source and the vast majority of people too (including conservatives). (Many sources in this part of the world also consider the US to have one generally centre-right party, the Democrats, and one far-right party, Trump's party). Supporting Trump is an extreme fringe position in a European context; for example, the only (few) politicians who have expressed support for him over the past five years are members of parties widely labelled as far-right extremist in their own countries (and incidentally in the English Wikipedia), typically parties like Germany's AfD that is described in our article as "on the far-right of the political spectrum" (and even there Trump is perceived as a bit too extreme by most). US-based editors always seem to believe that their own local in-universe perspective should dominate articles about their politicians, but that's not how we do it for politicians from any other countries, e.g. Jair Bolsonaro (who is described as far-right in the lead) or Putin, or indeed in our coverage of the European far right, including the AfD and other parties across the continent whose political positions are in fact more moderate than those expressed by Trump and his administration and party. Note that Trump's ambassador to Germany expressly said he was there to empower the (far-right) AfD and similar parties on behalf of Trump, and that Trump has aligned himself with the far-right in Europe throughout his presidency.
Regardless of all that, the concrete proposal above was simply to change a sentence in the third paragraph from Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist
to Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, nationalist, and far-right
, a very reasonable and modest proposal indeed. How do the "populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist" descriptions differ from far-right in their prominence and (universal?) acceptance? --
Tataral (
talk) 16:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
From a European perspective, all Trump supporters are seen as inherently and self-evidently far-right by any quality source and the vast majority of people too (including conservatives).As a European myself I'm not sure where you've gotten this from. There are certainly some sources that I've seen that imply that, but it's hardly the consensus you imply it to be.
. How do the "populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist" descriptions differ from far-right in their prominence and (universal?) acceptance?Because those first four labels are fairly uncontroversial and undisputed. Take a look at the Trumpism article for an alternative, which labels his views as
an American politics version of the right-wing to far-right, which seems more reasonable and neutral to me. — Czello 16:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Re: [7]
Contrary to SPEICFICO's assertion, "mayhem" is in fact used in sources, including NYT today. Until earlier today, it was the word they chose for use in their top headline, and the word "attack" has never been seen there to my knowledge. While "attack" has also been seen in sources, that does not make it superior to "mayhem" is terms of RS, which is what SPECIFICO claims.
Given the above, we can now indulge in what some call original research and others call editorial judgment, often varying between the two depending on their immediate needs. Of the two words, "mayhem" is the less hyperbolic; while there was some violence, the majority of what I saw was a couple of thousand people standing around waving flags and signs. Thus "mayhem" better characterizes the events than "attack". ― Mandruss ☎ 17:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Without looking at sources, "bedlam" seems an appropriate word; I see no sources that this was a credible attempt to overthrow the USA government, but it was a lapse of the Civil Order. "Mayhem" is better than "attack". power~enwiki ( π, ν) 07:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I think whatever word people will use to describe this (for arguments sake, ‘incident’), should also be used to describe the highly popular BLM ‘incidents’. If you are inclined to call the capitol incident, an ‘attack’, or a ‘riot’, then to describe the many instances, (in the name of BLM), of openly mass looting stores, attacking people, destroying stores, and vandalism, describing all those incidents, as ‘protests’, would be to set a record in double standards. And the other way too- if you are inclined to call the capitol incident a ‘protest’, I wouldn’t want to see you referring to the BLM incidents as riots or attacks (although this side of the argument is admittably less common). Personally I would be inclined to call them both ‘riots’, but I would probably be called racist by one side, and similarly insulted by the other (again, admittably much less common). I also do not see the argument that this is a real attack because it was on a federal building, to be valid at all. This was no coup, this was no rebellion, this was a classic riot where people got swept up with excitement. Not a ‘takeover of the government’ or a ‘threat to our democracy’. Again, if you disagree with me on my last point, I would tend to refer you to my original arguments. The hypocrisy is blatant, and the difference between a simple ‘protest’ and an ‘attack’ is not merely because it happened on a federal building instead of a Walmart, a supermarket, or a police car (although for that matter there have been many instance of BLM inspired vandalism on federal buildings, and of course police property is usually state/county/city [government] property.) KayFein613 ( talk) 08:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It wasn't just House Democrats that called for the impeachment. This should be fixed -- 50.69.20.91 ( talk) 00:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The lead paragraphs need to change. They are stuffed with information, but each of them lacks a clear theme. This makes the lead very hard to read and comprehend.
To that end, I suggest that we add a paragraph devoted to a clear and limited set of topics: allegations of corruption, lying (/conspiracy theorizing), and racism against Trump. This paragraph can cohesively cover much of the information that appears in the lead in a more scattershot fashion: impeachment(s), Trump's conspiracy theory about the election, Birtherism (how Trump got into Republican politics), allegations of racism, and the point about Trump's unprecedented number of false and misleading statements. This new paragraph could also be a logical and cohesive place in which to mention the 2021 storming of the Capitol, since that riot was inspired by one of Trump's falsehoods: namely, the claim that the election was stolen.
I also suggest we remove the Mueller stuff from the lede. It turned out to be quite inconsequential (no evidence of collusion). At most it deserves a brief mention in my proposed paragraph about allegations of corruption (with more emphasis given to the two impeachments, the storming of the Capitol, etc). LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 ( talk) 08:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip - I understand your intentions in trimming this article. However, I am concerned that you are not being careful enough in your efforts, because when you remove certain references, we are ending up with unreferenced content which fails WP:V.
called for the election result to be overturned and called on his supporters to "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol to "show strength" and "fight like hell" ... Trump released a video telling the rioters to "go home in peace", but described them as being "great patriots" and "very special".
The report said Trump had withheld military aid and a White House invitation to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations into Trump's political rivals.
the Trump administration sanctioned 25 Iranian individuals and entities
The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General inspections of migrant detention centers in 2018 and 2019 found that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) "in many instances" violated federal guidelines for detaining migrant children
sharply increased the number of family separations at the border starting from the summer of 2017
With so many recent instances of mistakes, I hope that Onetwothreeip can improve on this. starship .paint ( exalt) 08:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
article size will not be reduced significantly by "trimming"; a different organization/article approach is needed- There ya go. See, I'm not the only crazy person around here. I've been using the words "sea change" of late. ― Mandruss ☎ 17:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I am uncertain of a proper process by which an article undergoes dramatic revision. If it were me, naive me, I would first have a discussion, then perhaps an RfC, of a revised outline for the article, and an agreement on it. Then create "offline" subpages, one subpage for each new section, (or a new article subpage?) allowing material from this article to be copied to it, revised, developed as appropriate. Once the subpages have been developed to an appropriate form, the article could be replaced with the new one. If it were just me, that is how I would do it, but given that Wikipedia editors behave like a herd of cats, that might just be a car wreak of an article development. To start, the material on his presidency should be dramatically reduced, replaced by general summaries, and the Presidency section should be broken apart into separate main sections (the present table of contents is mostly unusable). In this biography of Trump page, the Media section needs major development. Trump's wall should be a subsection; he invested huge political capital in it; a monumental waste/fraud. Since the pandemic and election disinformation are defining aspects of Trump those should be major themes in the new article (we discussed once a breakaway article on Trump and pandemic; I am a little more in favor of such an article. Trump and election disinformation similarly? - uncertain of the present set of Trump articles.) Developing general summaries of aspects of the Trump presidency could be difficult - as I've mentioned before, one has to distill a large amount of information to a brief clear statement, which ends up, inevitably, looking very bad for Trump. Looking ahead...a legacy section is likely, eventually, warranted; what will the Republican Party and Trump will look like in coming years? One would think Wikipedia would have some guidelines for major article revision; part of the problem being that for a time, perhaps a long time, the article could look like a major construction zone, with the possibility the new article will look worse. Bdushaw ( talk) 01:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Mr. Mandruss has reverted my well-sourced addition of "attempted coup" with a stern, gratuitous, and equivocal reprimand that I myself had opposed such context in the past.
Needless to say, the difference is that with the redoubling of POTUS' efforts and the passage of time, this has now achieved DUE WEIGHT in mainstream coverage -- as evidenced by the provided Washington Post source. Needless to remind Mr. Mandruss that Consensus can change.
Soliciting agree or disagree from other editors concerning the sentence I added? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we need a formal RFC. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I’m uncomfortable with the term at this point, even though his efforts appear to comprise attempts to override an election by unconstitutional means – which is to say, seize power. Now, we’ll see if he attempts to foment violence among his supporters today. O3000 ( talk) 17:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
|
I was just reading today's news and came here to post a "Coup revisited" inquiry. We do need to wait a day or two for some settlement of events, but when mobs break into the Capital to stop Electoral College vote proceedings, after incessant Trump instigations...I believe "coup" is the word. We'll need a number of reliable sources to use the word, but I believe they will appear in coming days, if not already available. (One can almost also talk of a "coup" in Georgia, with all the rhetoric of "fixing" the vote count.) I wrote against the word before, but the situation has done its predictable but shocking evolution. Bdushaw ( talk) 20:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
(Speaking humorously HERE is what a proper coup d'etat looks like.) I've noted that Trump has not offered any condemnations yet...he's pretty good at skirting the boundaries of calling a spade a spade. Bdushaw ( talk) 21:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Numerous RS ( CNN, BBC, Guardian etc.) explicity use "coup attempt" and also explicitly say that it is on Trump's encouragement. It definitely belongs in the first paragraph; Trump is one of 46 presidents, but the only one who encouraged a coup. Jeppiz ( talk) 22:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I have now read the WaPo piece provided by SPECIFICO, and I find it less compelling. A number of historians, academics, and others are cited as saying Trump's actions are not a coup attempt or not "technically" a coup attempt. That makes the word problematic at best for Wikipedia's purposes. But, on the basis of what I see there, I will support one sentence in the body, something like "Some academics, media pundits, and news outlets described his actions as an attempted coup d'etat, and others disputed the use of that term." I oppose anything like SPECIFICO's language, and anything in the lead. I strongly oppose anything in the first paragraph, and I think we have wide agreement that that kind of content does not belong in the first paragraph regardless of any RS support. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Quite frankly, any attempt to remove the description as a coup from the article should be reverted on sight at this point. We have long had a significant problem with how the portrayal of Trump in this article whitewashes the far right, an ongoing problem. The lead, and particularly its first paragraph, is ridiculously biased in portraying Trump as a normal democratic politician rather than the far-right authoritarian figure he's universally perceived as by reliable sources. We don't portray far-right authoritarian leaders involved in coup attempts (whether by military or "legal" means) from any other countries in such a manner. -- Tataral ( talk) 23:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Disparagement, snark |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
For the word "coup", the case could certainly be made - he had motive, means, and opportunity; he even set up the means and set up the opportunity. You will never convince me that Trump did not hope that something like this today would occur, perhaps successful for him. Trump acts in "yes, but no, maybe it is (really yes)" kinds of ways - recall the "do me a favor though". All that being said, I suspect the RSs will likely avoid the word, per Mandruss. It seems a lot like the word "lie" - too incendiary to be flung about. We will see what the reporting in the coming weeks says about the situation, or whether Trump incurs more than usual condemnation. The word "insurrection" is used more concretely, which may perhaps be a compromise to "coup". I was reading this article on how the world was viewing the events of the day. All and all pretty horrible; a dark day indeed in US history. No one should ignore the fact that Trump was its root cause. Bdushaw ( talk) 00:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
At no time did the military try to overthrow the US government. There was no attempted coup. Now calm down folk. The US House & US Senate have re-convene their duties under the 12th amendment. GoodDay ( talk) 02:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Point of order
WTF is going on here? Have you all forgotten what we do here? In a sense, the "truth" is not important here. It is what "verifiable sources say" that matters. It makes no difference whether Trump has attempted a coup/self-coup/bloodless coup. What matters to us is that many RS have described these events as an attempted coup/self-coup/bloodless coup. That's what we document:
That is a very properly-worded documentation of the opinions in many RS (not a statement that it IS a coup), so it is proper to include it. -- Valjean ( talk) 03:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't say it was widely described as a coup citing to this WaPo source, because the WaPo source doesn't support it. If anything, political scientists and historians agree it wasn't a coup attempt, because the military wasn't involved. This was widely described as a riot by a mob of Trump supporters. Levivich harass/ hound 18:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Historians described Trump’s actions as dangerous, irresponsible, harmful and unprecedented, but most said his behavior does not yet meet the formal academic definition of an attempted coup, which typically describes a military-backed effort to seize power from a legitimate government. Senior Pentagon officials have made clear that the military has no role in the fallout over Trump's election defeat ... Some said he is tiptoeing toward an "autogolpe," a Spanish term popularized in Latin America to describe a "self-coup" attempted by leaders who came to power legally and acted outside the law to try to maintain it. "In technical terms, it’s probably not a coup. But it is an illegal and authoritarian attempt to stay in power," said political scientist Steven Levitsky ... "If this were a coup attempt, it’s perhaps the most bungled way to go about that I could imagine," [research coordinator at the Institute for Politics and Strategy] Chin said ... "The reason I don’t want to call it a coup is that it shifts the attention to the military," said Singh, the author of "Seizing Power: The Strategic Logic of Military Coups." ... "This is more of a textbook case of democratic backsliding, which is less sexy of a term," said Erica De Bruin, an assistant professor at Hamilton College and author of "How to Prevent Coups d'État."
Read the definition of a "Coup d'etat" on wikipedia or Google. It has nothing to do with the people. It's either the military or a dictator KJ4488 ( talk) 00:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
For some reason, when Trump is described as the " 45th and current president of the United States", the "45th" is linked. This is inconsistent with other presidents' articles, and linking "45th" in the lead looks weird. The link also looks like it is linked to the Wikipedia page about the number 45. Linking the number of his presidency is inconsistent with other articles, and the link also looks unnatural. Please note that this would change Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus, item 17. -- Politicsfan4 ( talk) 01:18, 8 January 2021 (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 change would alter Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus, item 17.
Currently, Trump is described as the " 45th and current president of the United States" in the lead sentence. The removal of the linkage of "45th" is being proposed.
{{reply to|Eyer}}
to your message. 01:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)The section about the Capitol breach currently reads:
On January 6, 2021, while congressional certification of the presidential election results was occurring in the Capitol, Trump held a rally nearby where he called for the election result to be overturned and called on his supporters to "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol to "show strength" and "fight like hell."
This should clarify that Trump specified, during the speech, that the protests at the Capitol be done "peacefully and patriotically" per the statement found in the transcript cited:
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today.
So I propose an edit to reflect this, rather important, specification as follows:
On January 6, 2021, as congressional certification of the presidential election results commenced in the Capitol, Trump held a rally nearby where he endorsed an overturn of the election result and called on his supporters to "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol to "show strength" and "fight like hell" with "peacefully and patriotically" conducted protests.
William S. Saturn ( talk) 08:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
On January 6, 2021, as congressional certification of the presidential election results commenced in the Capitol, Trump held a rally nearby where he endorsed an overturn of the election result and a march to the Capitol for a peaceful protest.
William S. Saturn ( talk) 08:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
On January 6, 2021, as congressional certification of the presidential election results commenced in the Capitol, Trump held a rally nearby where he endorsed an overturn of the election result and a march to the Capitol.Onetwothreeip ( talk) 09:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this suggestion. The RS are clear that what mattered (and what was historically notable) was the language the article already highlights, "show strength" and "fight like hell." The RS are unanimous that "peacefully and patriotically" was contradictory to the main gist of Trump's speech and the message which supporters took from it – the sources say it was, essentially, insignificant. I don't have an issue with the current wording, but if the concern is about making it clearer the subject of the sentence is how the rally related to the Capitol riot – rather than the speech itself – it could be re-arranged to follow the description of the storming, so that it reads:
On January 6, 2021, thousands of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol while congressional certification of the presidential election results took place, disrupting certification and causing the evacuation of Congress. The crowd had been whipped up at a rally Trump held nearby, where he called for the election result to be overturned and called on his supporters to "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol to "show strength" and "fight like hell."
To reiterate though, I think the existing text is fine. Jr8825 • Talk 09:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Neutrality, how can you possibly claim that two nations issuing arrest warrants on trump is not serious or significant? [26] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 22:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
That's an idea... wait until Biden is inaugurated and then surrender Trump to the Iranian authorities. I GUARANTEE he would be out of our hair forever after that. -- Khajidha ( talk) 19:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
These statements are repeated multiple times in this article: "Trump urged his supporters to march on the Capitol" Where is the reference to this statement? Should we actually quote what Trump actually said? If Wikipedia wants to retain credibility, they need to provide actual quotes of what someone said instead of someone interpreting what was said.
I recommend changing these statements to: "We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.". He did not ask his supporters to march On the Capitol or storm the Capitol or break into the Capitol. If another politician said "we are going to walk down to the White House to protest." Are they saying to breach the fences and storm into the actual White House? If so you have a lot of other Wikipedia articles to fix and reinterpret.
Reference of actual quote made by Donald Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/trump-speech-riot.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8202:b2d0:4559:8c7d:75dc:c04 ( talk) 08:51, January 11, 2021 (UTC)
(At 16:25) Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer, and we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. We’re going to have to fight much harder and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. If he doesn’t, that will be a sad day for our country because you’re sworn to uphold our constitution. Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
(At 01:11:44) Our brightest days are before us, our greatest achievements still wait. I think one of our great achievements will be election security because nobody until I came along, had any idea how corrupt our elections were. And again, most people would stand there at 9:00 in the evening and say, “I want to thank you very much,” and they go off to some other life, but I said, “Something’s wrong here. Something’s really wrong. Can’t have happened.” And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans for our movement, for our children and for our beloved country and I say this, despite all that’s happened, the best is yet to come. So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give. The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here, this is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you.
The responses here are riddled with more references to opinions. They can be included but they should best sighted as opinions and not what the president said.
I removed this, with a long edit summary, but it was restored with insufficient explanation:
Firstly, this is an intelligence estimate, not a proven fact. If true, it is misleading to say this happened during Trump's term. It has happened in the term of every President since Clinton (or earlier). The terminology is also imprecise. Nuclear weapons usually means nuclear missiles. Ballistic missiles includes bullets and hand grenades. This sentence was added with the edit summary suggesting that it was "ultimate bottom-line outcome" and restored with the suggestion that it was "vital context". We have had this discussion before. It is too soon to declare an "ultimate" outcome. As for "vital context", let us remember that this is an overlong article about Donald Trump. It is not about North Korea's military capabilities. I would have thought that President Moon's activities were "vital context". But Moon isn't mentioned at at all. In the interest of brevity, I think that the fact that talks in Sweden broke down after one day is a sufficient conclusion. Adding speculation is unnecessary. Really, this is just another Democratic Party talking point. If editors insist on such a sentence, I would suggest something like this:
I think leaving out the cessation of these tests is clearly leaving out vital context.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 14:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I would argue the only reasonable summary of Trump's dance with North Korea is that Trump tried cosying up to Kim, then tried insulting him, then tried cosying up again, and the only result is that he succeeded in elevating Kim's status on the world stage by making him appear "equal" to the President of the United States while he continued to build up his nuclear arsenal. Any language that can be crafted that doesn't describe Trump's efforts as anything other than a spectacular foreign policy failure is likely to be a non starter. -- Scjessey ( talk) 18:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what relevance this really has to do with Donny. We need to strip this down to be about him as a person. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
This is turning out to be the most notable event of his presidency, and hence should be linked to in the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.226.125 ( talk) 01:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
He is the only US president that this happened to, does this mean it should appear higher in the introduction?
John Cummings ( talk) 21:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The opening blurb, and search bubble, needs to mention that he is twice impeached. Thisreallyisaj ( talk) 06:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I partially reverted an edit by UpdateNerd which changed a sentence in the lead from "Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat" to "Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but initially refused to concede defeat".
The RS are split. For example, the FT says "Donald Trump concedes election", whereas The Guardian says "while stopping short of outright admitting defeat, Trump’s statement is the closest he has come to a concession speech."
There's no urgent need to adjust the existing sentence as it's written in past tense. I'm personally against change but thought I'd bring this up here as I imagine this sentence may become contentious. Jr8825 • Talk 12:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, and the facts bear me out...It seems that the new stance is that I did lose but illegitimately. starship .paint ( exalt) 12:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I feel regardless,it still is fair to concede and anyone that doesn't isn't that fit to be a President. We don't want sore losers. Yeial ( talk) 15:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
There was a recent change to the lead section by Onetwothreeip (which I reverted) that added "...did not concede defeat until two months afterwards" and that eliminated the part about not cooperating with the transition. But point (1) is inaccurate. Trump conceded that his administration would end and that "a new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th" but he has still refused to concede that he was defeated (i.e., he lost a free and fair election). As for point (2), Trump pledged an "orderly transition" very recently, but the historical fact remains that he refused to cooperate in the transition for a significant time (and who knows what will happen in the next 12 days).
However, I do agree that some changes to the last paragraph of the lead would be a good idea. I propose changing the current version:
Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat. He made unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud, pressured government officials, mounted a series of sixty unsuccessful legal challenges to try to overturn the results, and ordered his administration not to cooperate in the presidential transition. During the congressional certification of the results on January 6, 2021, Trump urged supporters to march on the Capitol, which they then stormed, forcing Congress to evacuate.
to something like:
Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat. Trump attempted to overturn the results by making false claims of electoral fraud, pressuring government officials, mounting dozens of unsuccessful legal challenges, and stymieing the presidential transition. During Congress's counting of the electoral votes on January 6, 2021, Trump urged supporters to march on the Capitol, which they then stormed, forcing Congress to evacuate.
This is a tad shorter, while being more clear and accurate. It also avoids giving a specific number of failed election lawsuits brought by Trump and his allies. (The current text says "60" but USA Today says it's actually 62 -- I would just go with "dozens" or "scores." -- Neutrality talk 02:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The storming of the Capitol resulted in five fatalities and at least 60 injuries. One of the fatalities was a police officer.
Last line of the social media section:
"Tweets Trump then sent from the government's official POTUS account were removed quickly, and when he posted them on his campaign and Dan Scavino's accounts, those accounts were suspended too."
It's awkwardly worded and pretty specific for this article. Could it be replaced with something like:
"Since then, Trump has been banned on numerous other social media platforms, including Snapchat, Twitch, and Shopify."
Source: https://www.axios.com/platforms-social-media-ban-restrict-trump-d9e44f3c-8366-4ba9-a8a1-7f3114f920f1.html ChipotleHater ( talk) 03:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 125 | ← | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 | Archive 131 | Archive 132 | → | Archive 135 |
Should his Twitter account in the External links sections be removed? – Davey2010 Talk 00:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
(I removed it however I was reverted citing consensus #9 to have his account here however it's now permantely suspended. – Davey2010 Talk 00:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC))
Sources
|
---|
|
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.
Sorry if this is too speculative. Since obviously we would cross that bridge when we come to it. But assuming that Donald Trump does eventually go to prison for the crimes he's committed in the white house, will this article's main image be his mug shot? Nikki Lee 1999 ( talk) 04:17, 13 January 2021 (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.
Donald Trump has proven to be a very controversial figure. In the eyes of the greater part of the democratic world, he has disgraced his country and sunk its reputation to that of a tinpot banana republic. That opinion may well change in time - I sincerely hope it does. Would it not be better to freeze this article for a year, perhaps choosing the day of his inauguration as the freeze point? Then after a year, with the benefit of hindsight, allow the page to develop? At present, too many emotions are running in too many directions for this page to be objective. Giano (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I have a serious question for this terminology's use, not just in this article, but also in any articles where it has been used to describe someone that was found guilty of crimes while the political leader of their country. When someone is facing impeachment, why must we say they were "impeached"? That term is for someone removed from their political office, I believe, not for someone who is facing impeachment. Should this terminology be reserved for those who were removed from office, not facing impeachment?
GUtt01 ( talk) 17:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM; no specific article suggestions in almost a week an instead a debate about Trump's time in office
|
---|
The article lists in great measure all of Trumps shortcomings but not once is there a mention of his historic peace deals with mean foreign nations, near doubling of the stock market during his term (I refer to the DJIA), limiting illegal immigration, lowering the unemployment rate significantly before the pandemic, and the list goes on. And no, I am not parroting what I heard from Trump, these are facts. I would venture to say that in history books the only thing that may even mention Trumps name will be about his foreign peace deals (UAE, Morocco, Saudi Arabia). Historians will not remember him for his tweets or his claims of a stolen election, or his controversial remarks. I am not saying this article must purely be singing his praises, but after reading it I honestly feel like I just read a page that should be titled “Why some people don’t like Trump”. I think there should be a little more balance, especially in regards to his historic peace deals which there was literally no mention of (that astounded me. We will talk about how he tweeted that the election was stolen, but we will not talk about how he normalized relations with the United Arab Emirates.) I would honestly say the two of the main functions of being President are to keep the economy strong and make peace with others countries. Not to appeal to people on a personal level, that they should love your personality, which is what most of this article attacks- his personality. Or completely opinionated and unfounded arguments, of which there are many (Trump is responsible for all the deaths of corona, Trump is the one who got people to storm the capitol, Trump is racist, Trump is homophobic, etc.) KayFein613 ( talk) 07:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
You mention the economy/unemployment rate from 2009-2020. Let's take a back to 2008, a year before President Obama took office, the unemployment rate was 5.8%, not until Obama's final 2 years did the unemployment rate get below that figure. However President Trump's term seen the unemployment rate continue downward until the global pandemic, and even then it still didn't get as high as most of the Obama administration years. My point is President Trump did alot of great things including creating jobs/economy but this page only seems to state negative info, but then tries to somehow insinuate President Obama had a helping hand in President Trump's terrific economy, mainly the unemployment numbers. MPMP21 ( talk) 13:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC) |
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have some new info on him!! ISDFmsocutefghjkfgh ( talk) 17:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace incumbent with will be succeeded by the 46th president of the United States, Joseph R. Biden Jr. This president is a lame duck and this article is inaccurate as it does not detail the successor to the office of the presidency. 73.40.185.243 ( talk) 04:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
impeached him again for "incitement of insurrection", making him
to
impeached him again for "incitement of insurrection," making him
Inploded ( talk) 21:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
In order to give regular editors the leeway they need to deal with an increase in unhelpful "drive-by" edits, I am temporarily suspending the one-revert rule that has been on this article. The "24-hour BRD" rule listed in the Discretionary Sanctions template at the top of this page still applies. Here's what this means in practice:
Put another way, reverts are linked to content. You can revert up to 3 different edits per day, but you can't add or remove the same content more than once per day.
Again, the purpose of this is to allow regular/experienced/content editors to deal with legitimately unhelpful or POV edits. It's not to give people more leeway in edit warring over content disputes that are under discussion or to engage in "tag-team edit warring" where editors take turns reverting the same content over and over. If I see that going on I will start blocking people's accounts, starting with the editors who are reverting against the status quo ante, those reverting against emerging consensus on the talk page, and those who are not using helpful WP:Edit summaries that clearly describe what they're doing and why they're doing it. ~ Awilley ( talk) 17:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Trump committed to an "orderly transition" of power in a statement after the violence and the joint session of Congress counted the vote of the Electoral College and certified Biden's victory needs to be in the lead.As the first time he has agreed to give power clearly sourced in WP:RS Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 01:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay that is fine then if the consenus is against it fine.Thanks.Will not be reintroduced by me .Thanks. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I feel that this should be included, especially if he ultimately follows through with it, but do not want to muck up the main page inappropriately.
Some variant of: Trump has announced that he will not attend the inauguration of Joseph Biden, the 46th President of the United States, marking the first time in 152 years that a departing President has refused to attend the inauguration of his successor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcmaney ( talk • contribs) 04:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
This removal of a short section on Trump's main donors [3] is totally unacceptable. Without his donors, he wouldn't have been able to have any presidential campaigns in the first place. It is necessary for us to mention the people behind him, particularly his most important donors. A lot of the content is less important than this material. The section should be reinstated immediately. -- Tataral ( talk) 05:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump brokered peace deals between Israel and the Arab nations of United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Bahrain, and Morocco. [4]
Trump was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in brokering the aforementioned peace deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. [5]
Trump also brokered an agreement that restored ties between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. [6]
These are major foreign policy achievements of the Trump administration, and they aren't mentioned in the wiki page. These foreign policy achievements should be mentioned alongside the other Middle East matters that are mentioned in the introductory section.
184.164.187.121 ( talk) 04:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
In essence , Onetwothreeip, these good things Trump has done, you will attribute to the executive government, but I’m sure you will be quick to blame the coronavirus on Trump, and the storm on the capitol, and pretty much anything bad that had happened during the Trump presidency? God help you. The double standard is unreal. Although I must admit that is an argument I haven’t heard before, to just attribute anything good Trump did to the executive government. You should suggest this to CNN I’m sure they would love to push this idea (although it’s probably better for them to just not mention all the peace deals in the first place, as has been their strategy so far). KayFein613 ( talk) 08:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: I appreciate that you dropped the argument attributing his accomplishments to the “executive government”. Now, about how most of the article is about the coronavirus pandemic, this is unfortunately completely true, it’s almost like we are pretending the 3 years before the pandemic did not happen. I am all for a separate article entitled “completely opinionated and often debated article that we will present as facts by quoting sources to websites that happen to agree with this view, about how Donald Trump handled the coronavirus pandemic”. In fact, in the article at hand, the economy should be an important talking point in articles about a president, as should peace deals (and no, it’s not as simple as “hey we’re not at war, naturally we must be at peace, let’s make a treaty”). Downplaying the deals is upsetting, and leaving them out completely is even worse. Let the reader decide whether he considers the deals important- it is certainly important enough to deserve a mention. Ignoring how the economy has doubled since in 2016 (looking at the DJIA for this stat), even with the pandemic, is also upsetting. Again, some will say he just continued what Obama started, but that is certainly not a reason to leave the fact out altogether. As of the pandemic itself, I don’t think Trump could have known how badly some governors would handle the whole restrictions and lockdowns situation, as we saw utter failures and gross negligence in many states, specifically New York. You must concur that governors were voted in by the people of only that state, and in fact should represent an even more specific view of what people in that state want in a leader. People in New York should have been happy that Governor Cuomo can make the decisions about corona, since they voted him in, but were as a whole actually against Trump, right? I do think President Trump is merely holding true to one of the Republican Party’s core beliefs, which is that States should get a lot of individual power in major decisions. On a national level, he did take action to cut off travel from China, set up a very widespread testing system (the reason behind the US having so many statistic cases- more testing, more reported cases), provide accelerated vaccine development motivation and delivered PPE to spots with major outbreaks. Essentially, everything short of a national lockdown and mask mandate, in keeping with the GOP’s position, mainly that that is up to the states. I do think he downplayed the virus, although that was only in statements, and I always judge president purely by their actions or lack of actions. Therefore, I really disliked the articles implications of basically blaming the entire coronavirus on Trump. If only there was such a scathing article blaming China for starting the virus in the first place. KayFein613 ( talk) 08:57, 10 January 2021 (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 don't want to get drawn into an edit War here. I saw that someone removed lame duck regarding Trump's presidency. I didn't simply revert it. I changed it and linked the Wikipedia page that defines what a lame duck is and I put back the word "current ". Clearly, Donald Trump is a lame duck president. He is currently the president and he is a lame duck. Jackhammer111 ( talk) 21:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, let's wait until January 20, 2021 (Noon EST), which will make the proposed "lame duck" label, moot. Dare I say it, no more quacking, after that ;) GoodDay ( talk) 17:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It's an extremely glaring omission that the term far-right isn't mentioned anywhere in the lead, not even once, not even buried in the third paragraph. We can no longer accept this. Reliable sources have overwhelmingly described Trump's policies and views as far-right, and we even describe many of his own lesser officials (like Stephen Miller) as far-right. As reliable sources have agreed on for years now, all supporters of Trump are by definition far-right (in Europe Trump has been considered completely toxic and radioactive, something they wouldn't touch with a barge pole, even in the mainstream conservative parties for years), he's far-right if there ever was a far-right politician in the US; the idea that Trumpism is not a far-right ideology is a fringe POV with no support in RS.
At the very minimum, we should change the sentence Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist
to Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, nationalist, and far-right
--
Tataral (
talk) 15:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
every single reliable source in EuropeAgain, simply untrue. I've read RSs myself that make an argument directly against this.
It's time for Wikipedia to take the mainstream perception and narrative in RS into account.We literally do. If there are any sources in the article right now you think aren't RS, feel free to start a discussion on them here.
Local US debates are less relevant, we're not here to please the far right in the US.Well I have good news for you, the far-right hates this article! — Czello 16:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
the idea that Trumpism is not a far-right ideology is a fringe POV with no support in RS.-- this is flat-out wrong; there are plenty of sources that call him something else (right wing populist, usually) and it's most certainly not a fringe view. The debates regarding his political views have taken place regularly here, the Trumpism page, and the Political positions of Donald Trump talk page (which doesn't call him far-right once, either).
As reliable sources have agreed on for years now, all supporters of Trump are by definition far-right-- this is also just simply untrue at all. There is no such consensus at all. How he's considered in Europe is also irrelevant. — Czello 16:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
"How he's considered in Europe is also irrelevant": Well, how telling, considering how many editors have pointed out US bias for years. How he is considered in Europe is more relevant than how he is considered domestically in his own country, just as our coverage of Putin is not based on Russian domestic propaganda but on the international view. This is not Wikipedia for the US. Europe is a larger region, and quite frankly European sources generally have more weight and credibility than local (often very biased) views in authoritarian states or less developed democracies, whether in the US or Russia. -- Tataral ( talk) 16:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
only that US perspectives shouldn't be the only views represented in the articleI'm afraid you've talked yourself into a corner here. Previously you stated that all RSs described Trump and his supporters as far-right, but if you want to get away from just US sources, you must therefore be conceding that there are some (US) sources that disagree with that label? I mean, there are European sources that disagree too, but that's another issue.
and the US far-rightWhat US far right sources are being used in the article currently?
it's about the global consensus in the same way that our critical coverage of Putin is about the global consensus in countries where freedom of speech existsYes, we're already doing that now. There are sources in this article that aren't American. No matter what the balance between American vs non American sources there is, it doesn't support your view that he's unanimously viewed as far-right. — Czello 17:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I've not seen any mainstream sources claiming he isn't far-right.Take a look at Trumpism and Political positions of Donald Trump, you'll see a bunch.
Even if not all sources don't use that specific term at all times, it doesn't mean that they view him as a centre-right politician.The options aren't just "centre-right" and "far-right", y'know. There is a space between them.
each and every source must have specifically declared him to be far-rightI never said that at all: I was disputing your claim that reliable sources "have agreed" on this for years (your words, not mine), which simply isn't true.
There is clearly global consensus that he is a far-right politician.There clearly is not, friend. Some call him far-right, some call him right wing populist, some call him a plutocrat. It's not a consensus. — Czello 17:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, nationalist, and far-right"). -- Tataral ( talk) 18:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
And the consensus among sources doesn't still support far-right, especially not to the point where it must be in the lead. It's obviously controversial. Currently this article describes him as "right-wing populist", and even goes out of its way to say "He supported or leaned toward varying political positions over time" and "described his positions as "eclectic, improvisational and often contradictory". These are the least controversial descriptors which are all supported by RSs -- to dismiss this in favour of shoe-horning far-right in there would be
WP:UNDUE. The term "consensus" doesn't mean that everyone, without exception, must agree
Yes, I know; but there isn't even a consensus when you keep this in mind. Again, it's clearly disputed which is why the more dedicated articles (the two I previously linked) dig into this in more detail. —
Czello 18:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The article on Putin is not written from the perspective of Russian Putinists, we are not going to write about Trump from a far-right Trumpist perspective either.We don't. The far-right hates this article.
For instance, our articles on the Putin regime almost completely disregard Russian state propaganda because it's a fringe view worldwide.Where in this article is there US "state propaganda"? — Czello 16:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
less developed, less democratic country. I mean yeah they have their problems but they are still mostly above 3rd world countries. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Tataral: you're doing your case no favours by saying this view is "overwhelming" among RS. At most, you could make the case that RS overwhelmingly describe him as indulging/appeasing/pandering/catering to the far-right. And which RS are saying all supporters of Trump are by definition far-right? I had scour through JSTOR a few months ago and my impression was that while the news media is continually hardening its stance on Trump, the academic sources are more explicit. His political style is described as authoritarian and fascistic by a number of professors. I gathered a few sources here. A distinction should be made between his rhetoric/political style and his personal views and/or policies as a whole; he's described (by journalists and academics alike) as an egotist rather than an ideologue. Also, 'far-right' and 'populist' are both problematically nebulous terms (right-wing populism ≠ far-right, despite the strong overlap). Anyway, the academic coverage is still very much in its infancy, as it grows it will become clearer if this warrants inclusion in this article. For now, I think the best place for discussion is Trumpism. Jr8825 • Talk 18:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Add me to the list of editors here who disagree that all RSes say Trump or all Trump supporters are "far right", and who think that labelling biography subjects (or their supporters) with labels like "far right" is generally not productive or helpful. That said, I think enough RSes say something about Trump's relationships with (1) "right of center", (2) "conservatives", (3) "right wing", and (4) "far right", that the lead could be improved by adding a summary of those relationships. However, that would have to be done only after a careful source analysis and expansion/revision of the body (which somewhat covers those relationships but not completely). Levivich harass/ hound 20:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Even if sources were to label him as far-right, and I agree that this is certainly not demonstrated to our standards, we can still choose whether or not we find it to be the most informative description. There are no uses of the term on the article of Adolf Hitler. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 01:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of what Tataral says, including "far-right" in the lede doesn't imply that all Trump's supporters are far-right (which would clearly be inappropriate). I think "populist and nationalist" is probably the best explanation for the lede, but would consider "far-right" if there are good sources. A quick Google search confirms that some of his supporters are far-right, but doesn't give sources saying he is. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
TBH, he out-left the left, concerning the $2,000 stimulus checks & the $740 billion military budget. GoodDay ( talk) 03:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm writing from a European perspective. From a European perspective, all Trump supporters are seen as inherently and self-evidently far-right by any quality source and the vast majority of people too (including conservatives). (Many sources in this part of the world also consider the US to have one generally centre-right party, the Democrats, and one far-right party, Trump's party). Supporting Trump is an extreme fringe position in a European context; for example, the only (few) politicians who have expressed support for him over the past five years are members of parties widely labelled as far-right extremist in their own countries (and incidentally in the English Wikipedia), typically parties like Germany's AfD that is described in our article as "on the far-right of the political spectrum" (and even there Trump is perceived as a bit too extreme by most). US-based editors always seem to believe that their own local in-universe perspective should dominate articles about their politicians, but that's not how we do it for politicians from any other countries, e.g. Jair Bolsonaro (who is described as far-right in the lead) or Putin, or indeed in our coverage of the European far right, including the AfD and other parties across the continent whose political positions are in fact more moderate than those expressed by Trump and his administration and party. Note that Trump's ambassador to Germany expressly said he was there to empower the (far-right) AfD and similar parties on behalf of Trump, and that Trump has aligned himself with the far-right in Europe throughout his presidency.
Regardless of all that, the concrete proposal above was simply to change a sentence in the third paragraph from Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist
to Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, nationalist, and far-right
, a very reasonable and modest proposal indeed. How do the "populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist" descriptions differ from far-right in their prominence and (universal?) acceptance? --
Tataral (
talk) 16:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
From a European perspective, all Trump supporters are seen as inherently and self-evidently far-right by any quality source and the vast majority of people too (including conservatives).As a European myself I'm not sure where you've gotten this from. There are certainly some sources that I've seen that imply that, but it's hardly the consensus you imply it to be.
. How do the "populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist" descriptions differ from far-right in their prominence and (universal?) acceptance?Because those first four labels are fairly uncontroversial and undisputed. Take a look at the Trumpism article for an alternative, which labels his views as
an American politics version of the right-wing to far-right, which seems more reasonable and neutral to me. — Czello 16:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Re: [7]
Contrary to SPEICFICO's assertion, "mayhem" is in fact used in sources, including NYT today. Until earlier today, it was the word they chose for use in their top headline, and the word "attack" has never been seen there to my knowledge. While "attack" has also been seen in sources, that does not make it superior to "mayhem" is terms of RS, which is what SPECIFICO claims.
Given the above, we can now indulge in what some call original research and others call editorial judgment, often varying between the two depending on their immediate needs. Of the two words, "mayhem" is the less hyperbolic; while there was some violence, the majority of what I saw was a couple of thousand people standing around waving flags and signs. Thus "mayhem" better characterizes the events than "attack". ― Mandruss ☎ 17:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Without looking at sources, "bedlam" seems an appropriate word; I see no sources that this was a credible attempt to overthrow the USA government, but it was a lapse of the Civil Order. "Mayhem" is better than "attack". power~enwiki ( π, ν) 07:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I think whatever word people will use to describe this (for arguments sake, ‘incident’), should also be used to describe the highly popular BLM ‘incidents’. If you are inclined to call the capitol incident, an ‘attack’, or a ‘riot’, then to describe the many instances, (in the name of BLM), of openly mass looting stores, attacking people, destroying stores, and vandalism, describing all those incidents, as ‘protests’, would be to set a record in double standards. And the other way too- if you are inclined to call the capitol incident a ‘protest’, I wouldn’t want to see you referring to the BLM incidents as riots or attacks (although this side of the argument is admittably less common). Personally I would be inclined to call them both ‘riots’, but I would probably be called racist by one side, and similarly insulted by the other (again, admittably much less common). I also do not see the argument that this is a real attack because it was on a federal building, to be valid at all. This was no coup, this was no rebellion, this was a classic riot where people got swept up with excitement. Not a ‘takeover of the government’ or a ‘threat to our democracy’. Again, if you disagree with me on my last point, I would tend to refer you to my original arguments. The hypocrisy is blatant, and the difference between a simple ‘protest’ and an ‘attack’ is not merely because it happened on a federal building instead of a Walmart, a supermarket, or a police car (although for that matter there have been many instance of BLM inspired vandalism on federal buildings, and of course police property is usually state/county/city [government] property.) KayFein613 ( talk) 08:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It wasn't just House Democrats that called for the impeachment. This should be fixed -- 50.69.20.91 ( talk) 00:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The lead paragraphs need to change. They are stuffed with information, but each of them lacks a clear theme. This makes the lead very hard to read and comprehend.
To that end, I suggest that we add a paragraph devoted to a clear and limited set of topics: allegations of corruption, lying (/conspiracy theorizing), and racism against Trump. This paragraph can cohesively cover much of the information that appears in the lead in a more scattershot fashion: impeachment(s), Trump's conspiracy theory about the election, Birtherism (how Trump got into Republican politics), allegations of racism, and the point about Trump's unprecedented number of false and misleading statements. This new paragraph could also be a logical and cohesive place in which to mention the 2021 storming of the Capitol, since that riot was inspired by one of Trump's falsehoods: namely, the claim that the election was stolen.
I also suggest we remove the Mueller stuff from the lede. It turned out to be quite inconsequential (no evidence of collusion). At most it deserves a brief mention in my proposed paragraph about allegations of corruption (with more emphasis given to the two impeachments, the storming of the Capitol, etc). LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 ( talk) 08:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip - I understand your intentions in trimming this article. However, I am concerned that you are not being careful enough in your efforts, because when you remove certain references, we are ending up with unreferenced content which fails WP:V.
called for the election result to be overturned and called on his supporters to "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol to "show strength" and "fight like hell" ... Trump released a video telling the rioters to "go home in peace", but described them as being "great patriots" and "very special".
The report said Trump had withheld military aid and a White House invitation to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations into Trump's political rivals.
the Trump administration sanctioned 25 Iranian individuals and entities
The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General inspections of migrant detention centers in 2018 and 2019 found that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) "in many instances" violated federal guidelines for detaining migrant children
sharply increased the number of family separations at the border starting from the summer of 2017
With so many recent instances of mistakes, I hope that Onetwothreeip can improve on this. starship .paint ( exalt) 08:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
article size will not be reduced significantly by "trimming"; a different organization/article approach is needed- There ya go. See, I'm not the only crazy person around here. I've been using the words "sea change" of late. ― Mandruss ☎ 17:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I am uncertain of a proper process by which an article undergoes dramatic revision. If it were me, naive me, I would first have a discussion, then perhaps an RfC, of a revised outline for the article, and an agreement on it. Then create "offline" subpages, one subpage for each new section, (or a new article subpage?) allowing material from this article to be copied to it, revised, developed as appropriate. Once the subpages have been developed to an appropriate form, the article could be replaced with the new one. If it were just me, that is how I would do it, but given that Wikipedia editors behave like a herd of cats, that might just be a car wreak of an article development. To start, the material on his presidency should be dramatically reduced, replaced by general summaries, and the Presidency section should be broken apart into separate main sections (the present table of contents is mostly unusable). In this biography of Trump page, the Media section needs major development. Trump's wall should be a subsection; he invested huge political capital in it; a monumental waste/fraud. Since the pandemic and election disinformation are defining aspects of Trump those should be major themes in the new article (we discussed once a breakaway article on Trump and pandemic; I am a little more in favor of such an article. Trump and election disinformation similarly? - uncertain of the present set of Trump articles.) Developing general summaries of aspects of the Trump presidency could be difficult - as I've mentioned before, one has to distill a large amount of information to a brief clear statement, which ends up, inevitably, looking very bad for Trump. Looking ahead...a legacy section is likely, eventually, warranted; what will the Republican Party and Trump will look like in coming years? One would think Wikipedia would have some guidelines for major article revision; part of the problem being that for a time, perhaps a long time, the article could look like a major construction zone, with the possibility the new article will look worse. Bdushaw ( talk) 01:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Mr. Mandruss has reverted my well-sourced addition of "attempted coup" with a stern, gratuitous, and equivocal reprimand that I myself had opposed such context in the past.
Needless to say, the difference is that with the redoubling of POTUS' efforts and the passage of time, this has now achieved DUE WEIGHT in mainstream coverage -- as evidenced by the provided Washington Post source. Needless to remind Mr. Mandruss that Consensus can change.
Soliciting agree or disagree from other editors concerning the sentence I added? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we need a formal RFC. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I’m uncomfortable with the term at this point, even though his efforts appear to comprise attempts to override an election by unconstitutional means – which is to say, seize power. Now, we’ll see if he attempts to foment violence among his supporters today. O3000 ( talk) 17:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
|
I was just reading today's news and came here to post a "Coup revisited" inquiry. We do need to wait a day or two for some settlement of events, but when mobs break into the Capital to stop Electoral College vote proceedings, after incessant Trump instigations...I believe "coup" is the word. We'll need a number of reliable sources to use the word, but I believe they will appear in coming days, if not already available. (One can almost also talk of a "coup" in Georgia, with all the rhetoric of "fixing" the vote count.) I wrote against the word before, but the situation has done its predictable but shocking evolution. Bdushaw ( talk) 20:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
(Speaking humorously HERE is what a proper coup d'etat looks like.) I've noted that Trump has not offered any condemnations yet...he's pretty good at skirting the boundaries of calling a spade a spade. Bdushaw ( talk) 21:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Numerous RS ( CNN, BBC, Guardian etc.) explicity use "coup attempt" and also explicitly say that it is on Trump's encouragement. It definitely belongs in the first paragraph; Trump is one of 46 presidents, but the only one who encouraged a coup. Jeppiz ( talk) 22:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I have now read the WaPo piece provided by SPECIFICO, and I find it less compelling. A number of historians, academics, and others are cited as saying Trump's actions are not a coup attempt or not "technically" a coup attempt. That makes the word problematic at best for Wikipedia's purposes. But, on the basis of what I see there, I will support one sentence in the body, something like "Some academics, media pundits, and news outlets described his actions as an attempted coup d'etat, and others disputed the use of that term." I oppose anything like SPECIFICO's language, and anything in the lead. I strongly oppose anything in the first paragraph, and I think we have wide agreement that that kind of content does not belong in the first paragraph regardless of any RS support. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Quite frankly, any attempt to remove the description as a coup from the article should be reverted on sight at this point. We have long had a significant problem with how the portrayal of Trump in this article whitewashes the far right, an ongoing problem. The lead, and particularly its first paragraph, is ridiculously biased in portraying Trump as a normal democratic politician rather than the far-right authoritarian figure he's universally perceived as by reliable sources. We don't portray far-right authoritarian leaders involved in coup attempts (whether by military or "legal" means) from any other countries in such a manner. -- Tataral ( talk) 23:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Disparagement, snark |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
For the word "coup", the case could certainly be made - he had motive, means, and opportunity; he even set up the means and set up the opportunity. You will never convince me that Trump did not hope that something like this today would occur, perhaps successful for him. Trump acts in "yes, but no, maybe it is (really yes)" kinds of ways - recall the "do me a favor though". All that being said, I suspect the RSs will likely avoid the word, per Mandruss. It seems a lot like the word "lie" - too incendiary to be flung about. We will see what the reporting in the coming weeks says about the situation, or whether Trump incurs more than usual condemnation. The word "insurrection" is used more concretely, which may perhaps be a compromise to "coup". I was reading this article on how the world was viewing the events of the day. All and all pretty horrible; a dark day indeed in US history. No one should ignore the fact that Trump was its root cause. Bdushaw ( talk) 00:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
At no time did the military try to overthrow the US government. There was no attempted coup. Now calm down folk. The US House & US Senate have re-convene their duties under the 12th amendment. GoodDay ( talk) 02:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Point of order
WTF is going on here? Have you all forgotten what we do here? In a sense, the "truth" is not important here. It is what "verifiable sources say" that matters. It makes no difference whether Trump has attempted a coup/self-coup/bloodless coup. What matters to us is that many RS have described these events as an attempted coup/self-coup/bloodless coup. That's what we document:
That is a very properly-worded documentation of the opinions in many RS (not a statement that it IS a coup), so it is proper to include it. -- Valjean ( talk) 03:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't say it was widely described as a coup citing to this WaPo source, because the WaPo source doesn't support it. If anything, political scientists and historians agree it wasn't a coup attempt, because the military wasn't involved. This was widely described as a riot by a mob of Trump supporters. Levivich harass/ hound 18:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Historians described Trump’s actions as dangerous, irresponsible, harmful and unprecedented, but most said his behavior does not yet meet the formal academic definition of an attempted coup, which typically describes a military-backed effort to seize power from a legitimate government. Senior Pentagon officials have made clear that the military has no role in the fallout over Trump's election defeat ... Some said he is tiptoeing toward an "autogolpe," a Spanish term popularized in Latin America to describe a "self-coup" attempted by leaders who came to power legally and acted outside the law to try to maintain it. "In technical terms, it’s probably not a coup. But it is an illegal and authoritarian attempt to stay in power," said political scientist Steven Levitsky ... "If this were a coup attempt, it’s perhaps the most bungled way to go about that I could imagine," [research coordinator at the Institute for Politics and Strategy] Chin said ... "The reason I don’t want to call it a coup is that it shifts the attention to the military," said Singh, the author of "Seizing Power: The Strategic Logic of Military Coups." ... "This is more of a textbook case of democratic backsliding, which is less sexy of a term," said Erica De Bruin, an assistant professor at Hamilton College and author of "How to Prevent Coups d'État."
Read the definition of a "Coup d'etat" on wikipedia or Google. It has nothing to do with the people. It's either the military or a dictator KJ4488 ( talk) 00:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
For some reason, when Trump is described as the " 45th and current president of the United States", the "45th" is linked. This is inconsistent with other presidents' articles, and linking "45th" in the lead looks weird. The link also looks like it is linked to the Wikipedia page about the number 45. Linking the number of his presidency is inconsistent with other articles, and the link also looks unnatural. Please note that this would change Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus, item 17. -- Politicsfan4 ( talk) 01:18, 8 January 2021 (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 change would alter Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus, item 17.
Currently, Trump is described as the " 45th and current president of the United States" in the lead sentence. The removal of the linkage of "45th" is being proposed.
{{reply to|Eyer}}
to your message. 01:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)The section about the Capitol breach currently reads:
On January 6, 2021, while congressional certification of the presidential election results was occurring in the Capitol, Trump held a rally nearby where he called for the election result to be overturned and called on his supporters to "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol to "show strength" and "fight like hell."
This should clarify that Trump specified, during the speech, that the protests at the Capitol be done "peacefully and patriotically" per the statement found in the transcript cited:
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today.
So I propose an edit to reflect this, rather important, specification as follows:
On January 6, 2021, as congressional certification of the presidential election results commenced in the Capitol, Trump held a rally nearby where he endorsed an overturn of the election result and called on his supporters to "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol to "show strength" and "fight like hell" with "peacefully and patriotically" conducted protests.
William S. Saturn ( talk) 08:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
On January 6, 2021, as congressional certification of the presidential election results commenced in the Capitol, Trump held a rally nearby where he endorsed an overturn of the election result and a march to the Capitol for a peaceful protest.
William S. Saturn ( talk) 08:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
On January 6, 2021, as congressional certification of the presidential election results commenced in the Capitol, Trump held a rally nearby where he endorsed an overturn of the election result and a march to the Capitol.Onetwothreeip ( talk) 09:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this suggestion. The RS are clear that what mattered (and what was historically notable) was the language the article already highlights, "show strength" and "fight like hell." The RS are unanimous that "peacefully and patriotically" was contradictory to the main gist of Trump's speech and the message which supporters took from it – the sources say it was, essentially, insignificant. I don't have an issue with the current wording, but if the concern is about making it clearer the subject of the sentence is how the rally related to the Capitol riot – rather than the speech itself – it could be re-arranged to follow the description of the storming, so that it reads:
On January 6, 2021, thousands of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol while congressional certification of the presidential election results took place, disrupting certification and causing the evacuation of Congress. The crowd had been whipped up at a rally Trump held nearby, where he called for the election result to be overturned and called on his supporters to "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol to "show strength" and "fight like hell."
To reiterate though, I think the existing text is fine. Jr8825 • Talk 09:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Neutrality, how can you possibly claim that two nations issuing arrest warrants on trump is not serious or significant? [26] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 22:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
That's an idea... wait until Biden is inaugurated and then surrender Trump to the Iranian authorities. I GUARANTEE he would be out of our hair forever after that. -- Khajidha ( talk) 19:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
These statements are repeated multiple times in this article: "Trump urged his supporters to march on the Capitol" Where is the reference to this statement? Should we actually quote what Trump actually said? If Wikipedia wants to retain credibility, they need to provide actual quotes of what someone said instead of someone interpreting what was said.
I recommend changing these statements to: "We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.". He did not ask his supporters to march On the Capitol or storm the Capitol or break into the Capitol. If another politician said "we are going to walk down to the White House to protest." Are they saying to breach the fences and storm into the actual White House? If so you have a lot of other Wikipedia articles to fix and reinterpret.
Reference of actual quote made by Donald Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/trump-speech-riot.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8202:b2d0:4559:8c7d:75dc:c04 ( talk) 08:51, January 11, 2021 (UTC)
(At 16:25) Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer, and we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. We’re going to have to fight much harder and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. If he doesn’t, that will be a sad day for our country because you’re sworn to uphold our constitution. Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
(At 01:11:44) Our brightest days are before us, our greatest achievements still wait. I think one of our great achievements will be election security because nobody until I came along, had any idea how corrupt our elections were. And again, most people would stand there at 9:00 in the evening and say, “I want to thank you very much,” and they go off to some other life, but I said, “Something’s wrong here. Something’s really wrong. Can’t have happened.” And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans for our movement, for our children and for our beloved country and I say this, despite all that’s happened, the best is yet to come. So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give. The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here, this is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you.
The responses here are riddled with more references to opinions. They can be included but they should best sighted as opinions and not what the president said.
I removed this, with a long edit summary, but it was restored with insufficient explanation:
Firstly, this is an intelligence estimate, not a proven fact. If true, it is misleading to say this happened during Trump's term. It has happened in the term of every President since Clinton (or earlier). The terminology is also imprecise. Nuclear weapons usually means nuclear missiles. Ballistic missiles includes bullets and hand grenades. This sentence was added with the edit summary suggesting that it was "ultimate bottom-line outcome" and restored with the suggestion that it was "vital context". We have had this discussion before. It is too soon to declare an "ultimate" outcome. As for "vital context", let us remember that this is an overlong article about Donald Trump. It is not about North Korea's military capabilities. I would have thought that President Moon's activities were "vital context". But Moon isn't mentioned at at all. In the interest of brevity, I think that the fact that talks in Sweden broke down after one day is a sufficient conclusion. Adding speculation is unnecessary. Really, this is just another Democratic Party talking point. If editors insist on such a sentence, I would suggest something like this:
I think leaving out the cessation of these tests is clearly leaving out vital context.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 14:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I would argue the only reasonable summary of Trump's dance with North Korea is that Trump tried cosying up to Kim, then tried insulting him, then tried cosying up again, and the only result is that he succeeded in elevating Kim's status on the world stage by making him appear "equal" to the President of the United States while he continued to build up his nuclear arsenal. Any language that can be crafted that doesn't describe Trump's efforts as anything other than a spectacular foreign policy failure is likely to be a non starter. -- Scjessey ( talk) 18:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what relevance this really has to do with Donny. We need to strip this down to be about him as a person. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
This is turning out to be the most notable event of his presidency, and hence should be linked to in the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.226.125 ( talk) 01:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
He is the only US president that this happened to, does this mean it should appear higher in the introduction?
John Cummings ( talk) 21:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The opening blurb, and search bubble, needs to mention that he is twice impeached. Thisreallyisaj ( talk) 06:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I partially reverted an edit by UpdateNerd which changed a sentence in the lead from "Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat" to "Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but initially refused to concede defeat".
The RS are split. For example, the FT says "Donald Trump concedes election", whereas The Guardian says "while stopping short of outright admitting defeat, Trump’s statement is the closest he has come to a concession speech."
There's no urgent need to adjust the existing sentence as it's written in past tense. I'm personally against change but thought I'd bring this up here as I imagine this sentence may become contentious. Jr8825 • Talk 12:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, and the facts bear me out...It seems that the new stance is that I did lose but illegitimately. starship .paint ( exalt) 12:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I feel regardless,it still is fair to concede and anyone that doesn't isn't that fit to be a President. We don't want sore losers. Yeial ( talk) 15:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
There was a recent change to the lead section by Onetwothreeip (which I reverted) that added "...did not concede defeat until two months afterwards" and that eliminated the part about not cooperating with the transition. But point (1) is inaccurate. Trump conceded that his administration would end and that "a new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th" but he has still refused to concede that he was defeated (i.e., he lost a free and fair election). As for point (2), Trump pledged an "orderly transition" very recently, but the historical fact remains that he refused to cooperate in the transition for a significant time (and who knows what will happen in the next 12 days).
However, I do agree that some changes to the last paragraph of the lead would be a good idea. I propose changing the current version:
Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat. He made unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud, pressured government officials, mounted a series of sixty unsuccessful legal challenges to try to overturn the results, and ordered his administration not to cooperate in the presidential transition. During the congressional certification of the results on January 6, 2021, Trump urged supporters to march on the Capitol, which they then stormed, forcing Congress to evacuate.
to something like:
Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat. Trump attempted to overturn the results by making false claims of electoral fraud, pressuring government officials, mounting dozens of unsuccessful legal challenges, and stymieing the presidential transition. During Congress's counting of the electoral votes on January 6, 2021, Trump urged supporters to march on the Capitol, which they then stormed, forcing Congress to evacuate.
This is a tad shorter, while being more clear and accurate. It also avoids giving a specific number of failed election lawsuits brought by Trump and his allies. (The current text says "60" but USA Today says it's actually 62 -- I would just go with "dozens" or "scores." -- Neutrality talk 02:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The storming of the Capitol resulted in five fatalities and at least 60 injuries. One of the fatalities was a police officer.
Last line of the social media section:
"Tweets Trump then sent from the government's official POTUS account were removed quickly, and when he posted them on his campaign and Dan Scavino's accounts, those accounts were suspended too."
It's awkwardly worded and pretty specific for this article. Could it be replaced with something like:
"Since then, Trump has been banned on numerous other social media platforms, including Snapchat, Twitch, and Shopify."
Source: https://www.axios.com/platforms-social-media-ban-restrict-trump-d9e44f3c-8366-4ba9-a8a1-7f3114f920f1.html ChipotleHater ( talk) 03:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)