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 130 | Archive 131 | Archive 132 | Archive 133 | Archive 134 | Archive 135 | → | Archive 140 |
The first paragraph of the lead normally serves to briefly summarise the key aspects of the article. The current first paragraph doesn't do a very good job at that. It says nothing about how his presidency is not viewed as a "normal" presidency; he wasn't just a boring businessman who was elected to some office, did nothing spectacular, and then left, like a lot of elected officials. You have to read endless details about his beauty pageants and golf courses and so on and so forth until you get to the truly important material in the last paragraph of the lead, his violent insurrection against US democracy, his two impeachments, the things that really made history, the unprecedented scandalous nature of his presidency.
Therefore, I propose that we add a short sentence at the end of the first paragraph that briefly summarises the extraordinary aspects of his presidency, including his two impeachments. I tentatively propose:
Throughout his presidency he has been widely accused of abuse of power and corruption, and he has been impeached twice.
-- Tataral ( talk) 22:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
the first American president of the United States to have no prior military or government career, and was at the time the oldest first-term U.S. presidentwas added to the first paragraph of the lead that we are discussing here. This is not what I would prioritize in that paragraph, and the material about his age is almost trivial here. I would rather see a sentence that said something of substance about his presidency, as proposed above rather than pointing out his age or his background (which is discussed in detail in the very next paragraph). -- Tataral ( talk) 17:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I propose the language proposed above by @ Neutrality: be combined with the language under discussion above and be placed in the first or second paragraph of the lead. To wit, let's combine this
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.
with this,
Throughout his presidency he has been widely accused of abuse of power and corruption, and he has been impeached twice.
SPECIFICO talk 18:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
? Bdushaw ( talk) 20:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Throughout his presidency he was regularly accused of abuse of power and corruption, and he was twice impeached.
"Five deaths resulted", in the intro, isn't (as far as I know, as a native English speaker) correct, but I don't have the permissions to change it! -- BobEret ( talk) 03:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Mention of the deaths was removed by @ Onetwothreeip: in this edit, however I have restored it as there was no consensus to remove it. Vrrajkum ( talk) 20:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't feel that the Iraq War is a valid analogy because war obviously implies that people will die. Deaths during an ostensibly "peaceful" protest, on the other hand, are more noteworthy. For the time being I have changed the exact number of "five" to read "several" instead, in line with the imprecise language "dozens of unsuccessful legal challenges" above it. Vrrajkum ( talk) 15:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Does this really need to exist? The content could be folded into other relevant sections, resulting in a significant size reduction. Most of it is in fact about the Presidency, and it is misleading to mix in stuff that isn't related to the Presidency. And some content definitely should be elsewhere, such as the Access Hollywood tape, which was an event in the 2016 campaign. MOS:BLPCHRONO says biographies should be presented in chronological order, so this is a major violation. A lot of the material here seems designed to prove a point and takes a sledgehammer approach. There is a lot of detail here which is really unnecessary and repeats information better presented elsewhere.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
except where there is good reason to do otherwise.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Iamreallygoodatcheckers: This edit of yours is not reliably sourced. One source is an uncommented transcript of the Trump press conference (good luck to anyone trying to parse that), the other one is an opinion by a right-wing opinion writer who thinks his pick of Trump quotes proves something different. The sentence about "very fine people on both sides" isn’t WP speaking, it’s citing RS. I could add more RS but that would be overciting. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Trump has said his “very fine people” comment referred not to white supremacists and neo-Nazis but to “people that went because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee — a great general, whether you like it or not.” Some have argued that explanation doesn’t hold up, because Trump referred in that statement to a protest “the night before” when — it was widely reported — white nationalists burned tiki torches and chanted anti-Semitic and white nationalist slogans. We’ll leave it to readers to make up their minds on Trump’s remarks, but Biden’s comment that Trump has “yet once to condemn white supremacy” is not accurate.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of what he was referring to in his "very fine" comment, he still did condemn neo-Nazis and white nationalists. That is part of his racial views. That very quote has been reported by FactCheck above as mentioned by Iamreallygoodatcheckers, WaPo above as mentioned by Space4Time3Continuum2x, AP, CNN, USA Today, SBS. BBC. Snopes, Time, ABC News and NPR. starship .paint ( exalt) 12:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
It’s easy to isolate comments meant to insulate oneself — including last week ... but it’s also very possible to do so while sending plenty of other signals that point in a very different direction.I agree with this sentiment, so we should be reporting both parts of his speech - the part where he sent unsavory signals, and the part where he condemned neo-Nazis. starship .paint ( exalt) 13:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
It’s easy to isolate comments meant to insulate oneself — including last week ... but it’s also very possible to do so while sending plenty of other signals that point in a very different direction. And Trump’s history on this is anything but a matter of selective editing.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
replace the main image with this Official Portrait Trump End of term.jpg 2601:154:4080:1660:645B:DCBA:3D2C:D107 ( talk) 20:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. That image is very fuzzy and low-quality for some reason, and needs to be cropped before it can be used. Other people may have other objections. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I removed a citation and note in the lead here for being unnecessary, but was reverted. The removal should be restored. Further information should be contained in the body of the article, not the lead. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 21:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
William Henry Harrison and Reagan have their headlines and articles mention they were the oldest president at the time. Trump was older than either. Just because it was broken one term later by Biden does not change the fact that at the time, Trump was the oldest president ever elected. I feel that it is important to bring it up in the article, to acknowledge a historical fact, even if it was out dated. I mean, let's not forget that we were only roughly 120K votes from four states away from having a second term with him, and therefore him remaining the oldest president ever (probably for several decades). So let's not pretend like him losing the record was a foreseen conclusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.187.160 ( talk) 22:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why Trump’s “health” subsection is located under his Presidency in the article? Should it not be under his “Personal life”? — Politicsfan4 ( talk) 14:21, 4 February 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.
"Despite a campaign promise to eliminate the national debt in eight years, Trump as president approved large increases in government spending, as well as the 2017 tax cut. As a result, the federal budget deficit increased by almost 50%, to nearly $1 trillion in 2019.[284] Under Trump, the U.S. national debt increased by 39%, reaching $27.75 trillion by the end of his term; the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio also hit a post-World War II high.[285]
Although the U.S. unemployment rate hit a 50-year low (3.5%) in February 2020, the unemployment rate hit a 90-year high (14.7%), matching Great Depression levels, just two months later, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[286] Trump left office with 3 million fewer jobs in the U.S. than when he took office, making Trump the only modern U.S. president to leave office with a smaller workforce.[269]"
This is outright plagiarism from Donald Trump's main wikipedia page. Look it up. My edit about the fact that by the fact that when Trump left office, the stock market was at a record high, and the unemployment rate went from the highest level since the Great Depression to 6.3%, which is just slightly higher than historical average, was deleted, as usual, partisan administrators took it down despite the fact that everything I wrote was properly sourced. They replaced it with plagiarism. NOT FAIR!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCITKOL ( talk • contribs) 05:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Trump has been banned from rejoining the SAG-AFTRA due to "threatening or inciting harm" against other members ( source). Is this notable enough to be mentioned in the article? -- Politicsfan4 ( talk) 00:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I just learned that the information that Trump does not drink or smoke was removed from the article's "Health" section at some point. I think that is important health information - also his sleep habits - and I propose to restore it, as follows:
Trump abstains from alcohol. [1] He says he has never smoked tobacco or used drugs. [2] He has said, and his doctor confirms, that he sleeps about four or five hours a night. [3] [4]
Sources
- ^ Nagourney, Adam (October 30, 2020). "In Trump and Biden, a Choice of Teetotalers for President". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
- ^ Parker, Ashley; Rucker, Philip (October 2, 2018). "Kavanaugh likes beer — but Trump is a teetotaler: 'He doesn't like drinkers.'". The Washington Post. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
- ^ Le, Vanna (February 13, 2019). "SUCCESS Donald Trump's workday starts at 11 a.m. — here's how his morning routine stacks up against 7 other millionaires". CNBC. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
- ^ Dangerfield, Katie (January 17, 2018). "Donald Trump sleeps 4-5 hours each night; he's not the only famous 'short sleeper'". Global News. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
Is this OK with people? -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Trump is a teetotaler. [1] [2] He sleeps about four or five hours a night. [3] [4]
Sources
- ^ Nagourney, Adam (October 30, 2020). "In Trump and Biden, a Choice of Teetotalers for President". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
- ^ Parker, Ashley; Rucker, Philip (October 2, 2018). "Kavanaugh likes beer — but Trump is a teetotaler: 'He doesn't like drinkers.'". The Washington Post. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
- ^ Dangerfield, Katie (January 17, 2018). "Donald Trump sleeps 4-5 hours each night; he's not the only famous 'short sleeper'". Global News. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
- ^ Douglas Almond & Xinming Du (December 2020). "Later bedtimes predict President Trump's performance". Economic Letters. 197. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2020.109590.
the president is a proud teetotaler who says he has never had a drink, smoked cigarettes or consumed drugs.Trump says he never drank alcohol, smoked tobacco, or used drugs. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@ MelanieN: - You should note the reason that Trump reportedly abstains from alcohol - "because he witnessed his brother Fred struggle with alcoholism and later die from it" - as explained here. -- Politicsfan4 ( talk) 20:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Support. This is all relevant information about Trump the man himself, which is this article. starship .paint ( exalt) 03:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
This has been a helpful discussion; thanks, all, for the input. I think we are reasonably close to agreement (recognizing that consensus does not have to be unanimous). I intend to add the following to the article, right in front of the sentence about exercise:
Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. [1] [2] He sleeps about four or five hours a night. [3] [4]
Sources
- ^ Nagourney, Adam (October 30, 2020). "In Trump and Biden, a Choice of Teetotalers for President". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
- ^ Parker, Ashley; Rucker, Philip (October 2, 2018). "Kavanaugh likes beer — but Trump is a teetotaler: 'He doesn't like drinkers.'". The Washington Post. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
- ^ Dangerfield, Katie (January 17, 2018). "Donald Trump sleeps 4-5 hours each night; he's not the only famous 'short sleeper'". Global News. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
- ^ Douglas Almond & Xinming Du (December 2020). "Later bedtimes predict President Trump's performance". Economic Letters. 197. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2020.109590.
Any final comments before I do? -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, done. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Psypherium: According to your edit summary, you added "url-access=limited" to about 200 New York Times links. When adding one of them (that I know about), you inserted it between "htm" and "l" of the link, resulting in a dead link which was tagged here. I've since fixed the link. Why did you add the value, and why the NYT? Including your two following edits, you added more than 3,300 bytes to the article that do not serve any useful purpose. Please remove them. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
|url-access=limited
is not the correct setting for NYT articles? Per the tooltip and
template doc, "limited" means "free access subject to limited trial, subscription normally required", which seems to accurately describe NYT. I believe WSJ would be |url-access=subscription
, since WSJ doesn't offer a free trial, and yes, it would be an improvement if someone were to add that parameter to WSJ cites (and all other cites as applicable).
Levivich
harass/
hound 20:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)|url-access=
,
Template:Citation is that-a-way... I don't know how long we've had that parameter, but longer than I've been here. You're basically objecting to someone correctly filling out a citation template.
Levivich
harass/
hound 20:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
It needs to be in the article that as all past presidents he will have security on him for the rest of his life..the cost and the details of protecting him are relevant 00:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC) 107.217.84.95 ( talk)
One novel fact, perhaps worth mentioning, is that, on leaving office, Trump secured secret service protection for his entire family. That is unusual. WA Post. Bdushaw ( talk) 14:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
So whenever i search www.mistake.com it leads me to this wiki page. Can ya fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.133.195 ( talk) 08:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Just to note, I have semi-protected this page for 24 hours due to an upsurge in vandalism and BLP violations. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
suggestions for minor additions/changes.
I suggest adding near the top of the page "DISCRETION This person is a controversial political figure; Information on this page may be partially incorrect or opinionated."
Since this is a controversial figure, i suggest that if you quote him, to put the full quote, instead of small snippets, to prevent opinionated skewing of his words from occurring.
Certain topics on this page are inherently opinionated, such as the part about his response to COVID 19, there are many reasons to believe it was a good one, and many to believe it was a bad one, and its nearly impossible to objectively speak about it since all sources of information regarding it are opinionated as well. There needs to be a solution to this issue, I have thought of a few possible ones, feel free to suggest more, adding it to the list along with numbering for voting purposes ( DoubleAiden ( talk) 06:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)); 1. We could address the opinionated nature of the topic(s) in the page, providing both sides' beliefs about the topic in question. 2. We can put a sub header warning about the opinionated nature of the topic above it.
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect MAGA Patriot Party. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 13#MAGA Patriot Party until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/trump-legal-problems-post-impeachment/index.html
Could a moderator please add this info and link to the Criminal Investigation section. It is locked.
Thanks film1234 ( talk) 11:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I removed one and added two wikilinks, each of which I think is justified under the relevant guideline in this edit. Although it doesn't change the wording, I'm just leaving a message here should anyone wish to dispute it. It'll undoubtedly be re-worded in future but for now I think those links are the most useful ones to include to readers who will want to browse around the vast array of Trump-related articles. Thanks, SITH (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You should remove that he reacted slowly to the corona pandmic as that is a matter of perspective and leave it at what he did do to prevent it. This should not look like a personal attack column. You should also clarify that while telling people to march on the Capitol he said to do so "peacefully and patriotically." The current wording makes it sound as though you are accusing him of instigating violence even though he was recently acquitted during his second impeachment. I understand it can be hard to stay impartial when discussing a character such as Donald Trump but please do your best to remain impartial and stand for knowledge and truth. Thanks for all your hard work. 24.255.19.11 ( talk) 09:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
This page may be
too long to read and navigate comfortably. |
There has been some back and forth on the article about whether this tag should be on the article. It seems clear to me that this article suffers from length issues and this should be brought to mind when editors seek to make changes to the article. Are there any objections? Onetwothreeip ( talk) 02:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Are there any objections?– Beg pardon? You know very well there are objections. You have been a participant as this tag has been rejected again and again at this article, as I said in my edit summary, [6] and you don't get another bite at the apple every time a passerby drops in unaware of that fact. [7] I am not going to debate the merits yet again, and I'm asking you to drop this, preferably by self-closing this discussion as "withdrawn". ― Mandruss ☎ 10:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Mandruss: Should we add this to the Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus? Something like:
50. Do not include the {{
Politicsfan4 ( talk) 03:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
You are assuming that the tag would have some effect other than to add ugly clutter to the top of the article. That is a faulty assumption in my opinion. But feel free to cite a case where long-standing resistance to article size reduction was overcome by addition of a tag.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
How do we keep maintaining the list now that Mandruss has left the building? Is there a standard for cancelling or changing consensus items, i.e., length of time the discussion was ongoing, number of editors involved, updating consensus before editing the article? We currently have two items, #17 and #40, under discussion (or maybe not, hard to tell).
"C>A>F" counts for A, because C is not getting enough support to be a finalist. "A,D,F,G in that order" counts for A, first choice. "Oppose A, C, F, G" counts for neither A nor F (nor C nor G, but those aren't getting much support anyway), it's a "neither" voteand start over.
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: I didn’t declare consensus #17 obsolete (it was already declared obsolete before I touched it). All I did was convert it to the “hidden” format, which is the standard for obsolete items. As you can see in the edit that I linked, the consensus already stated “Note that this item is obsolete given that Trump is no longer the current president”. Also, take a look at the discussion that I closed: there is clear consensus to delink the “45th”, although it really doesn’t matter anymore since item 17 is obsolete. — Politicsfan4 ( talk) 19:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It should say "acquitted by the narrowest vote by which a President has ever been acquitted in a Senate impeachment trial on February 13, 2021." 2389792hb ( talk) 01:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "This situation has occurred five times since 1824." to "this situation has occurred four times in the modern two-party system, each time favoring the Republican." Important context, which Jackson's election isn't -- there wasn't a decisive electoral college vote in 1824, nor was there a national popular vote, the existence of both of which is implied by endnote [a] as-is. Gershonmk ( talk) 00:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. Thank you very much for your input!
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there 04:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There's a typo -- "support in an Senate" should be "support in any Senate." Gershonmk ( talk) 15:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Done Changed to "support in a Senate impeachment trial of a president." Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix, but I still think it should be "support in any Senate impeachment trial of a president." or "support ever in a Senate impeachment trial of a president" because this is pretty unclear re: what comparison is being made. Gershonmk ( talk) 16:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
seven Republicans joined every Democrat in voting to convict, the most bipartisan support in a Senate impeachment trial of a presidenthas the same meaning as
the most bipartisan support in any Senate impeachment trial everor
the most bipartisan support ever in a Senate impeachment trial. Leaving it up to other editors to decide. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The correction from "an" to "a" is good. No need for any other tweaks, I think it is clear enough. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
How unencylopedic is that phrase. I was confused if I was on Wikpedia or some tabloid magizine! Just change it to Stormy Daniels scandal, thats not as inflammatory. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 05:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
How can it be "hush money", if the public is aware of it? It's like a tabloid heading "The secret he took to his grave..". How's it a secret, if everybody knows about it? GoodDay ( talk) 20:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Another point of view is that some readers may not know exactly what "hush money" means - could be taken as jargon. An explicit statement such as "paid money to the pornography star so that she would not talk publicly about their affair" may be worthwhile. Bdushaw ( talk) 09:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Comment I've looked over the subsection, and I see that (having now done my homework...) the complaint had to do with the title of the subsection. I agree with the above that "hush money" is used by the sources, hence it is appropriate for the subsection title. I mainly note that the subsection is confusing. As written now, it is mainly about possible campaign donation violations. The subsection should first cover the affairs and attempted cover ups (noting the WA Post definitively has Trump as lying), and then discuss how the payments were possible campaign spending violations. Two paragraphs. The subsection title would then be better off as something like "Hush money payments and alleged illegal campaign donations". Those above that attempt to argue that the issue is nothing and normal are...well, wrong. It is notable that (1) Trump had these affairs, (2) He tried to pay off his mistresses to keep them quiet, and (3) those payments may have been an illegal form of campaign contributions. The subsection should be clear about these points, not conflate them all. As I've said before...Trump requires a lot of explaining. Bdushaw ( talk) 22:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
COHEN negotiated a $130,000 agreement with Attorney-1 to himself purchase Woman-2’s silence, and received a signed confidential settlement agreement". [11] [12] So, a legal RS says he "purchased her silence". He gave her "money for silence"; he literally hushed her with money. Lexico.com says "hush money" is informal, [13] as does Cambridge dictionary, [14] and American Heritage Dictionary. [15] Common language is encyclopedic, correct? It's not slang. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 07:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
"After he told them to march to the Capitol, they then stormed it" should be "After he told them to march to the Capitol, they stormed it, resulting in the deaths of five people and forcing Congress to evacuate." After/then is redundant. Gershonmk ( talk) 23:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that "after...then" is awkward. I have reworded the sentence. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, this subsection is under "Domestic policy", and it's not a policy. Secondly, having an entire subsection dedicated to this one minor thing is undue weight. My thoughts are to remove it fully, or to turn it into a subsection that talks about his response/policy to the summer riots and protests. You know like how he dispatched federal police. We could briefly mention the Lafayette square photo-op there, with a sentence or 2 which would then be due weight. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 06:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
sundry editors were bleating that this was the equivalent of Kristallnacht. Trump was projected to become a dictator and start executing Jews. ... it is just the sordid detritus of the juvenile fantasies of a few bored adolescents.Also here:
The article is biased and basically being stymied by cyborg SAPs who are obsessed with Russia.I'll bleat with Shaun the Sheep anytime, and you need to read up on Kristallnacht. Voicing your opinion—fair enough, I do that a lot—but you've crossed a few lines here. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)The blowback the military received in June over the response to protests overshadowed officials' approach to last week’s protests, prompting them to place limits on the D.C. Guard for a highly tailored mission. While then-Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper pushed back behind the scenes against Trump's desire to call in active-duty troops, Esper came under widespread criticism for describing U.S. cities as a “battlespace” in a White House call with governors. Milley issued an unusual public apology for appearing alongside the president after personnel forcibly cleared protesters from Lafayette Square outside the White House. The repercussions of those events increased Pentagon leaders' skepticism of Trump, who since his first day in office has bucked norms for presidential interactions with the military. "The lesson they took away was: 'We got caught in the middle of a political firestorm and how do we keep ourselves out of that? The best thing to do is be on the low down, keep a low profile, let's not get in the mix and let the civilians handle it,'" said Risa Brooks, a professor of political science at Marquette University who studies the U.S. military. … The Pentagon’s impulse to shy away from missions injecting the military into a charged partisan debate backfired in the case of the Capitol riot, Brooks said, because the absence of the military became a political statement in itself for many Americans. "All they see is: where is the Guard? The Guard was out there with the Park forces out in Lafayette Square ready to come after us, and we weren’t out trying to breach the Capitol . . . that's what they see," Brooks said. "And one understands why they see it that way."
Nobody is really talking about this event anymore.The Hill, 1 week ago; USA Today, 1 month ago; Bloomberg, 1 month ago; Washington Post, 1 month ago; New York Times, 1 month ago. This event has not been forgotten. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Historians for decades to come will be coming to this articleHA! ah ha ha ha... The thought that historians will come to Wikipedia for anything let a lone this is embarrassing. PackMecEng ( talk) 02:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
for curated references to reliable sources. OK, I'll bite—what do you think you're doing on Wikipedia? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
helping to create a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.Glad to have been of assistance, epiphany-wise. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
starttheir research on Wikipedia? Will a historian starting her research on Wikipedia be taken seriously? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Trump was the 50th president 67.143.208.254 ( talk) 16:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Given the incredible size of the article, I trimmed the North Korea subsection (a subsection of foreign policy) of some extraneous detail, which are also found in other articles, in this edit. It was reverted and should be restored. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 06:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump’s diplomatic endeavors did not result in an elimination of the North Korean nuclear arsenal — contrary to his initial assertions, Pyongyang has continued to develop its weapons programSource makes the connection. starship .paint ( exalt) 09:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually I think the trimming is fine (assuming that WP:V has been followed because I haven’t checked). starship .paint ( exalt) 08:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read. Do not use provocative language. Instead, offer information gently. Use consistent vocabulary in parts that are technical and difficult. To work out which parts of the sentence are going to be difficult for the reader, try to put yourself in the position of a reader hitherto uninformed on the subject.Trump's own words cannot be taken as accurately assessing anything. If we want to say he sought to use personal diplomacy, let's just say that instead of implying it. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we have enough support to restore the trimming, but I don't want to do that myself this soon, so can someone else do so? The discussion can still continue. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I have made an alternative cut, which substantially reduces size but, I think, retains the meaningful information. What do others think? MelanieN, any views? Neutrality talk 18:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Why does trimming the North Korean section attract so much attention as opposed to the rest of the "Foreign policy" section???-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
It's clear that this has overwhelming consensus now. Could someone please implement? Thanks. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 09:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Awilley: what can be done here? There is clearly an overwhelming consensus here and the attempts to hinder its implementation are getting disruptive. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Not only did the clear majority of participants supporting trimming the previous version, they explicitly supported how I trimmed the subsection. This is not about the sentence "North Korea continued to build up...", this is about purely my edit that I linked to at the start of this talk page section. Whether or not others agree that your proposal is better than the previous version is a completely separate matter, and also completely unsupported given the very minor attention it has received. The "numerous editors" objecting are only yourself and Specifico, against the views of many more talk page participants.
I have no issue with any RfC on any alternative proposal you wish to raise, but that can only happen after the version supported by the vast majority of participants in this talk page section is implemented. Otherwise, it would very blatantly be an attempt to delay the implementation of this consensus, which has already been needlessly delayed. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 08:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
There is near unanimous consensus for 123's proposed trim. We do not need an RFC. I will implement the trim later if no one beats me to it.I would be grateful if you could do so. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
There is possibly some confusion on what the consensus here is actually a consensus for. The following editors have seemingly expressed support for not only trimming the subsection generally, but for the way that I trimmed it as well. @ Jack Upland, Starship.paint, The Four Deuces, JFG, Levivich, Felix558, and Berchanhimez: Sorry if you have already made your views clear, but if you do support the version I proposed (when I started this talk page section) as an improvement on the pre-existing North Korea paragraphs, could you please say so here? I feel that we need clarity to bring the issue to some kind of conclusion. Thanks. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
To overturn longstanding consensus text, you'd need to demonstrate -- not merely assert -- new consensus.This has been extensively demonstrated in this talk page discussion. As far as I am aware, you do not hold any veto over the consensus process, and it is possible that a consensus may be found even if you don't personally agree with it. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 22:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Onetwothreeip: As far as I can see, the large majority of editors who participated in this discussion are supporting your trimmed version of the North Korea subsection, therefore I also think formal RFC and this "Consensus check" are not needed. I see a clear consensus to trim and implement your version. Felix558 ( talk) 21:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
North Korea continued to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.and that's the version several editors agreed to, if I'm not mistaken. At what point did the sentence go AWOL? My second edit deleted the "love letter" clause which several editors objected to, if I'm not mistaken. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 22:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Remove "dangerously" from paragraph involving COVID-19 on false statements subsection. The term is bombastic serves no purpose except to appeal to emotion, falls under WP:NEWSSTYLE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 04:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of viewand
Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. As I said, we summarize - we do not quote exactly - and even when sources say it was "dangerous" we do not have to include that, because that is endorsing that point of view. So yes, it is what Wikipedia editors do - we do not parrot the wording of sources, we write an encyclopedia article based on information included but without (as much as possible) the inherent bias/point of view that the news articles/other RS take. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 20:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I have seen people on this talk page repeatedly make allegations that this article is biased against Donald Trump. Many editors then proudly cite Wikipedia's policy of using verifiable sources - which have undoubtedly been anti-Trump (and for good reason, I might add!) - as well as a sub-article called "Talk:Donald_Trump/Response_to_claims_of_bias". But at the time of this writing, the last paragraph of the lead section states "The Senate voted 57–43 to convict, which was short of the required two-thirds majority and thereby acquitted Trump of the charge of inciting insurrection in the January 6, 2021 attack". Even as a European strongly anti-Trump person myself, it doesn't take a lot of brain to realize that writing "short of the required two-thirds majority" is a HUGE bias. Trump was acquitted - neutral and point-of-fact, even if I personally disagree strongly with the acquittal myself. Stating what would need to happen FOR conviction AFTER acquittal heads into blatantly point-of-view-territory and DOES give credence to anybody calling this article biased. In a court of law, a person is automatically assumed to be innocent, and evidence - as well as a jury - would cause a guilty verdict. This wording has the opposite effect; it seems as though Wikipedia has already deemed Trump guilty and is trying to describe how close to conviction the trial came. I have not checked who added that wording, but the most active editors here may point out that they didn't write that (or maybe they did, I haven't checked the log), Even so, you should all be made aware now that any future arguments on this talk page about bias against Trump on Wikipedia can use this exact type of circumstance to point out where many Wikipedia editors' loyalties on politics lie - not with point-of-fact or verifiable sources (which have very much described Trump's acquittal and the high chances of that happening even WAY before acquittal), but with whoever adds the information. If that's not supposed to be the case, then add even higher levels of protection for super-controversial subjects, to make only editors fluent in Wikipedia's policies add information and precisely to avoid this kind of biased incident. Thank you for hearing me out. 84.202.84.209 ( talk) 18:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Trump was aquitted with a 57–43 vote by the Senate to convict. (A two-thirds majority is required to convict.)Kolya Butternut ( talk) 19:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
In the section titled "COVID-19 pandemic", under the subsection entitled "World Health Organization", the sentence is included - "In May and April, Trump accused the WHO of "severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus" and alleged without evidence that the organization was under Chinese control and had enabled the Chinese government's concealment of the origins of the pandemic."
I believe that this sentence should be changed to simply say - "In May and April, Trump accused the WHO of "severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus" and claimed that the organization was under Chinese control and had enabled the Chinese government's concealment of the origins of the pandemic."
Saying that Trump "alleged without evidence" the supposed Chinese control over the WHO is intellectually dishonest, as it is discounting what may be perceived as legitimate evidence, and contradicts this article's requirement for neutrality on the topic. As Trump's statement is a matter of complex opinion that can be logically argued both for and against, the wording in this article should be more neutral and not try to prove either side correct, but simply state the facts about what Trump said, without the unnecessary addition of accusing Trump of making the allegation without evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:6000:AD80:B81F:9A00:D4C1:7F96 ( talk) 20:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
References
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 130 | Archive 131 | Archive 132 | Archive 133 | Archive 134 | Archive 135 | → | Archive 140 |
The first paragraph of the lead normally serves to briefly summarise the key aspects of the article. The current first paragraph doesn't do a very good job at that. It says nothing about how his presidency is not viewed as a "normal" presidency; he wasn't just a boring businessman who was elected to some office, did nothing spectacular, and then left, like a lot of elected officials. You have to read endless details about his beauty pageants and golf courses and so on and so forth until you get to the truly important material in the last paragraph of the lead, his violent insurrection against US democracy, his two impeachments, the things that really made history, the unprecedented scandalous nature of his presidency.
Therefore, I propose that we add a short sentence at the end of the first paragraph that briefly summarises the extraordinary aspects of his presidency, including his two impeachments. I tentatively propose:
Throughout his presidency he has been widely accused of abuse of power and corruption, and he has been impeached twice.
-- Tataral ( talk) 22:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
the first American president of the United States to have no prior military or government career, and was at the time the oldest first-term U.S. presidentwas added to the first paragraph of the lead that we are discussing here. This is not what I would prioritize in that paragraph, and the material about his age is almost trivial here. I would rather see a sentence that said something of substance about his presidency, as proposed above rather than pointing out his age or his background (which is discussed in detail in the very next paragraph). -- Tataral ( talk) 17:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I propose the language proposed above by @ Neutrality: be combined with the language under discussion above and be placed in the first or second paragraph of the lead. To wit, let's combine this
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.
with this,
Throughout his presidency he has been widely accused of abuse of power and corruption, and he has been impeached twice.
SPECIFICO talk 18:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
? Bdushaw ( talk) 20:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Throughout his presidency he was regularly accused of abuse of power and corruption, and he was twice impeached.
"Five deaths resulted", in the intro, isn't (as far as I know, as a native English speaker) correct, but I don't have the permissions to change it! -- BobEret ( talk) 03:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Mention of the deaths was removed by @ Onetwothreeip: in this edit, however I have restored it as there was no consensus to remove it. Vrrajkum ( talk) 20:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't feel that the Iraq War is a valid analogy because war obviously implies that people will die. Deaths during an ostensibly "peaceful" protest, on the other hand, are more noteworthy. For the time being I have changed the exact number of "five" to read "several" instead, in line with the imprecise language "dozens of unsuccessful legal challenges" above it. Vrrajkum ( talk) 15:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Does this really need to exist? The content could be folded into other relevant sections, resulting in a significant size reduction. Most of it is in fact about the Presidency, and it is misleading to mix in stuff that isn't related to the Presidency. And some content definitely should be elsewhere, such as the Access Hollywood tape, which was an event in the 2016 campaign. MOS:BLPCHRONO says biographies should be presented in chronological order, so this is a major violation. A lot of the material here seems designed to prove a point and takes a sledgehammer approach. There is a lot of detail here which is really unnecessary and repeats information better presented elsewhere.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
except where there is good reason to do otherwise.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Iamreallygoodatcheckers: This edit of yours is not reliably sourced. One source is an uncommented transcript of the Trump press conference (good luck to anyone trying to parse that), the other one is an opinion by a right-wing opinion writer who thinks his pick of Trump quotes proves something different. The sentence about "very fine people on both sides" isn’t WP speaking, it’s citing RS. I could add more RS but that would be overciting. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Trump has said his “very fine people” comment referred not to white supremacists and neo-Nazis but to “people that went because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee — a great general, whether you like it or not.” Some have argued that explanation doesn’t hold up, because Trump referred in that statement to a protest “the night before” when — it was widely reported — white nationalists burned tiki torches and chanted anti-Semitic and white nationalist slogans. We’ll leave it to readers to make up their minds on Trump’s remarks, but Biden’s comment that Trump has “yet once to condemn white supremacy” is not accurate.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of what he was referring to in his "very fine" comment, he still did condemn neo-Nazis and white nationalists. That is part of his racial views. That very quote has been reported by FactCheck above as mentioned by Iamreallygoodatcheckers, WaPo above as mentioned by Space4Time3Continuum2x, AP, CNN, USA Today, SBS. BBC. Snopes, Time, ABC News and NPR. starship .paint ( exalt) 12:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
It’s easy to isolate comments meant to insulate oneself — including last week ... but it’s also very possible to do so while sending plenty of other signals that point in a very different direction.I agree with this sentiment, so we should be reporting both parts of his speech - the part where he sent unsavory signals, and the part where he condemned neo-Nazis. starship .paint ( exalt) 13:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
It’s easy to isolate comments meant to insulate oneself — including last week ... but it’s also very possible to do so while sending plenty of other signals that point in a very different direction. And Trump’s history on this is anything but a matter of selective editing.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
replace the main image with this Official Portrait Trump End of term.jpg 2601:154:4080:1660:645B:DCBA:3D2C:D107 ( talk) 20:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. That image is very fuzzy and low-quality for some reason, and needs to be cropped before it can be used. Other people may have other objections. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I removed a citation and note in the lead here for being unnecessary, but was reverted. The removal should be restored. Further information should be contained in the body of the article, not the lead. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 21:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
William Henry Harrison and Reagan have their headlines and articles mention they were the oldest president at the time. Trump was older than either. Just because it was broken one term later by Biden does not change the fact that at the time, Trump was the oldest president ever elected. I feel that it is important to bring it up in the article, to acknowledge a historical fact, even if it was out dated. I mean, let's not forget that we were only roughly 120K votes from four states away from having a second term with him, and therefore him remaining the oldest president ever (probably for several decades). So let's not pretend like him losing the record was a foreseen conclusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.187.160 ( talk) 22:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why Trump’s “health” subsection is located under his Presidency in the article? Should it not be under his “Personal life”? — Politicsfan4 ( talk) 14:21, 4 February 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.
"Despite a campaign promise to eliminate the national debt in eight years, Trump as president approved large increases in government spending, as well as the 2017 tax cut. As a result, the federal budget deficit increased by almost 50%, to nearly $1 trillion in 2019.[284] Under Trump, the U.S. national debt increased by 39%, reaching $27.75 trillion by the end of his term; the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio also hit a post-World War II high.[285]
Although the U.S. unemployment rate hit a 50-year low (3.5%) in February 2020, the unemployment rate hit a 90-year high (14.7%), matching Great Depression levels, just two months later, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[286] Trump left office with 3 million fewer jobs in the U.S. than when he took office, making Trump the only modern U.S. president to leave office with a smaller workforce.[269]"
This is outright plagiarism from Donald Trump's main wikipedia page. Look it up. My edit about the fact that by the fact that when Trump left office, the stock market was at a record high, and the unemployment rate went from the highest level since the Great Depression to 6.3%, which is just slightly higher than historical average, was deleted, as usual, partisan administrators took it down despite the fact that everything I wrote was properly sourced. They replaced it with plagiarism. NOT FAIR!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCITKOL ( talk • contribs) 05:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Trump has been banned from rejoining the SAG-AFTRA due to "threatening or inciting harm" against other members ( source). Is this notable enough to be mentioned in the article? -- Politicsfan4 ( talk) 00:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I just learned that the information that Trump does not drink or smoke was removed from the article's "Health" section at some point. I think that is important health information - also his sleep habits - and I propose to restore it, as follows:
Trump abstains from alcohol. [1] He says he has never smoked tobacco or used drugs. [2] He has said, and his doctor confirms, that he sleeps about four or five hours a night. [3] [4]
Sources
- ^ Nagourney, Adam (October 30, 2020). "In Trump and Biden, a Choice of Teetotalers for President". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
- ^ Parker, Ashley; Rucker, Philip (October 2, 2018). "Kavanaugh likes beer — but Trump is a teetotaler: 'He doesn't like drinkers.'". The Washington Post. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
- ^ Le, Vanna (February 13, 2019). "SUCCESS Donald Trump's workday starts at 11 a.m. — here's how his morning routine stacks up against 7 other millionaires". CNBC. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
- ^ Dangerfield, Katie (January 17, 2018). "Donald Trump sleeps 4-5 hours each night; he's not the only famous 'short sleeper'". Global News. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
Is this OK with people? -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Trump is a teetotaler. [1] [2] He sleeps about four or five hours a night. [3] [4]
Sources
- ^ Nagourney, Adam (October 30, 2020). "In Trump and Biden, a Choice of Teetotalers for President". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
- ^ Parker, Ashley; Rucker, Philip (October 2, 2018). "Kavanaugh likes beer — but Trump is a teetotaler: 'He doesn't like drinkers.'". The Washington Post. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
- ^ Dangerfield, Katie (January 17, 2018). "Donald Trump sleeps 4-5 hours each night; he's not the only famous 'short sleeper'". Global News. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
- ^ Douglas Almond & Xinming Du (December 2020). "Later bedtimes predict President Trump's performance". Economic Letters. 197. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2020.109590.
the president is a proud teetotaler who says he has never had a drink, smoked cigarettes or consumed drugs.Trump says he never drank alcohol, smoked tobacco, or used drugs. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@ MelanieN: - You should note the reason that Trump reportedly abstains from alcohol - "because he witnessed his brother Fred struggle with alcoholism and later die from it" - as explained here. -- Politicsfan4 ( talk) 20:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Support. This is all relevant information about Trump the man himself, which is this article. starship .paint ( exalt) 03:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
This has been a helpful discussion; thanks, all, for the input. I think we are reasonably close to agreement (recognizing that consensus does not have to be unanimous). I intend to add the following to the article, right in front of the sentence about exercise:
Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. [1] [2] He sleeps about four or five hours a night. [3] [4]
Sources
- ^ Nagourney, Adam (October 30, 2020). "In Trump and Biden, a Choice of Teetotalers for President". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
- ^ Parker, Ashley; Rucker, Philip (October 2, 2018). "Kavanaugh likes beer — but Trump is a teetotaler: 'He doesn't like drinkers.'". The Washington Post. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
- ^ Dangerfield, Katie (January 17, 2018). "Donald Trump sleeps 4-5 hours each night; he's not the only famous 'short sleeper'". Global News. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
- ^ Douglas Almond & Xinming Du (December 2020). "Later bedtimes predict President Trump's performance". Economic Letters. 197. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2020.109590.
Any final comments before I do? -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, done. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Psypherium: According to your edit summary, you added "url-access=limited" to about 200 New York Times links. When adding one of them (that I know about), you inserted it between "htm" and "l" of the link, resulting in a dead link which was tagged here. I've since fixed the link. Why did you add the value, and why the NYT? Including your two following edits, you added more than 3,300 bytes to the article that do not serve any useful purpose. Please remove them. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
|url-access=limited
is not the correct setting for NYT articles? Per the tooltip and
template doc, "limited" means "free access subject to limited trial, subscription normally required", which seems to accurately describe NYT. I believe WSJ would be |url-access=subscription
, since WSJ doesn't offer a free trial, and yes, it would be an improvement if someone were to add that parameter to WSJ cites (and all other cites as applicable).
Levivich
harass/
hound 20:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)|url-access=
,
Template:Citation is that-a-way... I don't know how long we've had that parameter, but longer than I've been here. You're basically objecting to someone correctly filling out a citation template.
Levivich
harass/
hound 20:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
It needs to be in the article that as all past presidents he will have security on him for the rest of his life..the cost and the details of protecting him are relevant 00:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC) 107.217.84.95 ( talk)
One novel fact, perhaps worth mentioning, is that, on leaving office, Trump secured secret service protection for his entire family. That is unusual. WA Post. Bdushaw ( talk) 14:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
So whenever i search www.mistake.com it leads me to this wiki page. Can ya fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.133.195 ( talk) 08:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Just to note, I have semi-protected this page for 24 hours due to an upsurge in vandalism and BLP violations. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
suggestions for minor additions/changes.
I suggest adding near the top of the page "DISCRETION This person is a controversial political figure; Information on this page may be partially incorrect or opinionated."
Since this is a controversial figure, i suggest that if you quote him, to put the full quote, instead of small snippets, to prevent opinionated skewing of his words from occurring.
Certain topics on this page are inherently opinionated, such as the part about his response to COVID 19, there are many reasons to believe it was a good one, and many to believe it was a bad one, and its nearly impossible to objectively speak about it since all sources of information regarding it are opinionated as well. There needs to be a solution to this issue, I have thought of a few possible ones, feel free to suggest more, adding it to the list along with numbering for voting purposes ( DoubleAiden ( talk) 06:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)); 1. We could address the opinionated nature of the topic(s) in the page, providing both sides' beliefs about the topic in question. 2. We can put a sub header warning about the opinionated nature of the topic above it.
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect MAGA Patriot Party. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 13#MAGA Patriot Party until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/trump-legal-problems-post-impeachment/index.html
Could a moderator please add this info and link to the Criminal Investigation section. It is locked.
Thanks film1234 ( talk) 11:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I removed one and added two wikilinks, each of which I think is justified under the relevant guideline in this edit. Although it doesn't change the wording, I'm just leaving a message here should anyone wish to dispute it. It'll undoubtedly be re-worded in future but for now I think those links are the most useful ones to include to readers who will want to browse around the vast array of Trump-related articles. Thanks, SITH (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You should remove that he reacted slowly to the corona pandmic as that is a matter of perspective and leave it at what he did do to prevent it. This should not look like a personal attack column. You should also clarify that while telling people to march on the Capitol he said to do so "peacefully and patriotically." The current wording makes it sound as though you are accusing him of instigating violence even though he was recently acquitted during his second impeachment. I understand it can be hard to stay impartial when discussing a character such as Donald Trump but please do your best to remain impartial and stand for knowledge and truth. Thanks for all your hard work. 24.255.19.11 ( talk) 09:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
This page may be
too long to read and navigate comfortably. |
There has been some back and forth on the article about whether this tag should be on the article. It seems clear to me that this article suffers from length issues and this should be brought to mind when editors seek to make changes to the article. Are there any objections? Onetwothreeip ( talk) 02:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Are there any objections?– Beg pardon? You know very well there are objections. You have been a participant as this tag has been rejected again and again at this article, as I said in my edit summary, [6] and you don't get another bite at the apple every time a passerby drops in unaware of that fact. [7] I am not going to debate the merits yet again, and I'm asking you to drop this, preferably by self-closing this discussion as "withdrawn". ― Mandruss ☎ 10:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Mandruss: Should we add this to the Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus? Something like:
50. Do not include the {{
Politicsfan4 ( talk) 03:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
You are assuming that the tag would have some effect other than to add ugly clutter to the top of the article. That is a faulty assumption in my opinion. But feel free to cite a case where long-standing resistance to article size reduction was overcome by addition of a tag.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
How do we keep maintaining the list now that Mandruss has left the building? Is there a standard for cancelling or changing consensus items, i.e., length of time the discussion was ongoing, number of editors involved, updating consensus before editing the article? We currently have two items, #17 and #40, under discussion (or maybe not, hard to tell).
"C>A>F" counts for A, because C is not getting enough support to be a finalist. "A,D,F,G in that order" counts for A, first choice. "Oppose A, C, F, G" counts for neither A nor F (nor C nor G, but those aren't getting much support anyway), it's a "neither" voteand start over.
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: I didn’t declare consensus #17 obsolete (it was already declared obsolete before I touched it). All I did was convert it to the “hidden” format, which is the standard for obsolete items. As you can see in the edit that I linked, the consensus already stated “Note that this item is obsolete given that Trump is no longer the current president”. Also, take a look at the discussion that I closed: there is clear consensus to delink the “45th”, although it really doesn’t matter anymore since item 17 is obsolete. — Politicsfan4 ( talk) 19:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It should say "acquitted by the narrowest vote by which a President has ever been acquitted in a Senate impeachment trial on February 13, 2021." 2389792hb ( talk) 01:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "This situation has occurred five times since 1824." to "this situation has occurred four times in the modern two-party system, each time favoring the Republican." Important context, which Jackson's election isn't -- there wasn't a decisive electoral college vote in 1824, nor was there a national popular vote, the existence of both of which is implied by endnote [a] as-is. Gershonmk ( talk) 00:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. Thank you very much for your input!
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there 04:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There's a typo -- "support in an Senate" should be "support in any Senate." Gershonmk ( talk) 15:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Done Changed to "support in a Senate impeachment trial of a president." Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix, but I still think it should be "support in any Senate impeachment trial of a president." or "support ever in a Senate impeachment trial of a president" because this is pretty unclear re: what comparison is being made. Gershonmk ( talk) 16:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
seven Republicans joined every Democrat in voting to convict, the most bipartisan support in a Senate impeachment trial of a presidenthas the same meaning as
the most bipartisan support in any Senate impeachment trial everor
the most bipartisan support ever in a Senate impeachment trial. Leaving it up to other editors to decide. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The correction from "an" to "a" is good. No need for any other tweaks, I think it is clear enough. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
How unencylopedic is that phrase. I was confused if I was on Wikpedia or some tabloid magizine! Just change it to Stormy Daniels scandal, thats not as inflammatory. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 05:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
How can it be "hush money", if the public is aware of it? It's like a tabloid heading "The secret he took to his grave..". How's it a secret, if everybody knows about it? GoodDay ( talk) 20:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Another point of view is that some readers may not know exactly what "hush money" means - could be taken as jargon. An explicit statement such as "paid money to the pornography star so that she would not talk publicly about their affair" may be worthwhile. Bdushaw ( talk) 09:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Comment I've looked over the subsection, and I see that (having now done my homework...) the complaint had to do with the title of the subsection. I agree with the above that "hush money" is used by the sources, hence it is appropriate for the subsection title. I mainly note that the subsection is confusing. As written now, it is mainly about possible campaign donation violations. The subsection should first cover the affairs and attempted cover ups (noting the WA Post definitively has Trump as lying), and then discuss how the payments were possible campaign spending violations. Two paragraphs. The subsection title would then be better off as something like "Hush money payments and alleged illegal campaign donations". Those above that attempt to argue that the issue is nothing and normal are...well, wrong. It is notable that (1) Trump had these affairs, (2) He tried to pay off his mistresses to keep them quiet, and (3) those payments may have been an illegal form of campaign contributions. The subsection should be clear about these points, not conflate them all. As I've said before...Trump requires a lot of explaining. Bdushaw ( talk) 22:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
COHEN negotiated a $130,000 agreement with Attorney-1 to himself purchase Woman-2’s silence, and received a signed confidential settlement agreement". [11] [12] So, a legal RS says he "purchased her silence". He gave her "money for silence"; he literally hushed her with money. Lexico.com says "hush money" is informal, [13] as does Cambridge dictionary, [14] and American Heritage Dictionary. [15] Common language is encyclopedic, correct? It's not slang. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 07:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
"After he told them to march to the Capitol, they then stormed it" should be "After he told them to march to the Capitol, they stormed it, resulting in the deaths of five people and forcing Congress to evacuate." After/then is redundant. Gershonmk ( talk) 23:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that "after...then" is awkward. I have reworded the sentence. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, this subsection is under "Domestic policy", and it's not a policy. Secondly, having an entire subsection dedicated to this one minor thing is undue weight. My thoughts are to remove it fully, or to turn it into a subsection that talks about his response/policy to the summer riots and protests. You know like how he dispatched federal police. We could briefly mention the Lafayette square photo-op there, with a sentence or 2 which would then be due weight. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 06:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
sundry editors were bleating that this was the equivalent of Kristallnacht. Trump was projected to become a dictator and start executing Jews. ... it is just the sordid detritus of the juvenile fantasies of a few bored adolescents.Also here:
The article is biased and basically being stymied by cyborg SAPs who are obsessed with Russia.I'll bleat with Shaun the Sheep anytime, and you need to read up on Kristallnacht. Voicing your opinion—fair enough, I do that a lot—but you've crossed a few lines here. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)The blowback the military received in June over the response to protests overshadowed officials' approach to last week’s protests, prompting them to place limits on the D.C. Guard for a highly tailored mission. While then-Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper pushed back behind the scenes against Trump's desire to call in active-duty troops, Esper came under widespread criticism for describing U.S. cities as a “battlespace” in a White House call with governors. Milley issued an unusual public apology for appearing alongside the president after personnel forcibly cleared protesters from Lafayette Square outside the White House. The repercussions of those events increased Pentagon leaders' skepticism of Trump, who since his first day in office has bucked norms for presidential interactions with the military. "The lesson they took away was: 'We got caught in the middle of a political firestorm and how do we keep ourselves out of that? The best thing to do is be on the low down, keep a low profile, let's not get in the mix and let the civilians handle it,'" said Risa Brooks, a professor of political science at Marquette University who studies the U.S. military. … The Pentagon’s impulse to shy away from missions injecting the military into a charged partisan debate backfired in the case of the Capitol riot, Brooks said, because the absence of the military became a political statement in itself for many Americans. "All they see is: where is the Guard? The Guard was out there with the Park forces out in Lafayette Square ready to come after us, and we weren’t out trying to breach the Capitol . . . that's what they see," Brooks said. "And one understands why they see it that way."
Nobody is really talking about this event anymore.The Hill, 1 week ago; USA Today, 1 month ago; Bloomberg, 1 month ago; Washington Post, 1 month ago; New York Times, 1 month ago. This event has not been forgotten. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Historians for decades to come will be coming to this articleHA! ah ha ha ha... The thought that historians will come to Wikipedia for anything let a lone this is embarrassing. PackMecEng ( talk) 02:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
for curated references to reliable sources. OK, I'll bite—what do you think you're doing on Wikipedia? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
helping to create a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.Glad to have been of assistance, epiphany-wise. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
starttheir research on Wikipedia? Will a historian starting her research on Wikipedia be taken seriously? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Trump was the 50th president 67.143.208.254 ( talk) 16:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Given the incredible size of the article, I trimmed the North Korea subsection (a subsection of foreign policy) of some extraneous detail, which are also found in other articles, in this edit. It was reverted and should be restored. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 06:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump’s diplomatic endeavors did not result in an elimination of the North Korean nuclear arsenal — contrary to his initial assertions, Pyongyang has continued to develop its weapons programSource makes the connection. starship .paint ( exalt) 09:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually I think the trimming is fine (assuming that WP:V has been followed because I haven’t checked). starship .paint ( exalt) 08:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read. Do not use provocative language. Instead, offer information gently. Use consistent vocabulary in parts that are technical and difficult. To work out which parts of the sentence are going to be difficult for the reader, try to put yourself in the position of a reader hitherto uninformed on the subject.Trump's own words cannot be taken as accurately assessing anything. If we want to say he sought to use personal diplomacy, let's just say that instead of implying it. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we have enough support to restore the trimming, but I don't want to do that myself this soon, so can someone else do so? The discussion can still continue. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I have made an alternative cut, which substantially reduces size but, I think, retains the meaningful information. What do others think? MelanieN, any views? Neutrality talk 18:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Why does trimming the North Korean section attract so much attention as opposed to the rest of the "Foreign policy" section???-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
It's clear that this has overwhelming consensus now. Could someone please implement? Thanks. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 09:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Awilley: what can be done here? There is clearly an overwhelming consensus here and the attempts to hinder its implementation are getting disruptive. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Not only did the clear majority of participants supporting trimming the previous version, they explicitly supported how I trimmed the subsection. This is not about the sentence "North Korea continued to build up...", this is about purely my edit that I linked to at the start of this talk page section. Whether or not others agree that your proposal is better than the previous version is a completely separate matter, and also completely unsupported given the very minor attention it has received. The "numerous editors" objecting are only yourself and Specifico, against the views of many more talk page participants.
I have no issue with any RfC on any alternative proposal you wish to raise, but that can only happen after the version supported by the vast majority of participants in this talk page section is implemented. Otherwise, it would very blatantly be an attempt to delay the implementation of this consensus, which has already been needlessly delayed. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 08:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
There is near unanimous consensus for 123's proposed trim. We do not need an RFC. I will implement the trim later if no one beats me to it.I would be grateful if you could do so. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
There is possibly some confusion on what the consensus here is actually a consensus for. The following editors have seemingly expressed support for not only trimming the subsection generally, but for the way that I trimmed it as well. @ Jack Upland, Starship.paint, The Four Deuces, JFG, Levivich, Felix558, and Berchanhimez: Sorry if you have already made your views clear, but if you do support the version I proposed (when I started this talk page section) as an improvement on the pre-existing North Korea paragraphs, could you please say so here? I feel that we need clarity to bring the issue to some kind of conclusion. Thanks. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
To overturn longstanding consensus text, you'd need to demonstrate -- not merely assert -- new consensus.This has been extensively demonstrated in this talk page discussion. As far as I am aware, you do not hold any veto over the consensus process, and it is possible that a consensus may be found even if you don't personally agree with it. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 22:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Onetwothreeip: As far as I can see, the large majority of editors who participated in this discussion are supporting your trimmed version of the North Korea subsection, therefore I also think formal RFC and this "Consensus check" are not needed. I see a clear consensus to trim and implement your version. Felix558 ( talk) 21:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
North Korea continued to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.and that's the version several editors agreed to, if I'm not mistaken. At what point did the sentence go AWOL? My second edit deleted the "love letter" clause which several editors objected to, if I'm not mistaken. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 22:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Remove "dangerously" from paragraph involving COVID-19 on false statements subsection. The term is bombastic serves no purpose except to appeal to emotion, falls under WP:NEWSSTYLE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 04:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of viewand
Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. As I said, we summarize - we do not quote exactly - and even when sources say it was "dangerous" we do not have to include that, because that is endorsing that point of view. So yes, it is what Wikipedia editors do - we do not parrot the wording of sources, we write an encyclopedia article based on information included but without (as much as possible) the inherent bias/point of view that the news articles/other RS take. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 20:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I have seen people on this talk page repeatedly make allegations that this article is biased against Donald Trump. Many editors then proudly cite Wikipedia's policy of using verifiable sources - which have undoubtedly been anti-Trump (and for good reason, I might add!) - as well as a sub-article called "Talk:Donald_Trump/Response_to_claims_of_bias". But at the time of this writing, the last paragraph of the lead section states "The Senate voted 57–43 to convict, which was short of the required two-thirds majority and thereby acquitted Trump of the charge of inciting insurrection in the January 6, 2021 attack". Even as a European strongly anti-Trump person myself, it doesn't take a lot of brain to realize that writing "short of the required two-thirds majority" is a HUGE bias. Trump was acquitted - neutral and point-of-fact, even if I personally disagree strongly with the acquittal myself. Stating what would need to happen FOR conviction AFTER acquittal heads into blatantly point-of-view-territory and DOES give credence to anybody calling this article biased. In a court of law, a person is automatically assumed to be innocent, and evidence - as well as a jury - would cause a guilty verdict. This wording has the opposite effect; it seems as though Wikipedia has already deemed Trump guilty and is trying to describe how close to conviction the trial came. I have not checked who added that wording, but the most active editors here may point out that they didn't write that (or maybe they did, I haven't checked the log), Even so, you should all be made aware now that any future arguments on this talk page about bias against Trump on Wikipedia can use this exact type of circumstance to point out where many Wikipedia editors' loyalties on politics lie - not with point-of-fact or verifiable sources (which have very much described Trump's acquittal and the high chances of that happening even WAY before acquittal), but with whoever adds the information. If that's not supposed to be the case, then add even higher levels of protection for super-controversial subjects, to make only editors fluent in Wikipedia's policies add information and precisely to avoid this kind of biased incident. Thank you for hearing me out. 84.202.84.209 ( talk) 18:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Trump was aquitted with a 57–43 vote by the Senate to convict. (A two-thirds majority is required to convict.)Kolya Butternut ( talk) 19:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
In the section titled "COVID-19 pandemic", under the subsection entitled "World Health Organization", the sentence is included - "In May and April, Trump accused the WHO of "severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus" and alleged without evidence that the organization was under Chinese control and had enabled the Chinese government's concealment of the origins of the pandemic."
I believe that this sentence should be changed to simply say - "In May and April, Trump accused the WHO of "severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus" and claimed that the organization was under Chinese control and had enabled the Chinese government's concealment of the origins of the pandemic."
Saying that Trump "alleged without evidence" the supposed Chinese control over the WHO is intellectually dishonest, as it is discounting what may be perceived as legitimate evidence, and contradicts this article's requirement for neutrality on the topic. As Trump's statement is a matter of complex opinion that can be logically argued both for and against, the wording in this article should be more neutral and not try to prove either side correct, but simply state the facts about what Trump said, without the unnecessary addition of accusing Trump of making the allegation without evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:6000:AD80:B81F:9A00:D4C1:7F96 ( talk) 20:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
References