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 135 | ← | Archive 139 | Archive 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | Archive 143 | → | Archive 145 |
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.
after reading the article if concluded that it seems quite biased please read it over and fix mistakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junger04 ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
The settlement will allow CNN to avoid a lengthy and potentially unpredictable trial.I've watched all those videos on the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation. IMO, the later reporting was as biased against Phillips (too flawed, not heroic enough, or something) as the earlier reporting may have been against Sandmann. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC) The All Sides blog you cite has some terrific sources: sashi and ExoticBeast on Wikipediocracy, and a Breitbart article citing a The Critic article citing the Harvard study and then saying bias is proven by WP deprecating sources like Breitbart, Epoch Times, InfoWars, Gateway Pundit, OAN, but not CounterPunch, AlterNet, and Daily Kos. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
If ya'll believe or don't believe that this article, Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's articles are being given equal treatment? Then there must be some place else on this project, to have that discussion. GoodDay ( talk) 17:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not going to rehash what I've already saidleaving us at an impasse. We all have biases. This is not the place to address bias in general. This is the place to address bias on this specific article. – Muboshgu ( talk) 03:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
We can hat this general Wikipedia discussion, a strange flurry in a couple of hours, and continue with the discussion directly about this article, such as the above example of bias in the article. Bob K31416 ( talk) 23:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)}}
Yeah, I see this all over Wikipedia: People trying to shut down conversation s and block people because it puts them out of their comfort zone. TheeFactChecker ( talk) 18:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
People need to read wp:soapbox and wp:npa, and stop with the assumptions of bad faith. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
It's not assumptions. It is reality. If the co-founder of Wikipedia is saying it, there has to be a lot of weight to that argument. TheeFactChecker ( talk) 18:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Larry Singer's opinion does carry a lot of weight as he has a far better understanding of how Wikipedia operates than the average user. How Wikipedia operates specifically affects this page as in the various sections highlighted by Bob et al. TheeFactChecker ( talk) 18:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Let's vote on ending this discussion which has gone from "this article is biased" to "Wikipedia is biased". Shall we end this discussion?
No need for a vote, I am taking it to page closer requests, it is blatant soapboxing. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Someone has just done it. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:38, 22 November 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 had hatted the objectionable discussion [10] but it was unhatted by an editor who was paradoxically against the same discussion that they unhatted.
As a reminder, here's my last message.
Bob K31416 ( talk) 15:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the final line of the final paragraph it vaguely states that scholars and historians refer to trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. This is an opinion, not factual, and impossible to gauge given the amount of time between his election and departure from office. It's highly unprofessional and immature. Allowing opinionated statements like that is polarizing and unproductive which wikipedia should be starkly opposed to. 174.71.204.115 ( talk) 17:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Why isn't there any brief mention that Donald Trump's grandfather, on his paternal side, was a brothel owner? Why is that hidden from this article? It's a serious reflection of his character and is indicative of his lifetime patterns with women. This is a serious omission, and also reflects on the Wikipedia editors who have covered that up. This aspect was originally included in this article. Why was it removed? Stevenmitchell ( talk) 10:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "Please gain consensus on talk. These do not appear to be NPOV improvements." I believe the sources are reliable and per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP they should remain in the article.
The proposed text:
According to Russian President Vladimir Putin and some political experts and diplomats, the U.S.–Russian relations, which were already at the lowest level since the end of the Cold War, have further deteriorated since Trump took office in January 2017. [1] [2] [3]
Trump has repeatedly praised and rarely criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin, [4] [5] but has opposed some actions of the Russian government. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Trump imposed sanctions on Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany. [13] [14] In 2017, Trump signed the legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia; [15] in 2018, however, the Trump administration lifted some U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia after its 2014 annexation of Crimea. [16] Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7 [17] and never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan. [18] [19]
In November 2021, Igor Danchenko, a Russian analyst who was a primary source behind the 2016 Steele dossier of allegations against Donald Trump, [20] was arrested in connection with the John Durham investigation and was charged with five counts of making false statements to the FBI on five different occasions (between March 2017 and November 2017) regarding the sources of material he provided for the Steele dossier. [21] [22]
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 11:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The Kremlin continues to make a distinction between the president and his administration. Trump, by and large, is still viewed positively; he caused a breakdown in US politics, and that, for Moscow, can only a good thing.I didn't see the "political experts and diplomats" mentioned in items 1–3, just Putin and ambassador Antonov complaining.
What you need to know: President Trump claimed that the Russian interference did not affect the result of the 2016 race. He said the US would counteract any election meddling.I'm guessing you didn't look at the article on the Wayback Machine where you get to read a little bit more that just the title.
Trump has repeatedly praised and rarely criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin, [1] [2] but has opposed some actions of the Russian government. [3] [4] The Trump administration lifted the toughest sanctions the U.S. had imposed on Russian entities after its 2014 annexation of Crimea. [5] [6] Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7 [7]
and never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan. [8]
Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, citing alleged Russian non-compliance. [9] After he met Putin at the Helsinki Summit in July 2018, Trump drew bipartisan criticism for accepting Putin's denial of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, rather than accepting the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies. [10] [11] [12]
Trump has repeatedly praised and rarely criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin, [1] [2] but has opposed some actions of the Russian government. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Trump imposed sanctions on Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany. [9] [10] In 2017, Trump signed the legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia; [11] in 2018, however,the Trump administration lifted the toughest sanctions the U.S. had imposed on Russian entities after its 2014 annexation of Crimea. [12] [13] [14] Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7. [15]
Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, citing alleged Russian non-compliance. [16] After he met Putin at the Helsinki Summit in July 2018, Trump drew bipartisan criticism for accepting Putin's denial of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, rather than accepting the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies. [17] [18] [19]
the sanctions target firms building Nord Stream 2. In 2019, Trump signed the defense bill that imposed sanctions on companies installing deep sea pipelines (
engaged in pipe-layingat a time when the pipeline was almost completed. The targeted firms were mostly from the EU. Your Reuters source says that in January 2021 Trump vetoed the defense bill imposing further sanctions. Congress imposed sanctions, not Trump.
Apologies for hatting the reflists but this section with zero input from other editors was taking over the Talk page. As for the six additional sources, four of them deal with the sanctions imposed contrary to Trump's veto in January 2021. The other two don't mention any sanctions against Russian entities, just Trump's general verbal attacks on Germany, and a Swiss company announcing the suspension of its pipe-laying activities hours after the sanctions were signed into law. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
will impose sanctions on a Russian-owned ship involved in the construction of an undersea pipeline... The sanctions ... are the first action the United States has taken against the project. No other sanctions against Gazprom or any other Russian entities were ever taken. There were only threats of "secondary sanctions" against companies doing business with Russia and Gazprom, and at least one of those companies terminated their involvement with the project. Here's some information on the ship's owner per a German webpage,
Translation
|
---|
According to the Russian international shipping register, the Fortuna pipeline-laying vessel changed hands from one micro-enterprise to another. The change comes amid widening US sanctions against the construction of the pipeline. Germany had previously allowed the ship to complete the work to complete the laying of Nord Stream 2. According to RBK, until October it was owned by Hong Kong Strategic Mileage, then Universal Transport Group, and now it's KVT-Rus. The exact date of the change of ownership is not given in the register. KVT-Rus is a Moscow-based company registered on the Register of Small and Medium Enterprises. In 2019 the company had no income, the cash balance was 1,000 rubles. The company employs one person - the general director and founder Sergei Malkov. It is only known that he runs ZAO JV Aeroprima - the company is registered at the same address as KVT-Rus. On December 10th, 2020 KVT-Rus switched its core business from "Wholesale of sanitary and heating products" to "Providing transport services". The secondary business "Manufacture of other pumps and compressors" changed to "Activities in sea freight transport". Maria Schagina, sanctions expert at the University of Zurich, suspects that the owner maneuvers are part of a complex scheme to shield the former owners from the sanctions. "It is possible that it has something to do with the desire to cover up the trail before Joe Biden's government takes control of the sanctions," she told RBK. On December 11, the US Senate approved the draft defense budget for 2021, which provides for the expansion of restrictive measures against Nord Stream 2. The State Department said the United States will continue to impose sanctions on Nord Stream 2 until the project stops. per Bloomberg and per a German webpage |
Trump has repeatedly praised and rarely criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin, [1] [2] but has opposed some actions of the Russian government. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Trump opposed the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. [9] [10] In 2017, Trump signed the legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia; [11] [12] [13] in 2018, however,the Trump administration "water[ed] down the toughest penalties the U.S. had imposed on Russian entities" after its 2014 annexation of Crimea. [14] [15] [16] Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7. [17]
Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, citing alleged Russian non-compliance. [18] After he met Putin at the Helsinki Summit in July 2018, Trump drew bipartisan criticism for accepting Putin's denial of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, rather than accepting the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies. [19] [20] [21]
The article conflates the 2 Trump impeachments and makes it appear there was only 1. The 1st arose out of his attempted blackmail of Ukraine, the 2nd came about because of his attempted insurrection. 130.45.73.155 ( talk) 20:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump states:
After Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden, the House of Representatives impeached him for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in December 2019. The Senate acquitted him of both charges in February 2020.
It ascribes the cause of the 1st impeachment to the 2nd, and then moves to another subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.45.73.155 ( talk) 20:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
BTW: I had to make a slight correction at the Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump article, as he was a former federal official during that trial. GoodDay ( talk) 00:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Muboshgu, Jojhutton, SPECIFICO, and GoodDay: - I'm boldly changing "acquitted him of both charges" to "acquitted him of these charges". Fine? starship .paint ( exalt) 08:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Can we point out that Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont (as president pro tempore), presided over the trial (as Trump was no longer US president) & that constitutionally, Leahy was filling in for Vice President Harris, who (had she chosen to) could've presided over the trial? GoodDay ( talk) 23:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Note: Chief Justice Roberts presided over the first impeachment trial, as Trump was US president at that time. GoodDay ( talk) 23:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
SPECIFICO reverted "and" to "but", saying an extensive discussion about this is here. I see an extensive discussion mentioning this in the Combat section. Jack says no other president did, either. And Starship says making no progress is what resulted, which is important. I agree with both of those claims. Making no denuclearization progress is par for the course in general presidential meetings, and always the way it's gone between these specific countries. I maintain "but" suggests he failed to meet expectations somehow, which is absurd in light of said history. Or isn't it? InedibleHulk ( talk) 11:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Last I heard of anything about American-North Korean relations, was Rachel Maddow of MSNBC news sounding like she wanted a war between the two countries. GoodDay ( talk) 23:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I propose that this meeting be referenced in the post-presidency section, along with Trump being awarded an "honorary" black belt, despite not ever practicing tae kwon do. -- 50.69.20.91 ( talk) 00:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Much of this article was written and edited when Trump was campaigning for President or was serving as President. Much of it has a combative stance to Trump in its language, structure, and emphasis. Let's say that's OK. But Trump is not the president any more. The text is simply dated. We now include a ranking of Trump as President. Can the article now be moulded towards a description of the Trump presidency (and everything else), not just a hard-hitting series of points about where Trump was wrong, failed, or fell short?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 07:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
one of the worst presidents in American history.Stripped of the compromises and equivocation that were a product of that particular political moment, the article itself in many places naturally going look like a series of failures and a broad description of how its subject fell far short of the expectations that his job put on him. That's the current historical consensus; that's what a neutral descriptor of the Trump presidency based on the best currently-available sources will actually look like. Our articles shouldn't pass judgment, but they should dispassionately summarize the consensus of reliable sources, even when that consensus puts the subject in a starkly negative light; and the consensus of reliable sources on the Trump presidency is that it failed and fell short. That is the neutral, dispassionate
description of the Trump presidencyyou're looking for. Trying to put our thumb on the scale and make it look better would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Personally, it's taking too much of my timeis an odd statement, considering you have made nearly 100 edits to this talk page in a little over a month. ValarianB ( talk) 18:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I still wonder, if Pamela S. Karlan avoids walking by Trump Tower in NYC. GoodDay ( talk) 07:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Trump met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un but made no progress on denuclearization.Neither did any other president.
While conducting no nuclear tests since 2017, North Korea continued to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.This isn't known for certain, but, in any case, what has it got to do with Trump's life? The writer clearly doesn't know what "ballistic" means, but gee it sounds cool!
Five weeks before the November 2020 election, Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Eight days before the election, after 60 million Americans had already voted, Senate Republicans confirmed Barrett to the Supreme Court without any Democratic votes. Many observers strongly criticized the confirmation, arguing that it was a gross violation of the precedent Republicans set in 2016.Sure, this was a talking point at the time, but is it really that important in Trump's life?
The impeachment trial was the first in U.S. history without witness testimony.This isn't precisely true, as Clinton's impeachment trial had no live witnesses. This seems more about making a point, rather than presenting history accurately. Also, does this really belong in this article? It is really a testament to how the impeachment process has developed (or rather degenerated) over time.
Here's an excerpt from the section Donald Trump#Early life. The excerpt starts with an item not from his early life and continues with a disproportionate amount of attention to the draft. All said, it takes up about half of the space in the Early life section.
This can be fixed by replacing it with the text: "Trump was deferred from the military draft." And retain the given sources. Bob K31416 ( talk) 14:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Jack Upland: Please review our article on Calvin Coolidge and other long ago presidents. They are replete with detail you might not consider burning issues of 2021 but that were and are significant to the subjects' lives. SPECIFICO talk 14:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Apart from the use of "has" which seems outdated, is the expression "harsher immigration enforcement policies against asylum seekers from Central America than any modern U.S. president" correct in American grammar? I would have thought it should be something like "than any modern U.S. president has implemented". Also is "immigration enforcement" the right term? Doesn't that mean forcing someone to immigrate? Also, what does "modern" mean? Every American president since the Renaissance? Of course "modern" can be defined in a number of ways depending on the context. But what is the context here? Since when exactly?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a separate and independent matter from the alleged Russian bounties, which has evolved into an RfC. Russian involvement in Afghanistan since 2014 and increasing support of the Taliban during the Trump administration has not been discussed on the Talk page, so I’m putting it up for discussion here. Previous objections to the new material were SYNTH and BLP violation (both unexplained), and "needs to wait for resolution on bounties". Whether or not the text on the alleged bounties is retained does not affect this separate matter. Recapping the edit history on Russian support, pinging all editors involved:
nor their support of the Taliban with weapons, supplies, money, and propaganda, with a reliable source (NBC, see below), to the article here. My edit was reverted here by Tobby72 with an edit summary calling my edit "SYNTH and BLP violation". After the reversion was reverted by Zaathras with the edit summary "neither synth nor blp issue", I asked Tobby72 on the Talk page to explain what was SYNTH and/or a BLP violation. They did not respond.
While Russian and U.S. interests in Afghanistan were initially
"largely aligned" after 2001 (routing "al Qaeda and its affiliated terrorist groups and prevent[ing] Afghanistan from once again becoming a haven for terrorists"), Russia began providing "financial and military support for the central government, power brokers in the north, and the Taliban" when relations between the U.S. and Russia deteriorated after the annexation of Crimea. General
John W. Nicholson Jr., who commanded allied forces in Afghanistan from 2016–2018,
said in March 2018 that Russia was "supporting and even supplying arms to the Taliban" and that "he'd seen 'destabilising activity by the Russians.'" He also said that the destabilizing activities had picked up within the past 18 to 24 months. The 2020 NBC source says that Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, commander of U.S. Central Command, told reporters this week. "And [the Russians] are not our friends in Afghanistan. And they do not wish us well." If Trump agrees, he hasn't said so. Instead, he has praised Putin and called for Russia to re-join the Group of Seven (G7) nations … Three retired generals who served in the chain of command over the war in Afghanistan told NBC News they saw indications Russia was supplying weapons, money, supplies and, on occasion, even transport to Taliban fighters as far back as 2016. … US officials repeatedly have discussed Russia's general support for the Taliban in Congressional testimony and other public statements--and have sent that intelligence up the chain of command.
.
[1]
[2]
[3] I believe the information is reliably sourced and important enough to be included in the article.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 13:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
References
In the 2012 presidential debate. Obama argued that Russia was good & Romney argued that Russia was bad. What suddenly changed in the last decade? GoodDay ( talk) 17:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Do whatever yas want. I tried to help by putting the 'reflist' at the bottom of the discussion, as is proper. But was reverted. GoodDay ( talk) 18:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@
Space4Time3Continuum2x:, you added nor their support of the Taliban with weapons, supplies, money, and propaganda
. It's UNDUE. Please see
WP:ONUS,
WP:WEIGHT and
WP:BLP. But I'm curious. Why did you pick only Russia and not China
[30], Iran
[31], Saudi Arabia
[32], Qatar
[33] and Pakistan?
[34] --
Tobby72 (
talk) 11:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Idk maybe it has something to do with the fact his Saudi trip (complete with sword play and orb touching as you put it), was prior to Kashoggi’s death……. High level Pakistani support for the Taliban has been rampant since the Bush era-controversial and complicated but not something I thought serious people actually disputed. Qatari diplomatic support of the Taliban is publicly acknowledged. OgamD218 ( talk) 21:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
What does it mean in the highest current section of the talk page that #4 is obsolete?? Georgia guy ( talk) 23:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
[35] GoodDay hey, sorry for the confusion, I can discuss this here. Bill Williams 03:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
My issue with the current wording is that it states that Trump refused to concede and that the electoral count was interrupted, but then makes no mention of the fact that it continued and confirmed Biden's win, and that Trump left when his term ended on January 20 and Biden was inaugurated. Considering the emphasis on the irregular transition that Trump caused, I think it warrants a description of the conclusion of said transition, otherwise it is confusing to readers what exactly occurred. Bill Williams 03:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I can understand both sides of the argument here. Yes, it's true that the opening sentence of the article already states that Trump left office in 2021, and the infobox says so as well, in addition to saying that Biden succeeded him. However, one issue that I see with the paragraph in question in its current form is that it only states that the electoral vote count was "interrupted", but doesn't clarify that this interruption was only temporary. And I think I have to agree with Bill Williams here that if this paragraph is going to mention Trump's efforts to disrupt the presidential transition, there should also be something in it which clarifies that those efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Maybe this clarification could be made with a simple change such as inserting the word "temporarily" right before the words "interrupting the electoral vote count", but I also wouldn't find it unreasonable to additionally mention the eventual continuation of the vote count and Biden's subsequent inauguration, as was done in Bill's previous edit. -- Zander251 ( talk) 04:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
We have casual readers/editors complaining that the lead is too long and others who complain that it needs to add more details—damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
Bill Williams, sounds to me as though you’re trying to introduce POV (so Trump did not concede and he did ask his supporters to march on the Capitol to interrupt the vote count. But in the end he didn’t have to be dragged out of the WH by the National Guard, so all is well—never mind the temporary interruption and his continuing claims that he actually won). Any reasonable reader thinking that Trump continued trying to dispute the results for some time
is exactly right because he continues to do so to this day. Why would the same reasonable reader get the impression that Trump exited after his term expired? Biden would have been sworn in, with or without Trump's presence at the inauguration and whether or not Trump had vacated the WH. Certainly would have been interesting to find out whether there were any contingency plans for a former president having to be evicted from the WH. You bet that an involuntary removal would be featuring prominently in the body and the lead, including the video of Trump being carried out or quick marched out in handcuffs. Trump didn’t attend Biden’s inauguration, something that has happened only three times before and
not since 1869, i.e., he did not indicate that he agreed to the peaceful transition of power. We don't mention that in the lead, either.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The count continued a few hours later, confirming Biden's win; Trump left office when his term expired on January 20, 2021, and Biden was inaugurated as the 46th President.Sorry if I got the wrong impression of your intent. That Trump's efforts were ultimately unsuccessful is clear from the fact that his presidency ended on Jan 20. The lead needs to mention that Trump
refused to concede and obstructed the transitionand that he incited the crowd. That the count continued and Biden was inaugurated isn’t about Trump or Trump's doing. Saying that Trump "left office" is incorrect—are you sure you’re not awarding him brownie points for "leaving office"? The 20th Amendment says that
The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
It seems like your proposed additions, Bill, are benign and unnecessary at best and revisionist at worst. Correct me if I am wrong, but what does adding your proposition even add to the article? ( talk) 03:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. I appreciate the explanation but I do not see why this is necessary. Sorry man. ( talk) 04:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The current short description is former reality show host and president
. Is this intentional? The pages of other former presidents are described with this template: "45th president of the United States (2017-2021)". For example, Ronald Reagan is described with that pattern and not "former movie actor and president." I do not see this issue addressed in the
current consensus section, but I may have missed it. --
M.boli (
talk) 20:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Short descriptions do not appear by default when viewing an article in desktop view, but logged-in users who wish to see and edit them can do so easily by enabling the Shortdesc helper in their Preferences "gadgets".My motto: If it doesn't show up in desktop view for visitors, ignore it. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
45th president of the United StatesIamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 06:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "No consensus on adding Nord Stream 2 ." I think it is relevant and should be included.
Trump opposed the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. [1] [2]
References
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 11:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Your BBC source says theI also mentioned before that, according to the NYT,the sanctions target firms building Nord Stream 2. In 2019, Trump signed the defense bill that imposed sanctions on companies installing deep sea pipelines (engaged in pipe-layingat a time when the pipeline was almost completed. The targeted firms were mostly from the EU. Your Reuters source says that in January 2021 Trump vetoed the defense bill imposing further sanctions. Congress imposed sanctions, not Trump.
the U.S. "will impose sanctions on a Russian-owned ship involved in the construction of an undersea pipeline... The sanctions ... are the first action the United States has taken against the project". No other sanctions against Gazprom or any other Russian entities were ever taken. There were only threats of "secondary sanctions" against companies doing business with Russia and Gazprom, and at least one of those companies terminated their involvement with the project. Here's some information on the ship's owner per a German webpage,
Translation
|
---|
According to the Russian international shipping register, the Fortuna pipeline-laying vessel changed hands from one micro-enterprise to another. The change comes amid widening US sanctions against the construction of the pipeline. Germany had previously allowed the ship to complete the work to complete the laying of Nord Stream 2. According to RBK, until October it was owned by Hong Kong Strategic Mileage, then Universal Transport Group, and now it's KVT-Rus. The exact date of the change of ownership is not given in the register. KVT-Rus is a Moscow-based company registered on the Register of Small and Medium Enterprises. In 2019 the company had no income, the cash balance was 1,000 rubles. The company employs one person - the general director and founder Sergei Malkov. It is only known that he runs ZAO JV Aeroprima - the company is registered at the same address as KVT-Rus. On December 10th, 2020 KVT-Rus switched its core business from "Wholesale of sanitary and heating products" to "Providing transport services". The secondary business "Manufacture of other pumps and compressors" changed to "Activities in sea freight transport". Maria Schagina, sanctions expert at the University of Zurich, suspects that the owner maneuvers are part of a complex scheme to shield the former owners from the sanctions. "It is possible that it has something to do with the desire to cover up the trail before Joe Biden's government takes control of the sanctions," she told RBK. On December 11, the US Senate approved the draft defense budget for 2021, which provides for the expansion of restrictive measures against Nord Stream 2. The State Department said the United States will continue to impose sanctions on Nord Stream 2 until the project stops. per Bloomberg and per a German webpage |
With all these recent requests for adding material to or deleting material from this BLP. One would think the guy was still in the White House. GoodDay ( talk) 16:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Trump continued and expanded the U.S. policy of treating Russia as an adversary, including opposing their completion of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline into Western Europe. [1] [2] In 2017, Trump signed the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which has targeted Russia's oil and gas industry, defence and security sectors, and financial institutions, [3] [4] and his administration imposed sanctions on several third countries for buying Russian weapons. [5] [6] [7]
Reflist
|
---|
References
|
Trump repeatedly praised and rarely criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin... well, it seems to me like a news blog. It is a view based on belief (Trump is Putin's puppet) rather than evidence. Trump repeatedly criticized Russia and Putin, but the media simply ignored it, and most importantly, as TFD correctly noted, he continued and expanded the U.S. policy of treating Russia as an adversary.
Trump opposed the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germanyis not a fringe point of view. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 20:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change “served” to “was” as the word “served” telegraphs intent and is an implied value judgement. The word “served” is not appropriate. 108.30.70.111 ( talk) 05:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 11:01, 18 December 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.
Should the article continue to include that Trump "never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan"
?
Firefangledfeathers 14:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
"never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan."This wording fails to accurately convey the information and gives that section of the article an overly critical tone and the impression of bias. Trump maintained from the onset that allegations of Russia putting bounties on American soldiers fighting in Afghanistan were patently false. In fact from day one Trump referred to such claims as a "hoax". The citation this content uses barely touches the subject but is from the final days of Trump's presidency. Unlike many other instances where Trump labeled events fake news just bc he didn't like it-initial reports on the bounty subject admitted intelligence was not yet conclusive; as time has gone on there has only been increased reason to doubt the truthfulness of these claims. Trump never backed down from his original stance on the issue. Even still, Russia may have put bounties on American soldiers but the criticism, without relevant context, that Trump never confronted Putin on this issue is nonsensical as it implies it would or should be expected for him to "confront", a foreign head of state, over unverified claims he committed acts of war even though he publicly referred to such claims as untrue in the strongest terms. OgamD218 ( talk) 23:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Hatting long quote
|
---|
|
"brief, neutral statement"as required by WP:RFCOPEN. While we're in the early stages, OgamD218, could you rephrase your opening comment? You might choose to copy your original below so later readers can reference what others were responding to. I'd suggest something simple like:
Firefangledfeathers 13:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Should the article continue to include that Trump
"never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan"?
Ok, so would I be wrong to conclude that unless more editors weigh in within the next 24 hours then the consensus here is that the content should be removed? OgamD218 ( talk) 00:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: Today you did participate, and your participation has been far from token. Yes, had you reviewed it then you would have been made aware that a consensus was reached. I say again, it is at the very least suspect that you go around thinking of reasons to retain content that you apparently had neither reviewed nor have an opinion on. OgamD218 ( talk) 00:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I certainly have to disagree: It does matter whether or not Russia had a bounty program, it also matters whether or not the alleged program resulted in American death's and/or payouts for killings. With that said I’m not sure if these changes are at all substantial enough to matter as far as a significant enough change to overcome the consensus that the material should be removed but at least we’re making some progress. OgamD218 ( talk) 19:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Tobby72, your reversion has already been reverted but I'd still like to know where you see
synth and blp in [Russia's] support of the Taliban with weapons, supplies, money, and propaganda
. Please explain. As for Iran's and China's alleged bounties
, where's your source on China? One of your two Iran sources, CNN, is about the 2016 "not-a-ransom money-for-prisoners" swap (Iranian money the U.S. had kept—possibly illegally—since the ouster of the Shah) and doesn't mention Afghanistan or the Taliban. If you think the 2010 allegations of Iranian payments for attacks on Americans (your NBC source) should be added to Obama's page, then that's the place to discuss it.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 14:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
the situation is, at the time, all U.S. intelligence agencies were reporting that (to the best of their knowledge) there were Russian-backed bounties on U.S. troops, this is a very far cry from
at least some evidence, especially when that "some evidence" several agencies referred to was simply provided to them by the CIA, not independently gathered. OgamD218 ( talk) 00:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I must need new glasses. The (below) tally keeps changing back-and-forth, between hatted & un-hatted. GoodDay ( talk) 23:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
many if not mostof the editors who happen to disagree with you on this, please speak up and address these issues, that is kind of the point of all this and honestly it is a pertinent issue on this page that shouldn't be passively alluded too. I will say it is hard to view your post as being that of a legitimate neutral observer, while space is limited on a page like this, it stretches the bounds of reason to try and pass off the content in question as "well covered". I will make sure to include you and SPECIFICO in the next tally. My intentions were/are to update the tally in the next day or so, it seems logical to give it about week in between but that's just me-if you object by all means do it yourself, I am not in charge here. As a final point, this is now the second time (the first was on my talk page) that you have gone out of your way to-while posing as a neutral observer inform me only of untallied votes from editors who wish to retain this content, or in other words editors who agree with you. Between last week and today you noted I forgot to include a total of 3 votes to retain but somehow forgot to mention a greater number of untallied removal votes on both occasions.......... OgamD218 ( talk) 19:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
hatting blow-by-blow bludgeon.
SPECIFICO
talk 22:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Tally and updates change from hat to cot (collapse without close), so as not to suppress legitimate comments but to save space. Bob K31416 ( talk) 22:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC) |
---|
TallyIt seems this situation has largely stagnated with very little momentum favoring a change in the content and almost all participating editors having by now only made clear their stance on whether or not the original sentence merits inclusion. This is the tally I am able to discern since the thread began 10 days ago. Please let me know if I make any errors. In order of when each editor gave their position : @ Bob K31416: Favors removal/opposes retaining (1) @ Jack Upland: Favors removal/opposes retaining (2) @ FormalDude:: Opposes removal/favors retaining [1] @ The Four Deuces: Favors removal/opposes retaining (3) @ GoodDay: Favors removal/opposes retaining (4) @ Space4Time3Continuum2x: Opposes removal/favors retaining [2] @ Tobby72: Favors removal/opposes retaining (5) @ Zaathras: Opposes removal/favors retaining [3] I also favor removal/oppose retaining the referenced content in its present form. (6) By my count, this brings the tally to 6 editors in favor of removal/oppose retaining vs 3 editors in opposition to removal/in favor of retaining. I have pinged all involved in hopes that if anybody notices a material mistake in this summary it will be duly noted. New editors are obviously still welcome to weigh in but seeing as none have in over a week, if if no one does so soon, this needs to be closed. OgamD218 ( talk) 03:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Update/Survey@ Bob K31416: Favors removal/opposes retaining (1) @ Jack Upland: Favors removal/opposes retaining (2) @ FormalDude:: Opposes removal/favors retaining [1] @ The Four Deuces: Favors removal/opposes retaining (3) @ GoodDay: Favors removal/opposes retaining (4) @ Space4Time3Continuum2x: Opposes removal/favors retaining [2] @ Tobby72: Favors removal/opposes retaining (5) @ Zaathras: Opposes removal/favors retaining [3] I also favor removal/oppose retaining the referenced content in its present form. (6) @ ValerianB: Opposes removal/favors retaining [4] @ InedibleHulk: Favors removal/opposes retaining (7) @ Fieari: Opposes removal/favors retaining [5] @ Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Favors removal/opposes retaining (8) There is no consensus to remove. I therefore favor retaining. SPECIFICO talk 04:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC) By my count, this brings the tally to 8 editors who favor removal/oppose retaining vs 5 editors in opposition to removal/in favor of retaining. I have pinged all involved in hopes that if anybody notices a material mistake in this summary it will be duly noted. New editors are obviously still welcome to weigh in. OgamD218 ( talk) 03:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Second Update@ Bob K31416: Favors removal/opposes retaining (1) @ Jack Upland: Favors removal/opposes retaining (2) @ FormalDude:: Opposes removal/favors retaining [1] @ The Four Deuces: Favors removal/opposes retaining (3) @ GoodDay: Favors removal/opposes retaining (4) @ Space4Time3Continuum2x: Opposes removal/favors retaining [2] @ Tobby72: Favors removal/opposes retaining (5) @ Zaathras: Opposes removal/favors retaining [3] I also favor removal/oppose retaining the referenced content in its present form. (6) @ ValerianB: Opposes removal/favors retaining [4] @ InedibleHulk: Favors removal/opposes retaining (7) @ Fieari: Opposes removal/favors retaining [5] @ Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Favors removal/opposes retaining (8) @ SPECIFICO: Opposes removal/favors retaining [6] @ LM2000: Favors removal/opposes retaining (9) @ Wuerzele: Opposes removal/favors retaining [7] @ Adoring nanny: Favors removal/opposes retaining (10) @ Alaexis: Favors removal/opposes retaining (11) By my count, this brings the tally to 11 editors who favor removal/oppose retaining vs 7 editors in opposition to removal/in favor of retaining. I have pinged all involved in hopes that if anybody notices a material mistake in this summary it will be duly noted. New editors are obviously still welcome to weigh in. OgamD218 ( talk) 07:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
Recommend the supports & the opposes be placed (above somewhere) into a sub-section called 'survey'. Would make it easier to read over the RFC for the closer. GoodDay ( talk) 02:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Suggestion RFC's do not and should not have a floor manager. I was summoned by a bot, have reviewed the article, reviewed the discussion, and found no strong reason to keep the disputed phrase. However, I find the discussion flawed by well intentioned but inappropriate hovering by OgamD218 ( OgdamD218). Consequently, I do not see this exchange of views as useful—it can not really settle anything. With subject so contentious, an RFC proposal needs to be clean as a whistle—in the initial, impartial, and short statement and without one single editor dominating the discussion. A redo, if the phrase is still contentious to the pont of edit warring, is necessary for the outcome to be authoritative. I have no objection to OgdamD218 starting a new RFC after reading other rfcs on contentious issues that closed with an enforceable conclusion, a conclusion that was accepted by editors on both sides of the narrowly posed question. — Neonorange ( talk to Phil) (he, they) 23:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I've put in a request for closure, now that the RfC tag has expired. GoodDay ( talk) 17:43, 29 December 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 135 | ← | Archive 139 | Archive 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | Archive 143 | → | Archive 145 |
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.
after reading the article if concluded that it seems quite biased please read it over and fix mistakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junger04 ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
The settlement will allow CNN to avoid a lengthy and potentially unpredictable trial.I've watched all those videos on the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation. IMO, the later reporting was as biased against Phillips (too flawed, not heroic enough, or something) as the earlier reporting may have been against Sandmann. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC) The All Sides blog you cite has some terrific sources: sashi and ExoticBeast on Wikipediocracy, and a Breitbart article citing a The Critic article citing the Harvard study and then saying bias is proven by WP deprecating sources like Breitbart, Epoch Times, InfoWars, Gateway Pundit, OAN, but not CounterPunch, AlterNet, and Daily Kos. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
If ya'll believe or don't believe that this article, Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's articles are being given equal treatment? Then there must be some place else on this project, to have that discussion. GoodDay ( talk) 17:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not going to rehash what I've already saidleaving us at an impasse. We all have biases. This is not the place to address bias in general. This is the place to address bias on this specific article. – Muboshgu ( talk) 03:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
We can hat this general Wikipedia discussion, a strange flurry in a couple of hours, and continue with the discussion directly about this article, such as the above example of bias in the article. Bob K31416 ( talk) 23:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)}}
Yeah, I see this all over Wikipedia: People trying to shut down conversation s and block people because it puts them out of their comfort zone. TheeFactChecker ( talk) 18:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
People need to read wp:soapbox and wp:npa, and stop with the assumptions of bad faith. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
It's not assumptions. It is reality. If the co-founder of Wikipedia is saying it, there has to be a lot of weight to that argument. TheeFactChecker ( talk) 18:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Larry Singer's opinion does carry a lot of weight as he has a far better understanding of how Wikipedia operates than the average user. How Wikipedia operates specifically affects this page as in the various sections highlighted by Bob et al. TheeFactChecker ( talk) 18:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Let's vote on ending this discussion which has gone from "this article is biased" to "Wikipedia is biased". Shall we end this discussion?
No need for a vote, I am taking it to page closer requests, it is blatant soapboxing. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Someone has just done it. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:38, 22 November 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 had hatted the objectionable discussion [10] but it was unhatted by an editor who was paradoxically against the same discussion that they unhatted.
As a reminder, here's my last message.
Bob K31416 ( talk) 15:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the final line of the final paragraph it vaguely states that scholars and historians refer to trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. This is an opinion, not factual, and impossible to gauge given the amount of time between his election and departure from office. It's highly unprofessional and immature. Allowing opinionated statements like that is polarizing and unproductive which wikipedia should be starkly opposed to. 174.71.204.115 ( talk) 17:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Why isn't there any brief mention that Donald Trump's grandfather, on his paternal side, was a brothel owner? Why is that hidden from this article? It's a serious reflection of his character and is indicative of his lifetime patterns with women. This is a serious omission, and also reflects on the Wikipedia editors who have covered that up. This aspect was originally included in this article. Why was it removed? Stevenmitchell ( talk) 10:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "Please gain consensus on talk. These do not appear to be NPOV improvements." I believe the sources are reliable and per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP they should remain in the article.
The proposed text:
According to Russian President Vladimir Putin and some political experts and diplomats, the U.S.–Russian relations, which were already at the lowest level since the end of the Cold War, have further deteriorated since Trump took office in January 2017. [1] [2] [3]
Trump has repeatedly praised and rarely criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin, [4] [5] but has opposed some actions of the Russian government. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Trump imposed sanctions on Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany. [13] [14] In 2017, Trump signed the legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia; [15] in 2018, however, the Trump administration lifted some U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia after its 2014 annexation of Crimea. [16] Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7 [17] and never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan. [18] [19]
In November 2021, Igor Danchenko, a Russian analyst who was a primary source behind the 2016 Steele dossier of allegations against Donald Trump, [20] was arrested in connection with the John Durham investigation and was charged with five counts of making false statements to the FBI on five different occasions (between March 2017 and November 2017) regarding the sources of material he provided for the Steele dossier. [21] [22]
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 11:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The Kremlin continues to make a distinction between the president and his administration. Trump, by and large, is still viewed positively; he caused a breakdown in US politics, and that, for Moscow, can only a good thing.I didn't see the "political experts and diplomats" mentioned in items 1–3, just Putin and ambassador Antonov complaining.
What you need to know: President Trump claimed that the Russian interference did not affect the result of the 2016 race. He said the US would counteract any election meddling.I'm guessing you didn't look at the article on the Wayback Machine where you get to read a little bit more that just the title.
Trump has repeatedly praised and rarely criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin, [1] [2] but has opposed some actions of the Russian government. [3] [4] The Trump administration lifted the toughest sanctions the U.S. had imposed on Russian entities after its 2014 annexation of Crimea. [5] [6] Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7 [7]
and never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan. [8]
Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, citing alleged Russian non-compliance. [9] After he met Putin at the Helsinki Summit in July 2018, Trump drew bipartisan criticism for accepting Putin's denial of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, rather than accepting the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies. [10] [11] [12]
Trump has repeatedly praised and rarely criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin, [1] [2] but has opposed some actions of the Russian government. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Trump imposed sanctions on Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany. [9] [10] In 2017, Trump signed the legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia; [11] in 2018, however,the Trump administration lifted the toughest sanctions the U.S. had imposed on Russian entities after its 2014 annexation of Crimea. [12] [13] [14] Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7. [15]
Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, citing alleged Russian non-compliance. [16] After he met Putin at the Helsinki Summit in July 2018, Trump drew bipartisan criticism for accepting Putin's denial of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, rather than accepting the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies. [17] [18] [19]
the sanctions target firms building Nord Stream 2. In 2019, Trump signed the defense bill that imposed sanctions on companies installing deep sea pipelines (
engaged in pipe-layingat a time when the pipeline was almost completed. The targeted firms were mostly from the EU. Your Reuters source says that in January 2021 Trump vetoed the defense bill imposing further sanctions. Congress imposed sanctions, not Trump.
Apologies for hatting the reflists but this section with zero input from other editors was taking over the Talk page. As for the six additional sources, four of them deal with the sanctions imposed contrary to Trump's veto in January 2021. The other two don't mention any sanctions against Russian entities, just Trump's general verbal attacks on Germany, and a Swiss company announcing the suspension of its pipe-laying activities hours after the sanctions were signed into law. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
will impose sanctions on a Russian-owned ship involved in the construction of an undersea pipeline... The sanctions ... are the first action the United States has taken against the project. No other sanctions against Gazprom or any other Russian entities were ever taken. There were only threats of "secondary sanctions" against companies doing business with Russia and Gazprom, and at least one of those companies terminated their involvement with the project. Here's some information on the ship's owner per a German webpage,
Translation
|
---|
According to the Russian international shipping register, the Fortuna pipeline-laying vessel changed hands from one micro-enterprise to another. The change comes amid widening US sanctions against the construction of the pipeline. Germany had previously allowed the ship to complete the work to complete the laying of Nord Stream 2. According to RBK, until October it was owned by Hong Kong Strategic Mileage, then Universal Transport Group, and now it's KVT-Rus. The exact date of the change of ownership is not given in the register. KVT-Rus is a Moscow-based company registered on the Register of Small and Medium Enterprises. In 2019 the company had no income, the cash balance was 1,000 rubles. The company employs one person - the general director and founder Sergei Malkov. It is only known that he runs ZAO JV Aeroprima - the company is registered at the same address as KVT-Rus. On December 10th, 2020 KVT-Rus switched its core business from "Wholesale of sanitary and heating products" to "Providing transport services". The secondary business "Manufacture of other pumps and compressors" changed to "Activities in sea freight transport". Maria Schagina, sanctions expert at the University of Zurich, suspects that the owner maneuvers are part of a complex scheme to shield the former owners from the sanctions. "It is possible that it has something to do with the desire to cover up the trail before Joe Biden's government takes control of the sanctions," she told RBK. On December 11, the US Senate approved the draft defense budget for 2021, which provides for the expansion of restrictive measures against Nord Stream 2. The State Department said the United States will continue to impose sanctions on Nord Stream 2 until the project stops. per Bloomberg and per a German webpage |
Trump has repeatedly praised and rarely criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin, [1] [2] but has opposed some actions of the Russian government. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Trump opposed the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. [9] [10] In 2017, Trump signed the legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia; [11] [12] [13] in 2018, however,the Trump administration "water[ed] down the toughest penalties the U.S. had imposed on Russian entities" after its 2014 annexation of Crimea. [14] [15] [16] Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7. [17]
Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, citing alleged Russian non-compliance. [18] After he met Putin at the Helsinki Summit in July 2018, Trump drew bipartisan criticism for accepting Putin's denial of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, rather than accepting the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies. [19] [20] [21]
The article conflates the 2 Trump impeachments and makes it appear there was only 1. The 1st arose out of his attempted blackmail of Ukraine, the 2nd came about because of his attempted insurrection. 130.45.73.155 ( talk) 20:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump states:
After Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden, the House of Representatives impeached him for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in December 2019. The Senate acquitted him of both charges in February 2020.
It ascribes the cause of the 1st impeachment to the 2nd, and then moves to another subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.45.73.155 ( talk) 20:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
BTW: I had to make a slight correction at the Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump article, as he was a former federal official during that trial. GoodDay ( talk) 00:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Muboshgu, Jojhutton, SPECIFICO, and GoodDay: - I'm boldly changing "acquitted him of both charges" to "acquitted him of these charges". Fine? starship .paint ( exalt) 08:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Can we point out that Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont (as president pro tempore), presided over the trial (as Trump was no longer US president) & that constitutionally, Leahy was filling in for Vice President Harris, who (had she chosen to) could've presided over the trial? GoodDay ( talk) 23:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Note: Chief Justice Roberts presided over the first impeachment trial, as Trump was US president at that time. GoodDay ( talk) 23:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
SPECIFICO reverted "and" to "but", saying an extensive discussion about this is here. I see an extensive discussion mentioning this in the Combat section. Jack says no other president did, either. And Starship says making no progress is what resulted, which is important. I agree with both of those claims. Making no denuclearization progress is par for the course in general presidential meetings, and always the way it's gone between these specific countries. I maintain "but" suggests he failed to meet expectations somehow, which is absurd in light of said history. Or isn't it? InedibleHulk ( talk) 11:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Last I heard of anything about American-North Korean relations, was Rachel Maddow of MSNBC news sounding like she wanted a war between the two countries. GoodDay ( talk) 23:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I propose that this meeting be referenced in the post-presidency section, along with Trump being awarded an "honorary" black belt, despite not ever practicing tae kwon do. -- 50.69.20.91 ( talk) 00:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Much of this article was written and edited when Trump was campaigning for President or was serving as President. Much of it has a combative stance to Trump in its language, structure, and emphasis. Let's say that's OK. But Trump is not the president any more. The text is simply dated. We now include a ranking of Trump as President. Can the article now be moulded towards a description of the Trump presidency (and everything else), not just a hard-hitting series of points about where Trump was wrong, failed, or fell short?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 07:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
one of the worst presidents in American history.Stripped of the compromises and equivocation that were a product of that particular political moment, the article itself in many places naturally going look like a series of failures and a broad description of how its subject fell far short of the expectations that his job put on him. That's the current historical consensus; that's what a neutral descriptor of the Trump presidency based on the best currently-available sources will actually look like. Our articles shouldn't pass judgment, but they should dispassionately summarize the consensus of reliable sources, even when that consensus puts the subject in a starkly negative light; and the consensus of reliable sources on the Trump presidency is that it failed and fell short. That is the neutral, dispassionate
description of the Trump presidencyyou're looking for. Trying to put our thumb on the scale and make it look better would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Personally, it's taking too much of my timeis an odd statement, considering you have made nearly 100 edits to this talk page in a little over a month. ValarianB ( talk) 18:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I still wonder, if Pamela S. Karlan avoids walking by Trump Tower in NYC. GoodDay ( talk) 07:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Trump met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un but made no progress on denuclearization.Neither did any other president.
While conducting no nuclear tests since 2017, North Korea continued to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.This isn't known for certain, but, in any case, what has it got to do with Trump's life? The writer clearly doesn't know what "ballistic" means, but gee it sounds cool!
Five weeks before the November 2020 election, Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Eight days before the election, after 60 million Americans had already voted, Senate Republicans confirmed Barrett to the Supreme Court without any Democratic votes. Many observers strongly criticized the confirmation, arguing that it was a gross violation of the precedent Republicans set in 2016.Sure, this was a talking point at the time, but is it really that important in Trump's life?
The impeachment trial was the first in U.S. history without witness testimony.This isn't precisely true, as Clinton's impeachment trial had no live witnesses. This seems more about making a point, rather than presenting history accurately. Also, does this really belong in this article? It is really a testament to how the impeachment process has developed (or rather degenerated) over time.
Here's an excerpt from the section Donald Trump#Early life. The excerpt starts with an item not from his early life and continues with a disproportionate amount of attention to the draft. All said, it takes up about half of the space in the Early life section.
This can be fixed by replacing it with the text: "Trump was deferred from the military draft." And retain the given sources. Bob K31416 ( talk) 14:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Jack Upland: Please review our article on Calvin Coolidge and other long ago presidents. They are replete with detail you might not consider burning issues of 2021 but that were and are significant to the subjects' lives. SPECIFICO talk 14:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Apart from the use of "has" which seems outdated, is the expression "harsher immigration enforcement policies against asylum seekers from Central America than any modern U.S. president" correct in American grammar? I would have thought it should be something like "than any modern U.S. president has implemented". Also is "immigration enforcement" the right term? Doesn't that mean forcing someone to immigrate? Also, what does "modern" mean? Every American president since the Renaissance? Of course "modern" can be defined in a number of ways depending on the context. But what is the context here? Since when exactly?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a separate and independent matter from the alleged Russian bounties, which has evolved into an RfC. Russian involvement in Afghanistan since 2014 and increasing support of the Taliban during the Trump administration has not been discussed on the Talk page, so I’m putting it up for discussion here. Previous objections to the new material were SYNTH and BLP violation (both unexplained), and "needs to wait for resolution on bounties". Whether or not the text on the alleged bounties is retained does not affect this separate matter. Recapping the edit history on Russian support, pinging all editors involved:
nor their support of the Taliban with weapons, supplies, money, and propaganda, with a reliable source (NBC, see below), to the article here. My edit was reverted here by Tobby72 with an edit summary calling my edit "SYNTH and BLP violation". After the reversion was reverted by Zaathras with the edit summary "neither synth nor blp issue", I asked Tobby72 on the Talk page to explain what was SYNTH and/or a BLP violation. They did not respond.
While Russian and U.S. interests in Afghanistan were initially
"largely aligned" after 2001 (routing "al Qaeda and its affiliated terrorist groups and prevent[ing] Afghanistan from once again becoming a haven for terrorists"), Russia began providing "financial and military support for the central government, power brokers in the north, and the Taliban" when relations between the U.S. and Russia deteriorated after the annexation of Crimea. General
John W. Nicholson Jr., who commanded allied forces in Afghanistan from 2016–2018,
said in March 2018 that Russia was "supporting and even supplying arms to the Taliban" and that "he'd seen 'destabilising activity by the Russians.'" He also said that the destabilizing activities had picked up within the past 18 to 24 months. The 2020 NBC source says that Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, commander of U.S. Central Command, told reporters this week. "And [the Russians] are not our friends in Afghanistan. And they do not wish us well." If Trump agrees, he hasn't said so. Instead, he has praised Putin and called for Russia to re-join the Group of Seven (G7) nations … Three retired generals who served in the chain of command over the war in Afghanistan told NBC News they saw indications Russia was supplying weapons, money, supplies and, on occasion, even transport to Taliban fighters as far back as 2016. … US officials repeatedly have discussed Russia's general support for the Taliban in Congressional testimony and other public statements--and have sent that intelligence up the chain of command.
.
[1]
[2]
[3] I believe the information is reliably sourced and important enough to be included in the article.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 13:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
References
In the 2012 presidential debate. Obama argued that Russia was good & Romney argued that Russia was bad. What suddenly changed in the last decade? GoodDay ( talk) 17:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Do whatever yas want. I tried to help by putting the 'reflist' at the bottom of the discussion, as is proper. But was reverted. GoodDay ( talk) 18:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@
Space4Time3Continuum2x:, you added nor their support of the Taliban with weapons, supplies, money, and propaganda
. It's UNDUE. Please see
WP:ONUS,
WP:WEIGHT and
WP:BLP. But I'm curious. Why did you pick only Russia and not China
[30], Iran
[31], Saudi Arabia
[32], Qatar
[33] and Pakistan?
[34] --
Tobby72 (
talk) 11:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Idk maybe it has something to do with the fact his Saudi trip (complete with sword play and orb touching as you put it), was prior to Kashoggi’s death……. High level Pakistani support for the Taliban has been rampant since the Bush era-controversial and complicated but not something I thought serious people actually disputed. Qatari diplomatic support of the Taliban is publicly acknowledged. OgamD218 ( talk) 21:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
What does it mean in the highest current section of the talk page that #4 is obsolete?? Georgia guy ( talk) 23:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
[35] GoodDay hey, sorry for the confusion, I can discuss this here. Bill Williams 03:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
My issue with the current wording is that it states that Trump refused to concede and that the electoral count was interrupted, but then makes no mention of the fact that it continued and confirmed Biden's win, and that Trump left when his term ended on January 20 and Biden was inaugurated. Considering the emphasis on the irregular transition that Trump caused, I think it warrants a description of the conclusion of said transition, otherwise it is confusing to readers what exactly occurred. Bill Williams 03:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I can understand both sides of the argument here. Yes, it's true that the opening sentence of the article already states that Trump left office in 2021, and the infobox says so as well, in addition to saying that Biden succeeded him. However, one issue that I see with the paragraph in question in its current form is that it only states that the electoral vote count was "interrupted", but doesn't clarify that this interruption was only temporary. And I think I have to agree with Bill Williams here that if this paragraph is going to mention Trump's efforts to disrupt the presidential transition, there should also be something in it which clarifies that those efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Maybe this clarification could be made with a simple change such as inserting the word "temporarily" right before the words "interrupting the electoral vote count", but I also wouldn't find it unreasonable to additionally mention the eventual continuation of the vote count and Biden's subsequent inauguration, as was done in Bill's previous edit. -- Zander251 ( talk) 04:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
We have casual readers/editors complaining that the lead is too long and others who complain that it needs to add more details—damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
Bill Williams, sounds to me as though you’re trying to introduce POV (so Trump did not concede and he did ask his supporters to march on the Capitol to interrupt the vote count. But in the end he didn’t have to be dragged out of the WH by the National Guard, so all is well—never mind the temporary interruption and his continuing claims that he actually won). Any reasonable reader thinking that Trump continued trying to dispute the results for some time
is exactly right because he continues to do so to this day. Why would the same reasonable reader get the impression that Trump exited after his term expired? Biden would have been sworn in, with or without Trump's presence at the inauguration and whether or not Trump had vacated the WH. Certainly would have been interesting to find out whether there were any contingency plans for a former president having to be evicted from the WH. You bet that an involuntary removal would be featuring prominently in the body and the lead, including the video of Trump being carried out or quick marched out in handcuffs. Trump didn’t attend Biden’s inauguration, something that has happened only three times before and
not since 1869, i.e., he did not indicate that he agreed to the peaceful transition of power. We don't mention that in the lead, either.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The count continued a few hours later, confirming Biden's win; Trump left office when his term expired on January 20, 2021, and Biden was inaugurated as the 46th President.Sorry if I got the wrong impression of your intent. That Trump's efforts were ultimately unsuccessful is clear from the fact that his presidency ended on Jan 20. The lead needs to mention that Trump
refused to concede and obstructed the transitionand that he incited the crowd. That the count continued and Biden was inaugurated isn’t about Trump or Trump's doing. Saying that Trump "left office" is incorrect—are you sure you’re not awarding him brownie points for "leaving office"? The 20th Amendment says that
The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
It seems like your proposed additions, Bill, are benign and unnecessary at best and revisionist at worst. Correct me if I am wrong, but what does adding your proposition even add to the article? ( talk) 03:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. I appreciate the explanation but I do not see why this is necessary. Sorry man. ( talk) 04:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The current short description is former reality show host and president
. Is this intentional? The pages of other former presidents are described with this template: "45th president of the United States (2017-2021)". For example, Ronald Reagan is described with that pattern and not "former movie actor and president." I do not see this issue addressed in the
current consensus section, but I may have missed it. --
M.boli (
talk) 20:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Short descriptions do not appear by default when viewing an article in desktop view, but logged-in users who wish to see and edit them can do so easily by enabling the Shortdesc helper in their Preferences "gadgets".My motto: If it doesn't show up in desktop view for visitors, ignore it. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
45th president of the United StatesIamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 06:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "No consensus on adding Nord Stream 2 ." I think it is relevant and should be included.
Trump opposed the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. [1] [2]
References
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 11:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Your BBC source says theI also mentioned before that, according to the NYT,the sanctions target firms building Nord Stream 2. In 2019, Trump signed the defense bill that imposed sanctions on companies installing deep sea pipelines (engaged in pipe-layingat a time when the pipeline was almost completed. The targeted firms were mostly from the EU. Your Reuters source says that in January 2021 Trump vetoed the defense bill imposing further sanctions. Congress imposed sanctions, not Trump.
the U.S. "will impose sanctions on a Russian-owned ship involved in the construction of an undersea pipeline... The sanctions ... are the first action the United States has taken against the project". No other sanctions against Gazprom or any other Russian entities were ever taken. There were only threats of "secondary sanctions" against companies doing business with Russia and Gazprom, and at least one of those companies terminated their involvement with the project. Here's some information on the ship's owner per a German webpage,
Translation
|
---|
According to the Russian international shipping register, the Fortuna pipeline-laying vessel changed hands from one micro-enterprise to another. The change comes amid widening US sanctions against the construction of the pipeline. Germany had previously allowed the ship to complete the work to complete the laying of Nord Stream 2. According to RBK, until October it was owned by Hong Kong Strategic Mileage, then Universal Transport Group, and now it's KVT-Rus. The exact date of the change of ownership is not given in the register. KVT-Rus is a Moscow-based company registered on the Register of Small and Medium Enterprises. In 2019 the company had no income, the cash balance was 1,000 rubles. The company employs one person - the general director and founder Sergei Malkov. It is only known that he runs ZAO JV Aeroprima - the company is registered at the same address as KVT-Rus. On December 10th, 2020 KVT-Rus switched its core business from "Wholesale of sanitary and heating products" to "Providing transport services". The secondary business "Manufacture of other pumps and compressors" changed to "Activities in sea freight transport". Maria Schagina, sanctions expert at the University of Zurich, suspects that the owner maneuvers are part of a complex scheme to shield the former owners from the sanctions. "It is possible that it has something to do with the desire to cover up the trail before Joe Biden's government takes control of the sanctions," she told RBK. On December 11, the US Senate approved the draft defense budget for 2021, which provides for the expansion of restrictive measures against Nord Stream 2. The State Department said the United States will continue to impose sanctions on Nord Stream 2 until the project stops. per Bloomberg and per a German webpage |
With all these recent requests for adding material to or deleting material from this BLP. One would think the guy was still in the White House. GoodDay ( talk) 16:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Trump continued and expanded the U.S. policy of treating Russia as an adversary, including opposing their completion of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline into Western Europe. [1] [2] In 2017, Trump signed the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which has targeted Russia's oil and gas industry, defence and security sectors, and financial institutions, [3] [4] and his administration imposed sanctions on several third countries for buying Russian weapons. [5] [6] [7]
Reflist
|
---|
References
|
Trump repeatedly praised and rarely criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin... well, it seems to me like a news blog. It is a view based on belief (Trump is Putin's puppet) rather than evidence. Trump repeatedly criticized Russia and Putin, but the media simply ignored it, and most importantly, as TFD correctly noted, he continued and expanded the U.S. policy of treating Russia as an adversary.
Trump opposed the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germanyis not a fringe point of view. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 20:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change “served” to “was” as the word “served” telegraphs intent and is an implied value judgement. The word “served” is not appropriate. 108.30.70.111 ( talk) 05:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 11:01, 18 December 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.
Should the article continue to include that Trump "never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan"
?
Firefangledfeathers 14:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
"never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan."This wording fails to accurately convey the information and gives that section of the article an overly critical tone and the impression of bias. Trump maintained from the onset that allegations of Russia putting bounties on American soldiers fighting in Afghanistan were patently false. In fact from day one Trump referred to such claims as a "hoax". The citation this content uses barely touches the subject but is from the final days of Trump's presidency. Unlike many other instances where Trump labeled events fake news just bc he didn't like it-initial reports on the bounty subject admitted intelligence was not yet conclusive; as time has gone on there has only been increased reason to doubt the truthfulness of these claims. Trump never backed down from his original stance on the issue. Even still, Russia may have put bounties on American soldiers but the criticism, without relevant context, that Trump never confronted Putin on this issue is nonsensical as it implies it would or should be expected for him to "confront", a foreign head of state, over unverified claims he committed acts of war even though he publicly referred to such claims as untrue in the strongest terms. OgamD218 ( talk) 23:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Hatting long quote
|
---|
|
"brief, neutral statement"as required by WP:RFCOPEN. While we're in the early stages, OgamD218, could you rephrase your opening comment? You might choose to copy your original below so later readers can reference what others were responding to. I'd suggest something simple like:
Firefangledfeathers 13:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Should the article continue to include that Trump
"never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan"?
Ok, so would I be wrong to conclude that unless more editors weigh in within the next 24 hours then the consensus here is that the content should be removed? OgamD218 ( talk) 00:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: Today you did participate, and your participation has been far from token. Yes, had you reviewed it then you would have been made aware that a consensus was reached. I say again, it is at the very least suspect that you go around thinking of reasons to retain content that you apparently had neither reviewed nor have an opinion on. OgamD218 ( talk) 00:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I certainly have to disagree: It does matter whether or not Russia had a bounty program, it also matters whether or not the alleged program resulted in American death's and/or payouts for killings. With that said I’m not sure if these changes are at all substantial enough to matter as far as a significant enough change to overcome the consensus that the material should be removed but at least we’re making some progress. OgamD218 ( talk) 19:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Tobby72, your reversion has already been reverted but I'd still like to know where you see
synth and blp in [Russia's] support of the Taliban with weapons, supplies, money, and propaganda
. Please explain. As for Iran's and China's alleged bounties
, where's your source on China? One of your two Iran sources, CNN, is about the 2016 "not-a-ransom money-for-prisoners" swap (Iranian money the U.S. had kept—possibly illegally—since the ouster of the Shah) and doesn't mention Afghanistan or the Taliban. If you think the 2010 allegations of Iranian payments for attacks on Americans (your NBC source) should be added to Obama's page, then that's the place to discuss it.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 14:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
the situation is, at the time, all U.S. intelligence agencies were reporting that (to the best of their knowledge) there were Russian-backed bounties on U.S. troops, this is a very far cry from
at least some evidence, especially when that "some evidence" several agencies referred to was simply provided to them by the CIA, not independently gathered. OgamD218 ( talk) 00:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I must need new glasses. The (below) tally keeps changing back-and-forth, between hatted & un-hatted. GoodDay ( talk) 23:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
many if not mostof the editors who happen to disagree with you on this, please speak up and address these issues, that is kind of the point of all this and honestly it is a pertinent issue on this page that shouldn't be passively alluded too. I will say it is hard to view your post as being that of a legitimate neutral observer, while space is limited on a page like this, it stretches the bounds of reason to try and pass off the content in question as "well covered". I will make sure to include you and SPECIFICO in the next tally. My intentions were/are to update the tally in the next day or so, it seems logical to give it about week in between but that's just me-if you object by all means do it yourself, I am not in charge here. As a final point, this is now the second time (the first was on my talk page) that you have gone out of your way to-while posing as a neutral observer inform me only of untallied votes from editors who wish to retain this content, or in other words editors who agree with you. Between last week and today you noted I forgot to include a total of 3 votes to retain but somehow forgot to mention a greater number of untallied removal votes on both occasions.......... OgamD218 ( talk) 19:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
hatting blow-by-blow bludgeon.
SPECIFICO
talk 22:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Tally and updates change from hat to cot (collapse without close), so as not to suppress legitimate comments but to save space. Bob K31416 ( talk) 22:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC) |
---|
TallyIt seems this situation has largely stagnated with very little momentum favoring a change in the content and almost all participating editors having by now only made clear their stance on whether or not the original sentence merits inclusion. This is the tally I am able to discern since the thread began 10 days ago. Please let me know if I make any errors. In order of when each editor gave their position : @ Bob K31416: Favors removal/opposes retaining (1) @ Jack Upland: Favors removal/opposes retaining (2) @ FormalDude:: Opposes removal/favors retaining [1] @ The Four Deuces: Favors removal/opposes retaining (3) @ GoodDay: Favors removal/opposes retaining (4) @ Space4Time3Continuum2x: Opposes removal/favors retaining [2] @ Tobby72: Favors removal/opposes retaining (5) @ Zaathras: Opposes removal/favors retaining [3] I also favor removal/oppose retaining the referenced content in its present form. (6) By my count, this brings the tally to 6 editors in favor of removal/oppose retaining vs 3 editors in opposition to removal/in favor of retaining. I have pinged all involved in hopes that if anybody notices a material mistake in this summary it will be duly noted. New editors are obviously still welcome to weigh in but seeing as none have in over a week, if if no one does so soon, this needs to be closed. OgamD218 ( talk) 03:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Update/Survey@ Bob K31416: Favors removal/opposes retaining (1) @ Jack Upland: Favors removal/opposes retaining (2) @ FormalDude:: Opposes removal/favors retaining [1] @ The Four Deuces: Favors removal/opposes retaining (3) @ GoodDay: Favors removal/opposes retaining (4) @ Space4Time3Continuum2x: Opposes removal/favors retaining [2] @ Tobby72: Favors removal/opposes retaining (5) @ Zaathras: Opposes removal/favors retaining [3] I also favor removal/oppose retaining the referenced content in its present form. (6) @ ValerianB: Opposes removal/favors retaining [4] @ InedibleHulk: Favors removal/opposes retaining (7) @ Fieari: Opposes removal/favors retaining [5] @ Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Favors removal/opposes retaining (8) There is no consensus to remove. I therefore favor retaining. SPECIFICO talk 04:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC) By my count, this brings the tally to 8 editors who favor removal/oppose retaining vs 5 editors in opposition to removal/in favor of retaining. I have pinged all involved in hopes that if anybody notices a material mistake in this summary it will be duly noted. New editors are obviously still welcome to weigh in. OgamD218 ( talk) 03:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Second Update@ Bob K31416: Favors removal/opposes retaining (1) @ Jack Upland: Favors removal/opposes retaining (2) @ FormalDude:: Opposes removal/favors retaining [1] @ The Four Deuces: Favors removal/opposes retaining (3) @ GoodDay: Favors removal/opposes retaining (4) @ Space4Time3Continuum2x: Opposes removal/favors retaining [2] @ Tobby72: Favors removal/opposes retaining (5) @ Zaathras: Opposes removal/favors retaining [3] I also favor removal/oppose retaining the referenced content in its present form. (6) @ ValerianB: Opposes removal/favors retaining [4] @ InedibleHulk: Favors removal/opposes retaining (7) @ Fieari: Opposes removal/favors retaining [5] @ Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Favors removal/opposes retaining (8) @ SPECIFICO: Opposes removal/favors retaining [6] @ LM2000: Favors removal/opposes retaining (9) @ Wuerzele: Opposes removal/favors retaining [7] @ Adoring nanny: Favors removal/opposes retaining (10) @ Alaexis: Favors removal/opposes retaining (11) By my count, this brings the tally to 11 editors who favor removal/oppose retaining vs 7 editors in opposition to removal/in favor of retaining. I have pinged all involved in hopes that if anybody notices a material mistake in this summary it will be duly noted. New editors are obviously still welcome to weigh in. OgamD218 ( talk) 07:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
Recommend the supports & the opposes be placed (above somewhere) into a sub-section called 'survey'. Would make it easier to read over the RFC for the closer. GoodDay ( talk) 02:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Suggestion RFC's do not and should not have a floor manager. I was summoned by a bot, have reviewed the article, reviewed the discussion, and found no strong reason to keep the disputed phrase. However, I find the discussion flawed by well intentioned but inappropriate hovering by OgamD218 ( OgdamD218). Consequently, I do not see this exchange of views as useful—it can not really settle anything. With subject so contentious, an RFC proposal needs to be clean as a whistle—in the initial, impartial, and short statement and without one single editor dominating the discussion. A redo, if the phrase is still contentious to the pont of edit warring, is necessary for the outcome to be authoritative. I have no objection to OgdamD218 starting a new RFC after reading other rfcs on contentious issues that closed with an enforceable conclusion, a conclusion that was accepted by editors on both sides of the narrowly posed question. — Neonorange ( talk to Phil) (he, they) 23:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I've put in a request for closure, now that the RfC tag has expired. GoodDay ( talk) 17:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)