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 134 | Archive 135 | Archive 136 | Archive 137 | Archive 138 | → | Archive 140 |
The introduction section is wayy too long. I don't think I have ever seen another wikipedia page that has more than 2 paragraphs before hitting the contents box. Is this a thing that should be fixed? It just doesn't look right to me. 2001:569:BE3B:C700:B88D:C732:531C:123E ( talk) 07:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
The official Trump post-presidential website is 45office.com. Why is it not listed? Ajlipp ( talk) 06:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
https://www.45office.com Ajlipp ( talk) 06:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
In the same way that Obama has two sites: https://barackobama.com ("The Office of Barack and Michelle Obama") and https://obama.org (Obama Foundation), Trump also has two.
https://45office.com is "The Office of Donald J. Trump" and https://donaldjtrump.com is "Save America", a site for fundraising for Save America JFC, a joint fundraising committee of Save America and Make America Great Again PAC. Its legal disclaimer says it is "not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee." The site also forwards to a store for Trump merchandise, and forwards to https://45office.com via the "contact" link. Both sites catalog Trump's recent official statements. Ajlipp ( talk) 16:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
https://45office.com is his "official" site, but this week he started using https://donaldjtrump.com/desk as his replacement Twitter-type page as well. Ajlipp ( talk) 01:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah that sounds fair. We don't list the Twitter accounts (or their equivalents) of Obama, GWB, Bill Clinton, or Carter in the "personal details" section of their pages either. Ajlipp ( talk) 16:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Why was Trump's official website switched to https://donaldjtrump.com? That site states "Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee." It's written on literally every page. It is *not* Trump's official website, and could not be more direct about that fact. It is paid for, controlled by, and exists for the sole financial benefit of the Save America joint fundraising committee.
Trump's only official website is https://www.45office.com. That Save America's site also happens to contain Trump's blog doesn't change that. Please switch Trump's official website back to https://trump45office.com Ajlipp ( talk) 07:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Trump's new official website is called From the Desk of Donald J. Trump 46.212.103.44 ( talk) 09:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
No, his official website is
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ In the infobox we should link to his home page, not a subpage like
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/desk or
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news - I've moved his blog to External links'.
starship
.paint (
exalt) 03:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
https://donaldjtrump.com is *not* Trump's official website. That site states "Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee." Those words are written on literally *every* page. The site could not be more direct about the fact that it is not Trump's site. It is paid for, controlled by, and exists for the sole financial benefit of the Save America joint fundraising committee. That it also happens to contain Trump's blog doesn't change that.
Trump's only official website is https://www.45office.com. Please switch it back. Ajlipp ( talk) 07:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
In paragraph 4 of the article, the part that details President Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic (in the sentence after his appointments of Supreme Court justices), it should include a sentence about how the pandemic led to an economic recession that led to President Trump leaving office with fewer jobs than when his term began. This detail about the economy is crucial, because the recession itself played a big role in Trump losing re-election. Additionally, should there also be a sentence about how 400,000 Americans died of COVID-19 by his final day of office? Please consider making these additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainamerica099 ( talk • contribs) 13 April 2021 20:27:43 (UTC)
Even though this Wikipedia article is a biography of Trump and not an article about the COVID-19 Recession, the Wikipedia articles for Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush discuss the economy. More specifically, the article for President Bush details the United States entering the Great Recession. Therefore, please consider adding a sentence about how the United States suffered a recession during the part of the article where Trump's response to COVID-19 is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainamerica099 ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Post-presidency should be updated to chronicle Trump's targeting of Liz Cheney and how he used his influence to kick her out of her leadership role for her criticism of him. Here are some sources:
References
Pipsally, you
[1] reinstated the sentence: Five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died as a consequence of the riot.
describing it as sourced content. You appear to be unaware that the three sources you restored
[2]
[3]
[4] are outdated, all of them being written in January, with the latest update being in February. You removed an April source (
WTOP / AP) I provided from which states that out of the five deaths, the D.C. medical examiner found that three (Brian Sicknick, Kevin Greeson, Benjamin Philips) were natural deaths (stroke, hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) and one (Roseanne Boyland) was an accidental death (amphetamine overdose). Other sources have also reported this (
NBC on Sicknick /
USA Today on Sicknick /
CNBC on the others /
Forbes on the others) Additionally note that according to the police incident report, Greeson died before rioters entered the Capitol
[5], and according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, there is no evidence that Philips participated in the storming
[6]. In light of this new information, we cannot continue to maintain that Five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died as a consequence of the riot.
starship
.paint (
exalt) 03:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
There were many casualties, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died before, during, or after the riotis good. The only improvement would be to replace casualties with injuries - seems that it's being used to say injuries primarily and that injuries is more straightforward. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 23:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fraud has been found in multiple states and instances. Seems like fake news to have it listed that Trump wouldn’t let it go. He let it go but the voters did not. 67.61.90.156 ( talk) 04:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Should we mention Trump's recent comments on Liz Cheney? I think someone who has access to editing the page should if they can. Fixing26 ( talk) 00:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Needs to be mentioned how popular Trump remains after office 2600:1700:BC21:5F70:E133:E9B3:90B7:AD7E ( talk) 21:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I read in this article of USA Today, ("Biden blazed past his vaccine target for the first 100 days. Does the Trump administration deserve credit too?"), which is a reliable source, that Operation Warp Speed played a crucial role in the success of the american vaccination campaign. In order to ensure the neutrality of this wikipedia page, one should mention it, since it's an argument often used to defend Trump's actions and it is supported by reliable sources.
I am sorry but that's an opinion and Wikipedia is not made to express one opinion in particular but all the ones that are supported by facts. This article already gives many elements that could be use to criticize Trump's gestion of the crisis, I just ask that we add a contradictory element supported by a reliable source. Since vaccines are probably the things that will end the pandemic, the billions of dollars that were given by the federal governement to fund research on it are relevant in context. Dimitrius99 ( talk) 23:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a relevant scholarly report given the context: "Donald Trump and vaccination: The effect of political identity, conspiracist ideation and presidential tweets on vaccine hesitancy." AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 01:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
The problem I see with this article can be summed up in one question : here are two elements on Trump's gestion of the crisis, one could be found in the article, the other could't : -Trump said in April 2020 that vaccine was months away while some experts said one should wait at least 12 months (and they were wrong). -Trump's administration launched an iniative to manufacture vaccines at fast at possible by giving billions of dollars to research teams. What is the most important of these two elements ? The neutrality of Wikipedia will be judged by its ability to write balanced articles on controversial figures : there's a link to Operation Warp Speed's Wikipedia page in the "Template : Donald Trump series", as a part of governement response to the pandemic, while it isn't even mentionned once in the body of the article or in the introduction. Dimitrius99 ( talk) 08:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
quietly took around $10 billion from a fund meant to help hospitals and health care providers affected by Covid-19 and used the money to bankroll Operation Warp Speed contracts. Summing up: name pilfered from Star Trek, funds pilfered from money provided by Congress for pandemic-related expenses like hospital staffing and staff's personal protective equipment, treatment of uninsured COVID-19 patients, and vaccine distribution. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Less than a month in office, Biden moved to purchase 200 million additional Pfizer and Moderna doses to cover 300 million adults. The president also purchased an additional 100 million doses from Johnson & Johnson and helped cement a deal between the vaccine maker and its rival Merck to help make the newly approved vaccine. Trump officials have pointed out the alliance was the result of conversations between the two pharmaceutical companies before Biden took office, but Merck CEO Ken Frazier credited the Biden administration with expanding discussions and offering "financial support that allowed us to then think about converting our factories to make this stuff," he told The Washington Post. Among the FDA-authorized vaccines, only Pfizer did not take federal dollars to fund research and development.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware this has been a much discussed topic for the lede in the past. However, I think we should perhaps revisit having Trump's immigration policy (i.e. the Trump wall etc.) in the lede? JLo-Watson ( talk) 16:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I propose adding the following sentence to the first paragraph of the lede:
A member of the
Republican Party, he was the first U.S. president without
prior military or government service.
This material is already in the lede, in the third paragraph.
Virtually every other article about an American president has in the first paragraph of its lede what party the president belonged to as well as his prior political experience. A lede paragraph with only one sentence is very awkward.
PS @ MelanieN: where does it say that any change to the first paragraph lede must be first discussed here? The very first sentence should not be changed, because there is consensus as to what it should be. But other than that...? Zingarese talk · contribs 22:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Can we also add misogynistic too? I feel like we should put something in the lead that says Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged and misogynistic. Ak-eater06 ( talk) 20:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Not a forum
|
---|
|
|
Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentationthat quote. The overall presentation of a sentence devoted entirely to this sort of negative information in the lead is similar to criticism sections - there are a plethora of negative (and a plethora of positive things, especially from before his politics) that could be included in the lead. We should not be attempting to "hang" a ton of negative words in the lead just because they can be reliably sourced. That's not false balance - it's true balance. His racism is much more prevalent in reliable sources - and elevating misogyny to be at the same level is inappropriate because there's maybe 5-10 times more reliable sources that discuss his racist comments/actions than his misogynistic ones. Which is exactly why I said I may support it being added elsewhere - may - if it can be done in such a way to not make it similar in weight to the racist comments, which have received much more attention in reliable sources than has this. Alternatively, I see no reason that the "race" and "sex" has to be called out - why can we not just change the wording altogether to be "discriminatory", as I feel that'd be supported and would encompass not only racial/gender discrimination but also sexual orientation (which can be reliably sourced) and all of his other hateful comments? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 19:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
many of his actions have been characterized as discriminatory toward marginalized groups, including women and racial minorities.But that seems like a separate discussion. For now, the question is about misogyny, and it seems most of us here feel it's received roughly comparable coverage to his racism, not 5-10 times less. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
This article's grammar has much room for improvement. I'll rewrite the lede today and will probably do other sections later.
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 (sorry if there's already been a discussion about this, but do you think we should specify January 20 for both of these dates? I understand that consensus 50 indicates that it should not mention the dates, but when I go to the archived link, none of the proposed options had specific dates in them. If there has already been a discussion about this, could someone point me to it and if not, could you please provide reasoning to not do this if that is your opinion?).
Born and raised in Queens, New York City, Trump attended Fordham University and the University of Pennsylvania, graduating with a bachelor's degree in 1968. He became the president of his father Fred Trump's real estate business in 1971 and renamed it to The Trump Organization. Trump expanded the company's operations to building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses. He later started various side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies. He owned the Miss Universe brand of beauty pageants from 1996 to 2015. From 2003 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice (I added a comma between "2015" and "he.").
Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist. He entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and was elected in an upset victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote. He was the first U.S. president without prior military or government service. His election and policies sparked numerous protests. Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist.
During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. He enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court as well as more than 200 federal judges (I added a comma between "Kavanaugh" and "and."). In foreign policy, Trump pursued an America First agenda: he renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement as the U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement and withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal (I added a comma between "change" and "and"). He imposed import tariffs that triggered a trade war with China and met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, but negotiations on denuclearization eventually broke down. Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging, and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.
A special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller found that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the goal of helping Trump's election chances but did not find sufficient evidence to establish criminal conspiracy or coordination with Russia (I removed the comma between "chances" and "but."). Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice and neither indicted nor exonerated him. The House of Representatives impeached Trump in December 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after he solicited Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. The Senate acquitted him of both charges in February 2020. (Again, for these two sentences, should we include exact dates? Please let me know if there has already been a discussion about this. I would add that if we do change "December 2019" and "February 2020" to exact dates, then we should change the "in"s immediately before them to "on"s.)
Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat (I removed the comma between "Biden" and "but."). He attempted to overturn the results by making false claims of electoral fraud, pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition (I added a comma between "challenges" and "and."). On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which hundreds stormed, interrupting the electoral vote count. On January 13, the House impeached Trump for incitement of insurrection, making him the only federal officeholder in American history to be impeached twice. The Senate acquitted Trump for the second time on February 13, 2021. (Two things here: I think we should keep the date format for these two sentences the same - we should either not say the year both times or say the year both times. Also, the part that talks about the first impeachment and acquittal does not have specific dates. I also think this should remain uniform - either we should have specific dates for both impeachments and both acquittals or we should have specific dates for neither the impeachments nor the acquittals.) Mrytzkalmyr ( talk) 20:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x removed the First Step Act from the lead even though it had been up there for months with no issues. Just wanted to open discussion on this. I don't see why this doesn't deserve to be in the lead as it was legislation which represented a major development in criminal justice reform. It shouldn't matter whether the bill was bipartisan or not to warrant lead inclusion. Thoughts?
EDIT: I also just noticed that the names of Trump's three Supreme Court justices were removed from the next sentence, they should absolutely be placed back, especially since justices are mentioned specifically by name in other presidential bio articles. Basil the Bat Lord ( talk) 00:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree and have restored the FSA. JLo-Watson ( talk) 20:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Trump has repeatedly claimed credit for passing the First Step Act, and then his administration did everything it could to water it down and make it harder for inmates to qualify. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
MelanieN - 1st sentence, 4th para of the lede states: "A special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller found that Trump benefited from Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election," - it is not cited to a RS, there's a (b) footnote that doesn't say anything about benefited, and there's nothing in the body text that speaks to "benefited". We either need to remove it from the lede, or cite it and add the material to the body text. I'm not working lede improvement right now but that was a glaring comment that I thought needed attention. Atsme 💬 📧 21:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
But if it’s hard to prove anything about Russian interference, it’s equally hard to disprove anything: The interference campaign could easily have had chronic, insidious effects that could be mistaken for background noise but which in the aggregate were enough to swing the election by 0.8 percentage points toward Trump — not a high hurdle to clear because 0.8 points isn’t much at all.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
The social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government.
The Office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring or coordinating with Russia in its election-interference activities.
Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
The Russian contacts consisted of business connections, offers of assistance to the Campaign, invitations for candidate Trump and Putin to meet in person, invitations for Campaign officials and representatives of the Russian government to meet, and policy positions seeking improved U.S.-Russian relations. Section IV of this Report details the contacts between Russia and the Trump Campaign during the campaign and transition periods, the most salient of which are summarized below in chronological orderSpace4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Would this be appropriate to add to the last sentence of the lead? I implemented this edit but was reverted by another editor. Trump is considered to be one of the most controversial presidents in American history.
If not, would you support it if I provided sources to support this?
Interstellarity (
talk) 20:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Trump's infobox needs to say University of Pennsylvania. This is how all former presidents'undergraduate degrees are handled. Barack Obama is listed as having graduated from Columbia University, not Columbia College. For George W. Bush, Yale University is listed, not Yale College. Same for Bill Clinton, who graduated from Georgetown College, but Georgetown University is what's listed. So why is Trump the only president who has a named graduate program within a university listed as his undergraduate alma mater?
I believe a reason could be to deceive the public, because saying one graduated from "Wharton" heavily implies earning an MBA. Whether that is the reason or not, Wikipedia is continuing to perpetuate that deception by treating Trump's page differently from all other former U.S. presidents.
There is no public figure of Trump's significance with only a bachelor's degree, but who has the Wharton School listed as their alma mater. There is no other president whose undergraduate alma mater is listed as a named graduate school, rather than the University.
In a previous discussion about this, as an example, user Hipocrite wrote that all presidents who graduated from Harvard College, Harvard Law School or Harvard Buisness School, *all* are listed as Harvard University (John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama).
User Hipocrite also noted that some public figures with MBAs have Wharton in their infobox. But what was never discussed was that I can find *no* other significant public figure that has Wharton, nor any other named graduate program (be it business, law or otherwise) listed as their *undergraduate* alma mater. Trump is the only one I could find.
For Wharton to remain in Trump's infobox, you should be able to find many other public figures of Trump's stature with a named graduate program listed as their undergraduate alma mater. But you can't, because they don't exist.
Trump's needs to revert back to University of Pennsylvania, because standards need to be applied objectively. Ajlipp ( talk) 16:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
The other Wharton graduates' infoboxes that say "University of Pennsylvania" should be changed to "Wharton". -- Distelfinck ( talk) 23:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[[Federalist Sangering Democrats is missing the double brackets at the end Mwiqdoh ( talk) 16:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Trump appears to have two websites now,
45office
@ Soibangla: What's the source for your edit? WaPo says "was convened recently," and all other sources I've seen based their reporting on WaPo's. WaPo also says that "It is also unclear when or even whether the grand jury will be asked to consider returning any indictments." Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
googling "Vance grand jury"I got the same results I got when I googled Trump+grand jury+new york, i.e., no source saying that the grand jury has been seated since last year. Which sources say that? According to AP, this grand jury is new, and that there was another, investigative one that issued subpoenas.
The Democratic prosecutor has been using an investigative grand jury through the course of his probe to issue subpoenas and obtain documents. That panel kept working while other grand juries and court activities were shut down because of the coronavirus pandemic. The investigation includes scrutiny of Trump’s relationship with his lenders; a land donation he made to qualify for an income tax deduction; and tax write-offs his company claimed on millions of dollars in consulting fees it paid. The new grand jury could eventually be asked to consider returning indictments. While working on that case, it also will be hearing other matters. The Post reported that the grand jury will meet three days a week for six months.That does not say that the grand jury is considering indictments. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 who also is an American media personality and businessman. 152.131.10.195 ( talk) 23:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Stop lying about him using the fake corporate news media who used fake narrative toward the president of the United States. Wikipedia has become less and less trustworthy by following the fake corporate news media narrative. 152.131.10.195 ( talk) 23:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Valjean, RE your question: Looks like I didn't use the latest version prior to the I manually reverted. Thanks for catching it. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
As Wikipedia usually attempts to avoid directly referring to Trump as a racist should this sentence be rephrased? Transcendent Presence ( talk) 08:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
It still directly states that Trump's campaigning methods are racist in Wikipedia's own voice. this is a matter of opionion more than direct fact as viewpoints on this differ widely and in IMO the sentence should reflect this. Transcendent Presence ( talk) 22:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
This seems like a reasonable position and the most appropriate way to adress the issue I would be in favour of this alteration Transcendent Presence ( talk) 00:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "There were many casualties, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died." to "There were many injuries, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died." A casualty, by definition, is a person killed in a war or an accident. 47.200.50.139 ( talk) 21:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
DT's blog was launched with something of a Trumpesque fanfare in early May 2021. Today, 2nd June 2021, after one month it was closed down. Various reports say that it had very low readership for such a well known celebrity and he was fed up with it being mocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.43.30 ( talk) 19:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Trumpesque fanfarearound its launch. The blog is too insignificant to mention here, though it may be of use on Social media use by Donald Trump. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I would tend to agree its a bit trivial. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Chrisahn: Your edits here and here and all the ones in between: Your edit summary for the first one referred to a recent discussion. Which one was that? I haven't looked at the sources for your edits yet, but in the case of the edit Specifico reverted the argument that Trump wasn't personally involved in the protests is a little odd, other than being the subject of everyone's wrath. Were you expecting him to join the protesters or send the troops (early days, we had to wait until 2020 for that one)? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 07:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Ah, tit for tat? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: Please provide evidence that Trump was personally involved in the Taliban peace talks. Otherwise, we'll have to delete them from this article. — Chrisahn ( talk) 14:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
We mention Trump's first support for the Saudis in Yemen, but not his 2019 doubling down. Here are a few sources. A sentence or two seems appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Pinging
Chrisahn,
Soibangla,
SPECIFICO about the current wording of the Saudi Arabia paragraph. "Limited" is based on this sentence in
Reuters’ March 2, 2018, article: Mattis said the U.S. assistance, which includes limited intelligence support and refueling of coalition jets, was ultimately aimed at bringing Yemen’s war toward a negotiated resolution.
I read "which includes" to mean that there is additional support, i.e., the arms sales by the U.S.—and numerous other countries—to Saudi Arabia since the invasion of Yemen in 2015. During the Trump era, that’s the $110 billion "deal" announced in March 2017—I don’t know whether the sales rushed through in late 2020 were part of that. "Supported" is supported by all sources, "actively supported" is kind of OpEd-ish IMO.
[1]
[2]
[3] I think we also should mention that Trump chose to ignore U.S. intelligence reports indicating that bin Salman approved/authorized the killing of Khashoggi.
[4]
[5] Thoughts?
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
the Trump administration simply continued what the Obama administration had startedIt's a big black mark on Obama's record, IMO, but Trump continued after withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal (i.e., it was no longer necessary to assure the Gulf states that the U.S. wasn't taking Iran's side against them) and at a time when Saudi war crimes in Yemen were well documented. Also, by late 2016, Obama had halted sale of precision-guided munitions because of problems with Saudi targeting. [13] I don't remember what the sources say about the kinds of weapons included in Trump's deal, don't have the time today to check. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
References
Why is the warning different when you're editing the talk page? It says "Limit of one revert in 24 hours" and "24-hr BRD cycle." When I'm not editing the talk page, the warning just mentions the 24-hr BRD cycle. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The lead presently has the phrasing, The House of Representatives impeached Trump on December 18, 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after he solicited Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. The Senate acquitted him of both charges on February 5, 2020. which is confusing, since it puts the cart before the horse (and does not indicate why Biden was the target) (and interrupts the impeachment from the Senate acquittal). Better language would be After Trump solicited Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden, the House of Representatives impeached Trump on December 18, 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress . The Senate acquitted him of both charges on February 5, 2020. (The paragraph requests Talk before changing the language.) The suggested change also makes for a clearer transition from the previous sentences. Bdushaw ( talk) 17:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey all! I know this is contentious, but it looks like Donald Trump has gotten some coverage for anti-Semitism [7] [8] [9]. I suggest we add the following sentence towards the end of the racial views section: "Jewish groups have criticized Donald Trump for invoking anti-Semitic stereotypes that American Jews overvalue money and unconditionally support Israel." Benevolent human ( talk) 15:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure why this hat note was removed - that other articles don't have such a notice is not a reason or rationale. I added the link to Presidency of Donald Trump for several reasons. First, most readers may not know that article exists - the link is given in the article to be sure, but far down in the article and not exactly conspicuous. Second, on these talk pages it has been repeatedly - endlessly - repeated that this is a biography, not the article on the presidency, as the reason for preventing the addition of material that is more presidential than biographical related. That being the case, this article should highlight the presidential article. There has also been endless discussion about adding a tag that the article is too long - I thought the hat note would be a useful compromise in that regard: A notice to prospective editors to add presidential material to the presidential article. I am sure there are other good reasons for advertising the existence of the presidential article at the top of this article. Since I don't see the given statement as a valid argument for removing the hat note, I will restore it. If the ensuing discussion here determines otherwise, then it can be removed then. Bdushaw ( talk) 10:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Bdushaw ( talk) 09:39, 24 May 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 agree with
Bdushaw that it's problematic that so few readers are finding their way to
Presidency of Donald Trump, given that Trump's presidency is what most of the visitors to this page are seeking to learn about. But I also agree with those who note that hatnotes are solely for disambiguation, not advertising other related pages. Fortunately, there's another way that we could help people find the presidency page: better wikilinking. Specifically, placing a wikilink in the first sentence, changing served as the 45th
president of the United States from 2017 to 2021
to served as the
45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021
. In fact, that link was included in option A, which achieved consensus
here, just no one ever changed the article to match. There was previous discussion
here that removed the presidency link from the first paragraph; the objection I made when I came across it after it closed is relevant here. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 05:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
This content was reverted [12] by Berchanhimez on the assertion it was inadequately sourced. I intend to restore the content with these sources [13] [14] [15] [16] tomorrow unless someone else does it first or a persuasive argument can be made here that it should be excluded for other reasons. soibangla ( talk) 17:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
The scale of Trump’s delusion is quite startling. This is not merely an eccentric interpretation of the facts or an interesting foible, nor is it an irrelevant example of anguished post-presidency chatter. It is a rejection of reality, a rejection of law, and, ultimately, a rejection of the entire system of American government.
I can attest, from speaking to an array of different sources, that Donald Trump does indeed believe quite genuinely that he — along with former senators David Perdue and Martha McSally — will be “reinstated” to office this summer after “audits” of the 2020 elections in Arizona, Georgia, and a handful of other states have been completed.
(ec)::Be, we should go with the multiple RS references Soibangla has provided. They don't support "could be". SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
has told several people he believes he could be “reinstated” to the White House this August. That does not support the text "would be". Period. Could and would are very different - one implies certainty, one implies possibility. The fact that you made this edit without seeing that glaring discrepancy, and the fact that SPECIFICO is blindly supporting the edit without recognizing this blatant misrepresentation of the reliable source, highly suggest that you should take a step back and re-evaluate whether personal opinion is clouding your judgement on this topic. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 19:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
the operative words you included that lead to my revertbut that's not what you said in your edit summary, which is why I have challenged your rationale, which you are now changing. Believed is most certainly the operative word. soibangla ( talk) 19:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
take a step back and re-evaluate whether personal opinion is clouding your judgementRight back atcha. soibangla ( talk) 19:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
what amounts to "this person is crazy". My edit says what he is reported by multiple RS to believe. soibangla ( talk) 19:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
It says what heavily biased sources report him to believeSuch as National Review? Ha! I finally found a way to use a conservative outlet as a source and someone has a problem with it. Just can't make this up. soibangla ( talk) 19:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
take a step back and re-evaluate whether personal opinion is clouding your judgementsoibangla ( talk) 19:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
clearly not everyone did. I don't see anyone here defending your reversion on the basis of your edit summary. soibangla ( talk) 19:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Soibangla cherry-picked obviously and extremely biased sources. Minutes ago I advised you are casting aspersions upon me, and now are intensifying it. Don't go this way. soibangla ( talk) 21:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
obviously and extremely biased sourceswhich was actually one source, WaPo, which is green per WP:RSP, with the only qualification being blog posts, which this was not, but rather by a prominent journalist, Philip Bump, not some hack. It was labeled "analysis," but it was not an opinion as you asserted in your edit summary to justify reversion, and if anyone thinks "analysis" from a prominent reliable source should be excluded they need to litigate that at WP:RSN to change policy, not attempt to litigate it selectively in a specific case when it suits them. You alone assert WaPo is less neutral and less reliable than other RS, here at least. You say "will" is
not supported by more mainstream sources, but this [19] says "will," as does this. [20]. And the
the ultimate source of the information to begin withsaid "expects he will get reinstated." [21], followed by a conservative publication reporting based on "speaking to an array of different sources, that Donald Trump does indeed believe quite genuinely that he — along with former senators David Perdue and Martha McSally — will be “reinstated.” [22] Believes. Will. My edit said: By June 2021, Trump was telling associates he believed he would be reinstated as president by August. Those who have been paying close attention know that in recent days, Trump loyalists/influencers Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell have made similar assertions in public, the latter saying he's gonna get SCOTUS to do it by August, and Mike Flynn appeared to express support among the QAnon crowd for a military coup to get it done. Perhaps we can allude to those things in the edit to establish it is noteworthy. soibangla ( talk) 00:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
a forum with editorial oversight? soibangla ( talk) 14:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't see why I should have to read through multiple citations. Well OK then. soibangla ( talk) 14:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
With or without attribution, it was just a brief blip on the radar and not noteworthy enough to put in his biography. This is the guy who does not know how things work in the real world. He thought that you need ID to buy groceries, he doesn't know that First Amendment freedom of speech refers to the government censoring citizens and not to his contract violation squabbles with Twitter and Facebook, etc. Yesterday at the GOP convention in North Carolina he bored his GOP audience with the same old whine about the crime of the century, sans mention of reinstatement ( NYT, CNN). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I didn't see this discussion, but I have trimmed the material back by about 50%, as it contained way too much detail. I do think a mention of this belongs in the Post-presidency section, but just a sentence or two, and as simple reporting without any analysis. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, I haven't seen a NYT news article by Haberman, just a tweet. Do you have a reference? TFD ( talk) 19:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
In June 2021, it was reported that Trump had told several people he would be reinstated as president in August.We should say "reportedly" or "it was reported" rather than state in Wikipedia's voice that he was doing it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Elizium23, you "fixed" it by attributing it to Haberman and Karni in the text. They were the first, but not the only ones, to report this. Look at the other sources I listed here: it’s been independently confirmed by the Associated Press, [29] the National Review [30] and the Daily Beast (as quoted by NBC News). [31] If we need attribution, it should be as proposed by SPECIFICO: “In June 2021 multiple national publications reported that…” -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Should the text say that Trump believed he would, could, or will be reinstated by August (all three beliefs are unmoored from reality)? Of our two cites, NYT uses could while AP uses could and will—giving credence to a bizarre conspiracy theory that he could somehow be reinstated into the presidency in August
in the body, reportedly thinks he’ll be reinstated
in the headline.
Cooke/NR also says will.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 14:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
As many have noticed, I've been fussing with the Mueller/Ukraine scandal paragraph of the lead. Mostly modest clarifying copy edits, IMO. But I've been contemplating this phrasing "Trump solicited Ukraine", which is not quite correct. More accurately would be "Trump pressured Ukraine", since not only was a favor asked, but there was some coercion in the $400M military aid. Any objections to changing the language to "Trump pressured Ukraine"? Bdushaw ( talk) 23:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add to the end of the "COVID-19 outbreak at the White House" section, the following sentence (with citation):
It was later reported that nearly 900 Secret Service personnel contracted the virus. According to the watchdog agency, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the President's holding of large campaign rallies had contributed to the infections. [1] Bluewater02 ( talk) 19:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 10:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)References
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Trump said “peacefully and patriotically march” during the Jan 6 speech! If you leave that part out you lie through omission Kresseljustin ( talk) 21:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
“Peacefully and patriotically” Trump told Jan 6 protesters that! If you leave that part out you lie through omission
Kresseljustin ( talk) 21:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
"On 1 July 2021, New York prosecutors charged the Trump Organization with..."
to:
"On 1 July 2021, New York prosecutors indicted the Trump Organization with..."
Big difference. Keep it honest. 97.89.36.122 ( talk) 21:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There was no Russian interference in the 2016 election. That is a proven fact. 2601:142:C180:86C0:59B7:AA4E:9CDC:38B5 ( talk) 23:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x reverted an edit with what I consider an invalid rationale, WP:NOTNEWS, which the editor has invoked multiple times for other reversions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1029046331&oldid=1029046123
I restored the content on that basis.
Slatersteven then reverted my edit without explanation.
I don't consider this proper. soibangla ( talk) 15:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
there have been rumors)—that receive their 15 minutes of
it tells us nothing about him.ha soibangla ( talk) 16:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The edit in question, noted at the top of this section, was one that I made. The rationale for the removal is frankly ridiculous - "Big Lie" has been discussed now for several months, Trump has continued it since winter 2020, and the lie has been the motivation for certain GOP states enacting their voter restrictions. The removal also took with it 5-6 reliable citation supporting the word, apparently first used by Biden. The issue is a major one for Trump, it has been ongoing, and it has large impact not only on voting, but on the behaviour of the GOP. Not to mention the question was under active talk, BEFORE the reversion, in the section just above. I'd suggest restoring the text and letting the above discussion take place. I am suggesting that "Big Lie" is worthy of a mention in the lead (and its lead, people, not lede, just saying). Bdushaw ( talk) 00:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
In 2020, Trump was a significant source of disinformation on national voting practices and the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump's attacks on mail-in ballots and other election practices served to weaken public faith in the integrity of the 2020 presidential election. I quoted WP:NEWS because the cites for the additional material were mostly from early January, and the term "big lie" didn't appear to have been used much until May 3 when Trump posted a sentence to his blog] proclaiming that "The Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020 will be, from this day forth, known as THE BIG LIE!" and Fox and Co. ran with it. I found a number of sources from May, covering both how the term came to be used by Trump critics, how it was "commandeered" by Trump, and how it's now used by the GOP. I edited your original material and put it in the "Post-presidency" section with three more current cites than the ones from January. Seems a better fit because it's an ongoing situation. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Soibangla, my apologies. I overlooked that you had reverted my removal of Bdushaw's edit and not one of the two edits of yours that I removed. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Trump's father was not a German immigrant. His grandfather was a German immigrant. please correct this. 69.68.149.147 ( talk) 18:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Why isn't the lede the typical four paragraphs as recommended by MOS? ~ HAL 333 22:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald Trump has announced plans to sue Google, Facebook and Twitter, claiming as the the victim of censorship. [Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57754435] 94.15.194.82 ( talk) 17:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
With regard to the St John's incident (discussed above), the article still uses the fallacious and misleading term, "small fire". If you are controlling the fire, for example, a campfire or a cigarette lighter, a small fire might be a reasonable term — except in point of fact I believe that most people would just call a campfire a campfire or a cigarette lighter a Bunsen burner. The fact is — as I can tell you as an Australian resident — a wildfire, as lit by an arsonist or an inadvertently dropped ciggie can unleash a fire storm. Literally. Calling it a small fire is true in the sense that it didn't spread very far, thankfully for St John's. But it sounds rather apologist. If I lit a blaze in the Australian bush, and it was rapidly dowsed by a rainstorm, I could arguably say it was only a small fire, no biggie. But I wonder if people would forgive me, knowing that I could have put people and homes at risk. Fire is a dangerous element. Don't play with it. It ill-behooves Wikipedia to use terminology that potentially encourages the kiddies to think that arson is harmless fun. And I say this as a visiting fireman manque.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 12:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Can the phrase about the fire just be removed? Is is relevant to the biography of Donald Trump? Was the fire an important occurrence in the event that requires a mention? Bdushaw ( talk) 15:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
they tried to burn down the church the day before and almost succeeded ... The church was badly hurt. He also shared a post that the church
was firebombed by terrorists- which I didn't add. Hence the fire itself, and the nature of the fire, is relevant to Trump - he made the clearing about it. starship .paint ( exalt) 06:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Frustratingly, I see that once again the lead of this article has been changed to differ it from all the other US presidents intros. I'm of course speaking of the 'bleeping' linkage of "45th president of the United States" to Presidency of Donald Trump. Hopefully, this inconsistency will eventually be overturned. GoodDay ( talk) 02:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
How should we handle links within the lead sentence in regards to the "45th president of the United States" section?
Option A: Link to President of the United States article, ... who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
Option B Link to Presidency of Donald Trump article, ... who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
Also if you are wondering why the link selections slightly differ in regards to the "45th" part (not linked in A, but is in B) it is becasue in the two revisions that have gone back and forth (see previous disscussions linked above) that is way they have been handled. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 04:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
most people searching "Donald Trump" are likely looking for information on his presidencyanswers the problem you raised
4 years of his life is longer than literally the entire rest of the article by a very decent margin- these 4 years are the most important ones of his life. starship .paint ( exalt) 04:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
45th president of the United States, not just
president of the United States. Having "45th president of the United States" link to our article about the 45th presidency of the United States is perfectly intuitive. Regarding the precedent argument, that amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFF. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 05:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
45th president of the United Stateswould be List of presidents of the United States. Hence, EGG. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
45th president of the United Statesdoes it imply or suggest it is talking about his specific presidency, unlike where it was before (During his presidency.... Moreover, A is specific to the actual office he held and it is very clear meeting MOS:LINKCLARITY. Moreover, readers of this encycoledia will more often than not be familiar with links in lead sentences in other articles and will expected to be taken to the article about the specific office article, allowing to meet MOS:LINKCLARITY states which The article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 06:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
served as the 40th president of the United States. Since the last time I engaged in a semi-scientific sampling of random related instances to formulate an argument, a bad-faith troll insisted I was selecting "arbitrary dates", I will say that I checked the lead sentences of our articles on every US president during my own life (per the disclosure on my user page that I was born in 1988); since 100% of the sample I took all agreed with "A", the burden is on anyone arguing for "B" to present evidence that either (a) it is just a coincidence that these articles all follow this pattern (such as a result of recent editorial changes) or (b) there is some reason to make an exception for this article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
know what a "president" of a country ismostly seem to have presidents whose roles are quite different from the POTUS. India's current "leader" is widely considered to be Narendra Modi, not Ram Nath Kovind, and the same is true of places like Singapore and Ireland. (South Africa appears to be a rare exception, and was perhaps cherry-picked.) An argument could be made that, thanks to American TV and movies, people in these countries know more about the role of the US president than the presidents of their own countries (I certainly do), but that does not appear to be the argument being made; moreover, this argument would have to apply to all the other articles on US presidents, including (to an even greater extent than Trump) the current one. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 07:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
this argument would have to apply to all the other articles on US presidents- Yes, I agree it would apply to all pres articles. The generic POTUS article being linked in the infobox, and the administration-specific article being linked in the lead, is the arrangement that makes the most sense to me for all pres articles. (Vice versa [generic link in lead, specific link in infobox] is not as good IMO but would also work, and would be better than linking the generic twice [in the lead and infobox] and the specific not at all in the lead.) Levivich 17:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Trump's presidency was marked by X, Y and Z., this RFC is highly unlikely to establish a consensus for such. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 04:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@ GoodDay and Symmachus Auxiliarus: RfC started above. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 04:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Ping users involved in this discussion [40] @ Sdkb, Mandruss, ONUnicorn, and Space4Time3Continuum2x:. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 04:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Ping users involved in this discussion [41] @ Scjessey, May His Shadow Fall Upon You, Emir of Wikipedia, and Steverci:. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 04:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Ping users involved in this discussion [42]@ SPECIFICO, PyroFloe, Levivich, ValarianB, ChipotleHater, Jonmaxras, Qexigator, Rreagan007, Throast, MelanieN, Thanoscar21, Onetwothreeip, Jack Upland, Giraffer, Anon0098, Berchanhimez, Chrisahn, Hazelforest, Neutrality, Felix558, AleatoryPonderings, Mgasparin, ProcrastinatingReader, Starship.paint, Govindaharihari, Moxy, Throast, SRD625, Thanoscar21, Hijiri88, Khajidha, Bdushaw, Ewulp, GreenFrogsGoRibbit, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, PyroFloe, Kolya Butternut, and DarthBotto:. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 04:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Ping users involved in this discussion who haven't already been pinged above: @ Bdushaw and Dave souza: {{u| Sdkb}} talk 05:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Listed at WP:CR. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 13:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
How about we implement A on the lead sentence (really restoring the article's status quo -- technically this RFC goes against the normal BRD process) and change the sentence Trump made
many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.
, which currently appears near the end of the second full paragraph, to read During both his campaigns and
his presidency, Trump made
many false and misleading statements, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.
?
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや) 10:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't really care WHERE a link to Presidency of Donald Trump appears, just that the reader is quickly informed that this separate article exists. Right now the first instance is at the top of the 2nd infobox, confusingly noted as "Presidency (timeline)". Looking at the first infobox...firstly the link to the President article is there (making including that link in the first sentence of the lead somewhat redundant). Then there are the words "In office"... what about replacing those words with Presidency of Donald Trump; that would require changing the form of the infobox itself. Does every president have a biography article and a presidency article? It occurs to me that one aspect of this discussion is that many editors may view the presidency article as not that important, perhaps on par with the multitude of other Trump related articles. Given the number of times the presidency article is referred to when material is precluded from this article, the importance of the presidency article seems unique. Perhaps a more basic task would be a consensus assessment of how important the presidency article is. If the consensus is that that article is not that important, then the resolution of this question becomes easier (and I become even more baffled...). Bdushaw ( talk) 16:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I haven't checked out the history of this article, to see who changed the link from President of the United States to Presidency of Donald Trump, without getting prior consent. But I do know who just attempted the same thing in the lead at Joe Biden in changing the link from President of the United States to Presidency of Joe Biden, four days ago. I wish the individual-in-question would stop doing this & get a prior consensus first. GoodDay ( talk) 18:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I've changed the lead to what I believe is the consensus of this (expired) RFC. If there's disagreement on that, then would somebody contact the page where such closures are requested? GoodDay ( talk) 18:48, 9 July 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 130 | ← | Archive 134 | Archive 135 | Archive 136 | Archive 137 | Archive 138 | → | Archive 140 |
The introduction section is wayy too long. I don't think I have ever seen another wikipedia page that has more than 2 paragraphs before hitting the contents box. Is this a thing that should be fixed? It just doesn't look right to me. 2001:569:BE3B:C700:B88D:C732:531C:123E ( talk) 07:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
The official Trump post-presidential website is 45office.com. Why is it not listed? Ajlipp ( talk) 06:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
https://www.45office.com Ajlipp ( talk) 06:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
In the same way that Obama has two sites: https://barackobama.com ("The Office of Barack and Michelle Obama") and https://obama.org (Obama Foundation), Trump also has two.
https://45office.com is "The Office of Donald J. Trump" and https://donaldjtrump.com is "Save America", a site for fundraising for Save America JFC, a joint fundraising committee of Save America and Make America Great Again PAC. Its legal disclaimer says it is "not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee." The site also forwards to a store for Trump merchandise, and forwards to https://45office.com via the "contact" link. Both sites catalog Trump's recent official statements. Ajlipp ( talk) 16:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
https://45office.com is his "official" site, but this week he started using https://donaldjtrump.com/desk as his replacement Twitter-type page as well. Ajlipp ( talk) 01:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah that sounds fair. We don't list the Twitter accounts (or their equivalents) of Obama, GWB, Bill Clinton, or Carter in the "personal details" section of their pages either. Ajlipp ( talk) 16:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Why was Trump's official website switched to https://donaldjtrump.com? That site states "Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee." It's written on literally every page. It is *not* Trump's official website, and could not be more direct about that fact. It is paid for, controlled by, and exists for the sole financial benefit of the Save America joint fundraising committee.
Trump's only official website is https://www.45office.com. That Save America's site also happens to contain Trump's blog doesn't change that. Please switch Trump's official website back to https://trump45office.com Ajlipp ( talk) 07:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Trump's new official website is called From the Desk of Donald J. Trump 46.212.103.44 ( talk) 09:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
No, his official website is
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ In the infobox we should link to his home page, not a subpage like
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/desk or
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news - I've moved his blog to External links'.
starship
.paint (
exalt) 03:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
https://donaldjtrump.com is *not* Trump's official website. That site states "Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee." Those words are written on literally *every* page. The site could not be more direct about the fact that it is not Trump's site. It is paid for, controlled by, and exists for the sole financial benefit of the Save America joint fundraising committee. That it also happens to contain Trump's blog doesn't change that.
Trump's only official website is https://www.45office.com. Please switch it back. Ajlipp ( talk) 07:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
In paragraph 4 of the article, the part that details President Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic (in the sentence after his appointments of Supreme Court justices), it should include a sentence about how the pandemic led to an economic recession that led to President Trump leaving office with fewer jobs than when his term began. This detail about the economy is crucial, because the recession itself played a big role in Trump losing re-election. Additionally, should there also be a sentence about how 400,000 Americans died of COVID-19 by his final day of office? Please consider making these additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainamerica099 ( talk • contribs) 13 April 2021 20:27:43 (UTC)
Even though this Wikipedia article is a biography of Trump and not an article about the COVID-19 Recession, the Wikipedia articles for Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush discuss the economy. More specifically, the article for President Bush details the United States entering the Great Recession. Therefore, please consider adding a sentence about how the United States suffered a recession during the part of the article where Trump's response to COVID-19 is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainamerica099 ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Post-presidency should be updated to chronicle Trump's targeting of Liz Cheney and how he used his influence to kick her out of her leadership role for her criticism of him. Here are some sources:
References
Pipsally, you
[1] reinstated the sentence: Five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died as a consequence of the riot.
describing it as sourced content. You appear to be unaware that the three sources you restored
[2]
[3]
[4] are outdated, all of them being written in January, with the latest update being in February. You removed an April source (
WTOP / AP) I provided from which states that out of the five deaths, the D.C. medical examiner found that three (Brian Sicknick, Kevin Greeson, Benjamin Philips) were natural deaths (stroke, hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) and one (Roseanne Boyland) was an accidental death (amphetamine overdose). Other sources have also reported this (
NBC on Sicknick /
USA Today on Sicknick /
CNBC on the others /
Forbes on the others) Additionally note that according to the police incident report, Greeson died before rioters entered the Capitol
[5], and according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, there is no evidence that Philips participated in the storming
[6]. In light of this new information, we cannot continue to maintain that Five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died as a consequence of the riot.
starship
.paint (
exalt) 03:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
There were many casualties, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died before, during, or after the riotis good. The only improvement would be to replace casualties with injuries - seems that it's being used to say injuries primarily and that injuries is more straightforward. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 23:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fraud has been found in multiple states and instances. Seems like fake news to have it listed that Trump wouldn’t let it go. He let it go but the voters did not. 67.61.90.156 ( talk) 04:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Should we mention Trump's recent comments on Liz Cheney? I think someone who has access to editing the page should if they can. Fixing26 ( talk) 00:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Needs to be mentioned how popular Trump remains after office 2600:1700:BC21:5F70:E133:E9B3:90B7:AD7E ( talk) 21:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I read in this article of USA Today, ("Biden blazed past his vaccine target for the first 100 days. Does the Trump administration deserve credit too?"), which is a reliable source, that Operation Warp Speed played a crucial role in the success of the american vaccination campaign. In order to ensure the neutrality of this wikipedia page, one should mention it, since it's an argument often used to defend Trump's actions and it is supported by reliable sources.
I am sorry but that's an opinion and Wikipedia is not made to express one opinion in particular but all the ones that are supported by facts. This article already gives many elements that could be use to criticize Trump's gestion of the crisis, I just ask that we add a contradictory element supported by a reliable source. Since vaccines are probably the things that will end the pandemic, the billions of dollars that were given by the federal governement to fund research on it are relevant in context. Dimitrius99 ( talk) 23:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a relevant scholarly report given the context: "Donald Trump and vaccination: The effect of political identity, conspiracist ideation and presidential tweets on vaccine hesitancy." AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 01:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
The problem I see with this article can be summed up in one question : here are two elements on Trump's gestion of the crisis, one could be found in the article, the other could't : -Trump said in April 2020 that vaccine was months away while some experts said one should wait at least 12 months (and they were wrong). -Trump's administration launched an iniative to manufacture vaccines at fast at possible by giving billions of dollars to research teams. What is the most important of these two elements ? The neutrality of Wikipedia will be judged by its ability to write balanced articles on controversial figures : there's a link to Operation Warp Speed's Wikipedia page in the "Template : Donald Trump series", as a part of governement response to the pandemic, while it isn't even mentionned once in the body of the article or in the introduction. Dimitrius99 ( talk) 08:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
quietly took around $10 billion from a fund meant to help hospitals and health care providers affected by Covid-19 and used the money to bankroll Operation Warp Speed contracts. Summing up: name pilfered from Star Trek, funds pilfered from money provided by Congress for pandemic-related expenses like hospital staffing and staff's personal protective equipment, treatment of uninsured COVID-19 patients, and vaccine distribution. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Less than a month in office, Biden moved to purchase 200 million additional Pfizer and Moderna doses to cover 300 million adults. The president also purchased an additional 100 million doses from Johnson & Johnson and helped cement a deal between the vaccine maker and its rival Merck to help make the newly approved vaccine. Trump officials have pointed out the alliance was the result of conversations between the two pharmaceutical companies before Biden took office, but Merck CEO Ken Frazier credited the Biden administration with expanding discussions and offering "financial support that allowed us to then think about converting our factories to make this stuff," he told The Washington Post. Among the FDA-authorized vaccines, only Pfizer did not take federal dollars to fund research and development.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware this has been a much discussed topic for the lede in the past. However, I think we should perhaps revisit having Trump's immigration policy (i.e. the Trump wall etc.) in the lede? JLo-Watson ( talk) 16:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I propose adding the following sentence to the first paragraph of the lede:
A member of the
Republican Party, he was the first U.S. president without
prior military or government service.
This material is already in the lede, in the third paragraph.
Virtually every other article about an American president has in the first paragraph of its lede what party the president belonged to as well as his prior political experience. A lede paragraph with only one sentence is very awkward.
PS @ MelanieN: where does it say that any change to the first paragraph lede must be first discussed here? The very first sentence should not be changed, because there is consensus as to what it should be. But other than that...? Zingarese talk · contribs 22:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Can we also add misogynistic too? I feel like we should put something in the lead that says Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged and misogynistic. Ak-eater06 ( talk) 20:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Not a forum
|
---|
|
|
Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentationthat quote. The overall presentation of a sentence devoted entirely to this sort of negative information in the lead is similar to criticism sections - there are a plethora of negative (and a plethora of positive things, especially from before his politics) that could be included in the lead. We should not be attempting to "hang" a ton of negative words in the lead just because they can be reliably sourced. That's not false balance - it's true balance. His racism is much more prevalent in reliable sources - and elevating misogyny to be at the same level is inappropriate because there's maybe 5-10 times more reliable sources that discuss his racist comments/actions than his misogynistic ones. Which is exactly why I said I may support it being added elsewhere - may - if it can be done in such a way to not make it similar in weight to the racist comments, which have received much more attention in reliable sources than has this. Alternatively, I see no reason that the "race" and "sex" has to be called out - why can we not just change the wording altogether to be "discriminatory", as I feel that'd be supported and would encompass not only racial/gender discrimination but also sexual orientation (which can be reliably sourced) and all of his other hateful comments? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 19:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
many of his actions have been characterized as discriminatory toward marginalized groups, including women and racial minorities.But that seems like a separate discussion. For now, the question is about misogyny, and it seems most of us here feel it's received roughly comparable coverage to his racism, not 5-10 times less. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
This article's grammar has much room for improvement. I'll rewrite the lede today and will probably do other sections later.
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 (sorry if there's already been a discussion about this, but do you think we should specify January 20 for both of these dates? I understand that consensus 50 indicates that it should not mention the dates, but when I go to the archived link, none of the proposed options had specific dates in them. If there has already been a discussion about this, could someone point me to it and if not, could you please provide reasoning to not do this if that is your opinion?).
Born and raised in Queens, New York City, Trump attended Fordham University and the University of Pennsylvania, graduating with a bachelor's degree in 1968. He became the president of his father Fred Trump's real estate business in 1971 and renamed it to The Trump Organization. Trump expanded the company's operations to building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses. He later started various side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies. He owned the Miss Universe brand of beauty pageants from 1996 to 2015. From 2003 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice (I added a comma between "2015" and "he.").
Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist. He entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and was elected in an upset victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote. He was the first U.S. president without prior military or government service. His election and policies sparked numerous protests. Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist.
During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. He enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court as well as more than 200 federal judges (I added a comma between "Kavanaugh" and "and."). In foreign policy, Trump pursued an America First agenda: he renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement as the U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement and withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal (I added a comma between "change" and "and"). He imposed import tariffs that triggered a trade war with China and met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, but negotiations on denuclearization eventually broke down. Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging, and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.
A special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller found that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the goal of helping Trump's election chances but did not find sufficient evidence to establish criminal conspiracy or coordination with Russia (I removed the comma between "chances" and "but."). Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice and neither indicted nor exonerated him. The House of Representatives impeached Trump in December 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after he solicited Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. The Senate acquitted him of both charges in February 2020. (Again, for these two sentences, should we include exact dates? Please let me know if there has already been a discussion about this. I would add that if we do change "December 2019" and "February 2020" to exact dates, then we should change the "in"s immediately before them to "on"s.)
Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat (I removed the comma between "Biden" and "but."). He attempted to overturn the results by making false claims of electoral fraud, pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition (I added a comma between "challenges" and "and."). On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which hundreds stormed, interrupting the electoral vote count. On January 13, the House impeached Trump for incitement of insurrection, making him the only federal officeholder in American history to be impeached twice. The Senate acquitted Trump for the second time on February 13, 2021. (Two things here: I think we should keep the date format for these two sentences the same - we should either not say the year both times or say the year both times. Also, the part that talks about the first impeachment and acquittal does not have specific dates. I also think this should remain uniform - either we should have specific dates for both impeachments and both acquittals or we should have specific dates for neither the impeachments nor the acquittals.) Mrytzkalmyr ( talk) 20:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x removed the First Step Act from the lead even though it had been up there for months with no issues. Just wanted to open discussion on this. I don't see why this doesn't deserve to be in the lead as it was legislation which represented a major development in criminal justice reform. It shouldn't matter whether the bill was bipartisan or not to warrant lead inclusion. Thoughts?
EDIT: I also just noticed that the names of Trump's three Supreme Court justices were removed from the next sentence, they should absolutely be placed back, especially since justices are mentioned specifically by name in other presidential bio articles. Basil the Bat Lord ( talk) 00:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree and have restored the FSA. JLo-Watson ( talk) 20:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Trump has repeatedly claimed credit for passing the First Step Act, and then his administration did everything it could to water it down and make it harder for inmates to qualify. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
MelanieN - 1st sentence, 4th para of the lede states: "A special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller found that Trump benefited from Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election," - it is not cited to a RS, there's a (b) footnote that doesn't say anything about benefited, and there's nothing in the body text that speaks to "benefited". We either need to remove it from the lede, or cite it and add the material to the body text. I'm not working lede improvement right now but that was a glaring comment that I thought needed attention. Atsme 💬 📧 21:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
But if it’s hard to prove anything about Russian interference, it’s equally hard to disprove anything: The interference campaign could easily have had chronic, insidious effects that could be mistaken for background noise but which in the aggregate were enough to swing the election by 0.8 percentage points toward Trump — not a high hurdle to clear because 0.8 points isn’t much at all.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
The social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government.
The Office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring or coordinating with Russia in its election-interference activities.
Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
The Russian contacts consisted of business connections, offers of assistance to the Campaign, invitations for candidate Trump and Putin to meet in person, invitations for Campaign officials and representatives of the Russian government to meet, and policy positions seeking improved U.S.-Russian relations. Section IV of this Report details the contacts between Russia and the Trump Campaign during the campaign and transition periods, the most salient of which are summarized below in chronological orderSpace4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Would this be appropriate to add to the last sentence of the lead? I implemented this edit but was reverted by another editor. Trump is considered to be one of the most controversial presidents in American history.
If not, would you support it if I provided sources to support this?
Interstellarity (
talk) 20:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Trump's infobox needs to say University of Pennsylvania. This is how all former presidents'undergraduate degrees are handled. Barack Obama is listed as having graduated from Columbia University, not Columbia College. For George W. Bush, Yale University is listed, not Yale College. Same for Bill Clinton, who graduated from Georgetown College, but Georgetown University is what's listed. So why is Trump the only president who has a named graduate program within a university listed as his undergraduate alma mater?
I believe a reason could be to deceive the public, because saying one graduated from "Wharton" heavily implies earning an MBA. Whether that is the reason or not, Wikipedia is continuing to perpetuate that deception by treating Trump's page differently from all other former U.S. presidents.
There is no public figure of Trump's significance with only a bachelor's degree, but who has the Wharton School listed as their alma mater. There is no other president whose undergraduate alma mater is listed as a named graduate school, rather than the University.
In a previous discussion about this, as an example, user Hipocrite wrote that all presidents who graduated from Harvard College, Harvard Law School or Harvard Buisness School, *all* are listed as Harvard University (John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama).
User Hipocrite also noted that some public figures with MBAs have Wharton in their infobox. But what was never discussed was that I can find *no* other significant public figure that has Wharton, nor any other named graduate program (be it business, law or otherwise) listed as their *undergraduate* alma mater. Trump is the only one I could find.
For Wharton to remain in Trump's infobox, you should be able to find many other public figures of Trump's stature with a named graduate program listed as their undergraduate alma mater. But you can't, because they don't exist.
Trump's needs to revert back to University of Pennsylvania, because standards need to be applied objectively. Ajlipp ( talk) 16:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
The other Wharton graduates' infoboxes that say "University of Pennsylvania" should be changed to "Wharton". -- Distelfinck ( talk) 23:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[[Federalist Sangering Democrats is missing the double brackets at the end Mwiqdoh ( talk) 16:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Trump appears to have two websites now,
45office
@ Soibangla: What's the source for your edit? WaPo says "was convened recently," and all other sources I've seen based their reporting on WaPo's. WaPo also says that "It is also unclear when or even whether the grand jury will be asked to consider returning any indictments." Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
googling "Vance grand jury"I got the same results I got when I googled Trump+grand jury+new york, i.e., no source saying that the grand jury has been seated since last year. Which sources say that? According to AP, this grand jury is new, and that there was another, investigative one that issued subpoenas.
The Democratic prosecutor has been using an investigative grand jury through the course of his probe to issue subpoenas and obtain documents. That panel kept working while other grand juries and court activities were shut down because of the coronavirus pandemic. The investigation includes scrutiny of Trump’s relationship with his lenders; a land donation he made to qualify for an income tax deduction; and tax write-offs his company claimed on millions of dollars in consulting fees it paid. The new grand jury could eventually be asked to consider returning indictments. While working on that case, it also will be hearing other matters. The Post reported that the grand jury will meet three days a week for six months.That does not say that the grand jury is considering indictments. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 who also is an American media personality and businessman. 152.131.10.195 ( talk) 23:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Stop lying about him using the fake corporate news media who used fake narrative toward the president of the United States. Wikipedia has become less and less trustworthy by following the fake corporate news media narrative. 152.131.10.195 ( talk) 23:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Valjean, RE your question: Looks like I didn't use the latest version prior to the I manually reverted. Thanks for catching it. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
As Wikipedia usually attempts to avoid directly referring to Trump as a racist should this sentence be rephrased? Transcendent Presence ( talk) 08:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
It still directly states that Trump's campaigning methods are racist in Wikipedia's own voice. this is a matter of opionion more than direct fact as viewpoints on this differ widely and in IMO the sentence should reflect this. Transcendent Presence ( talk) 22:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
This seems like a reasonable position and the most appropriate way to adress the issue I would be in favour of this alteration Transcendent Presence ( talk) 00:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "There were many casualties, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died." to "There were many injuries, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died." A casualty, by definition, is a person killed in a war or an accident. 47.200.50.139 ( talk) 21:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
DT's blog was launched with something of a Trumpesque fanfare in early May 2021. Today, 2nd June 2021, after one month it was closed down. Various reports say that it had very low readership for such a well known celebrity and he was fed up with it being mocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.43.30 ( talk) 19:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Trumpesque fanfarearound its launch. The blog is too insignificant to mention here, though it may be of use on Social media use by Donald Trump. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I would tend to agree its a bit trivial. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Chrisahn: Your edits here and here and all the ones in between: Your edit summary for the first one referred to a recent discussion. Which one was that? I haven't looked at the sources for your edits yet, but in the case of the edit Specifico reverted the argument that Trump wasn't personally involved in the protests is a little odd, other than being the subject of everyone's wrath. Were you expecting him to join the protesters or send the troops (early days, we had to wait until 2020 for that one)? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 07:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Ah, tit for tat? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: Please provide evidence that Trump was personally involved in the Taliban peace talks. Otherwise, we'll have to delete them from this article. — Chrisahn ( talk) 14:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
We mention Trump's first support for the Saudis in Yemen, but not his 2019 doubling down. Here are a few sources. A sentence or two seems appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Pinging
Chrisahn,
Soibangla,
SPECIFICO about the current wording of the Saudi Arabia paragraph. "Limited" is based on this sentence in
Reuters’ March 2, 2018, article: Mattis said the U.S. assistance, which includes limited intelligence support and refueling of coalition jets, was ultimately aimed at bringing Yemen’s war toward a negotiated resolution.
I read "which includes" to mean that there is additional support, i.e., the arms sales by the U.S.—and numerous other countries—to Saudi Arabia since the invasion of Yemen in 2015. During the Trump era, that’s the $110 billion "deal" announced in March 2017—I don’t know whether the sales rushed through in late 2020 were part of that. "Supported" is supported by all sources, "actively supported" is kind of OpEd-ish IMO.
[1]
[2]
[3] I think we also should mention that Trump chose to ignore U.S. intelligence reports indicating that bin Salman approved/authorized the killing of Khashoggi.
[4]
[5] Thoughts?
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
the Trump administration simply continued what the Obama administration had startedIt's a big black mark on Obama's record, IMO, but Trump continued after withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal (i.e., it was no longer necessary to assure the Gulf states that the U.S. wasn't taking Iran's side against them) and at a time when Saudi war crimes in Yemen were well documented. Also, by late 2016, Obama had halted sale of precision-guided munitions because of problems with Saudi targeting. [13] I don't remember what the sources say about the kinds of weapons included in Trump's deal, don't have the time today to check. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
References
Why is the warning different when you're editing the talk page? It says "Limit of one revert in 24 hours" and "24-hr BRD cycle." When I'm not editing the talk page, the warning just mentions the 24-hr BRD cycle. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The lead presently has the phrasing, The House of Representatives impeached Trump on December 18, 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after he solicited Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. The Senate acquitted him of both charges on February 5, 2020. which is confusing, since it puts the cart before the horse (and does not indicate why Biden was the target) (and interrupts the impeachment from the Senate acquittal). Better language would be After Trump solicited Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden, the House of Representatives impeached Trump on December 18, 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress . The Senate acquitted him of both charges on February 5, 2020. (The paragraph requests Talk before changing the language.) The suggested change also makes for a clearer transition from the previous sentences. Bdushaw ( talk) 17:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey all! I know this is contentious, but it looks like Donald Trump has gotten some coverage for anti-Semitism [7] [8] [9]. I suggest we add the following sentence towards the end of the racial views section: "Jewish groups have criticized Donald Trump for invoking anti-Semitic stereotypes that American Jews overvalue money and unconditionally support Israel." Benevolent human ( talk) 15:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure why this hat note was removed - that other articles don't have such a notice is not a reason or rationale. I added the link to Presidency of Donald Trump for several reasons. First, most readers may not know that article exists - the link is given in the article to be sure, but far down in the article and not exactly conspicuous. Second, on these talk pages it has been repeatedly - endlessly - repeated that this is a biography, not the article on the presidency, as the reason for preventing the addition of material that is more presidential than biographical related. That being the case, this article should highlight the presidential article. There has also been endless discussion about adding a tag that the article is too long - I thought the hat note would be a useful compromise in that regard: A notice to prospective editors to add presidential material to the presidential article. I am sure there are other good reasons for advertising the existence of the presidential article at the top of this article. Since I don't see the given statement as a valid argument for removing the hat note, I will restore it. If the ensuing discussion here determines otherwise, then it can be removed then. Bdushaw ( talk) 10:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Bdushaw ( talk) 09:39, 24 May 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 agree with
Bdushaw that it's problematic that so few readers are finding their way to
Presidency of Donald Trump, given that Trump's presidency is what most of the visitors to this page are seeking to learn about. But I also agree with those who note that hatnotes are solely for disambiguation, not advertising other related pages. Fortunately, there's another way that we could help people find the presidency page: better wikilinking. Specifically, placing a wikilink in the first sentence, changing served as the 45th
president of the United States from 2017 to 2021
to served as the
45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021
. In fact, that link was included in option A, which achieved consensus
here, just no one ever changed the article to match. There was previous discussion
here that removed the presidency link from the first paragraph; the objection I made when I came across it after it closed is relevant here. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 05:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
This content was reverted [12] by Berchanhimez on the assertion it was inadequately sourced. I intend to restore the content with these sources [13] [14] [15] [16] tomorrow unless someone else does it first or a persuasive argument can be made here that it should be excluded for other reasons. soibangla ( talk) 17:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
The scale of Trump’s delusion is quite startling. This is not merely an eccentric interpretation of the facts or an interesting foible, nor is it an irrelevant example of anguished post-presidency chatter. It is a rejection of reality, a rejection of law, and, ultimately, a rejection of the entire system of American government.
I can attest, from speaking to an array of different sources, that Donald Trump does indeed believe quite genuinely that he — along with former senators David Perdue and Martha McSally — will be “reinstated” to office this summer after “audits” of the 2020 elections in Arizona, Georgia, and a handful of other states have been completed.
(ec)::Be, we should go with the multiple RS references Soibangla has provided. They don't support "could be". SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
has told several people he believes he could be “reinstated” to the White House this August. That does not support the text "would be". Period. Could and would are very different - one implies certainty, one implies possibility. The fact that you made this edit without seeing that glaring discrepancy, and the fact that SPECIFICO is blindly supporting the edit without recognizing this blatant misrepresentation of the reliable source, highly suggest that you should take a step back and re-evaluate whether personal opinion is clouding your judgement on this topic. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 19:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
the operative words you included that lead to my revertbut that's not what you said in your edit summary, which is why I have challenged your rationale, which you are now changing. Believed is most certainly the operative word. soibangla ( talk) 19:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
take a step back and re-evaluate whether personal opinion is clouding your judgementRight back atcha. soibangla ( talk) 19:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
what amounts to "this person is crazy". My edit says what he is reported by multiple RS to believe. soibangla ( talk) 19:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
It says what heavily biased sources report him to believeSuch as National Review? Ha! I finally found a way to use a conservative outlet as a source and someone has a problem with it. Just can't make this up. soibangla ( talk) 19:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
take a step back and re-evaluate whether personal opinion is clouding your judgementsoibangla ( talk) 19:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
clearly not everyone did. I don't see anyone here defending your reversion on the basis of your edit summary. soibangla ( talk) 19:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Soibangla cherry-picked obviously and extremely biased sources. Minutes ago I advised you are casting aspersions upon me, and now are intensifying it. Don't go this way. soibangla ( talk) 21:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
obviously and extremely biased sourceswhich was actually one source, WaPo, which is green per WP:RSP, with the only qualification being blog posts, which this was not, but rather by a prominent journalist, Philip Bump, not some hack. It was labeled "analysis," but it was not an opinion as you asserted in your edit summary to justify reversion, and if anyone thinks "analysis" from a prominent reliable source should be excluded they need to litigate that at WP:RSN to change policy, not attempt to litigate it selectively in a specific case when it suits them. You alone assert WaPo is less neutral and less reliable than other RS, here at least. You say "will" is
not supported by more mainstream sources, but this [19] says "will," as does this. [20]. And the
the ultimate source of the information to begin withsaid "expects he will get reinstated." [21], followed by a conservative publication reporting based on "speaking to an array of different sources, that Donald Trump does indeed believe quite genuinely that he — along with former senators David Perdue and Martha McSally — will be “reinstated.” [22] Believes. Will. My edit said: By June 2021, Trump was telling associates he believed he would be reinstated as president by August. Those who have been paying close attention know that in recent days, Trump loyalists/influencers Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell have made similar assertions in public, the latter saying he's gonna get SCOTUS to do it by August, and Mike Flynn appeared to express support among the QAnon crowd for a military coup to get it done. Perhaps we can allude to those things in the edit to establish it is noteworthy. soibangla ( talk) 00:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
a forum with editorial oversight? soibangla ( talk) 14:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't see why I should have to read through multiple citations. Well OK then. soibangla ( talk) 14:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
With or without attribution, it was just a brief blip on the radar and not noteworthy enough to put in his biography. This is the guy who does not know how things work in the real world. He thought that you need ID to buy groceries, he doesn't know that First Amendment freedom of speech refers to the government censoring citizens and not to his contract violation squabbles with Twitter and Facebook, etc. Yesterday at the GOP convention in North Carolina he bored his GOP audience with the same old whine about the crime of the century, sans mention of reinstatement ( NYT, CNN). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I didn't see this discussion, but I have trimmed the material back by about 50%, as it contained way too much detail. I do think a mention of this belongs in the Post-presidency section, but just a sentence or two, and as simple reporting without any analysis. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, I haven't seen a NYT news article by Haberman, just a tweet. Do you have a reference? TFD ( talk) 19:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
In June 2021, it was reported that Trump had told several people he would be reinstated as president in August.We should say "reportedly" or "it was reported" rather than state in Wikipedia's voice that he was doing it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Elizium23, you "fixed" it by attributing it to Haberman and Karni in the text. They were the first, but not the only ones, to report this. Look at the other sources I listed here: it’s been independently confirmed by the Associated Press, [29] the National Review [30] and the Daily Beast (as quoted by NBC News). [31] If we need attribution, it should be as proposed by SPECIFICO: “In June 2021 multiple national publications reported that…” -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Should the text say that Trump believed he would, could, or will be reinstated by August (all three beliefs are unmoored from reality)? Of our two cites, NYT uses could while AP uses could and will—giving credence to a bizarre conspiracy theory that he could somehow be reinstated into the presidency in August
in the body, reportedly thinks he’ll be reinstated
in the headline.
Cooke/NR also says will.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 14:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
As many have noticed, I've been fussing with the Mueller/Ukraine scandal paragraph of the lead. Mostly modest clarifying copy edits, IMO. But I've been contemplating this phrasing "Trump solicited Ukraine", which is not quite correct. More accurately would be "Trump pressured Ukraine", since not only was a favor asked, but there was some coercion in the $400M military aid. Any objections to changing the language to "Trump pressured Ukraine"? Bdushaw ( talk) 23:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add to the end of the "COVID-19 outbreak at the White House" section, the following sentence (with citation):
It was later reported that nearly 900 Secret Service personnel contracted the virus. According to the watchdog agency, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the President's holding of large campaign rallies had contributed to the infections. [1] Bluewater02 ( talk) 19:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 10:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)References
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Trump said “peacefully and patriotically march” during the Jan 6 speech! If you leave that part out you lie through omission Kresseljustin ( talk) 21:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
“Peacefully and patriotically” Trump told Jan 6 protesters that! If you leave that part out you lie through omission
Kresseljustin ( talk) 21:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
"On 1 July 2021, New York prosecutors charged the Trump Organization with..."
to:
"On 1 July 2021, New York prosecutors indicted the Trump Organization with..."
Big difference. Keep it honest. 97.89.36.122 ( talk) 21:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There was no Russian interference in the 2016 election. That is a proven fact. 2601:142:C180:86C0:59B7:AA4E:9CDC:38B5 ( talk) 23:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x reverted an edit with what I consider an invalid rationale, WP:NOTNEWS, which the editor has invoked multiple times for other reversions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1029046331&oldid=1029046123
I restored the content on that basis.
Slatersteven then reverted my edit without explanation.
I don't consider this proper. soibangla ( talk) 15:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
there have been rumors)—that receive their 15 minutes of
it tells us nothing about him.ha soibangla ( talk) 16:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The edit in question, noted at the top of this section, was one that I made. The rationale for the removal is frankly ridiculous - "Big Lie" has been discussed now for several months, Trump has continued it since winter 2020, and the lie has been the motivation for certain GOP states enacting their voter restrictions. The removal also took with it 5-6 reliable citation supporting the word, apparently first used by Biden. The issue is a major one for Trump, it has been ongoing, and it has large impact not only on voting, but on the behaviour of the GOP. Not to mention the question was under active talk, BEFORE the reversion, in the section just above. I'd suggest restoring the text and letting the above discussion take place. I am suggesting that "Big Lie" is worthy of a mention in the lead (and its lead, people, not lede, just saying). Bdushaw ( talk) 00:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
In 2020, Trump was a significant source of disinformation on national voting practices and the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump's attacks on mail-in ballots and other election practices served to weaken public faith in the integrity of the 2020 presidential election. I quoted WP:NEWS because the cites for the additional material were mostly from early January, and the term "big lie" didn't appear to have been used much until May 3 when Trump posted a sentence to his blog] proclaiming that "The Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020 will be, from this day forth, known as THE BIG LIE!" and Fox and Co. ran with it. I found a number of sources from May, covering both how the term came to be used by Trump critics, how it was "commandeered" by Trump, and how it's now used by the GOP. I edited your original material and put it in the "Post-presidency" section with three more current cites than the ones from January. Seems a better fit because it's an ongoing situation. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Soibangla, my apologies. I overlooked that you had reverted my removal of Bdushaw's edit and not one of the two edits of yours that I removed. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Trump's father was not a German immigrant. His grandfather was a German immigrant. please correct this. 69.68.149.147 ( talk) 18:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Why isn't the lede the typical four paragraphs as recommended by MOS? ~ HAL 333 22:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald Trump has announced plans to sue Google, Facebook and Twitter, claiming as the the victim of censorship. [Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57754435] 94.15.194.82 ( talk) 17:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
With regard to the St John's incident (discussed above), the article still uses the fallacious and misleading term, "small fire". If you are controlling the fire, for example, a campfire or a cigarette lighter, a small fire might be a reasonable term — except in point of fact I believe that most people would just call a campfire a campfire or a cigarette lighter a Bunsen burner. The fact is — as I can tell you as an Australian resident — a wildfire, as lit by an arsonist or an inadvertently dropped ciggie can unleash a fire storm. Literally. Calling it a small fire is true in the sense that it didn't spread very far, thankfully for St John's. But it sounds rather apologist. If I lit a blaze in the Australian bush, and it was rapidly dowsed by a rainstorm, I could arguably say it was only a small fire, no biggie. But I wonder if people would forgive me, knowing that I could have put people and homes at risk. Fire is a dangerous element. Don't play with it. It ill-behooves Wikipedia to use terminology that potentially encourages the kiddies to think that arson is harmless fun. And I say this as a visiting fireman manque.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 12:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Can the phrase about the fire just be removed? Is is relevant to the biography of Donald Trump? Was the fire an important occurrence in the event that requires a mention? Bdushaw ( talk) 15:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
they tried to burn down the church the day before and almost succeeded ... The church was badly hurt. He also shared a post that the church
was firebombed by terrorists- which I didn't add. Hence the fire itself, and the nature of the fire, is relevant to Trump - he made the clearing about it. starship .paint ( exalt) 06:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Frustratingly, I see that once again the lead of this article has been changed to differ it from all the other US presidents intros. I'm of course speaking of the 'bleeping' linkage of "45th president of the United States" to Presidency of Donald Trump. Hopefully, this inconsistency will eventually be overturned. GoodDay ( talk) 02:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
How should we handle links within the lead sentence in regards to the "45th president of the United States" section?
Option A: Link to President of the United States article, ... who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
Option B Link to Presidency of Donald Trump article, ... who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
Also if you are wondering why the link selections slightly differ in regards to the "45th" part (not linked in A, but is in B) it is becasue in the two revisions that have gone back and forth (see previous disscussions linked above) that is way they have been handled. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 04:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
most people searching "Donald Trump" are likely looking for information on his presidencyanswers the problem you raised
4 years of his life is longer than literally the entire rest of the article by a very decent margin- these 4 years are the most important ones of his life. starship .paint ( exalt) 04:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
45th president of the United States, not just
president of the United States. Having "45th president of the United States" link to our article about the 45th presidency of the United States is perfectly intuitive. Regarding the precedent argument, that amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFF. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 05:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
45th president of the United Stateswould be List of presidents of the United States. Hence, EGG. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
45th president of the United Statesdoes it imply or suggest it is talking about his specific presidency, unlike where it was before (During his presidency.... Moreover, A is specific to the actual office he held and it is very clear meeting MOS:LINKCLARITY. Moreover, readers of this encycoledia will more often than not be familiar with links in lead sentences in other articles and will expected to be taken to the article about the specific office article, allowing to meet MOS:LINKCLARITY states which The article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 06:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
served as the 40th president of the United States. Since the last time I engaged in a semi-scientific sampling of random related instances to formulate an argument, a bad-faith troll insisted I was selecting "arbitrary dates", I will say that I checked the lead sentences of our articles on every US president during my own life (per the disclosure on my user page that I was born in 1988); since 100% of the sample I took all agreed with "A", the burden is on anyone arguing for "B" to present evidence that either (a) it is just a coincidence that these articles all follow this pattern (such as a result of recent editorial changes) or (b) there is some reason to make an exception for this article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
know what a "president" of a country ismostly seem to have presidents whose roles are quite different from the POTUS. India's current "leader" is widely considered to be Narendra Modi, not Ram Nath Kovind, and the same is true of places like Singapore and Ireland. (South Africa appears to be a rare exception, and was perhaps cherry-picked.) An argument could be made that, thanks to American TV and movies, people in these countries know more about the role of the US president than the presidents of their own countries (I certainly do), but that does not appear to be the argument being made; moreover, this argument would have to apply to all the other articles on US presidents, including (to an even greater extent than Trump) the current one. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 07:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
this argument would have to apply to all the other articles on US presidents- Yes, I agree it would apply to all pres articles. The generic POTUS article being linked in the infobox, and the administration-specific article being linked in the lead, is the arrangement that makes the most sense to me for all pres articles. (Vice versa [generic link in lead, specific link in infobox] is not as good IMO but would also work, and would be better than linking the generic twice [in the lead and infobox] and the specific not at all in the lead.) Levivich 17:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Trump's presidency was marked by X, Y and Z., this RFC is highly unlikely to establish a consensus for such. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 04:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@ GoodDay and Symmachus Auxiliarus: RfC started above. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 04:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Ping users involved in this discussion [40] @ Sdkb, Mandruss, ONUnicorn, and Space4Time3Continuum2x:. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 04:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Ping users involved in this discussion [41] @ Scjessey, May His Shadow Fall Upon You, Emir of Wikipedia, and Steverci:. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 04:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Ping users involved in this discussion [42]@ SPECIFICO, PyroFloe, Levivich, ValarianB, ChipotleHater, Jonmaxras, Qexigator, Rreagan007, Throast, MelanieN, Thanoscar21, Onetwothreeip, Jack Upland, Giraffer, Anon0098, Berchanhimez, Chrisahn, Hazelforest, Neutrality, Felix558, AleatoryPonderings, Mgasparin, ProcrastinatingReader, Starship.paint, Govindaharihari, Moxy, Throast, SRD625, Thanoscar21, Hijiri88, Khajidha, Bdushaw, Ewulp, GreenFrogsGoRibbit, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, PyroFloe, Kolya Butternut, and DarthBotto:. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 04:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Ping users involved in this discussion who haven't already been pinged above: @ Bdushaw and Dave souza: {{u| Sdkb}} talk 05:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Listed at WP:CR. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 13:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
How about we implement A on the lead sentence (really restoring the article's status quo -- technically this RFC goes against the normal BRD process) and change the sentence Trump made
many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.
, which currently appears near the end of the second full paragraph, to read During both his campaigns and
his presidency, Trump made
many false and misleading statements, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.
?
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや) 10:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't really care WHERE a link to Presidency of Donald Trump appears, just that the reader is quickly informed that this separate article exists. Right now the first instance is at the top of the 2nd infobox, confusingly noted as "Presidency (timeline)". Looking at the first infobox...firstly the link to the President article is there (making including that link in the first sentence of the lead somewhat redundant). Then there are the words "In office"... what about replacing those words with Presidency of Donald Trump; that would require changing the form of the infobox itself. Does every president have a biography article and a presidency article? It occurs to me that one aspect of this discussion is that many editors may view the presidency article as not that important, perhaps on par with the multitude of other Trump related articles. Given the number of times the presidency article is referred to when material is precluded from this article, the importance of the presidency article seems unique. Perhaps a more basic task would be a consensus assessment of how important the presidency article is. If the consensus is that that article is not that important, then the resolution of this question becomes easier (and I become even more baffled...). Bdushaw ( talk) 16:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I haven't checked out the history of this article, to see who changed the link from President of the United States to Presidency of Donald Trump, without getting prior consent. But I do know who just attempted the same thing in the lead at Joe Biden in changing the link from President of the United States to Presidency of Joe Biden, four days ago. I wish the individual-in-question would stop doing this & get a prior consensus first. GoodDay ( talk) 18:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I've changed the lead to what I believe is the consensus of this (expired) RFC. If there's disagreement on that, then would somebody contact the page where such closures are requested? GoodDay ( talk) 18:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)