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 145 | Archive 146 | Archive 147 | Archive 148 | Archive 149 | Archive 150 |
Hey, the most recent edit seems a bit unfair. Andrevan brings up fair points, but I don't think that the whole tail end of the sentence should be deleted. I think it makes it seem like we know that Russia not only interfered in the election, but colluded with members of the Trump organization to do so, which has not been proven yet. I advocate for rewriting of the sentence. 2ple ( talk) 01:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
did not establish legally but there was plenty of evidence, just not enough by Mueller's estimation to prove in court.I would rewrite the full sentence as:
The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign, but it was unable to find a legally substantial amount of evidence proving that members of the Trump campaign colluded with themor something to that effect. 2ple ( talk) 01:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
It's too much to pack into a single sentence for easy reading and from easy reading writing yet WP:ONELEVELDOWN. How about,
Okay, how about a clarification of that sentence, instead of a deletion of a whole part. "The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign, but was unable to establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia."
That is almost the exact working of the Time article. Fbifriday ( talk) 03:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
To reset and clarify Fbifriday, my contention is that we are implying through our phrasing that Mueller did not find evidence of a conspiracy. In fact he did find such evidence, as stated in the report itself and a number of sources, which I will happily provide if you are challenging that. Andrevan @ 04:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
"A redacted version of the report was publicly released in April 2019. It found that Russia interfered in 2016 to favor Trump's candidacy and hinder Clinton's. Despite 'numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign', the prevailing evidence 'did not establish' that Trump campaign members conspired or coordinated with Russian interference. ... The report also detailed multiple acts of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, but opted not to make any 'traditional prosecutorial judgment' on whether Trump broke the law, suggesting that Congress should make such a determination."Neither Mueller, nor the body of our article, nor any other reliable source directly supports Andrevan's caveat that Mueller would have been able to establish conspiracy if not for "deliberate obstruction from the Trump campaign." Such a statement assumes facts not in evidence and is internally inconsistent. Moreover, it is an obvious violation of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:LEDE; it should therefore be promptly reverted. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 07:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone
"Literally a violation of policy to stop someone from working on something you've worked on ..."Fbifriday, with respect, if your selective quoting of policy has lead you to the remarkable conclusion that no reverts are ever permissible, then you should probably take a step back and reassess your flawed reasoning, as that cannot possibly be correct. If your statement is presumed true based on the conditional qualifier
"simply because you've worked on it,"then you are assuming facts not in evidence (I have not contributed any text to the lede of this article) and ignoring my clearly-stated objections, which alas does not erase them from the record. If you have not already, take a look at the many prominent notices that display whenever editing this article: e.g.,
"Please review current established consensus before editing this article, especially the lead section. Changes against established consensus without prior discussion can be reverted on sight.";
"If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit."; etc. Notably, by making two similar (if not identical) contested edits to the same sentence of the lede ( [8], [9]) in considerably less than 24 hours, Andrevan violated the spirit of the latter provision, which could result in discretionary sanctions assuming that the awareness criteria is met (especially if there are any previous infractions). In the interest of caution and collegiality, Andrevan should certainly self-revert. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 07:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
"you literally opened your statement here with 'Any WP:BOLD edit to the lede of a high-profile article requires consensus'."Yes, I did—that's not the reason for my revert per se (see the rest of my statement, viz.
"Moreover, the lede is merely a summary of the body, which clearly states ... "), but I don't think that you've caught me in a misstatement here. To the contrary, it seems rather axiomatic that
"Any WP:BOLD edit to the lede of a high-profile article requires consensus,"in that the edit surely won't last long if consensus is against it. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 09:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Replace "but not" with "but was unable to establish", but wait with the "obstruction" angle.
That change should not be controversial. The "obstruction" aspect is more complicated. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
In my bold edit on November 27, 2017, I trimmed the lead content on the Mueller investigation considerably and was partially reverted.
Pre-trim:
The special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign but not that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russian election interference activities. Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice and neither indicted nor exonerated him.
Post-trim:
The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign.
Post-revert:
The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign, but not that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russian election interference activities themselves.
I didn’t follow it up at the time (& didn't notice that the editor added a word), but I still think the second clause does not belong in the lead of Trump’s main bio. It's not about Trump, it's about members of his 2016 campaign. Also, several members of or adjacent to the Trump campaign were sentenced as a result of the investigation, just not for criminal conspiracy. There was plenty of collusion. [1] I also just noticed that we don't mention the less redacted version released in 2020 in the body of the article. [2] The report said that Mueller believed Trump may have lied to him.
TheTimesAreAChanging, your objection was that Changing the long-established lede requires talk page consensus
. That's not quite correct, only when a change to the "current consensus" is involved—that's not the case here—or when a bold edit to other content of the lead was reverted. What is your objection to the removal of the clause?
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 17:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
"A redacted version of the report was publicly released in April 2019. It found that Russia interfered in 2016 to favor Trump's candidacy and hinder Clinton's. Despite 'numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign', the prevailing evidence 'did not establish' that Trump campaign members conspired or coordinated with Russian interference. ... The report also detailed multiple acts of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, but opted not to make any 'traditional prosecutorial judgment' on whether Trump broke the law, suggesting that Congress should make such a determination."It is relevant that no American was charged, much less convicted, of conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election, considering that many people expected Mueller to vindicate the Steele dossier's claims that the "Romanian" hackers were jointly paid by Trump and Putin and that the idea of hacking the DNC originated with Carter Page—especially after Michael Cohen, who was said to have arranged kickback payments in Prague, turned on Trump and began cooperating with the investigation. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 19:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
References
How about something like, Mueller was unable to establish criminal conspiracy, but did encounter obstruction. I also think the Senate Intelligence Committee report should be in the lede. Or perhaps the phrase, Despite 'numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign Andrevan @ 20:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
"Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice and neither indicted nor exonerated him."With that said, Andrevan making a third attempt at tweaking the sentence in question within a 24 hour period seems like a violation of the page-specific discretionary sanctions—I doubt that admins intended for editors to simply reinstate slightly different text shortly after being reverted. As Andrevan had been notified and is hence aware of the sanctions, this is concerning. There is WP:NORUSH and we have no deadline to get things absolutely perfect; therefore, I encourage Andrevan to cool down and take a brief break from WP:BOLD edits (especially to that sentence) while we further hash things out on talk. Additional edits that may potentially violate the page-specific discretionary sanctions could be reported to WP:AE for clarification, and that's really not worth it considering that an agreement here is more than possible. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 23:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I propose we add an additional sentence to the lede section. As follows: The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign. Mueller found numerous instances of contact between Russian agents, Wikileaks, and the Trump campaign, and evidence of obstruction of justice, but declined to charge Trump, and convicted members of his campaign for crimes. Andrevan @ 02:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Investigations showed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I saw the discussion was closed but I added a further information for Further information: Fascism in North America#Donald Trump and allegations of fascism Andrevan @ 01:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Can we summarize the post-presidency section? There's nothing about it in the lede, almost making it seem like nothing ended.
"Following his presidency, Trump remained heavily involved in national politics, including fundraisers and over 140 political endorsements. He is widely expected to run for president in 2024."
-- ɱ (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I've WP:BOLDly added a modification of the original proposition above that I believe there is some common ground on. Here is that addition:
Following his presidency, Trump remained heavily involved in the Republican Party, including fundraisers and over 140 political endorsements.
Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 02:24, 16 July 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.
Trump has Had Many Controversies BUT Wikipedia Does NOT Say his Article is Controversial, It would be Greatfull to Have The Article Fully Protected 216.87.230.71 ( talk) 00:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
controversial}}
tag to the talk page.
Andrevan
@ 01:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I became aware of this page from the Teahouse archives. Is there some procedure that would redirect that page to this one? There is one three year old section which directs people to a move discussion here but that surely has been archived by now.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Donald Trump passed two stimulas checks which makes him the most liberal President in USA history spending over 2 trillion dollars on the welfare of the American people - more than Barack Obama - more than Joe Biden. Each Republican including Mitch Mcconnel secretly wants Trump to never run again! 2603:7000:B901:8500:A470:2AFD:D495:ABDE ( talk) 15:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
|
In the short paragraph titled "Religion", mention in made of "Reformed Church". It is correctly linked to "Reformed Church in America" which is the official denomination designation. Since there are many 'Reformed Churches' (more properly Reformed Denominations') in North America, (see: /info/en/?search=List_of_Reformed_denominations) I recommend changing the text of the link to "Reformed Church in America" to remove ambiguity. Wigbold ( talk) 11:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
It's been changed a few times, currently to Mar-a-Lago. I've looked at the Manual of Style and quite a few guides on templates but haven't found any guidance on whether it's supposed to be the name of the building or the location of the official residence or whether it's needed at all. It doesn't seem to be used at all except for biographies of current and former U.S. presidents and senators (no residence listed for Queen Elizabeth II, for example). Does anyone know what it refers to or why it is needed? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Leave it out, it has changed, it will change. We should not overburden the infobox with Trivia. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Only a few recent politicians who are widely stated to be "far-right" are on this list, and it is mentioned in their articles. Why is Trump on here if this is far more controversial and it is not mentioned a single time in his article? Bill Williams 23:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
See Trumpism SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Best we not leave these issues in the hands of a few (same) editors. I would recommend the same at Joe Biden, if such a discussion were occurring. RFC is the better route. GoodDay ( talk) 03:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
In which a couple of editors rail against RS, Wikipedia sourcing and verification policies, etc. etc.. SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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.
Unless there are specific objections to specific sources where can discuss this is a waste of time, this is not a forum for general discussions about wp:rs. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC) No one has said that CNN and the like are "completely reliable sources" or "shouldn't be questioned", you're making up strawmen that do not exist. If there is a citation in the present article that you feel is problematic, then bring it here for evaluation. Otherwise, this is not a very useful use of people's time. ValarianB ( talk) 20:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 says "... making him the first U.S. officeholder to be impeached twice." This is true, however the New York Times source only says that he was the first president who was impeached twice, not federal officeholder in general. Please replace this source with a source which supports the stronger statement, such as [16]. 2600:1700:1154:3500:BC88:E673:1C5B:D9A8 ( talk) 19:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Current Wording:The House voted 232–197 to impeach Trump on January 13, making him the first U.S. president to be impeached twice. [17]
Proposed Change:The House voted 232–197 to impeach Trump on January 13, making him the first U.S. federal officeholder to be impeached twice. [18] [19]
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the lead where it says "Trump has remained heavily involved in the Republican Party, including through fundraisers and by making over 140 political endorsements" add a hyperlink for "making over 140 political endorsements" to the page List of endorsements by Donald Trump IntoTheNightSky ( talk) 00:11, 6 August 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 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 description of Donald trump is horribly biased and left leaning, painting Trump as some evil racist lunatic. It is obvious what the tone of this page is and it is not neutral 96.33.68.169 ( talk) 06:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The page isn't biased. Andrevan @ 13:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I saw a FAQ-style permanent pinned discussion on another talk page. Considering redundant criticisms get thrown about constantly, perhaps we can construct an FAQ page for this Talk Page in order to limit the amount of circular discussion? Tyrone ( talk) 23:35, 5 August 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.
Paging @ Jr8825 -- the only neutrality concern I had was about an editor's comment which uses the phrase "Muslim travel ban", not a part of the article itself. I interpret this as an opinionated term. As for the rest of the changes, I think they were more accurate. -Adam ( DeaconShotFire) TALK 16:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Iamreallygoodatcheckers, here is the complete edit summary for my revert of
your edit. The original wording Widely criticized as ineffectual and harmful
seems exactly right. You seem to be fascinated by Trump signing ceremonies, whether it’s the Abraham Accords Declaration
on the WH south lawn or this edit with the misleading edit summary.
NPR wrote that significant accomplishments followed the declaration of a public health emergency, such as H.R.6 - SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act and pushing China to slow their fentanyl exports. Did you stop reading the source at this point? You appear to have overlooked the big BUT and the wide criticism (by NPR, the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Health and Human Services, various researchers and experts) that follows. "But while some progress was made, critics point to serious missteps behind the scenes that hampered federal efforts, including the decision to sideline and defund the Office of National Drug Control Policy." "Drug policy experts say things could grow even worse in the months ahead if Trump is successful in dismantling the Affordable Care Act."
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 09:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
critics point to...Trump's response to the opioid epidemic was criticized by his critics. If we had a sentence for every time his critics criticized him this article would be a trillion times longer. There's not support for the claim it was "widely criticized". That does not appear in the NPR source. Also your taking the the "
the decision to sideline and defund the Office of National Drug Control Policy" out of context. A few sentences later it says, "
That decision was later reversed". It was just speculation from a leaked internal memo, and never happened.
In response to the opioid epidemic, Trump signed legislation in 2018 to increase funding for drug treatments, but received criticism for failing to make a concrete strategy. U.S. opioid overdose deaths declined slightly in 2018, but surged to a record 50,052 deaths in 2019.This balances sums both parts of the NPR article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers t@lk 16:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
During a panel discussion in late July, Giroir [assistant secretary for health and an opioid policy expert at the Department of Health and Human Services in the Trump administration] described recent increases in opioid overdoses as "a nightmare," adding that "all the progress that we made has been reversed and this is even before the pandemic."Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
This all might be better in the article about his presidency, I suggest removing all mention of it. It tells us noth9ng about him Slatersteven ( talk) 16:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Iamreallygoodatcheckers, you went ahead once again and
reinserted challenged material (the Trump-signing-stuff bit) while a discussion is going on. I haven’t reverted (yet) because I’m still waiting for your explanation why Trump signing a bipartisan bill that was passed by the Senate 99-1 and by the House 396-14 is so important that it needs to "balance (?)" the criticism of the bungled execution. If he had vetoed the bill, Congress had the necessary two-thirds majority to override the veto, and the bill would have become law without his signature. The bill is the legislature's accomplishment, the bungled execution the executive's—uh—"achievement". We all know how he liked to show off his signing skills—there must be hundreds of photographs of him signing documents surrounded by cabinet members, other officials, random members of the public, then showing his signature to the press while the proud parents beam at Junior’s accomplishments crowd applauds (here are just a few published by
NBC,
Guardian,
Alamy,
and Salon).
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 11:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Significant accomplishments followed. Trump signed legislation in 2018 that boosted federal funding for drug treatment.) Would you rather mention him declaring a state of emergency in 2017? That's also mentioned in the NPR article, and is obviously an action of Trump himself and not congress. Iamreallygoodatcheckers t@lk 17:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
> He won the 2016 United States presidential election as the Republican nominee against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton >but lost the popular vote,[a] becoming The focus is now on what happens because he lost the popular vote >the first U.S. president with no prior military or government service. This is not a consequence of that, and it relates back to the first chunk.
Put the popular vote part elsewhere; it doesn’t fit here 193.6.168.232 ( talk) 10:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
He won the election but lost the popular vote, becoming the first U.S. president with no prior military or government service.It discusses electoral vs. popular vote, and being the firs president with no experience. Clear and concise. Those who are protesting here are essentially inferring there is a "thus" (which denotes causality) where none actually exists. Zaathras ( talk) 08:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
seems to imply that there is something unusual or systematically abnormal about..., well yes, it is unusual, which is why many reliable sources took note of it. The sentence is fine as-is. Zaathras ( talk) 01:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I like Basil’s suggestion. Keeping the wording consistent with other presidents who find themselves elected without winning the popular vote is a good way to go about things. Tyrone ( talk) 23:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
It seems like the intro clearly violates WP:LEADCITE: "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." Many of the statements in the lead have been challenged, just look at the talk page. Why is this article allowed to violate this guideline by having no citations in the lead? — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs) 20:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Just ignore uncivil comments by some editorsis a very interesting comment, my friend Thinker78. Because I certainly see you casting aspersions (
Maybe they have a tough time in their personal lives) on unnamed editors personal lives. So shall we ignore you? Zaathras ( talk) 22:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Thinker, can you not high road everyone and pretend we aren’t trying to make Wikipedia a better place? The vast majority of regular editors here do it in good faith. No need to passive aggressively undermine the intent of your collaborators. Tyrone ( talk) 23:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
This sentence: In foreign policy, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal, and he initiated a trade war with China
—needs to be separated. It doesn't flow well at all. I can't think of a way that doesn't either a) split the sentence weirdly or b) add an imaginary thus or instead between the Iran nuclear deal
and he initiated a trade war with China
—any help?
2ple (
talk) 00:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
In foreign policy, Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal.Anon0098 ( talk) 03:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Is this done? Tyrone ( talk) 23:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
The opening sentence of the fifth paragraph in the lead is rather lengthy. It could be trimmed as such:
"After losing the 2020 United States presidential election to Joe Biden, Trump falsely claimed widespread electoral fraud and attempted to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition."
The second sentence could also be rewritten - it's missing context about why Trump urged his supporters to March to the Capitol (the electoral vote count is mentioned, but a clear correlation between the attack and the vote count isn't established). My proposal is:
"These efforts culminated in Trump urging his supporters to protest the electoral vote count by marching to the Capitol, which many of them attacked, resulting in multiple deaths."
Thoughts? Bluerules ( talk) 19:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
The two versions in question for the convenience of other editors/readers:
Current text
Trump lost the 2020 United States presidential election to Joe Biden but refused to concede defeat, falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud and attempting to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition. On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count.
Your proposal
After losing the 2020 United States presidential election to Joe Biden, Trump falsely claimed widespread electoral fraud and attempted to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition. These efforts culminated in Trump urging his supporters to protest the electoral vote count by marching to the Capitol, which many of them attacked, resulting in multiple deaths.
Trim. The material you trimmed is not redundant.
"refused to concede defeat" is redundant. Obvious or not - there’s a difference between slouching off to Mar-a-Lago and quietly fading into the woodwork without uttering the words "I concede"/congratulating Biden on his win and and saying, "We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved."
awkwardness of date in the lead. Eye of the beholder? Mention January 6 to any American and a whole lot of other people and they’ll know what you are referring to.
The reason why the attack took place. Where do the secondary sources (and the transcript of Trump’s speech, for that matter) say something that amounts to "urg[ed] his supporters to protest the electoral vote count by marching to the Capitol"? As in, walk up there and peacefully picket? That’s the spin aka whitewash certain people are putting on it. It’s up to you to provide the reliable sources supporting the text you propose, and you haven’t.
efforts culminated in. Cap, climax, conclude, complete, finish, end up, round off, terminate, wind up, wrap up - do you have reliable sources that say something along those lines? I think at one point we tinkered with "resulted" but then just stuck to the facts.
protest. Formal language for "fight like hell" is "protest" like Great Dane is another name for Chihuahua. It’s not a neutral characterization of what he said (fails NPOV), and the reliable sources do not say that he told the crowd to go to the Capitol and protest the electoral vote count. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the trim does not enhance the article and potentially leaves out important facts surrounding the peripherals of an integral part of the conclusion of the Trump presidency. I oppose. (I do agree in theory that we need to make the article more navigable if possible) Tyrone ( talk) 23:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
The previous discussion involved few editors and resulted in Iamreallygoodatcheckers adding this bold sentence to the last paragraph of the lead, with one editor agreeing and one editor disagreeing. I would have also disagreed and reverted but was unable to respond at the time. The sentence:
Following his presidency, Trump remained heavily involved in the Republican Party, including fundraisers and over 140 political endorsements.
I rephrased and moved the sentence into the first paragraph with the edit summary "Move from last paragraph which deals with past events and historical evaluations. The first paragraph says who the subject is and what he is doing now. Bold rephrase; if this sentence is lead-worthy, then it's" (I seem to have lost the rest of the sentence, meant to say "needs to go into the first paragraph with his current occupation(s)":
Unlike other former presidents, Trump continues to dominate his party, hinting at a third presidential campaign and endorsing Republican primary candidates who mostly support his claim of a stolen election.
My edit was reverted with the edit summary "Restoring more encyclopedic wording, adjusting location to avoid confusing the chronology". Bluerules, which words/phrases of the sentence you restored are more encyclopedic than which words/phrases of my sentence? And what is chronologically confusing about placing Trump's current occupation (revenging, hinting at a third run, supporting MAGAots for office) in the first paragraph that begins with "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is"? My first choice still is WP:NOTNEWS—just pointing out that the current tally of candidates endorsed by Trump stands at 200 and counting. But if we do add something, it should be current and to the point. The current sentence is neither, as it also doesn't contain the most important information about the endorsements, i.e., that Trump endorsed candidates who support his claim of a stolen election. (The source says "almost all" but so far I haven't found a single one who hasn't or alternatively supported "making elections more secure", i.e., making voting more restrictive and difficult, and we know where those 8-hour lines will and won't be.) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, this is fun—not. Please, read the body with the RS, people. 140 endorsements—that was the status back in April. The LA Times (I just added the cite to the body) on August 5 and the NY Times on August 2 updated the tally to "more than 200". For inquiring minds who want to know, Ballotpedia has compiled all 233 Trump endorsees for the 2022 midterms and special elections. Ballotpedia also provides the RS for each name on the list, so, if anyone has the time and energy to add those 233 names and cites to List of endorsements by Donald Trump, go for it. In its current state, the list contains only a small number (43 out of 233) of the GOP hopefuls Trump endorsed in 2022 plus a hodgepodge of "endorsements" Trump made over the years, from Hillary Clinton on a Trump University blog post in 2008 ( CBS 2015) to Brexit in 2016 ( Guardian) to Brazil's president Bolsonaro in a statement a Trump surrogate tweeted in October 2021 ( Harrington). The link does not lead to further or in-depth information on Trump's endorsements in 2022. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
IMO there are too many replies by experienced editors, each time an IP or newcomer complains that the page is biased, anti-Trump, etc. without specific examples, requests, or recommendations.
I suggest we all adopt a first response to refer such queries and complaints to our FAQ and the link that will explain why the article content may appear POV to a reader. It wastes valuable editor resources for one or more editors to engage in repetitive threads that explain these issues to newcomers (good faith or not) when we've already taken the time and effort to write a general reply as a first step. Then any follow-up should address the specific concerns that the newcomer may articulate after having read the FAQ and explanation linked there.
I'd like to see us all give this an extended trial and free up editor time for article improvements. SPECIFICO talk 13:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
[w]hether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis, simply chiming in with "CNN sux!!!", "Hannity wuz right!!!" or some variation thereof is decidedly not an examination nor even the compelling start of one. Holding newer editors to a standard we'd expect from regular editors is in no way bad, and honestly tolerating those types of discussions just leads to people thinking it is acceptable and potentially doing it themselves. — Locke Cole • t • c 19:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
why don't you just ignore those threadsHave you seen Poseidon (film)? Wikipedia is the boat. If we did as you suggest an exponentially rising wave of screeching bullshit would sink us. But by all means, head to village pump and propose the WP:TPG have the part about removing harmful posts deleted. That will be entertaining. I'll bring popcorn. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Do not use this talk page as a platform to accuse editors of paid actors of a propaganda ministry. Seriously... ValarianB ( talk) 19:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
There is bias. Currently on this talk page there is an example that I gave above. [24] Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
And here's another example of bias that I gave before. [25] So there's the article saying, "Trump ... repeatedly refused to condemn David Duke, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) or white supremacists." And what is not in the article is that Trump said, "Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans." Bob K31416 ( talk) 02:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The above responses to the examples of bias are false or inadequate and are examples themselves of how the bias is maintained, as is the response to this recent previous comment of mine [26] by closing the discussion. This biased article is an example of how Wikipedia should not be edited. Good editors are driven away by the systemic bias and behavior here. Bob K31416 ( talk) 11:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, do you get the impression that your suggestion resulted in freeing up editor time for article improvement? As one of the barnacle-covered old-timers splashing about in this stagnant pool (and not about to take a group or whatever pledge), I'd say this discussion has descended into the usual general, "let's dredge up all our old grievances", bias complaint fest. Time to close? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Proposal 1: Start a new thread to discuss and determine by consensus what the standard response should be. Also, whether to pin it in the consensus list and when it should be used. Need to have in mind that Donald Trump is an evolving article modified all the time and at one point there may be legitimate complaints. Thinker78 (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Should Trump killing the global head of ISIS at a time when they were terrorizing the Middle East be included in the "Foreign Policy in Syria" section of the article? I contend it should be given that it is a major event in global Foreign Policy and was a direct result of Trump's order, with great public interest and relevance. He even gave a televised speech about it to the nation and took questions from reports for over thirty minutes. In addition, many high level counter terrorism raids are mentioned in other Presidents foreign policy pages (Obama, Biden) thus it would provide some consistency between foreign policy information on Presidents' pages. Thoughts?? Agent123456789 ( talk) 10:19, 14 August 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 145 | Archive 146 | Archive 147 | Archive 148 | Archive 149 | Archive 150 |
Hey, the most recent edit seems a bit unfair. Andrevan brings up fair points, but I don't think that the whole tail end of the sentence should be deleted. I think it makes it seem like we know that Russia not only interfered in the election, but colluded with members of the Trump organization to do so, which has not been proven yet. I advocate for rewriting of the sentence. 2ple ( talk) 01:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
did not establish legally but there was plenty of evidence, just not enough by Mueller's estimation to prove in court.I would rewrite the full sentence as:
The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign, but it was unable to find a legally substantial amount of evidence proving that members of the Trump campaign colluded with themor something to that effect. 2ple ( talk) 01:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
It's too much to pack into a single sentence for easy reading and from easy reading writing yet WP:ONELEVELDOWN. How about,
Okay, how about a clarification of that sentence, instead of a deletion of a whole part. "The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign, but was unable to establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia."
That is almost the exact working of the Time article. Fbifriday ( talk) 03:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
To reset and clarify Fbifriday, my contention is that we are implying through our phrasing that Mueller did not find evidence of a conspiracy. In fact he did find such evidence, as stated in the report itself and a number of sources, which I will happily provide if you are challenging that. Andrevan @ 04:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
"A redacted version of the report was publicly released in April 2019. It found that Russia interfered in 2016 to favor Trump's candidacy and hinder Clinton's. Despite 'numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign', the prevailing evidence 'did not establish' that Trump campaign members conspired or coordinated with Russian interference. ... The report also detailed multiple acts of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, but opted not to make any 'traditional prosecutorial judgment' on whether Trump broke the law, suggesting that Congress should make such a determination."Neither Mueller, nor the body of our article, nor any other reliable source directly supports Andrevan's caveat that Mueller would have been able to establish conspiracy if not for "deliberate obstruction from the Trump campaign." Such a statement assumes facts not in evidence and is internally inconsistent. Moreover, it is an obvious violation of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:LEDE; it should therefore be promptly reverted. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 07:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone
"Literally a violation of policy to stop someone from working on something you've worked on ..."Fbifriday, with respect, if your selective quoting of policy has lead you to the remarkable conclusion that no reverts are ever permissible, then you should probably take a step back and reassess your flawed reasoning, as that cannot possibly be correct. If your statement is presumed true based on the conditional qualifier
"simply because you've worked on it,"then you are assuming facts not in evidence (I have not contributed any text to the lede of this article) and ignoring my clearly-stated objections, which alas does not erase them from the record. If you have not already, take a look at the many prominent notices that display whenever editing this article: e.g.,
"Please review current established consensus before editing this article, especially the lead section. Changes against established consensus without prior discussion can be reverted on sight.";
"If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit."; etc. Notably, by making two similar (if not identical) contested edits to the same sentence of the lede ( [8], [9]) in considerably less than 24 hours, Andrevan violated the spirit of the latter provision, which could result in discretionary sanctions assuming that the awareness criteria is met (especially if there are any previous infractions). In the interest of caution and collegiality, Andrevan should certainly self-revert. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 07:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
"you literally opened your statement here with 'Any WP:BOLD edit to the lede of a high-profile article requires consensus'."Yes, I did—that's not the reason for my revert per se (see the rest of my statement, viz.
"Moreover, the lede is merely a summary of the body, which clearly states ... "), but I don't think that you've caught me in a misstatement here. To the contrary, it seems rather axiomatic that
"Any WP:BOLD edit to the lede of a high-profile article requires consensus,"in that the edit surely won't last long if consensus is against it. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 09:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Replace "but not" with "but was unable to establish", but wait with the "obstruction" angle.
That change should not be controversial. The "obstruction" aspect is more complicated. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
In my bold edit on November 27, 2017, I trimmed the lead content on the Mueller investigation considerably and was partially reverted.
Pre-trim:
The special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign but not that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russian election interference activities. Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice and neither indicted nor exonerated him.
Post-trim:
The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign.
Post-revert:
The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign, but not that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russian election interference activities themselves.
I didn’t follow it up at the time (& didn't notice that the editor added a word), but I still think the second clause does not belong in the lead of Trump’s main bio. It's not about Trump, it's about members of his 2016 campaign. Also, several members of or adjacent to the Trump campaign were sentenced as a result of the investigation, just not for criminal conspiracy. There was plenty of collusion. [1] I also just noticed that we don't mention the less redacted version released in 2020 in the body of the article. [2] The report said that Mueller believed Trump may have lied to him.
TheTimesAreAChanging, your objection was that Changing the long-established lede requires talk page consensus
. That's not quite correct, only when a change to the "current consensus" is involved—that's not the case here—or when a bold edit to other content of the lead was reverted. What is your objection to the removal of the clause?
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 17:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
"A redacted version of the report was publicly released in April 2019. It found that Russia interfered in 2016 to favor Trump's candidacy and hinder Clinton's. Despite 'numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign', the prevailing evidence 'did not establish' that Trump campaign members conspired or coordinated with Russian interference. ... The report also detailed multiple acts of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, but opted not to make any 'traditional prosecutorial judgment' on whether Trump broke the law, suggesting that Congress should make such a determination."It is relevant that no American was charged, much less convicted, of conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election, considering that many people expected Mueller to vindicate the Steele dossier's claims that the "Romanian" hackers were jointly paid by Trump and Putin and that the idea of hacking the DNC originated with Carter Page—especially after Michael Cohen, who was said to have arranged kickback payments in Prague, turned on Trump and began cooperating with the investigation. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 19:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
References
How about something like, Mueller was unable to establish criminal conspiracy, but did encounter obstruction. I also think the Senate Intelligence Committee report should be in the lede. Or perhaps the phrase, Despite 'numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign Andrevan @ 20:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
"Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice and neither indicted nor exonerated him."With that said, Andrevan making a third attempt at tweaking the sentence in question within a 24 hour period seems like a violation of the page-specific discretionary sanctions—I doubt that admins intended for editors to simply reinstate slightly different text shortly after being reverted. As Andrevan had been notified and is hence aware of the sanctions, this is concerning. There is WP:NORUSH and we have no deadline to get things absolutely perfect; therefore, I encourage Andrevan to cool down and take a brief break from WP:BOLD edits (especially to that sentence) while we further hash things out on talk. Additional edits that may potentially violate the page-specific discretionary sanctions could be reported to WP:AE for clarification, and that's really not worth it considering that an agreement here is more than possible. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 23:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I propose we add an additional sentence to the lede section. As follows: The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign. Mueller found numerous instances of contact between Russian agents, Wikileaks, and the Trump campaign, and evidence of obstruction of justice, but declined to charge Trump, and convicted members of his campaign for crimes. Andrevan @ 02:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Investigations showed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I saw the discussion was closed but I added a further information for Further information: Fascism in North America#Donald Trump and allegations of fascism Andrevan @ 01:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Can we summarize the post-presidency section? There's nothing about it in the lede, almost making it seem like nothing ended.
"Following his presidency, Trump remained heavily involved in national politics, including fundraisers and over 140 political endorsements. He is widely expected to run for president in 2024."
-- ɱ (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I've WP:BOLDly added a modification of the original proposition above that I believe there is some common ground on. Here is that addition:
Following his presidency, Trump remained heavily involved in the Republican Party, including fundraisers and over 140 political endorsements.
Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 02:24, 16 July 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.
Trump has Had Many Controversies BUT Wikipedia Does NOT Say his Article is Controversial, It would be Greatfull to Have The Article Fully Protected 216.87.230.71 ( talk) 00:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
controversial}}
tag to the talk page.
Andrevan
@ 01:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I became aware of this page from the Teahouse archives. Is there some procedure that would redirect that page to this one? There is one three year old section which directs people to a move discussion here but that surely has been archived by now.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Donald Trump passed two stimulas checks which makes him the most liberal President in USA history spending over 2 trillion dollars on the welfare of the American people - more than Barack Obama - more than Joe Biden. Each Republican including Mitch Mcconnel secretly wants Trump to never run again! 2603:7000:B901:8500:A470:2AFD:D495:ABDE ( talk) 15:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
|
In the short paragraph titled "Religion", mention in made of "Reformed Church". It is correctly linked to "Reformed Church in America" which is the official denomination designation. Since there are many 'Reformed Churches' (more properly Reformed Denominations') in North America, (see: /info/en/?search=List_of_Reformed_denominations) I recommend changing the text of the link to "Reformed Church in America" to remove ambiguity. Wigbold ( talk) 11:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
It's been changed a few times, currently to Mar-a-Lago. I've looked at the Manual of Style and quite a few guides on templates but haven't found any guidance on whether it's supposed to be the name of the building or the location of the official residence or whether it's needed at all. It doesn't seem to be used at all except for biographies of current and former U.S. presidents and senators (no residence listed for Queen Elizabeth II, for example). Does anyone know what it refers to or why it is needed? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Leave it out, it has changed, it will change. We should not overburden the infobox with Trivia. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Only a few recent politicians who are widely stated to be "far-right" are on this list, and it is mentioned in their articles. Why is Trump on here if this is far more controversial and it is not mentioned a single time in his article? Bill Williams 23:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
See Trumpism SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Best we not leave these issues in the hands of a few (same) editors. I would recommend the same at Joe Biden, if such a discussion were occurring. RFC is the better route. GoodDay ( talk) 03:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
In which a couple of editors rail against RS, Wikipedia sourcing and verification policies, etc. etc.. SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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.
Unless there are specific objections to specific sources where can discuss this is a waste of time, this is not a forum for general discussions about wp:rs. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC) No one has said that CNN and the like are "completely reliable sources" or "shouldn't be questioned", you're making up strawmen that do not exist. If there is a citation in the present article that you feel is problematic, then bring it here for evaluation. Otherwise, this is not a very useful use of people's time. ValarianB ( talk) 20:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above 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 says "... making him the first U.S. officeholder to be impeached twice." This is true, however the New York Times source only says that he was the first president who was impeached twice, not federal officeholder in general. Please replace this source with a source which supports the stronger statement, such as [16]. 2600:1700:1154:3500:BC88:E673:1C5B:D9A8 ( talk) 19:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Current Wording:The House voted 232–197 to impeach Trump on January 13, making him the first U.S. president to be impeached twice. [17]
Proposed Change:The House voted 232–197 to impeach Trump on January 13, making him the first U.S. federal officeholder to be impeached twice. [18] [19]
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the lead where it says "Trump has remained heavily involved in the Republican Party, including through fundraisers and by making over 140 political endorsements" add a hyperlink for "making over 140 political endorsements" to the page List of endorsements by Donald Trump IntoTheNightSky ( talk) 00:11, 6 August 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 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 description of Donald trump is horribly biased and left leaning, painting Trump as some evil racist lunatic. It is obvious what the tone of this page is and it is not neutral 96.33.68.169 ( talk) 06:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The page isn't biased. Andrevan @ 13:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I saw a FAQ-style permanent pinned discussion on another talk page. Considering redundant criticisms get thrown about constantly, perhaps we can construct an FAQ page for this Talk Page in order to limit the amount of circular discussion? Tyrone ( talk) 23:35, 5 August 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.
Paging @ Jr8825 -- the only neutrality concern I had was about an editor's comment which uses the phrase "Muslim travel ban", not a part of the article itself. I interpret this as an opinionated term. As for the rest of the changes, I think they were more accurate. -Adam ( DeaconShotFire) TALK 16:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Iamreallygoodatcheckers, here is the complete edit summary for my revert of
your edit. The original wording Widely criticized as ineffectual and harmful
seems exactly right. You seem to be fascinated by Trump signing ceremonies, whether it’s the Abraham Accords Declaration
on the WH south lawn or this edit with the misleading edit summary.
NPR wrote that significant accomplishments followed the declaration of a public health emergency, such as H.R.6 - SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act and pushing China to slow their fentanyl exports. Did you stop reading the source at this point? You appear to have overlooked the big BUT and the wide criticism (by NPR, the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Health and Human Services, various researchers and experts) that follows. "But while some progress was made, critics point to serious missteps behind the scenes that hampered federal efforts, including the decision to sideline and defund the Office of National Drug Control Policy." "Drug policy experts say things could grow even worse in the months ahead if Trump is successful in dismantling the Affordable Care Act."
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 09:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
critics point to...Trump's response to the opioid epidemic was criticized by his critics. If we had a sentence for every time his critics criticized him this article would be a trillion times longer. There's not support for the claim it was "widely criticized". That does not appear in the NPR source. Also your taking the the "
the decision to sideline and defund the Office of National Drug Control Policy" out of context. A few sentences later it says, "
That decision was later reversed". It was just speculation from a leaked internal memo, and never happened.
In response to the opioid epidemic, Trump signed legislation in 2018 to increase funding for drug treatments, but received criticism for failing to make a concrete strategy. U.S. opioid overdose deaths declined slightly in 2018, but surged to a record 50,052 deaths in 2019.This balances sums both parts of the NPR article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers t@lk 16:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
During a panel discussion in late July, Giroir [assistant secretary for health and an opioid policy expert at the Department of Health and Human Services in the Trump administration] described recent increases in opioid overdoses as "a nightmare," adding that "all the progress that we made has been reversed and this is even before the pandemic."Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
This all might be better in the article about his presidency, I suggest removing all mention of it. It tells us noth9ng about him Slatersteven ( talk) 16:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Iamreallygoodatcheckers, you went ahead once again and
reinserted challenged material (the Trump-signing-stuff bit) while a discussion is going on. I haven’t reverted (yet) because I’m still waiting for your explanation why Trump signing a bipartisan bill that was passed by the Senate 99-1 and by the House 396-14 is so important that it needs to "balance (?)" the criticism of the bungled execution. If he had vetoed the bill, Congress had the necessary two-thirds majority to override the veto, and the bill would have become law without his signature. The bill is the legislature's accomplishment, the bungled execution the executive's—uh—"achievement". We all know how he liked to show off his signing skills—there must be hundreds of photographs of him signing documents surrounded by cabinet members, other officials, random members of the public, then showing his signature to the press while the proud parents beam at Junior’s accomplishments crowd applauds (here are just a few published by
NBC,
Guardian,
Alamy,
and Salon).
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 11:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Significant accomplishments followed. Trump signed legislation in 2018 that boosted federal funding for drug treatment.) Would you rather mention him declaring a state of emergency in 2017? That's also mentioned in the NPR article, and is obviously an action of Trump himself and not congress. Iamreallygoodatcheckers t@lk 17:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
> He won the 2016 United States presidential election as the Republican nominee against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton >but lost the popular vote,[a] becoming The focus is now on what happens because he lost the popular vote >the first U.S. president with no prior military or government service. This is not a consequence of that, and it relates back to the first chunk.
Put the popular vote part elsewhere; it doesn’t fit here 193.6.168.232 ( talk) 10:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
He won the election but lost the popular vote, becoming the first U.S. president with no prior military or government service.It discusses electoral vs. popular vote, and being the firs president with no experience. Clear and concise. Those who are protesting here are essentially inferring there is a "thus" (which denotes causality) where none actually exists. Zaathras ( talk) 08:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
seems to imply that there is something unusual or systematically abnormal about..., well yes, it is unusual, which is why many reliable sources took note of it. The sentence is fine as-is. Zaathras ( talk) 01:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I like Basil’s suggestion. Keeping the wording consistent with other presidents who find themselves elected without winning the popular vote is a good way to go about things. Tyrone ( talk) 23:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
It seems like the intro clearly violates WP:LEADCITE: "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." Many of the statements in the lead have been challenged, just look at the talk page. Why is this article allowed to violate this guideline by having no citations in the lead? — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs) 20:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Just ignore uncivil comments by some editorsis a very interesting comment, my friend Thinker78. Because I certainly see you casting aspersions (
Maybe they have a tough time in their personal lives) on unnamed editors personal lives. So shall we ignore you? Zaathras ( talk) 22:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Thinker, can you not high road everyone and pretend we aren’t trying to make Wikipedia a better place? The vast majority of regular editors here do it in good faith. No need to passive aggressively undermine the intent of your collaborators. Tyrone ( talk) 23:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
This sentence: In foreign policy, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal, and he initiated a trade war with China
—needs to be separated. It doesn't flow well at all. I can't think of a way that doesn't either a) split the sentence weirdly or b) add an imaginary thus or instead between the Iran nuclear deal
and he initiated a trade war with China
—any help?
2ple (
talk) 00:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
In foreign policy, Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal.Anon0098 ( talk) 03:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Is this done? Tyrone ( talk) 23:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
The opening sentence of the fifth paragraph in the lead is rather lengthy. It could be trimmed as such:
"After losing the 2020 United States presidential election to Joe Biden, Trump falsely claimed widespread electoral fraud and attempted to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition."
The second sentence could also be rewritten - it's missing context about why Trump urged his supporters to March to the Capitol (the electoral vote count is mentioned, but a clear correlation between the attack and the vote count isn't established). My proposal is:
"These efforts culminated in Trump urging his supporters to protest the electoral vote count by marching to the Capitol, which many of them attacked, resulting in multiple deaths."
Thoughts? Bluerules ( talk) 19:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
The two versions in question for the convenience of other editors/readers:
Current text
Trump lost the 2020 United States presidential election to Joe Biden but refused to concede defeat, falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud and attempting to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition. On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count.
Your proposal
After losing the 2020 United States presidential election to Joe Biden, Trump falsely claimed widespread electoral fraud and attempted to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition. These efforts culminated in Trump urging his supporters to protest the electoral vote count by marching to the Capitol, which many of them attacked, resulting in multiple deaths.
Trim. The material you trimmed is not redundant.
"refused to concede defeat" is redundant. Obvious or not - there’s a difference between slouching off to Mar-a-Lago and quietly fading into the woodwork without uttering the words "I concede"/congratulating Biden on his win and and saying, "We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved."
awkwardness of date in the lead. Eye of the beholder? Mention January 6 to any American and a whole lot of other people and they’ll know what you are referring to.
The reason why the attack took place. Where do the secondary sources (and the transcript of Trump’s speech, for that matter) say something that amounts to "urg[ed] his supporters to protest the electoral vote count by marching to the Capitol"? As in, walk up there and peacefully picket? That’s the spin aka whitewash certain people are putting on it. It’s up to you to provide the reliable sources supporting the text you propose, and you haven’t.
efforts culminated in. Cap, climax, conclude, complete, finish, end up, round off, terminate, wind up, wrap up - do you have reliable sources that say something along those lines? I think at one point we tinkered with "resulted" but then just stuck to the facts.
protest. Formal language for "fight like hell" is "protest" like Great Dane is another name for Chihuahua. It’s not a neutral characterization of what he said (fails NPOV), and the reliable sources do not say that he told the crowd to go to the Capitol and protest the electoral vote count. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the trim does not enhance the article and potentially leaves out important facts surrounding the peripherals of an integral part of the conclusion of the Trump presidency. I oppose. (I do agree in theory that we need to make the article more navigable if possible) Tyrone ( talk) 23:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
The previous discussion involved few editors and resulted in Iamreallygoodatcheckers adding this bold sentence to the last paragraph of the lead, with one editor agreeing and one editor disagreeing. I would have also disagreed and reverted but was unable to respond at the time. The sentence:
Following his presidency, Trump remained heavily involved in the Republican Party, including fundraisers and over 140 political endorsements.
I rephrased and moved the sentence into the first paragraph with the edit summary "Move from last paragraph which deals with past events and historical evaluations. The first paragraph says who the subject is and what he is doing now. Bold rephrase; if this sentence is lead-worthy, then it's" (I seem to have lost the rest of the sentence, meant to say "needs to go into the first paragraph with his current occupation(s)":
Unlike other former presidents, Trump continues to dominate his party, hinting at a third presidential campaign and endorsing Republican primary candidates who mostly support his claim of a stolen election.
My edit was reverted with the edit summary "Restoring more encyclopedic wording, adjusting location to avoid confusing the chronology". Bluerules, which words/phrases of the sentence you restored are more encyclopedic than which words/phrases of my sentence? And what is chronologically confusing about placing Trump's current occupation (revenging, hinting at a third run, supporting MAGAots for office) in the first paragraph that begins with "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is"? My first choice still is WP:NOTNEWS—just pointing out that the current tally of candidates endorsed by Trump stands at 200 and counting. But if we do add something, it should be current and to the point. The current sentence is neither, as it also doesn't contain the most important information about the endorsements, i.e., that Trump endorsed candidates who support his claim of a stolen election. (The source says "almost all" but so far I haven't found a single one who hasn't or alternatively supported "making elections more secure", i.e., making voting more restrictive and difficult, and we know where those 8-hour lines will and won't be.) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, this is fun—not. Please, read the body with the RS, people. 140 endorsements—that was the status back in April. The LA Times (I just added the cite to the body) on August 5 and the NY Times on August 2 updated the tally to "more than 200". For inquiring minds who want to know, Ballotpedia has compiled all 233 Trump endorsees for the 2022 midterms and special elections. Ballotpedia also provides the RS for each name on the list, so, if anyone has the time and energy to add those 233 names and cites to List of endorsements by Donald Trump, go for it. In its current state, the list contains only a small number (43 out of 233) of the GOP hopefuls Trump endorsed in 2022 plus a hodgepodge of "endorsements" Trump made over the years, from Hillary Clinton on a Trump University blog post in 2008 ( CBS 2015) to Brexit in 2016 ( Guardian) to Brazil's president Bolsonaro in a statement a Trump surrogate tweeted in October 2021 ( Harrington). The link does not lead to further or in-depth information on Trump's endorsements in 2022. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
IMO there are too many replies by experienced editors, each time an IP or newcomer complains that the page is biased, anti-Trump, etc. without specific examples, requests, or recommendations.
I suggest we all adopt a first response to refer such queries and complaints to our FAQ and the link that will explain why the article content may appear POV to a reader. It wastes valuable editor resources for one or more editors to engage in repetitive threads that explain these issues to newcomers (good faith or not) when we've already taken the time and effort to write a general reply as a first step. Then any follow-up should address the specific concerns that the newcomer may articulate after having read the FAQ and explanation linked there.
I'd like to see us all give this an extended trial and free up editor time for article improvements. SPECIFICO talk 13:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
[w]hether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis, simply chiming in with "CNN sux!!!", "Hannity wuz right!!!" or some variation thereof is decidedly not an examination nor even the compelling start of one. Holding newer editors to a standard we'd expect from regular editors is in no way bad, and honestly tolerating those types of discussions just leads to people thinking it is acceptable and potentially doing it themselves. — Locke Cole • t • c 19:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
why don't you just ignore those threadsHave you seen Poseidon (film)? Wikipedia is the boat. If we did as you suggest an exponentially rising wave of screeching bullshit would sink us. But by all means, head to village pump and propose the WP:TPG have the part about removing harmful posts deleted. That will be entertaining. I'll bring popcorn. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Do not use this talk page as a platform to accuse editors of paid actors of a propaganda ministry. Seriously... ValarianB ( talk) 19:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
There is bias. Currently on this talk page there is an example that I gave above. [24] Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
And here's another example of bias that I gave before. [25] So there's the article saying, "Trump ... repeatedly refused to condemn David Duke, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) or white supremacists." And what is not in the article is that Trump said, "Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans." Bob K31416 ( talk) 02:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The above responses to the examples of bias are false or inadequate and are examples themselves of how the bias is maintained, as is the response to this recent previous comment of mine [26] by closing the discussion. This biased article is an example of how Wikipedia should not be edited. Good editors are driven away by the systemic bias and behavior here. Bob K31416 ( talk) 11:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, do you get the impression that your suggestion resulted in freeing up editor time for article improvement? As one of the barnacle-covered old-timers splashing about in this stagnant pool (and not about to take a group or whatever pledge), I'd say this discussion has descended into the usual general, "let's dredge up all our old grievances", bias complaint fest. Time to close? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Proposal 1: Start a new thread to discuss and determine by consensus what the standard response should be. Also, whether to pin it in the consensus list and when it should be used. Need to have in mind that Donald Trump is an evolving article modified all the time and at one point there may be legitimate complaints. Thinker78 (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Should Trump killing the global head of ISIS at a time when they were terrorizing the Middle East be included in the "Foreign Policy in Syria" section of the article? I contend it should be given that it is a major event in global Foreign Policy and was a direct result of Trump's order, with great public interest and relevance. He even gave a televised speech about it to the nation and took questions from reports for over thirty minutes. In addition, many high level counter terrorism raids are mentioned in other Presidents foreign policy pages (Obama, Biden) thus it would provide some consistency between foreign policy information on Presidents' pages. Thoughts?? Agent123456789 ( talk) 10:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)