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 140 | ← | Archive 142 | Archive 143 | Archive 144 | Archive 145 | Archive 146 | → | Archive 150 |
Under the subhead "Health", the article read "In 2018, Bornstein said Trump had dictated the contents of the letter, and that three Trump agents had seized his medical records in a February 2017 raid on the doctor's office", with a cite to NBC News. The sentence was true as to Bornstein's claim, but did not include information in the source that disputed that claim. So I added ", a characterization that was disputed by the White House press secretary" at the end of that sentence, for balance. Another editor then removed everything after "February 2017", which is mostly ok, but because of that I then changed the word "seized" to "taken", which was reverted by a third editor. Nowhere in the source is the word "seized" used. The accused say the records were handed over voluntarily and cordially. Our source says that the records were "taken", of which there is no dispute. We should use the neutral word used in our source if we don't want the longer but balanced sentence. Station1 ( talk) 18:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Since the current wording of Bornstein's experience is being contested (and it was far too short), we'll do what we always do: we double down and describe more accurately, even if it's longer. Since "seized" is being contested, we need to be completely accurate and describe the feelings of "rape", fright, and chaos created by this unauthorized "raid" that violated HIPAA patient privacy laws. This is how we usually deal with attempts to minimize what RS say. Such attempts create a Streisand effect and the content becomes even more noticeable. So be it. -- Valjean ( talk) 21:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Here is the removed text:
He also described what he called a "raid" of his office the morning of February 3, 2017, by three men acting for Trump: Trump's bodyguard Keith Schiller, the Trump Organization's top lawyer Alan Garten, and a third man. The men arrived "without notice and took all the president's medical records": "They must have been here for 25 or 30 minutes. It created a lot of chaos," said Bornstein, who described the incident as frightening." He told NBC News that he felt "raped, frightened and sad". He was not given an opportunity to authorize release of the records, which is a violation of HIPAA patient privacy laws. [1]
We could add that Garten's spokesperson wrote "that Bornstein "voluntarily turned over the medical records to Mr. Schiller" at the request of the White House. "The hand off, which occurred well over a year ago, was peaceful, cooperative and cordial. Prior to turning over the records, Dr. Bornstein was informed of the reasons for the request and willingly complied.""
That makes it plain who is telling the truth and who is lying, and that would be more informative for readers. -- Valjean ( talk) 21:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey folks. Way too much of this argument is being carried out via additions and reverts and changes in the article itself. You all know better than that. Let's call a halt to that, and discuss any changes here at the talk page like good Wikipedians, and try to reach consensus. I propose that each of you spell out what you think the sentence should say, make a numbered list, and then we can discuss it rationally. In the meantime I am going to restore the longstanding version as #1, and you all can post your suggested improvements or changes, and then we can see where we stand. My own feeling: this is a hugely bloated biography and we should try not to put in too much verbiage about any one incident; my suggestion would be to keep it to a single sentence.-- MelanieN ( talk) 21:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I suggest taken be used instead of seized, as per the source that is only one party's interpretation of the event and not the other. NPOV directs us to describe it neutrally. Taken is neutral and clear. Mr Ernie ( talk) 21:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I support just changing "seized" to "taken". All that matters is what RS says, and RS uses the word taken. Nuff said. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 05:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Statements by White House physicians Ronny Jackson and Sean Conley in 2018, 2019, and 2020 said Trump was healthy overall, but was obese. Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's 2018 LDL cholesterol level of 143 did not indicate excellent health. Trump's 2019 coronary CT calcium scan score indicates he suffers from a common form of coronary artery disease.
Health section, October 2020
|
---|
Statements by White House physicians Ronny Jackson and Sean Conley in 2018, 2019, and 2020 said Trump was healthy overall, but was obese. Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's 2018 LDL cholesterol level of 143 did not indicate excellent health. Trump's 2019 coronary CT calcium scan score indicates he suffers from a common form of coronary artery disease. Trump was hospitalized with COVID-19 on October 2, 2020, and treated with the antiviral drug remdesivir, the steroid dexamethasone, and an unapproved experimental antibody drug made by Regeneron. He was discharged on October 5. |
Health section, June 2020
|
---|
Trump abstains from alcohol. He says he has never smoked cigarettes or cannabis. He likes fast food and French cuisine. He has said he prefers three to four hours of sleep per night. He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. In December 2015, Harold Bornstein, who had been Trump's personal physician since 1980, wrote that Trump would "be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency" in a letter released by the Trump campaign. In May 2018, Bornstein said Trump had dictated the contents of the letter and that three agents of Trump had removed his medical records in February 2017 without due authorization. In January 2018, White House physician Ronny Jackson said Trump was in excellent health and that his cardiac assessment revealed no issues. Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's 2018 LDL cholesterol level of 143 did not indicate excellent health. In February 2019, after a new examination, White House physician Sean Conley said Trump was in "very good health overall", although he was clinically obese. His 2019 coronary CT calcium scan score indicates he suffers from a form of coronary artery disease common for white men of his age. In June 2020, Conley released a memorandum saying "the data indicates that the President remains healthy." The memorandum was not the usual report issued after the annual physical exam. It summarized medical appointments that had taken place between November 2019 and 2020. |
@
SPECIFICO: You said "Who does that unannounced, expects copies to be made on the spot, and then takes off with the originals 20 minutes later?" In fact, copies were NOT made; the entire intent was to remove all of Trump's files from the doctor's hands. Per the NBC News source, Bornstein said the original and only copy of Trump's charts, including lab reports under Trump's name as well as under the pseudonyms his office used for Trump, were taken.
As for the word "seized", it is specifically used by at least one source, the Washington Post: It involves Trump's colorful longtime personal doctor, Harold Bornstein, who claims that Trump's bodyguard, a Trump Organization lawyer and a third man conducted a “raid” of his office in February 2017, seizing 35 years of Trump's medical records.
--
MelanieN (
talk) 15:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Both these categories are inappropriate for inclusion in this article. WP:CATV requires categories to follow a neutral point of view, just like all other content. The term, "far-right" is not cited in this article anywhere, and the vast majority of sourcing uses terms like "right-wing populism" or "nationalist" to describe Trump, both of which are cited in this article and are categories listed. As for conspiracy theorist, it's inappropriate to describe Trump as a "conspiracy theorist" in WP:WIKIVOICE. We only say he has promoted conspiracy theories, that is not equivalent to being a conspiracy theorist. This category violates that NPOV standard. Both these categories should be removed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 22:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. What including this category is doing is reaching a conclusion from RS that is not explicit in the RS. I'm done stating this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 03:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
See this previous talk page discussion so we dont rehash. It is settled consensus, and the facts have not changed. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
As always unsure, I think ascribing any lable to Trump is pointless as I am unsure he has any firmly held convictions beyond TRUMP!. But if RS say it so do we. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
From the guideline Wikipedia:Categorization, section Categorizing pages, subsection Articles, second paragraph, "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories."
So far it's the contentious opinion of some editors that Trump belongs in the categories American conspiracy theorists and Far-right politicians in the United States. These conclusions are based on the synthesis of reliable sources and the analysis of some Wikipedia editors. So far, it looks like no reliable source has been presented here that explicitly says that Trump is a conspiracy theorist or a far-right politician. If I missed it, please feel free to correct me with an excerpt from such a source and link. Bob K31416 ( talk) 20:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Status of discussion:
Bob K31416 ( talk) 09:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Could you please name them then. And why did you mention that they were tabloids in the first place? Morgenthau had been then DA for 14 years. And of course he had been federal DA for most of the 60s. My point is that rational people would have had confidence in his judgement. And supporting the death penalty doesn't make one a conspiracist either. If it did, you'd have a lot of bios of Democratic and Republican politicians to change. TFD ( talk) 03:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time understanding the quibbling over "conspiracy theorist" when we have an article List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. Birtherism was the start of his current political brand ( [16], [17], etc). I think it pedantic to argue if he's theorist or not because he peddles and promotes them but doesn't create them... they seem to be part of the same thing to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
...they seem to be part of the same thing to me. What we think makes someone a conspiracy theorist is not relevant, all that's relevant is if RS is labeling him that. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 07:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Of course I know who Daniel Dale is back from when I created the Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal about a story that Dale broke. He is a news reporter, not a professor with a PHD who teaches courses and has written articles and books about conspiracism. Note the wording of the policy: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." He doesn't meet the definition of subject matter expert. If he did, then so would all analysis in news media.
You will notice that textbooks tend to cite experts also. We don't see things like the history of Rome, the chemical composition of proteins, or the size of the universe sourced to articles by newspaper reporters.
This may be an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If we don't know that conspiracism is a subject of academic study or what exactly is a conspiracy theory, then we might see it as something straightforword that non-experts can reliably determine. But the danger here is that Dale is probably using the term in a layman's sense, which may not meet all the criteria. For example, conspiracy theories blame an all powerful, all knowing and totally evil cabal controlling the world and manipulating events. Just saying that your opponents cheated or are corrupt, even without evidence, does not meet the criteria. OTOH, some of what Dale mentions do seem like they do meet the criteria. That's where we could be helped by using expert sources. TFD ( talk) 23:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Trump made many false and misleading statements ... and promoted conspiracy theories.There is a paragraph in Donald Trump#Investigations of Russian election interference about the debunked theory that Ukraine instead of Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and there is an entire section, Donald Trump#Promotion of conspiracy theories, on various other conspiracy theories he promoted. RS also usually don’t label Trump an "adulterer" although there was plenty of reporting on his adulteries. I have to take another look at "far-right politician". I took a look at the people listed in that category, and I don't see that much difference between Trump and Hawley, Moore, or Witzke, to name a few. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Get rid of both categories-in-question & few more. GoodDay ( talk) 01:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
borrowing significantly and consistently from far and extreme-right discourse and ideas; WaPo Perspective—
While Donald Trump’s presidency was the fillip [one of the two great political parties in the United States has been transformed top to bottom into a vehicle for far-right extremism], this fundamental change is the culmination of three decades of dynamic interaction among white supremacists, far-right organizations and populists within the Republican Party.; Brookings—
In contrast [to presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush], President Trump often uses the rhetoric of the far right, supports or at least condones its anti-government protests, and has called on it to protect him in response to imaginary threats.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I really hate it when well-sourced RS’s with numerous acts end up making a guy I like look bad. It really sucks for my worldview. Tyrone ( talk) 08:40, 18 March 2022 (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.
Why is the introduction to this article almost completely devoid of source references? Forgive me for bringing this up if there is some valid reason for this that I should have been aware of but: It's rather jarring to see an article about someone so widely known, start with something that breaks Wikipedia's conventions so conspicuously. 2A02:A443:AF4E:1:7534:8623:996F:EE1B ( talk) 08:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to edit this page because I am an unbiased person that won't incorporate political views into their edits. AdogTheBeast ( talk) 17:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
"Policies have been described as..." By whom? The summarized opinion of the author?
Also if buzzwords such as "racist" and "misogynistic" are going to be used, despite the subject of the article clearly begging to differ - a varied and critically thinking audience needs to see some hyperlinked numbers right there. 2001:5B0:2D07:4278:D5B5:39C:472B:16F8 ( talk) 13:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add section on Abraham Accords 67.185.226.50 ( talk)
Anyone notice this fork Donald Trump's foreign policy on Russia....should this not be redirected to Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration.? Moxy- 02:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
some grammar changes that needs to be done. Xxirev.gyl ( talk) 17:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a highly lazily crafted sentence, and has no place in this article. Given the presidency is just a year over as well, it is unfathomable to be able to make that claim. The bias on this page, especially the opening paragraphs, is downright scary to witness. Brakeformoose ( talk) 12:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
This rating information is in the article, by repeated consensus, because it is in the article of every past president. The "one of the worst" conclusion is not "because Trump was impeached twice" or "because his approval rating was low" or any particular action of his. It is not based on public opinion or polling or anything of that sort. It is based on a highly respected scholarly survey, which is taken only when a particular presidency is over and the president is out of office. Every time it is taken, it uses the exact same ten criteria by which the respondents are to evaluate (rank) every past president. In other words, this is based on a Reliable Source on a subject that would otherwise be pure opinion. BTW Trump was not rated last; he was rated fourth from last. You can read all about it here. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Edit | Summary |
---|---|
→Health: Trump was hospitalized | |
revert | →Health: Overlinking. It's a link (via a redirect and another redirect, if I'm not mistaken) to a subsection in White House COVID-19 outbreak. This article already has a link to that page in the Donald Trump#Outbreak at the White House section |
unrevert | Undid revision 1079406715 by User:Space4Time3Continuum2x (1) A link to R with possibilities is not considered a duplicate (2) if they were duplicates then delete the link that is later in the article, not later in the edit history (3) link is via a redirect and a pipelink, not "a redirect and another redirect" |
rerevert | Undid revision 1079420463 by Jnestorius Please take to Talk page. See 24-hour BRD cycle |
So, any substantive responses to (1) (2) (3)? jnestorius( talk) 15:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
A link to R with possibilities is not considered a duplicateThe section 1.4 link focuses on the effect on Trump's health; the section 5.10.7 link focuses on the political fallout of the whole outbreak
if they were duplicates then delete the link that is later in the article, not later in the edit history.A reader who has reached section 1.4 may not have scanned the Table of Contents closely enough to be sure that further information will be available once they reach section 5.10.7; giving them a direct link now will conform much better with what the reader expects
As mentioned before, the lead of this article does not contain citations. To check whether this is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, I looked at the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Specifically, I looked at the section about citations in the lead [20]. From that guideline, it appears that the lead for this article should contain citations. As an example of that guideline section, here's the first paragraph.
Bob K31416 ( talk) 14:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Moxy- 15:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I've made an to the lede that adds references (which already exist in the body) to the following sentences:
Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies.[1]
Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist,[2]
and many as misogynistic[3]
Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.[4]
These four are some of the most "reasonably challenged" statements from what I've seen in terms of editor consensus and how often it is brought up on the talk page. I am leaning towards the view that adding a few citations for the most contentious content is pretty reasonable and possibly even preferable. –– FormalDude talk 05:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
[i]t does not seem worthwhile to carpetbomb the lead with citations just to mollify a disgruntled user or two.These four would just open the floodgates. I don't actually remember a complaint about the 4,000 legal actions and six bankruptcies; how did that make your list of most reasonably challenged? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I thought the goal was to shorten the length of this BLP. GoodDay ( talk) 22:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
There are a lot of statements in the lead that either aren't found in the body, or are phrased differently enough that I can't find them. One example is the statement that he has "repeatedly ... promoted Russian propaganda" - the word 'propaganda' only appears once in this article, in the lead, and so it's unclear what this is referring to. A cite would be extremely helpful to let the reader know exactly what the basis of the claim is and what the Russian propaganda was that Trump boosted. It would also be good to use the word "propaganda" again in the body so that you can ctrl-F and find it.
Another example would be the statement that there was "no progress on denuclearization" with North Korea. The body says that no denuclearization agreement was reached, but that sanctions were lifted, missile tests ceased, and Trump was the first president welcomed onto NK soil. It would be helpful to have a cite that said 'no progress' since the body sounds a lot like faltering and potentially futile forms of progress and detente rather than 'no progress'. We could also just say "little progress" or "limited progress" in the lead if that is more accurate.
In general I think that for an article topic as partisan and controversial as this, it's extremely helpful to have cites in the lead for statements that are entirely factually correct but might be perceived as partisan to some readers. And it gets potentially disastrous when the statement in the lead is hard to find in the body (e.g. the word "propaganda" only appearing in the lead). TocMan ( talk) 19:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Trump repeatedly praised Vladimir Putin and promoted Russian propaganda) for discussion. We do need to add this to the body first, and I'm not so sure about the promotion of Russian propaganda during the presidency. North Korea. The body does not say that
no denuclearization agreement was reached, but. It says they met, Trump lifted some sanctions,
however, no denuclearization deal was reached, talks broke down, NK continued to build up arsenal. That's what the lead says—lots of hoopla, no progress. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 22:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the article beginning it says "diverted funding towards building a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border." Divert from what? Either it should say what (the article body doesn't actually say) or just say "began building." It doesn't make sense without more context 2600:1700:1154:3500:CCF:E63B:4DC2:F92 ( talk) 00:26, 5 April 2022 (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.
"Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.": This more or less suggests that, in general, ALL historians rate Trump exclusively poorly. Of course that is not sustainable. The link in this sentence ("rank Trump") is not enough to get the context of the statement, many readers just read the sentence itself. The sentence should be changed to: "Many historians...", "A majority of historians..." etc.
Overall, this sentence seems more ideological than informative. Furthermore, if unchanged as mentioned above, it is too controversial and should not close the first section of the article without classification. The last sentence of an introduction is of paramount importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torsten Birner ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.Their entire purpose is impartiality. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
It does not matter what we think (see wp:or), what matters is what RS think. Also if someone says "He did this good thing" that is not the same as saying "overall he was good". Slatersteven ( talk) 14:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I mentioned it before & I'll mention it again. Wait ten years or at least four years, after the end of his administration, before we start putting in the scholars & historians opinions. GoodDay ( talk) 15:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
As always Wikipedia getting political. This is ridicolous. You should have just informative facts. Not general unclear voluntarily vague judgments on the person. Jozekk97 ( talk) 21:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
This is settled consensus. Leave it as it is. I don't think a qualifying word like "Most" is really needed considering broader consensus we see with other presidential articles, which don't have qualifying words. This is a re-hash conversation; a procedural close may be needed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 00:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I want to ask: What concrete, factual, i.e. content-specific, counter-arguments are there against the suggestion, for example, to put the word "most" before the sentence? Or, if "most" were to be rejected: Which content-related arguments would speak against at least writing: "In a 2021 C-SPAN Survey among presidential historians from US universities Trump was ranked as one of the worst presidents in American history." ?
I thought wikipedia was about relevant, objective information. But I see that the sentence I criticized (item 54) contains less of this relevant, objective information than the variants I suggested, because they put the ranking in context. (And to say that Hanson is not relevant seems not objective, from a scientific point of view.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torsten Birner ( talk • contribs) 08:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus ... Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Hatting off-topic discussion of Hanson's credentials and merits of book.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
|
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to edit this wikipedia page to add some extra information about donald trump. ZhongXina21 ( talk) 21:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a US politician, media personality, and Nel8718 ( talk) 02:22, 15 April 2022 (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.
Can we please introduce citations into the opening section? There are many sentences that came off unencylopedic otherwise. -- 216.24.45.24 ( talk) 16:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Proposals for the United States to purchase Greenland contains a large amount of content on Donald Trump’s 2019 attempt. Presently, there are no links and zero mention of Greenland on the page. Foreign Policy : Denmark section seems excessive, any ideas where to put this? Twillisjr ( talk) 22:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
The goal is not to add this as some kind of “blunder.” If you read the article you will see that it was a continuation of other formerly ambitious Americans’ goal as well. Twillisjr ( talk) 23:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
This was kind of a one-week wonder, immediately shot down by the other parties, and subjected to a few days of ridicule in the U.S. It is not worth mentioning in this biography. Presumably there is some brief mention of it in Presidency of Donald Trump. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Not worth mentioning per WP:RECENTISM. Probably has a place at Presidency of Donald Trump. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 22:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I would like to propose that the current sentence:
[Trump] reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging, and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.
[Trump's] response to the COVID-19 pandemic was widely criticized, citing ignoring and contradicting many recommendations from health officials in his messaging, as well as promoting misinformation about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.
I would like to know your thoughts on this change. If you disagree with this change, please state if you think the current wording of the sentence is fine or if it needs more work. Interstellarity ( talk) 15:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
citing ignoring and contradicting many recommendations—is this a typo? Doesn't make sense. The current sentence is the summary of the COVID-19 section which has multiple sources. Yours is based on Newsweek's interview of one journalist promoting his new book, i.e. one man's opinion. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Not an improvement. ValarianB ( talk) 18:53, 1 April 2022 (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.
The article’s opening section was plagued with vague, uncontextualized claims as well as critical language around some of the facts. I have reworded these small instances to align more closely with Wikipedia’s policy on neutrality. Eg – claiming that Trump’s COVID response was “slow” is a subjective statement with no real reference point, I have changed this to clarify that his response was criticised as being slow by the media, as this is actually what happened. Also, the section on the Capitol riots was blatantly misleading. Saying “they” and “attacked” is too vague and implies that all those in attendance were involved. I have clarified this to state that a small cohort of demonstrators at the event breached security measures and were arrested, with a hyperlink to the riot page for further information. Understand that this might be sensitive for some but the new wording is objectively much clearer and more neutral than before. Domiy ( talk) 02:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
was criticized for...or words to that effect; this is inappropriate per the WP:NPOV requirement that we must
avoid stating facts as opinions. If you feel that those statements are contested by high-quality sources, you need to demonstrate that. Also, you changed
promoted misinformation about unproven treatments...to
publicly discussing unproven treatments; this makes the article less accurate, since the sources largely emphasize that he actively promoted misinformation about those unproven treatments, rather than just discussing them. Also, your addition of
However, his administration eventually oversaw the introduction of the US vaccine rollouthas numerous problems; first, there's no indication that this aspect is significant (contrary to what you said above it isn't mentioned in the article that I can see via a quick search for mentions of the vaccine - likely because the amount that his administration actually did was minimal and his own personal involvement was largely confined to the earlier points); and second, the "however" phrasing presents it as a rebuttal / retort to the facts above, which is WP:SYNTHy even if you could justify inclusion. The same goes for your inclusion of
Trump later advised his supporters to peacefully disperse, which as far as I can see is not in the article and is, again, likely excluded because it is not treated as meaningful by most sources given the larger timeline and context. -- Aquillion ( talk) 03:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
state opinions as facts-- ..an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." This is exactly what my edits sought to achieve. Stating that Trump's response was "slow" offers no reference point - slow compared to which countries? The US still had a comparatively fast rollout on the world scale, and given that this was the first widespread pandemic in almost 100 years, there are no other domestic responses to compare it to.
The following edits by User:Domiy are pure whitewashing and should not be accepted. 1) replacing “scores” of unsuccessful legal challenges with “multiple”, a vague and weak adjective that gives no indication of the extent of the challenges. 2) “A small cohort of those in attendance”: This language is not supported by any reliable source. 3) adding “a demonstrator fatally shot by police” without mentioning the other deaths and the multiple attacks on police. 4) removing “and obstructing the presidential transition” which is exactly what did happen and which was the intent. 4) adding “Trump later advised his supporters to peacefully disperse” without mentioning that he waited several hours, as multiple people pleaded with him to make it stop, before eventually issuing a weak statement along the lines of “go home, we love you”. -- MelanieN ( talk) 04:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Domiy, there was never any "sudden" "change of heart". He was beleaguered for hours by myriad notable people, politicians, and officials from both sides of the aisle, urging him to condemn what was happening and to call off his supporters, and he refused to do anything. Instead, he encouraged and praised them. Footage of his activities during the attack showed him standing in front of the TV watching the violence, smiling, and fist-pumping. He loved the violence. From the first time that rioters broke down barricades at the Capitol at about 1 p.m., there went over four hours before the first hint of a "go home" message. He had used all this time to whip them up and sympathize with them.
At 4:22 p.m. he issued a video message on social media that Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube later took down because it was disinformation. In it, he repeated his claims of electoral fraud, praised his supporters and told them to "go home". At 6:25 p.m., Trump tweeted: "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long" and then issued a call: "Go home with love & in peace." That was the second call to go home, 5 1/2 hours after the first breach. He had plenty of time to stop it and was loath to do so. There was never any real "change of heart", only political expediency. During this time, he was phoning and communicating with others. Trump's January 6 call logs show a seven-hour gap. This was his typical destruction of evidence, as well as him using other people's phones to make calls. Fortunately, recipients of the calls have reported what he said. He was busy scheming and conspiring how to overturn the election, how to overturn the will of the people. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 15:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Trump’s message was ambiguous. He opened his speech by repeating his lie that the election was rigged. He told his supporters to “go home,” but immediately added: “We love you. You’re very special.” During the videotaping, Trump did not stick to the script his speechwriters had composed and had to record at least three takes to get one that his aides felt was palatable enough to share with the public. “That was actually the best one,” a senior White House official said....
Trump’s video and tweets enraged some Republican members of Congress, even loyal ones like McCarthy and Graham. “That was a bad tweet,” Graham said of Trump’s message excusing what had happened that day.It simply isn't an accurate representation of the sources to present it as a vital moment where he made this uncontroversial or conciliatory statement that changes the stuff that came before - or as something leadworthy. And the source specifically emphasizes how hard his handlers had to work to get even that statement out of him (one that, as it notes, was so insufficient that even Trump's allies were outraged by it.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is heavily biased and whoever wrote it is very obviously a democrat. As Wikipedia is a supposed to be a source of fact and not opinion, I suggest that this article is edited. 74.195.157.114 ( talk) 04:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Someone needs to talk to both sides and edit this whole page, this is so biased to the left it is not funny. We have donated to Wikipedia in the past but after reading this crap will not again and will not trust what has been posted on your so called Wikipedia. Heharrisco204 ( talk) 14:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This unsourced and blatantly POV/OR text should be deleted: "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history." 107.127.46.13 ( talk) 23:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
C-SPAN, which has surveyed presidential historians on presidential leadership each time the administration changed since 2000,[700] ranked Trump fourth–lowest overall in their Presidential Historians Survey 2021, with Trump rated lowest in the leadership characteristics categories for moral authority and administrative skills.[701][702][703]The talk page archives are linked at the top of this page; it contains these discussions. The consensus to include the scholars and historians in the lead is at Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_140#RFC:_Should_we_mention_historical_evaluations_of_Trump's_presidency?. – Muboshgu ( talk) 23:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@ SNUGGUMS: You undid the links in the lead I recently placed targeting the respective sections in the body the sentences are summarizing (they replaced links to other WP pages that are linked in the body text). According to your edit summary "articles shouldn't link to themselves like that [not changing sentence, just unlinking and using some better links." Is that your personal opinion or is there a WP policy saying that? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 09:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Couldn't we bold the links to other articles and add a note above the lead saying something like "bold links go to other articles, other links to sections in this one" or vice versa, or use italics? Your second potential solution would also require a few up to a whole lot of notes, not really an improvement over citation clutter, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I do not support self-linking within this article. I have never liked the practice, and most major points about Trump have their own separate spin-off articles anyway... so I'm not really getting what this is about. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 06:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Mrbeastmodeallday, this wasn’t already in the lead because of proposed self-links discussed in this Talk page section. See also recent edit history, for example this edit. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
The surprise factor of the reader hitting a self-link when they expect a link to another article can be mitigated by using the § symbol in the visible link text. I don’t remember seeing § used anywhere but that’s probably due to the limited range of articles I edit. Do you know whether there’s been a discussion on inserting § without the section link template, i.e., "#section heading|§ other text"? That would take care of the problem of readers not being able to distinguish between self-links and links to other articles. Ideally, every sentence in the lead should correspond to a heading in the TOC, but that isn’t always the case. E.g.,
Self-links preceded by §.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
Trump is the only federal officeholder in American history to have been impeached twice. After he § pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden in 2019, he § was impeached by the House of Representatives for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in December. First impeachment In August 2019, a whistleblower filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community about a July 25 phone call between Trump and President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy, during which Trump had pressured Zelenskyy to investigate CrowdStrike and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, adding that the White House had attempted to cover-up the incident. [1] The whistleblower stated that the call was part of a wider campaign by the Trump administration and Giuliani that may have included withholding financial aid from Ukraine in July 2019 and canceling Pence's May 2019 Ukraine trip. [2] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi initiated a formal impeachment inquiry on September 24. [3] Trump then confirmed that he withheld military aid from Ukraine, offering contradictory reasons for the decision. [4] [5] On September 25, the Trump administration released a memorandum of the phone call which confirmed that, after Zelenskyy mentioned purchasing American anti-tank missiles, Trump asked him to discuss investigating Biden and his son with Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr. [1] [6] The testimony of multiple administration officials and former officials confirmed ... References
|
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Height appears to be incorrect, height should be approximately 6ft based on photos 74.83.55.168 ( talk) 16:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The article currently doesn't mention his height. Just in case I overlooked it, there are two RS saying it is 6'2" (his 1964 selective service draft card, [1] cited in the "Early life" section, and his 2012 driver's license, [2] obtained by POLITICO through a 2016 open-records request concerning his Virginia winery.) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
After Trump's second physical in office (2019), this article mentioned that he was now considered obese. The info was later trimmed because of the size of the article, and, since he's no longer president, who cares about his weight, height, or health. RS had some fun with his easily disproven height of 6'3", [3] [4] along with the fact that growing an inch after age 65, per the 2012 driver's license, was a tad unusual. [2] As far as this article is concerned, where would you suggest putting it, ( Donald_Trump#False_statements?), along with the false statements about the Trump family's Swedish descent, Trump graduating at the top of his class, his wealth, etc., which also got dropped along the way due to article size? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Mrbeastmodeallday, I don't know why that page exists, it should be merged with Family of Donald Trump. While it says at the top that the article is about the ancestral history of the Trump family as a whole, it isn't, at least not in its current iteration. Does a family tree with insufficient citations for verification and containing a bunch of people who are not noteworthy even belong on Wikipedia? Adding the link has been discussed and declined before. I've also removed it from the infobox at least a couple of times, so I'd appreciate it if you would it this time. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I was not aware this has been brought up before. I will undo the edit. In lieu of having both of them listed in the infobox, it would make sense to propose a merge. I have a hunch that there will probably be more disagreement over what the merged page should be named, and less disagreement over whether it should be merged. But we’ll see. Meanwhile, in the early section where it talks about Trump’s early personal life and family (such as his parents) that’s where it would make sense to link “Trump family” as a “see also” hatnote, since it doesn’t appear to be linked anywhere in the page. I will do that too. Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 22:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Now this is definitely overlinking, IMO. The section says who his family is, and it has links for every family member. It doesn't need a "see also" at the top. Way back before the article got this yuge, the section even included Grandpa Friedrich, who — like Trump's parents, siblings, spouses, children, etc. — is noteworthy only because of Trump. (He's mentioned on and linked from Fred Trump's page). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
ONUnicorn, most of the last paragraph you added today would appear to belong on the page of the Republican Party. They're party politics, and one of the remaining two sources is an opinion by the publisher of The Bulwark (website). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, a generalization like Trump's actions in endorsing candidates has been likened to his role on The Apprentice
from the NYT citing one Trump biographer's opinion is undue, IMO. (I started writing this before you edited.)
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 16:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
InedibleHulk, but isn't he always the victim? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Mrbeastmodeallday: Sheesh! Are you about done overlinking the article? I can live with 2016 Republican National Convention in place of "Republican National Convention" and Midtown Manhattan but is golf course necessary? Unnecessary, per MOS:OVERLINK: locations (New York City, Singapore), countries ( El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras ( MOS:SEAOFBLUE should also be avoided)), geographic features (" African nations"). Misleading: German immigrants — German Americans have full or partial German ancestry, i.e, they're not necessarily immigrants, and neither German (country) nor immigrants (everyday word understood by most readers in context) should be linked. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I think in general, WP tends to be under-linked, especially for high-traffic articles because much of what’s happening in terms of edits is based around ideas and not formatting. I looked over the WP:overlinking and I think you have a point. I think most proper nouns would benefit from being linked at first mention, but it’s contextual too. If it’s incidental to a sentence or idea then it’s not necessary. For example, Russian interference in the 2016 election is prominently linked and stated, so it’s not necessary to link “Russia” if it comes up later, I totally understand that. But some proper nouns that are more obscure and are pretty central to understanding the idea may be helpful, particularly if there are no other linked articles directly about them. Some of the smaller countries could benefit from linking. Drop a message on my talk page if you want to discuss more. Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 19:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
It’s important to remember that there are readers who aren’t American and are in other countries, and their first big exposure to some of those terms may be through Donald Trump. And they may think “what’s Boston?” for example. WP tends to have a heavy bias of familiarity based on perspective of Americans, so I try to reduce or eliminate that bias where possible. For example, the article on Putin probably has article links for Russian cities mentioned. Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 19:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 19:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I disagree about “golf course”. Again golf isn’t exactly a global sport ubiquitous sport. In some countries, it’s rare or non-existent, and even then it’s often only known among the rich elite.
There are a few sports that you can get away with not linking in this type of article due to global ubiquity, such as soccer, swimming, track, gymnastics, maybe basketball and volleyball. Golf isn’t one of them. Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 19:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I have a made good-faith effort to keep the linking to reasonable appropriate levels, and also removed something I previously added in the spirit of being overlinked, as a courtesy to help you out. I only kept about 3-4 of the links that you removed. If you disagree with any, please bring them here on an individual case-by-case basis to discuss them on their individual merits, before deleting. They are few enough that blanket sweeping/reverting would be unnecessary. Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 19:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 19:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
The entire article is gonna end up in an ocean of blue. GoodDay ( talk) 22:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
When adding links we should be mindful of MOS:SEAOFBLUE and MOS:OVERLINK. Stuff like golf course doesn't need a link. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 03:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Mrbeastmodeallday, did you notice that Donald_Trump#2021_Capitol_attack has its own section? This link is not needed ( MOS:REPEATLINK). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 21:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I did notice, but it’s also a very relevant “further” or “see also” article given that there’s a section with the topic of Donald Trump inciting violence. I suppose it could go either way. I don’t feel too strongly either way and I can see both sides. I can see how it’s useful, but I can also see how it can be considered overlinking. We’re just picking the lesser of two evils essentially, and it’s also a problem of abundance, given that the topic sort of hits into two different sections of the article (“public image” and “2020 election”) Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 21:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
The 2020 election is more about the history of the events of the election. The public image is about Trump’s character. The Capitol attack is relevant to both topics for different reasons, so having it linked in both wouldn’t necessarily be overlinking in the normal sense per se, because it serves a different function and context in each application. @ Space4Time3Continuum2x: Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 21:22, 6 May 2022 (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 140 | ← | Archive 142 | Archive 143 | Archive 144 | Archive 145 | Archive 146 | → | Archive 150 |
Under the subhead "Health", the article read "In 2018, Bornstein said Trump had dictated the contents of the letter, and that three Trump agents had seized his medical records in a February 2017 raid on the doctor's office", with a cite to NBC News. The sentence was true as to Bornstein's claim, but did not include information in the source that disputed that claim. So I added ", a characterization that was disputed by the White House press secretary" at the end of that sentence, for balance. Another editor then removed everything after "February 2017", which is mostly ok, but because of that I then changed the word "seized" to "taken", which was reverted by a third editor. Nowhere in the source is the word "seized" used. The accused say the records were handed over voluntarily and cordially. Our source says that the records were "taken", of which there is no dispute. We should use the neutral word used in our source if we don't want the longer but balanced sentence. Station1 ( talk) 18:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Since the current wording of Bornstein's experience is being contested (and it was far too short), we'll do what we always do: we double down and describe more accurately, even if it's longer. Since "seized" is being contested, we need to be completely accurate and describe the feelings of "rape", fright, and chaos created by this unauthorized "raid" that violated HIPAA patient privacy laws. This is how we usually deal with attempts to minimize what RS say. Such attempts create a Streisand effect and the content becomes even more noticeable. So be it. -- Valjean ( talk) 21:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Here is the removed text:
He also described what he called a "raid" of his office the morning of February 3, 2017, by three men acting for Trump: Trump's bodyguard Keith Schiller, the Trump Organization's top lawyer Alan Garten, and a third man. The men arrived "without notice and took all the president's medical records": "They must have been here for 25 or 30 minutes. It created a lot of chaos," said Bornstein, who described the incident as frightening." He told NBC News that he felt "raped, frightened and sad". He was not given an opportunity to authorize release of the records, which is a violation of HIPAA patient privacy laws. [1]
We could add that Garten's spokesperson wrote "that Bornstein "voluntarily turned over the medical records to Mr. Schiller" at the request of the White House. "The hand off, which occurred well over a year ago, was peaceful, cooperative and cordial. Prior to turning over the records, Dr. Bornstein was informed of the reasons for the request and willingly complied.""
That makes it plain who is telling the truth and who is lying, and that would be more informative for readers. -- Valjean ( talk) 21:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey folks. Way too much of this argument is being carried out via additions and reverts and changes in the article itself. You all know better than that. Let's call a halt to that, and discuss any changes here at the talk page like good Wikipedians, and try to reach consensus. I propose that each of you spell out what you think the sentence should say, make a numbered list, and then we can discuss it rationally. In the meantime I am going to restore the longstanding version as #1, and you all can post your suggested improvements or changes, and then we can see where we stand. My own feeling: this is a hugely bloated biography and we should try not to put in too much verbiage about any one incident; my suggestion would be to keep it to a single sentence.-- MelanieN ( talk) 21:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I suggest taken be used instead of seized, as per the source that is only one party's interpretation of the event and not the other. NPOV directs us to describe it neutrally. Taken is neutral and clear. Mr Ernie ( talk) 21:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I support just changing "seized" to "taken". All that matters is what RS says, and RS uses the word taken. Nuff said. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 05:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Statements by White House physicians Ronny Jackson and Sean Conley in 2018, 2019, and 2020 said Trump was healthy overall, but was obese. Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's 2018 LDL cholesterol level of 143 did not indicate excellent health. Trump's 2019 coronary CT calcium scan score indicates he suffers from a common form of coronary artery disease.
Health section, October 2020
|
---|
Statements by White House physicians Ronny Jackson and Sean Conley in 2018, 2019, and 2020 said Trump was healthy overall, but was obese. Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's 2018 LDL cholesterol level of 143 did not indicate excellent health. Trump's 2019 coronary CT calcium scan score indicates he suffers from a common form of coronary artery disease. Trump was hospitalized with COVID-19 on October 2, 2020, and treated with the antiviral drug remdesivir, the steroid dexamethasone, and an unapproved experimental antibody drug made by Regeneron. He was discharged on October 5. |
Health section, June 2020
|
---|
Trump abstains from alcohol. He says he has never smoked cigarettes or cannabis. He likes fast food and French cuisine. He has said he prefers three to four hours of sleep per night. He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. In December 2015, Harold Bornstein, who had been Trump's personal physician since 1980, wrote that Trump would "be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency" in a letter released by the Trump campaign. In May 2018, Bornstein said Trump had dictated the contents of the letter and that three agents of Trump had removed his medical records in February 2017 without due authorization. In January 2018, White House physician Ronny Jackson said Trump was in excellent health and that his cardiac assessment revealed no issues. Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's 2018 LDL cholesterol level of 143 did not indicate excellent health. In February 2019, after a new examination, White House physician Sean Conley said Trump was in "very good health overall", although he was clinically obese. His 2019 coronary CT calcium scan score indicates he suffers from a form of coronary artery disease common for white men of his age. In June 2020, Conley released a memorandum saying "the data indicates that the President remains healthy." The memorandum was not the usual report issued after the annual physical exam. It summarized medical appointments that had taken place between November 2019 and 2020. |
@
SPECIFICO: You said "Who does that unannounced, expects copies to be made on the spot, and then takes off with the originals 20 minutes later?" In fact, copies were NOT made; the entire intent was to remove all of Trump's files from the doctor's hands. Per the NBC News source, Bornstein said the original and only copy of Trump's charts, including lab reports under Trump's name as well as under the pseudonyms his office used for Trump, were taken.
As for the word "seized", it is specifically used by at least one source, the Washington Post: It involves Trump's colorful longtime personal doctor, Harold Bornstein, who claims that Trump's bodyguard, a Trump Organization lawyer and a third man conducted a “raid” of his office in February 2017, seizing 35 years of Trump's medical records.
--
MelanieN (
talk) 15:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Both these categories are inappropriate for inclusion in this article. WP:CATV requires categories to follow a neutral point of view, just like all other content. The term, "far-right" is not cited in this article anywhere, and the vast majority of sourcing uses terms like "right-wing populism" or "nationalist" to describe Trump, both of which are cited in this article and are categories listed. As for conspiracy theorist, it's inappropriate to describe Trump as a "conspiracy theorist" in WP:WIKIVOICE. We only say he has promoted conspiracy theories, that is not equivalent to being a conspiracy theorist. This category violates that NPOV standard. Both these categories should be removed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 22:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. What including this category is doing is reaching a conclusion from RS that is not explicit in the RS. I'm done stating this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 03:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
See this previous talk page discussion so we dont rehash. It is settled consensus, and the facts have not changed. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
As always unsure, I think ascribing any lable to Trump is pointless as I am unsure he has any firmly held convictions beyond TRUMP!. But if RS say it so do we. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
From the guideline Wikipedia:Categorization, section Categorizing pages, subsection Articles, second paragraph, "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories."
So far it's the contentious opinion of some editors that Trump belongs in the categories American conspiracy theorists and Far-right politicians in the United States. These conclusions are based on the synthesis of reliable sources and the analysis of some Wikipedia editors. So far, it looks like no reliable source has been presented here that explicitly says that Trump is a conspiracy theorist or a far-right politician. If I missed it, please feel free to correct me with an excerpt from such a source and link. Bob K31416 ( talk) 20:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Status of discussion:
Bob K31416 ( talk) 09:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Could you please name them then. And why did you mention that they were tabloids in the first place? Morgenthau had been then DA for 14 years. And of course he had been federal DA for most of the 60s. My point is that rational people would have had confidence in his judgement. And supporting the death penalty doesn't make one a conspiracist either. If it did, you'd have a lot of bios of Democratic and Republican politicians to change. TFD ( talk) 03:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time understanding the quibbling over "conspiracy theorist" when we have an article List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. Birtherism was the start of his current political brand ( [16], [17], etc). I think it pedantic to argue if he's theorist or not because he peddles and promotes them but doesn't create them... they seem to be part of the same thing to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
...they seem to be part of the same thing to me. What we think makes someone a conspiracy theorist is not relevant, all that's relevant is if RS is labeling him that. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 07:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Of course I know who Daniel Dale is back from when I created the Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal about a story that Dale broke. He is a news reporter, not a professor with a PHD who teaches courses and has written articles and books about conspiracism. Note the wording of the policy: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." He doesn't meet the definition of subject matter expert. If he did, then so would all analysis in news media.
You will notice that textbooks tend to cite experts also. We don't see things like the history of Rome, the chemical composition of proteins, or the size of the universe sourced to articles by newspaper reporters.
This may be an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If we don't know that conspiracism is a subject of academic study or what exactly is a conspiracy theory, then we might see it as something straightforword that non-experts can reliably determine. But the danger here is that Dale is probably using the term in a layman's sense, which may not meet all the criteria. For example, conspiracy theories blame an all powerful, all knowing and totally evil cabal controlling the world and manipulating events. Just saying that your opponents cheated or are corrupt, even without evidence, does not meet the criteria. OTOH, some of what Dale mentions do seem like they do meet the criteria. That's where we could be helped by using expert sources. TFD ( talk) 23:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Trump made many false and misleading statements ... and promoted conspiracy theories.There is a paragraph in Donald Trump#Investigations of Russian election interference about the debunked theory that Ukraine instead of Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and there is an entire section, Donald Trump#Promotion of conspiracy theories, on various other conspiracy theories he promoted. RS also usually don’t label Trump an "adulterer" although there was plenty of reporting on his adulteries. I have to take another look at "far-right politician". I took a look at the people listed in that category, and I don't see that much difference between Trump and Hawley, Moore, or Witzke, to name a few. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Get rid of both categories-in-question & few more. GoodDay ( talk) 01:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
borrowing significantly and consistently from far and extreme-right discourse and ideas; WaPo Perspective—
While Donald Trump’s presidency was the fillip [one of the two great political parties in the United States has been transformed top to bottom into a vehicle for far-right extremism], this fundamental change is the culmination of three decades of dynamic interaction among white supremacists, far-right organizations and populists within the Republican Party.; Brookings—
In contrast [to presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush], President Trump often uses the rhetoric of the far right, supports or at least condones its anti-government protests, and has called on it to protect him in response to imaginary threats.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I really hate it when well-sourced RS’s with numerous acts end up making a guy I like look bad. It really sucks for my worldview. Tyrone ( talk) 08:40, 18 March 2022 (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.
Why is the introduction to this article almost completely devoid of source references? Forgive me for bringing this up if there is some valid reason for this that I should have been aware of but: It's rather jarring to see an article about someone so widely known, start with something that breaks Wikipedia's conventions so conspicuously. 2A02:A443:AF4E:1:7534:8623:996F:EE1B ( talk) 08:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to edit this page because I am an unbiased person that won't incorporate political views into their edits. AdogTheBeast ( talk) 17:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
"Policies have been described as..." By whom? The summarized opinion of the author?
Also if buzzwords such as "racist" and "misogynistic" are going to be used, despite the subject of the article clearly begging to differ - a varied and critically thinking audience needs to see some hyperlinked numbers right there. 2001:5B0:2D07:4278:D5B5:39C:472B:16F8 ( talk) 13:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add section on Abraham Accords 67.185.226.50 ( talk)
Anyone notice this fork Donald Trump's foreign policy on Russia....should this not be redirected to Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration.? Moxy- 02:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
some grammar changes that needs to be done. Xxirev.gyl ( talk) 17:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a highly lazily crafted sentence, and has no place in this article. Given the presidency is just a year over as well, it is unfathomable to be able to make that claim. The bias on this page, especially the opening paragraphs, is downright scary to witness. Brakeformoose ( talk) 12:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
This rating information is in the article, by repeated consensus, because it is in the article of every past president. The "one of the worst" conclusion is not "because Trump was impeached twice" or "because his approval rating was low" or any particular action of his. It is not based on public opinion or polling or anything of that sort. It is based on a highly respected scholarly survey, which is taken only when a particular presidency is over and the president is out of office. Every time it is taken, it uses the exact same ten criteria by which the respondents are to evaluate (rank) every past president. In other words, this is based on a Reliable Source on a subject that would otherwise be pure opinion. BTW Trump was not rated last; he was rated fourth from last. You can read all about it here. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Edit | Summary |
---|---|
→Health: Trump was hospitalized | |
revert | →Health: Overlinking. It's a link (via a redirect and another redirect, if I'm not mistaken) to a subsection in White House COVID-19 outbreak. This article already has a link to that page in the Donald Trump#Outbreak at the White House section |
unrevert | Undid revision 1079406715 by User:Space4Time3Continuum2x (1) A link to R with possibilities is not considered a duplicate (2) if they were duplicates then delete the link that is later in the article, not later in the edit history (3) link is via a redirect and a pipelink, not "a redirect and another redirect" |
rerevert | Undid revision 1079420463 by Jnestorius Please take to Talk page. See 24-hour BRD cycle |
So, any substantive responses to (1) (2) (3)? jnestorius( talk) 15:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
A link to R with possibilities is not considered a duplicateThe section 1.4 link focuses on the effect on Trump's health; the section 5.10.7 link focuses on the political fallout of the whole outbreak
if they were duplicates then delete the link that is later in the article, not later in the edit history.A reader who has reached section 1.4 may not have scanned the Table of Contents closely enough to be sure that further information will be available once they reach section 5.10.7; giving them a direct link now will conform much better with what the reader expects
As mentioned before, the lead of this article does not contain citations. To check whether this is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, I looked at the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Specifically, I looked at the section about citations in the lead [20]. From that guideline, it appears that the lead for this article should contain citations. As an example of that guideline section, here's the first paragraph.
Bob K31416 ( talk) 14:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Moxy- 15:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I've made an to the lede that adds references (which already exist in the body) to the following sentences:
Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies.[1]
Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist,[2]
and many as misogynistic[3]
Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.[4]
These four are some of the most "reasonably challenged" statements from what I've seen in terms of editor consensus and how often it is brought up on the talk page. I am leaning towards the view that adding a few citations for the most contentious content is pretty reasonable and possibly even preferable. –– FormalDude talk 05:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
[i]t does not seem worthwhile to carpetbomb the lead with citations just to mollify a disgruntled user or two.These four would just open the floodgates. I don't actually remember a complaint about the 4,000 legal actions and six bankruptcies; how did that make your list of most reasonably challenged? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I thought the goal was to shorten the length of this BLP. GoodDay ( talk) 22:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
There are a lot of statements in the lead that either aren't found in the body, or are phrased differently enough that I can't find them. One example is the statement that he has "repeatedly ... promoted Russian propaganda" - the word 'propaganda' only appears once in this article, in the lead, and so it's unclear what this is referring to. A cite would be extremely helpful to let the reader know exactly what the basis of the claim is and what the Russian propaganda was that Trump boosted. It would also be good to use the word "propaganda" again in the body so that you can ctrl-F and find it.
Another example would be the statement that there was "no progress on denuclearization" with North Korea. The body says that no denuclearization agreement was reached, but that sanctions were lifted, missile tests ceased, and Trump was the first president welcomed onto NK soil. It would be helpful to have a cite that said 'no progress' since the body sounds a lot like faltering and potentially futile forms of progress and detente rather than 'no progress'. We could also just say "little progress" or "limited progress" in the lead if that is more accurate.
In general I think that for an article topic as partisan and controversial as this, it's extremely helpful to have cites in the lead for statements that are entirely factually correct but might be perceived as partisan to some readers. And it gets potentially disastrous when the statement in the lead is hard to find in the body (e.g. the word "propaganda" only appearing in the lead). TocMan ( talk) 19:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Trump repeatedly praised Vladimir Putin and promoted Russian propaganda) for discussion. We do need to add this to the body first, and I'm not so sure about the promotion of Russian propaganda during the presidency. North Korea. The body does not say that
no denuclearization agreement was reached, but. It says they met, Trump lifted some sanctions,
however, no denuclearization deal was reached, talks broke down, NK continued to build up arsenal. That's what the lead says—lots of hoopla, no progress. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 22:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the article beginning it says "diverted funding towards building a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border." Divert from what? Either it should say what (the article body doesn't actually say) or just say "began building." It doesn't make sense without more context 2600:1700:1154:3500:CCF:E63B:4DC2:F92 ( talk) 00:26, 5 April 2022 (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.
"Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.": This more or less suggests that, in general, ALL historians rate Trump exclusively poorly. Of course that is not sustainable. The link in this sentence ("rank Trump") is not enough to get the context of the statement, many readers just read the sentence itself. The sentence should be changed to: "Many historians...", "A majority of historians..." etc.
Overall, this sentence seems more ideological than informative. Furthermore, if unchanged as mentioned above, it is too controversial and should not close the first section of the article without classification. The last sentence of an introduction is of paramount importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torsten Birner ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.Their entire purpose is impartiality. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
It does not matter what we think (see wp:or), what matters is what RS think. Also if someone says "He did this good thing" that is not the same as saying "overall he was good". Slatersteven ( talk) 14:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I mentioned it before & I'll mention it again. Wait ten years or at least four years, after the end of his administration, before we start putting in the scholars & historians opinions. GoodDay ( talk) 15:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
As always Wikipedia getting political. This is ridicolous. You should have just informative facts. Not general unclear voluntarily vague judgments on the person. Jozekk97 ( talk) 21:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
This is settled consensus. Leave it as it is. I don't think a qualifying word like "Most" is really needed considering broader consensus we see with other presidential articles, which don't have qualifying words. This is a re-hash conversation; a procedural close may be needed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 00:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I want to ask: What concrete, factual, i.e. content-specific, counter-arguments are there against the suggestion, for example, to put the word "most" before the sentence? Or, if "most" were to be rejected: Which content-related arguments would speak against at least writing: "In a 2021 C-SPAN Survey among presidential historians from US universities Trump was ranked as one of the worst presidents in American history." ?
I thought wikipedia was about relevant, objective information. But I see that the sentence I criticized (item 54) contains less of this relevant, objective information than the variants I suggested, because they put the ranking in context. (And to say that Hanson is not relevant seems not objective, from a scientific point of view.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torsten Birner ( talk • contribs) 08:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus ... Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Hatting off-topic discussion of Hanson's credentials and merits of book.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
|
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to edit this wikipedia page to add some extra information about donald trump. ZhongXina21 ( talk) 21:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a US politician, media personality, and Nel8718 ( talk) 02:22, 15 April 2022 (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.
Can we please introduce citations into the opening section? There are many sentences that came off unencylopedic otherwise. -- 216.24.45.24 ( talk) 16:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Proposals for the United States to purchase Greenland contains a large amount of content on Donald Trump’s 2019 attempt. Presently, there are no links and zero mention of Greenland on the page. Foreign Policy : Denmark section seems excessive, any ideas where to put this? Twillisjr ( talk) 22:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
The goal is not to add this as some kind of “blunder.” If you read the article you will see that it was a continuation of other formerly ambitious Americans’ goal as well. Twillisjr ( talk) 23:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
This was kind of a one-week wonder, immediately shot down by the other parties, and subjected to a few days of ridicule in the U.S. It is not worth mentioning in this biography. Presumably there is some brief mention of it in Presidency of Donald Trump. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Not worth mentioning per WP:RECENTISM. Probably has a place at Presidency of Donald Trump. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 22:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I would like to propose that the current sentence:
[Trump] reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging, and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.
[Trump's] response to the COVID-19 pandemic was widely criticized, citing ignoring and contradicting many recommendations from health officials in his messaging, as well as promoting misinformation about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.
I would like to know your thoughts on this change. If you disagree with this change, please state if you think the current wording of the sentence is fine or if it needs more work. Interstellarity ( talk) 15:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
citing ignoring and contradicting many recommendations—is this a typo? Doesn't make sense. The current sentence is the summary of the COVID-19 section which has multiple sources. Yours is based on Newsweek's interview of one journalist promoting his new book, i.e. one man's opinion. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Not an improvement. ValarianB ( talk) 18:53, 1 April 2022 (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.
The article’s opening section was plagued with vague, uncontextualized claims as well as critical language around some of the facts. I have reworded these small instances to align more closely with Wikipedia’s policy on neutrality. Eg – claiming that Trump’s COVID response was “slow” is a subjective statement with no real reference point, I have changed this to clarify that his response was criticised as being slow by the media, as this is actually what happened. Also, the section on the Capitol riots was blatantly misleading. Saying “they” and “attacked” is too vague and implies that all those in attendance were involved. I have clarified this to state that a small cohort of demonstrators at the event breached security measures and were arrested, with a hyperlink to the riot page for further information. Understand that this might be sensitive for some but the new wording is objectively much clearer and more neutral than before. Domiy ( talk) 02:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
was criticized for...or words to that effect; this is inappropriate per the WP:NPOV requirement that we must
avoid stating facts as opinions. If you feel that those statements are contested by high-quality sources, you need to demonstrate that. Also, you changed
promoted misinformation about unproven treatments...to
publicly discussing unproven treatments; this makes the article less accurate, since the sources largely emphasize that he actively promoted misinformation about those unproven treatments, rather than just discussing them. Also, your addition of
However, his administration eventually oversaw the introduction of the US vaccine rollouthas numerous problems; first, there's no indication that this aspect is significant (contrary to what you said above it isn't mentioned in the article that I can see via a quick search for mentions of the vaccine - likely because the amount that his administration actually did was minimal and his own personal involvement was largely confined to the earlier points); and second, the "however" phrasing presents it as a rebuttal / retort to the facts above, which is WP:SYNTHy even if you could justify inclusion. The same goes for your inclusion of
Trump later advised his supporters to peacefully disperse, which as far as I can see is not in the article and is, again, likely excluded because it is not treated as meaningful by most sources given the larger timeline and context. -- Aquillion ( talk) 03:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
state opinions as facts-- ..an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." This is exactly what my edits sought to achieve. Stating that Trump's response was "slow" offers no reference point - slow compared to which countries? The US still had a comparatively fast rollout on the world scale, and given that this was the first widespread pandemic in almost 100 years, there are no other domestic responses to compare it to.
The following edits by User:Domiy are pure whitewashing and should not be accepted. 1) replacing “scores” of unsuccessful legal challenges with “multiple”, a vague and weak adjective that gives no indication of the extent of the challenges. 2) “A small cohort of those in attendance”: This language is not supported by any reliable source. 3) adding “a demonstrator fatally shot by police” without mentioning the other deaths and the multiple attacks on police. 4) removing “and obstructing the presidential transition” which is exactly what did happen and which was the intent. 4) adding “Trump later advised his supporters to peacefully disperse” without mentioning that he waited several hours, as multiple people pleaded with him to make it stop, before eventually issuing a weak statement along the lines of “go home, we love you”. -- MelanieN ( talk) 04:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Domiy, there was never any "sudden" "change of heart". He was beleaguered for hours by myriad notable people, politicians, and officials from both sides of the aisle, urging him to condemn what was happening and to call off his supporters, and he refused to do anything. Instead, he encouraged and praised them. Footage of his activities during the attack showed him standing in front of the TV watching the violence, smiling, and fist-pumping. He loved the violence. From the first time that rioters broke down barricades at the Capitol at about 1 p.m., there went over four hours before the first hint of a "go home" message. He had used all this time to whip them up and sympathize with them.
At 4:22 p.m. he issued a video message on social media that Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube later took down because it was disinformation. In it, he repeated his claims of electoral fraud, praised his supporters and told them to "go home". At 6:25 p.m., Trump tweeted: "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long" and then issued a call: "Go home with love & in peace." That was the second call to go home, 5 1/2 hours after the first breach. He had plenty of time to stop it and was loath to do so. There was never any real "change of heart", only political expediency. During this time, he was phoning and communicating with others. Trump's January 6 call logs show a seven-hour gap. This was his typical destruction of evidence, as well as him using other people's phones to make calls. Fortunately, recipients of the calls have reported what he said. He was busy scheming and conspiring how to overturn the election, how to overturn the will of the people. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 15:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Trump’s message was ambiguous. He opened his speech by repeating his lie that the election was rigged. He told his supporters to “go home,” but immediately added: “We love you. You’re very special.” During the videotaping, Trump did not stick to the script his speechwriters had composed and had to record at least three takes to get one that his aides felt was palatable enough to share with the public. “That was actually the best one,” a senior White House official said....
Trump’s video and tweets enraged some Republican members of Congress, even loyal ones like McCarthy and Graham. “That was a bad tweet,” Graham said of Trump’s message excusing what had happened that day.It simply isn't an accurate representation of the sources to present it as a vital moment where he made this uncontroversial or conciliatory statement that changes the stuff that came before - or as something leadworthy. And the source specifically emphasizes how hard his handlers had to work to get even that statement out of him (one that, as it notes, was so insufficient that even Trump's allies were outraged by it.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is heavily biased and whoever wrote it is very obviously a democrat. As Wikipedia is a supposed to be a source of fact and not opinion, I suggest that this article is edited. 74.195.157.114 ( talk) 04:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Someone needs to talk to both sides and edit this whole page, this is so biased to the left it is not funny. We have donated to Wikipedia in the past but after reading this crap will not again and will not trust what has been posted on your so called Wikipedia. Heharrisco204 ( talk) 14:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This unsourced and blatantly POV/OR text should be deleted: "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history." 107.127.46.13 ( talk) 23:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
C-SPAN, which has surveyed presidential historians on presidential leadership each time the administration changed since 2000,[700] ranked Trump fourth–lowest overall in their Presidential Historians Survey 2021, with Trump rated lowest in the leadership characteristics categories for moral authority and administrative skills.[701][702][703]The talk page archives are linked at the top of this page; it contains these discussions. The consensus to include the scholars and historians in the lead is at Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_140#RFC:_Should_we_mention_historical_evaluations_of_Trump's_presidency?. – Muboshgu ( talk) 23:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@ SNUGGUMS: You undid the links in the lead I recently placed targeting the respective sections in the body the sentences are summarizing (they replaced links to other WP pages that are linked in the body text). According to your edit summary "articles shouldn't link to themselves like that [not changing sentence, just unlinking and using some better links." Is that your personal opinion or is there a WP policy saying that? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 09:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Couldn't we bold the links to other articles and add a note above the lead saying something like "bold links go to other articles, other links to sections in this one" or vice versa, or use italics? Your second potential solution would also require a few up to a whole lot of notes, not really an improvement over citation clutter, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I do not support self-linking within this article. I have never liked the practice, and most major points about Trump have their own separate spin-off articles anyway... so I'm not really getting what this is about. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 06:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Mrbeastmodeallday, this wasn’t already in the lead because of proposed self-links discussed in this Talk page section. See also recent edit history, for example this edit. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
The surprise factor of the reader hitting a self-link when they expect a link to another article can be mitigated by using the § symbol in the visible link text. I don’t remember seeing § used anywhere but that’s probably due to the limited range of articles I edit. Do you know whether there’s been a discussion on inserting § without the section link template, i.e., "#section heading|§ other text"? That would take care of the problem of readers not being able to distinguish between self-links and links to other articles. Ideally, every sentence in the lead should correspond to a heading in the TOC, but that isn’t always the case. E.g.,
Self-links preceded by §.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
Trump is the only federal officeholder in American history to have been impeached twice. After he § pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden in 2019, he § was impeached by the House of Representatives for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in December. First impeachment In August 2019, a whistleblower filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community about a July 25 phone call between Trump and President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy, during which Trump had pressured Zelenskyy to investigate CrowdStrike and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, adding that the White House had attempted to cover-up the incident. [1] The whistleblower stated that the call was part of a wider campaign by the Trump administration and Giuliani that may have included withholding financial aid from Ukraine in July 2019 and canceling Pence's May 2019 Ukraine trip. [2] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi initiated a formal impeachment inquiry on September 24. [3] Trump then confirmed that he withheld military aid from Ukraine, offering contradictory reasons for the decision. [4] [5] On September 25, the Trump administration released a memorandum of the phone call which confirmed that, after Zelenskyy mentioned purchasing American anti-tank missiles, Trump asked him to discuss investigating Biden and his son with Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr. [1] [6] The testimony of multiple administration officials and former officials confirmed ... References
|
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Height appears to be incorrect, height should be approximately 6ft based on photos 74.83.55.168 ( talk) 16:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The article currently doesn't mention his height. Just in case I overlooked it, there are two RS saying it is 6'2" (his 1964 selective service draft card, [1] cited in the "Early life" section, and his 2012 driver's license, [2] obtained by POLITICO through a 2016 open-records request concerning his Virginia winery.) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
After Trump's second physical in office (2019), this article mentioned that he was now considered obese. The info was later trimmed because of the size of the article, and, since he's no longer president, who cares about his weight, height, or health. RS had some fun with his easily disproven height of 6'3", [3] [4] along with the fact that growing an inch after age 65, per the 2012 driver's license, was a tad unusual. [2] As far as this article is concerned, where would you suggest putting it, ( Donald_Trump#False_statements?), along with the false statements about the Trump family's Swedish descent, Trump graduating at the top of his class, his wealth, etc., which also got dropped along the way due to article size? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Mrbeastmodeallday, I don't know why that page exists, it should be merged with Family of Donald Trump. While it says at the top that the article is about the ancestral history of the Trump family as a whole, it isn't, at least not in its current iteration. Does a family tree with insufficient citations for verification and containing a bunch of people who are not noteworthy even belong on Wikipedia? Adding the link has been discussed and declined before. I've also removed it from the infobox at least a couple of times, so I'd appreciate it if you would it this time. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I was not aware this has been brought up before. I will undo the edit. In lieu of having both of them listed in the infobox, it would make sense to propose a merge. I have a hunch that there will probably be more disagreement over what the merged page should be named, and less disagreement over whether it should be merged. But we’ll see. Meanwhile, in the early section where it talks about Trump’s early personal life and family (such as his parents) that’s where it would make sense to link “Trump family” as a “see also” hatnote, since it doesn’t appear to be linked anywhere in the page. I will do that too. Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 22:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Now this is definitely overlinking, IMO. The section says who his family is, and it has links for every family member. It doesn't need a "see also" at the top. Way back before the article got this yuge, the section even included Grandpa Friedrich, who — like Trump's parents, siblings, spouses, children, etc. — is noteworthy only because of Trump. (He's mentioned on and linked from Fred Trump's page). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
ONUnicorn, most of the last paragraph you added today would appear to belong on the page of the Republican Party. They're party politics, and one of the remaining two sources is an opinion by the publisher of The Bulwark (website). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, a generalization like Trump's actions in endorsing candidates has been likened to his role on The Apprentice
from the NYT citing one Trump biographer's opinion is undue, IMO. (I started writing this before you edited.)
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 16:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
InedibleHulk, but isn't he always the victim? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Mrbeastmodeallday: Sheesh! Are you about done overlinking the article? I can live with 2016 Republican National Convention in place of "Republican National Convention" and Midtown Manhattan but is golf course necessary? Unnecessary, per MOS:OVERLINK: locations (New York City, Singapore), countries ( El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras ( MOS:SEAOFBLUE should also be avoided)), geographic features (" African nations"). Misleading: German immigrants — German Americans have full or partial German ancestry, i.e, they're not necessarily immigrants, and neither German (country) nor immigrants (everyday word understood by most readers in context) should be linked. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I think in general, WP tends to be under-linked, especially for high-traffic articles because much of what’s happening in terms of edits is based around ideas and not formatting. I looked over the WP:overlinking and I think you have a point. I think most proper nouns would benefit from being linked at first mention, but it’s contextual too. If it’s incidental to a sentence or idea then it’s not necessary. For example, Russian interference in the 2016 election is prominently linked and stated, so it’s not necessary to link “Russia” if it comes up later, I totally understand that. But some proper nouns that are more obscure and are pretty central to understanding the idea may be helpful, particularly if there are no other linked articles directly about them. Some of the smaller countries could benefit from linking. Drop a message on my talk page if you want to discuss more. Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 19:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
It’s important to remember that there are readers who aren’t American and are in other countries, and their first big exposure to some of those terms may be through Donald Trump. And they may think “what’s Boston?” for example. WP tends to have a heavy bias of familiarity based on perspective of Americans, so I try to reduce or eliminate that bias where possible. For example, the article on Putin probably has article links for Russian cities mentioned. Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 19:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 19:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I disagree about “golf course”. Again golf isn’t exactly a global sport ubiquitous sport. In some countries, it’s rare or non-existent, and even then it’s often only known among the rich elite.
There are a few sports that you can get away with not linking in this type of article due to global ubiquity, such as soccer, swimming, track, gymnastics, maybe basketball and volleyball. Golf isn’t one of them. Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 19:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I have a made good-faith effort to keep the linking to reasonable appropriate levels, and also removed something I previously added in the spirit of being overlinked, as a courtesy to help you out. I only kept about 3-4 of the links that you removed. If you disagree with any, please bring them here on an individual case-by-case basis to discuss them on their individual merits, before deleting. They are few enough that blanket sweeping/reverting would be unnecessary. Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 19:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 19:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
The entire article is gonna end up in an ocean of blue. GoodDay ( talk) 22:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
When adding links we should be mindful of MOS:SEAOFBLUE and MOS:OVERLINK. Stuff like golf course doesn't need a link. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 03:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Mrbeastmodeallday, did you notice that Donald_Trump#2021_Capitol_attack has its own section? This link is not needed ( MOS:REPEATLINK). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 21:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I did notice, but it’s also a very relevant “further” or “see also” article given that there’s a section with the topic of Donald Trump inciting violence. I suppose it could go either way. I don’t feel too strongly either way and I can see both sides. I can see how it’s useful, but I can also see how it can be considered overlinking. We’re just picking the lesser of two evils essentially, and it’s also a problem of abundance, given that the topic sort of hits into two different sections of the article (“public image” and “2020 election”) Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 21:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
The 2020 election is more about the history of the events of the election. The public image is about Trump’s character. The Capitol attack is relevant to both topics for different reasons, so having it linked in both wouldn’t necessarily be overlinking in the normal sense per se, because it serves a different function and context in each application. @ Space4Time3Continuum2x: Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 21:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)