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 150 | ← | Archive 152 | Archive 153 | Archive 154 | Archive 155 | Archive 156 | → | Archive 160 |
SPECIFICO, you reverted my edit. I would like to justify my position.
In January 2016, Trump retweeted a racist Twitter acount.
He did, didn't he. I don't see why we care.
Trump not immediately disavowing comments from David Duke is a big deal. Much, much different than retweeting some random racist Twitter account. He didn't even retweet a racist statement. It was some useless Photoshopped randomness about voting. Is the retweeting of the racist Twitter account in any way notable?
Sentences like this contribute to the massive bloat this article is experiencing. It's trivial and, as I said, of little import to the man himself. He reposted a meme. The sources don't even tie Trump and the retweet to racism, it's just lacklustre criticism that seems to be aimed at Trump's tweets in general. There is no connection made between Trump and racism. This sentence doesn't even belong in the section it's placed in, if it belongs at all. I really don't see why you reverted my edit. Cessaune [talk] 08:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
The account wasn’t your ordinary racist dog-whistling account, it was an antisemitic Nazi account, complete with a pro-Hitler documentary, according to CNN. (First wife Ivana told Vanity Fair in 1990 that "Trump kept a book of Hitler's collected speeches, 'My New Order,' … in a cabinet by his bed." Trump said he thought it was 'Mein Kampf' but the man who gave him the book, Marty Davis of Paramount, told Vanity Fair that it was 'My New Order.' It looks as though Trump had as much use for it as he had for the Bible, reading-wise.) But saying that he retweeted a racist account in January 2016 makes it appear as though it was an isolated incident. He retweeted racist accounts numerous times, and the usual excuse was that he didn’t know what kind of an account it was. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
trump repeatedly courted the approval of his political base by means of veiled approvals, false equivalencies, and repetition of the narratives of neo-nazis, racist vigilantes, and white supremacists,
What RS tell us is that his courting and encouragement and fear of offending ... racists ... is because they are politically valuable to him, and
widely noted examplewithout any sourcing, and then using as a justification for your argument, no matter how valid your statements are, they fall under the definition of OR until you provide sources.
This feels trivial and of little import to the man himself. It was my opinion, which I have backed with reasoning. How can it be inaccurate? Maybe the 'of little import', but I read the sources and decided, based solely on my own personal opinion, that this specific issue as it is presented in the text is trivial. Disagree if you want, but how can my characterization be inaccurate, especially given the fact that you have not provided any sources to explain why said inaccurates are inaccurate?
in this case the ONUS is on you for this accurate summary of the section content and sourcing—wrong, please let me know. Sure, I guess, in an ideal world, I probably should've done that. Cessaune [talk] 04:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I suspect Trump tends to merely blurt out what he believes his core supporters want to hear. Using that as a basis, should determine whether or not, or which utterances, should be included in his BLP. GoodDay ( talk) 22:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
4-2 in favor of deletion, if we count Space4t's comment as advocation for inclusion. Is this enough to delete? Cessaune [talk] 04:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Donald Trump mostly retweets white supremacists saying nice things about him, i.e., 62% of the people he retweeted that week followed multiple White Supremacist accounts. As we say with the first sentence of our paragraph:
Trump helped bring far-right fringe ideas, beliefs, and organizations into the mainstream.We also mention racist appeals, tweeted and otherwise publicized before and during the campaign and the presidency, in Racial views. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Time for an RFC I think, we need fresh eyes. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Or ask for a formal close by an uninvolved edd so no on can claim the close was biased. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
From WP:SNOW,
"If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process."
The bottom line is that misleading anti-Trump statements die hard here. Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Cessaune: I reckon it's up to you. If you want more input on this, an RFC is the way to go. Otherwise, I'd say there's no consensus for undoing the revert-in-question. GoodDay ( talk) 20:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Here's the sentence in question (In January 2016, Trump retweeted...), along with the preceding sentence and following sentence:
When I got this excerpt from the article and looked at the sources, I was surprised that it was such a mess of misrepresentation. For example, the source for the first sentence is about news media and far-right news media, not far-right organizations like the KKK, headed by David Duke.
Bob K31416 (
talk) 07:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
So far in this discussion, the article and its sources, there is no link that shows the image that was retweeted. Here it is
[1]. So what we have is a non-racist quote and picture that were retweeted from a racist account, whereas a reader would presume from this article's description of the retweet that the items were racist, "Trump retweeted a racist Twitter account."
Bob K31416 (
talk) 09:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
(
You again, Checkers? I
reverted.) It had everything to do with Trump. He ordered Milley to accompany him on what turned out to be a photo-op from the Autocrat’s Handbook, bunker boy showing strength, affecting the Pentagon's response to the January 6 insurrection.
William M. Arkin,
Newsweek: "At the Pentagon, procedures were put in place to ensure that soldiers—or any Guard formation—would not be used in case of civil disturbance unless the responsible federal civilian agency, mostly the FBI or Secret Service, made a formal request."
OIG report, page 18 The events leading up to the 2020 presidential election are important to the January 6, 2021 fact pattern we reviewed because witnesses told us that previous events influenced the DoD response to RFAs pertaining to civil disturbances before and on January 6, 2021.
Page 19: Mayor Bowser ordered a 7:00 p.m. curfew for Washington, D.C., on June 1, 2020. During the early evening, Federal law enforcement officers cleared Lafayette Square of protesters before the President spoke at the nearby St. John’s Episcopal Church. … One media outlet, Politico, reported, "The optics of the past 72 hours are putting people inside the halls of the Pentagon on edge as images of U.S. troops on the streets of the nation’s capital dominate airwaves across the globe."
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk) 12:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Incomplete page 18 citation, added date of insurrection. Page numbering refers to the PDF counter, not the page numbers of the OIG report.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk) 16:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
He ordered Milley to accompany him on what turned out to be a photo-op from the Autocrat’s Handbook, bunker boy showing strength, affecting the Pentagon's response to the January 6 insurrectionis not shown anywhere in any of the sources, and seems to be OR/opinion. The OIG report says nothing about Milley in this context.
In the Opening Post, Trump was referred to as "bunker boy". I looked at Bunker visit and reactions and found that a few days earlier near the White House, protestors injured more than sixty Secret Service agents, and eleven were transported to the hospital. The Secret Service recommended that Trump and his family move to an underground bunker. Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Cessaune, you may want to acquaint yourself with the events of that evening. The main article,
Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church, has 300 cites. The cite for the Milley sentence in this article is right where it belongs, following the sentence. Quote: "As many of you saw the results of the photograph of me in Lafayette Square last week, that sparked a national debate about the role of the military in civil society," Milley said. "I should not have been there. My presence in that moment, and in that environment, created the perception of the military involved in domestic politics."
The cites I provided above are additional background information on how the events that evening affected events down the line. Two of your links refer to the vandalism that occurred the night before, Sunday night, May 31. (Your third link, BBC, produces a 404 Not Found.) As a result, Mayor Bowser announced a curfew for 7 p.m. on Monday, June 1. The demonstration that took place during the daytime on June 1 were
peaceful until the Secret Service, the Park Police, and other federal forces began to forcefully push back demonstrators half an hour before curfew and without a prior audible announcement to clear the streets. What caused Trump’s decision to "dominate"? On May 29, the Secret Service had moved Trump & family
into the underground WH bunker, which news, it being the Trump WH, was immediately leaked, and Trump was mocked in the Twitterverse where he lived, hash tag #BunkerBoy. Trump
was furious "that he looked weak and insisted he be photographed outside the White House gates, a demand that ultimately led to his visit Monday to St. John’s Church across Lafayette Square."
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk) 11:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
recanting your previous opinion: which source(s) did Anything present to convince you that
Arson at a church across the street from the WH prompted Trump to go and express soliditary with the victims, and show he wasn’t cowering in a bunker? George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C. doesn't make that claim, and neither does Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church. The "victims" (the church officials who said the fire damage was minor) begged to differ since Trump neither contacted them nor did he enter the church to inspect the damage. He also didn't read from the generic Bible Ivanka pulled out of her $3,000 Max Mara bag and he pawed and held aloft like some sort of trophy while talking about the country "coming back strong. It'll be greater than ever before". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Here's the sentence.
Bob K31416 ( talk) 20:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Here is the link in question [3], we do not need ref on the talk page, links are fine. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
I made this edit and this edit to this page, a topic I have deeply studied since 2015. They were reverted by users @ Zaathras: and @ Cessaune:. I'm more than happy to elaborate on my edits, but I think they speak for themselves. I would appreciate rationale for your reflexive reverts beyond the dismissive "overlink" and the insulting "fringe" Volvlogia ( talk) 07:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
...he announced at CPAC 2023 to be his supporter's "warrior, [...], justice, [and] retribution". [1]
There is consensus towards using inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations.This consensus should include an only somewhere. Consensus at this article has been to leave out citations in the lead, unless it's a controversial statement, per MOS:LEADCITE.
References
Hereby, 🎈, a preemptive appeal not to launch an immediate RfC on reinstating those edits to the lead. SPECIFICO talk 17:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I replaced a list of crowd-control weapons, "batons, rubber bullets, pepper spray projectiles, stun grenades, and smoke" with the term "crowd-control weapons", and it was reverted [4]. I thought use of the term, instead of the list, was more concise without losing the point. I mention it here so that editors can decide which version they want. Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
On second thought, this has generally been a strange response to a proposed simple edit that improves the article. Like stirring up a weird hornet's nest. What I see is a ridiculously uphill battle for a simple worthwhile edit which seems to have almost zero chance of being accepted. So I'll leave this discussion. Thanks. Bob K31416 ( talk) 20:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Its interesting that some call this a Political Upset. It was not. The simple fact that the People choose Hillary Clinton should remove all doubt of that. Please removed the statement. Thank you MagnummSerpentinee ( talk) 16:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I was surprised to find something significant about the Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op that is not in the article but instead there is an opposite false implication.
Police did not clear D.C.'s Lafayette Square of protesters so Trump could hold a photo op, new report says NBC, June 9, 2021
Report: Park Police didn’t clear Lafayette Square protesters for Trump visit Washington Post, June 9, 2021
Watchdog report finds Park Police did not clear racial injustice protesters from Lafayette Park for Trump’s visit to St. John’s Church last June CNN, June 10, 2021
Review of U.S. Park Police Actions at Lafayette Park Office of Inspector General, June 8, 2021
Instead there is a false implication in the article that the protesters were cleared for Trump's photo op. Bob K31416 ( talk) 14:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Our description is about as neutral and bland as it can get. A happened and then B happened, and saying that is neither an implication nor a false implication. And we’re following that up with Trump’s false narrative. (That’s the content we should remove!) It wasn’t just the Salon commentator, there are also
Vox,
Politico, WaPo analyst Phillip Bump
on Twitter and in WaPo
here and
especially here, and others. The June 2, 2020, WaPo article Bump mentions is
this one. The Park Police was planning to install another perimeter fence and remove demonstrators after the 7 p.m. curfew. At 6 p.m., they started drafting the public announcement they intended to make. Quoting the Jun 2 article: Other administration officials said the move to clear the crowd was part of a previously planned effort to extend the perimeter around Lafayette Square. Two federal law enforcement officials said that authorities decided either late Sunday or early Monday to broaden it by one block and that Barr participated in those discussions. The plan was to be executed the following afternoon, according to the Justice Department official, who was not authorized to comment ahead of Barr addressing the matter himself publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity. But when Barr went to survey the scene, he was "surprised" to find the perimeter had not been extended and huddled with law enforcement officials, the Justice Department official said. "He conferred with them to check on the status and basically said: 'This needs to be done. Get it done,’ " the Justice Department official said. Police soon moved on the protesters.
On the subject of "inspection of damage" vs. "dominating": WSJ’s Michael C. Bender wrote in Frankly, We Did Win This Election, pg. 164-165, that Trump had "huddled" with Jared Kusher, Ivanka Trump, and Hope Hicks that afternoon and that
Trump wanted to counter that footage of the darkened White House and show he wasn’t cowering in fear. With Park Police planning to push the perimeter farther back, the White House had notified the Secret Service that the president was interested in walking through Lafayette Square to inspect damage at the park and to speak to law enforcement in the area. But inside the Oval Office, Trump discussed two other destinations to demonstrate he was out of the bunker and in control. … The other choice was St. John’s Church … The chapel where Lincoln had prayed was a powerful symbol of faith in the heart of Washington, and a visit from Trump would be an unmistakable communiqué to the evangelical base the president had wooed for years. … Trump loved the idea of walking to the church.
There is also the testimony of Major Adam De Marco of the D.C. National Guard. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Proponents were outnumbered by the opposers two-to-one. Those arguing for retaining the passage suggested that Milley's apology was basically a veiled rebuke of his boss, and since he could not refuse his orders, this is about as big a repudiation of Trump as he could make. They argued it is important to mention for context, as Milley's apology was highly unusual in the circumstances. For opposers, the fragment is about Milley not Trump. It also clutters the already too large article with relatively minor details, so they belong in articles with narrower scope. Finally, if the criticism of Trump's actions is to be included, it must be directly stated and not inferred from the text's framing.
For several reasons, the proponents failed to establish consensus to include. The !vote count does not favour the "yes" side. The proponents did not address the argument that the article must be trimmed and did not look for shorter alternatives to the text.
As for the implication of criticism that the proponents want to give by including this statement, it does not convince me as a strong argument. Writing that that apology is veiled criticism without a source stating so could reasonably be treated as an unsupported assertion. If you mean to say that was a rebuke, why not write it upfront and why stick to an apology?
There might be relevant scholarly commentary or journalist analysis on what this incident tells about Trump's broader style of governance (authoritarian? egoist?). It is not there yet, but new sourcing may justify inclusion. Another suggested possibility is to merge Milley's reaction with the previous sentence, whom it does not cover for now. This may be discussed. But for now, there is clearly no consensus to retain the fragment. ( non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 21:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now) under the subsection Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op?
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, later apologized for accompanying Trump on the walk and thereby "creat[ing] the perception of the military involved in domestic politics". [1]
Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 07:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
References
this article should focus on Trump's actions/statments and direct responses to his actions/statments. Milley's statement, blaming himself for going along on the walk Trump ordered him to go on, is as direct a response to his Commander in Chief as he could give without directly criticizing Trump for making Milley accompany him. (Trump was the president; when he says we're going to take a walk, you take a walk.)
Milley was not actually present at the photo-op itself, just a portion of the walk.: he was still behind Trump when they walked past the bathroom on H Street opposite St. John’s at 3:56 in the C-SPAN video but did not cross the street towards the church, i.e., he peeled off at the first opportunity short of making a run for it inside the park while being filmed.
not ... a significant enough part of Trump's legacy or his presidency: less significant than the Tour de Trump or the star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame or his physician’s 2015 letter stating he would "be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency?" Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The actions and statements of Trump in this incident are one of a handful of defining moments that reveal his personal stance and agenda. Like the Charlottesville march and the Putin/Helsinki. The statement by Milley, still in command of the institutions Trump sought to subvert, was an extraordinary and unprecedented action that gives definitive context to who and what Trump is about.Maybe, but this is a) original research/unsourced and b) only hints at the idea instead of directly making the claim, which is what it should do. Cessaune [talk] 03:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
|
Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Suddenly, cabinet officials and White House staff were being lined up to walk out the north side entrance of the White Houe; they were told Trump wanted them to join him looking at the damage outside. … Milley and Esper walked out of the White House alongside Trump, but Esper quickly realized that they had been "duped" into something. Milley pulled away en route, telling an aide "this is fucked up" as he did.. Pg. 438:
Esper and Milley were incensed to have been used as props in what was clearly a political portrayal of Trump against the protesters. Both drafted memos the following day, on June 2, choreographed for when they’d be released; together, they underscored an oath to the Constitution, the military remaining apolitical and the right to freedom of speech.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Iamreallygoodatcheckers Why an RfC for this? You can start with a regular talk page discussion. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 08:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Withdraw RfC Chex, Please, we don't jump to an RfC on a discussion that failed or disappointed a few editors. This is the worst way to collaborate on contentious talk pages. Please withdraw this. There is no deadline for your advocacy or views, but formalizing the discussion when even your !vote above, does not reflect the views raised in the prior discussion - that's the worst thing for any talk page. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC.Tried that; got nowhere.
mention Milley in the preceding sentence while avoiding the second separate sentence that cites him, so I don't get your point here. I don't think anyone is against including something like
including General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time.
marginal or fringe,
highly disruptive,
undue RfCand others. I don't necessarily disagree, but treat your opinions like opinions.
...consider whether any article could ever be improved one sentence at a time in isolation and without regard to alternative sentences that state similar content—it's not that it isn't possible to regard any alternate wordings, it's that no one has. Yes, I agree, but I don't think that's what's happening.
The RfC posts one editor's up or down version of the issue, as if it were black and white and there were no room for a compromise or all-inclusive solution—I don't agree. Here's OP's sentence:
Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now) under the subsection Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op?I feel like this leaves room for a compromise. Again, present your wording and a source.
Undue RfCso matter-of-factly and without first stating that its your opinion is stating your opinion like it's fact. Unless this is, objectively, an undue RfC, which it isn't per Nemov, at least.
has prevented spontaneous collaborative work here.Let's collaborate. No one's stopping you.
...the discussion failed to change the established consensus textisn't true IMO, as there doesn't seem to have ever been a consensus. A truly NPOV reading would be something along the lines of "the discussion failed to generate a consensus either against or for the sentence's inclusion". Cessaune [talk] 23:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
The RFC is already in progress, so let it run its (one month) course. There can be only two results. GoodDay ( talk) 20:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I just noticed that this RfC about a biography wasn't even listed in "Biographies". Also, the incident in question being about an event produced for media consumption, I added "Media", as well, and "History", which seems just as relevant as "Society, sports, and culture". I'm not sure whether listing the categories the way I did is sufficient or whether I need to do something different to alert the bot. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Current text is "Trump bought a third Atlantic City venue in 1988, the Trump Taj Mahal. It was financed with $675 million in junk bonds and completed for $1.1 billion, opening in April 1990. It went bankrupt in 1989."
I propose to correct the last sentence to: "It filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 1991." source Please note the change of year (1989 -> 1991). Jeran Renz ( talk) 14:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Given that all U.S. presidents who are known to have an audio recording of their voice have one uploaded onto their Wikipedia page I think it's only fitting that Donald Trump has one as well. That being said I do not have enough edit access to upload any myself so I would like to request someone with high enough edit access do so in my stead. I have uploaded a short, concise, and non-controversial audio Clip of Donald Trump announcing the formation of the U.S. Space Command that should satisfy all parties as a non-controversial audio recording of him. If you would like, it should be the most recent audio recording of him in the Wikimedia Commons section, however I have also provided the file in full as it appears here: Donald Trump on the formation of the United States Space Command.ogg
Additionally, the date this event took place was August 29th 2019.
LosPajaros (
talk) 05:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
https://www.c-span.org/video/?463778-1/president-trump-launches-us-space-command LosPajaros ( talk) 23:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
We know he’s going to plead Not Guilty, so there’s going to be a trial. Givin the amount of attention to his article it will obviously bring I think that the current event tag is necessary throughout it. 2A00:23C7:6140:C601:F150:C4A7:AD40:15AA ( talk) 14:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Should we keep or delete this
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
template from the talk page?
Space4Time3Continuum2x is keen on removing it so what do you think? 195.20.17.82 ( talk) 10:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
In history, surely...? 31.54.248.212 ( talk) 20:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I added info on how Burr was previously the highest ranking official charged. I see why it was removed, but wanted to know what others thought. 3Kingdoms ( talk) 02:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
LanallahYazid ( talk) 21:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Good day, members of the Wikipedia community,
I stand before you today to humbly request that my application for editing rights on Wikipedia be accepted. I am excited at the prospect of contributing to this incredible platform, and I believe that I have much to offer.
Firstly, I would like to express my passion for knowledge and my eagerness to share it with others. I have always had a love for learning, and Wikipedia has been an invaluable resource for me over the years. I am eager to give back to the community by helping to ensure that the information provided on Wikipedia is accurate, reliable, and up-to-date.
Secondly, I am a detail-oriented person who takes great pride in the work that I do. I understand the importance of fact-checking and source verification, and I am committed to ensuring that any contributions I make to Wikipedia are of the highest quality. I am willing to put in the time and effort necessary to make sure that my edits are accurate, informative, and valuable to the community.
Finally, I am respectful of the guidelines and policies set forth by the Wikipedia community. I understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, and that every contribution made has an impact on the quality and credibility of the platform as a whole. I am committed to upholding the standards and expectations set forth by the community, and I believe that I can make a positive contribution to the ongoing growth and development of Wikipedia.
In conclusion, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the opportunity to speak with you today. I hope that my passion for knowledge, attention to detail, and commitment to community guidelines have convinced you that I would be a valuable asset to the Wikipedia editing community. Thank you for your time and consideration.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I suggest reading how all other Wikipedia entries are and coming back to this one. It's full of people's emotions and feelings towards the man. It's not a good source for a school paper or any form of report. I suggest it be rewritten to only include facts not linked to controversial or opinionated anecdotes. Instead u can say that he has controversies surrounding him and policy's that many considered negative. But to specify them and to report them as facts when it's speculation and open to interpretation makes this entry biased and too emotional on the writers part. And totally degrades the authenticity of Wikipedia Justsomegirl05 ( talk) 19:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the about template, should have Donald Trump Jr. to the first text, and link "Donald Trump Jr.". ErceÇamurOfficial ( talk) 09:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
(Not sure if our collective leg is being pulled here.) Trump has more than one son, and those looking for Donald Trump Jr. will just have to search for "Donald Trump Jr." in their browsers (his WP article is probably the top result) or in the WP search bar, or read the infobox or the Donald_Trump#Family section in this article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2023 (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.
Just read the main section of the article and you will see exactly what I am talking about. Many of the things mentioned in the main section seemed to be cherry picked to be the negative aspects of Trump, neutral aspects skewed to seem negative, false information or just the author's opinion. There is also only two citations for the whole thing, both relating to the opinion of the media and other institutions known for bias. Jordan LaQuey ( talk) 22:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
As no substantive request has been made, and therefore can't be discussed or actioned I move we close this. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Proponents were outnumbered by the opposers two-to-one. Those arguing for retaining the passage suggested that Milley's apology was basically a veiled rebuke of his boss, and since he could not refuse his orders, this is about as big a repudiation of Trump as he could make. They argued it is important to mention for context, as Milley's apology was highly unusual in the circumstances. For opposers, the fragment is about Milley not Trump. It also clutters the already too large article with relatively minor details, so they belong in articles with narrower scope. Finally, if the criticism of Trump's actions is to be included, it must be directly stated and not inferred from the text's framing.
For several reasons, the proponents failed to establish consensus to include. The !vote count does not favour the "yes" side. The proponents did not address the argument that the article must be trimmed and did not look for shorter alternatives to the text.
As for the implication of criticism that the proponents want to give by including this statement, it does not convince me as a strong argument. Writing that that apology is veiled criticism without a source stating so could reasonably be treated as an unsupported assertion. If you mean to say that was a rebuke, why not write it upfront and why stick to an apology?
There might be relevant scholarly commentary or journalist analysis on what this incident tells about Trump's broader style of governance (authoritarian? egoist?). It is not there yet, but new sourcing may justify inclusion. Another suggested possibility is to merge Milley's reaction with the previous sentence, whom it does not cover for now. This may be discussed. But for now, there is clearly no consensus to retain the fragment. The reason for this outcome is that according to WP:NOCON, disputed content about living persons generally gets removed for no consensus closures, and I see no good reason presented in this discussion to override that recommendation. ( non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 21:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now) under the subsection Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op?
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, later apologized for accompanying Trump on the walk and thereby "creat[ing] the perception of the military involved in domestic politics". [1]
Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 07:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
References
this article should focus on Trump's actions/statments and direct responses to his actions/statments. Milley's statement, blaming himself for going along on the walk Trump ordered him to go on, is as direct a response to his Commander in Chief as he could give without directly criticizing Trump for making Milley accompany him. (Trump was the president; when he says we're going to take a walk, you take a walk.)
Milley was not actually present at the photo-op itself, just a portion of the walk.: he was still behind Trump when they walked past the bathroom on H Street opposite St. John’s at 3:56 in the C-SPAN video but did not cross the street towards the church, i.e., he peeled off at the first opportunity short of making a run for it inside the park while being filmed.
not ... a significant enough part of Trump's legacy or his presidency: less significant than the Tour de Trump or the star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame or his physician’s 2015 letter stating he would "be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency?" Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The actions and statements of Trump in this incident are one of a handful of defining moments that reveal his personal stance and agenda. Like the Charlottesville march and the Putin/Helsinki. The statement by Milley, still in command of the institutions Trump sought to subvert, was an extraordinary and unprecedented action that gives definitive context to who and what Trump is about.Maybe, but this is a) original research/unsourced and b) only hints at the idea instead of directly making the claim, which is what it should do. Cessaune [talk] 03:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
|
Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Suddenly, cabinet officials and White House staff were being lined up to walk out the north side entrance of the White Houe; they were told Trump wanted them to join him looking at the damage outside. … Milley and Esper walked out of the White House alongside Trump, but Esper quickly realized that they had been "duped" into something. Milley pulled away en route, telling an aide "this is fucked up" as he did.. Pg. 438:
Esper and Milley were incensed to have been used as props in what was clearly a political portrayal of Trump against the protesters. Both drafted memos the following day, on June 2, choreographed for when they’d be released; together, they underscored an oath to the Constitution, the military remaining apolitical and the right to freedom of speech.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Iamreallygoodatcheckers Why an RfC for this? You can start with a regular talk page discussion. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 08:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Withdraw RfC Chex, Please, we don't jump to an RfC on a discussion that failed or disappointed a few editors. This is the worst way to collaborate on contentious talk pages. Please withdraw this. There is no deadline for your advocacy or views, but formalizing the discussion when even your !vote above, does not reflect the views raised in the prior discussion - that's the worst thing for any talk page. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC.Tried that; got nowhere.
mention Milley in the preceding sentence while avoiding the second separate sentence that cites him, so I don't get your point here. I don't think anyone is against including something like
including General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time.
marginal or fringe,
highly disruptive,
undue RfCand others. I don't necessarily disagree, but treat your opinions like opinions.
...consider whether any article could ever be improved one sentence at a time in isolation and without regard to alternative sentences that state similar content—it's not that it isn't possible to regard any alternate wordings, it's that no one has. Yes, I agree, but I don't think that's what's happening.
The RfC posts one editor's up or down version of the issue, as if it were black and white and there were no room for a compromise or all-inclusive solution—I don't agree. Here's OP's sentence:
Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now) under the subsection Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op?I feel like this leaves room for a compromise. Again, present your wording and a source.
Undue RfCso matter-of-factly and without first stating that its your opinion is stating your opinion like it's fact. Unless this is, objectively, an undue RfC, which it isn't per Nemov, at least.
has prevented spontaneous collaborative work here.Let's collaborate. No one's stopping you.
...the discussion failed to change the established consensus textisn't true IMO, as there doesn't seem to have ever been a consensus. A truly NPOV reading would be something along the lines of "the discussion failed to generate a consensus either against or for the sentence's inclusion". Cessaune [talk] 23:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
The RFC is already in progress, so let it run its (one month) course. There can be only two results. GoodDay ( talk) 20:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I just noticed that this RfC about a biography wasn't even listed in "Biographies". Also, the incident in question being about an event produced for media consumption, I added "Media", as well, and "History", which seems just as relevant as "Society, sports, and culture". I'm not sure whether listing the categories the way I did is sufficient or whether I need to do something different to alert the bot. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Somedifferentstuff just added a piped link to the recently renamed Donald_Trump#False_or_misleading_statements section. (I'm 3 for 3RR today, so I can't do anything about that 11-word #005ccc wall.) Does that mean that it's OK now to use piped links to the body of the article instead of other articles, something I tried to do fairly recently? 'cause I'm ready to do just that . Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a lot a articles saying they divorced in 1992 which has been proven false by court records, [9] which specifically state the divorce was granted on December 11, 1990 and a post-divorce settlement reached in 1991. The reason i added the footnote is to prevent people changing it back to 1992 because they are a lot of articles that ran with this misinformation. Aaron106 ( talk) 00:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
My point is they are thousands of sources online that ran with this misinformation. If so many articles didn't exist saying otherwise we wouldn't need a explanatory footnote. It's necessary in order to prevent people changing it back because they are thousands of articles out there that ran with this wrong year. -- Aaron106 ( talk) 16:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes I added the New York Times article in March, also with this edit in 2017 my point is it could be changed again just like that, because a lot of news articles say 1992. That’s why an explanatory footnote would be helpful so editors do not make the same mistake and change it. If you don't wish to have a explanatory footnote though then you could remove the cite you added in the Infobox. Aaron106 ( talk) 20:41, 11 April 2023 (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.
My edit was reverted by for WP:STATUSQUO reasons which linked "building a wall" in the lead sentence diverted military funding towards building a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border
to the
Trump wall. Would like to obtain consensus on adding this link per WP:BRD. I believe that this link can additionally be helpful for readers looking for more information not he wall itself as the link to the article on Trump's wall is more prominent is placed here. InvadingInvader (
userpage,
talk) 19:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
one of two metaphors that animate Trump's rhetoric, and describes how it ties-in to everything else: the "President-as-CEO" metaphor, dealmaker symbolism ("I'll make Mexico pay for it"), nativism, protectionism, and soundbyte-as-policy. DFlhb ( talk) 22:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
The concept for the proposed expansion was developed by campaign advisers Sam Nunberg and Roger Stone in 2014 as a memorable talking point Trump could use to tie his business experience as a builder and developer to his immigration policy proposals.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
relevant to his presidency— about as relevant as the other PR stunts, the meetings with Kim Jong-Un, currently commemorated on Trump's I-love-me wall at Mar-a-Lago. They were all distractions from the real agenda, tax-cuts for the super-rich and further dismantling of the social safety net. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per Link clarity: "The article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link." Trump's wall is "an expansion of the Mexico–United States barrier" begun under Trump. But Trump never explained what the wall would be except that it would be beautiful and Mexico would pay for it. TFD ( talk) 21:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Please don't treat every talk page discussion as if it needed an up or down !vote off the top. Horrible. And the link is silly, per OP. We need more tertiary sourcing and less holding up each individual action or controversy as if it is dispositive of some unstated conclusion about the subject. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
...holding up each individual action or controversy as if it is dispositive of some unstated conclusion about the subjectis something we're all guilty of on this page. The article definitely needs to use more tertiary sources, especially now that many tertiary RSs exist on the man.
Silly side comment: given what article this is, I find this subsection title to be unintentionally humorous. -- User:Khajidha ( talk) ( contributions) 05:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the type of discussion that is so typical of this page. We have a minor content dispute of relative unimportance and it leads to some discussion among editors and nothing will ever be accomplished from it because everybody is too scared to act on it. Now of course, it doesn't make sense to escalate this further into the dispute resolution process (noticeboards, RfC's, etc.) because it's just not that important. So it results in status quo being aggressively kept in place. This unfortunate reality creates an environment where nothing will ever be readily accomplished and literal hundreds, or thousands, of hours of editor time is sunk for nothing. I understand that I'm involved in this dispute and can't be a fair closer or judge of this discussion, but most closers would probably find a rough consensus or so for inclusion. But, this can not and will never be implemented because on this article status quo is king unless you damn near got a RfC result closed by admin or something equivalent. Frankly, it's analogues to a form of filibuster. WP:Closing would seem to suggest not closing discussions of this nature, but it's written under the pretense that those involved in the discussion saw the consensus and understood that it should be respected, whether they like or not. I sincerely believe that standard can never be successfully applied onto this talk page, and from my experience it rarely happens. That is why for this article, we should have a practice of uninvolved editors going through these simple threaded discussion to determine if there is a consensus of any kind. I believe this would be a effective way to make progress on this article and a more efficient way of ensuring consensus prevails over the status quo. It would also be a reasonable way of avoiding time being spent on time-draining, contentious RfC's, which may be reserved for the big, clearly defined questions or perhaps when a smaller discussion was closed with no consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 03:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
rely on uninvolved editors unfamiliar with all the reasons for the status quo and have them make decisions instead of the most experienced and knowledgeable cohort here, why would you care about the silent opinions of those who watch the page but don't contribute to discussions or the article to any meaningful degree? If someone raises an issue on the talk page, people should have free rein to !vote on it, and, if they choose not to, I don't like the idea that we should assume silence is a form of consensus. Cessaune [talk] 16:38, 20 April 2023 (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 150 | ← | Archive 152 | Archive 153 | Archive 154 | Archive 155 | Archive 156 | → | Archive 160 |
SPECIFICO, you reverted my edit. I would like to justify my position.
In January 2016, Trump retweeted a racist Twitter acount.
He did, didn't he. I don't see why we care.
Trump not immediately disavowing comments from David Duke is a big deal. Much, much different than retweeting some random racist Twitter account. He didn't even retweet a racist statement. It was some useless Photoshopped randomness about voting. Is the retweeting of the racist Twitter account in any way notable?
Sentences like this contribute to the massive bloat this article is experiencing. It's trivial and, as I said, of little import to the man himself. He reposted a meme. The sources don't even tie Trump and the retweet to racism, it's just lacklustre criticism that seems to be aimed at Trump's tweets in general. There is no connection made between Trump and racism. This sentence doesn't even belong in the section it's placed in, if it belongs at all. I really don't see why you reverted my edit. Cessaune [talk] 08:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
The account wasn’t your ordinary racist dog-whistling account, it was an antisemitic Nazi account, complete with a pro-Hitler documentary, according to CNN. (First wife Ivana told Vanity Fair in 1990 that "Trump kept a book of Hitler's collected speeches, 'My New Order,' … in a cabinet by his bed." Trump said he thought it was 'Mein Kampf' but the man who gave him the book, Marty Davis of Paramount, told Vanity Fair that it was 'My New Order.' It looks as though Trump had as much use for it as he had for the Bible, reading-wise.) But saying that he retweeted a racist account in January 2016 makes it appear as though it was an isolated incident. He retweeted racist accounts numerous times, and the usual excuse was that he didn’t know what kind of an account it was. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
trump repeatedly courted the approval of his political base by means of veiled approvals, false equivalencies, and repetition of the narratives of neo-nazis, racist vigilantes, and white supremacists,
What RS tell us is that his courting and encouragement and fear of offending ... racists ... is because they are politically valuable to him, and
widely noted examplewithout any sourcing, and then using as a justification for your argument, no matter how valid your statements are, they fall under the definition of OR until you provide sources.
This feels trivial and of little import to the man himself. It was my opinion, which I have backed with reasoning. How can it be inaccurate? Maybe the 'of little import', but I read the sources and decided, based solely on my own personal opinion, that this specific issue as it is presented in the text is trivial. Disagree if you want, but how can my characterization be inaccurate, especially given the fact that you have not provided any sources to explain why said inaccurates are inaccurate?
in this case the ONUS is on you for this accurate summary of the section content and sourcing—wrong, please let me know. Sure, I guess, in an ideal world, I probably should've done that. Cessaune [talk] 04:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I suspect Trump tends to merely blurt out what he believes his core supporters want to hear. Using that as a basis, should determine whether or not, or which utterances, should be included in his BLP. GoodDay ( talk) 22:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
4-2 in favor of deletion, if we count Space4t's comment as advocation for inclusion. Is this enough to delete? Cessaune [talk] 04:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Donald Trump mostly retweets white supremacists saying nice things about him, i.e., 62% of the people he retweeted that week followed multiple White Supremacist accounts. As we say with the first sentence of our paragraph:
Trump helped bring far-right fringe ideas, beliefs, and organizations into the mainstream.We also mention racist appeals, tweeted and otherwise publicized before and during the campaign and the presidency, in Racial views. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Time for an RFC I think, we need fresh eyes. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Or ask for a formal close by an uninvolved edd so no on can claim the close was biased. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
From WP:SNOW,
"If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process."
The bottom line is that misleading anti-Trump statements die hard here. Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Cessaune: I reckon it's up to you. If you want more input on this, an RFC is the way to go. Otherwise, I'd say there's no consensus for undoing the revert-in-question. GoodDay ( talk) 20:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Here's the sentence in question (In January 2016, Trump retweeted...), along with the preceding sentence and following sentence:
When I got this excerpt from the article and looked at the sources, I was surprised that it was such a mess of misrepresentation. For example, the source for the first sentence is about news media and far-right news media, not far-right organizations like the KKK, headed by David Duke.
Bob K31416 (
talk) 07:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
So far in this discussion, the article and its sources, there is no link that shows the image that was retweeted. Here it is
[1]. So what we have is a non-racist quote and picture that were retweeted from a racist account, whereas a reader would presume from this article's description of the retweet that the items were racist, "Trump retweeted a racist Twitter account."
Bob K31416 (
talk) 09:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
(
You again, Checkers? I
reverted.) It had everything to do with Trump. He ordered Milley to accompany him on what turned out to be a photo-op from the Autocrat’s Handbook, bunker boy showing strength, affecting the Pentagon's response to the January 6 insurrection.
William M. Arkin,
Newsweek: "At the Pentagon, procedures were put in place to ensure that soldiers—or any Guard formation—would not be used in case of civil disturbance unless the responsible federal civilian agency, mostly the FBI or Secret Service, made a formal request."
OIG report, page 18 The events leading up to the 2020 presidential election are important to the January 6, 2021 fact pattern we reviewed because witnesses told us that previous events influenced the DoD response to RFAs pertaining to civil disturbances before and on January 6, 2021.
Page 19: Mayor Bowser ordered a 7:00 p.m. curfew for Washington, D.C., on June 1, 2020. During the early evening, Federal law enforcement officers cleared Lafayette Square of protesters before the President spoke at the nearby St. John’s Episcopal Church. … One media outlet, Politico, reported, "The optics of the past 72 hours are putting people inside the halls of the Pentagon on edge as images of U.S. troops on the streets of the nation’s capital dominate airwaves across the globe."
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk) 12:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Incomplete page 18 citation, added date of insurrection. Page numbering refers to the PDF counter, not the page numbers of the OIG report.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk) 16:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
He ordered Milley to accompany him on what turned out to be a photo-op from the Autocrat’s Handbook, bunker boy showing strength, affecting the Pentagon's response to the January 6 insurrectionis not shown anywhere in any of the sources, and seems to be OR/opinion. The OIG report says nothing about Milley in this context.
In the Opening Post, Trump was referred to as "bunker boy". I looked at Bunker visit and reactions and found that a few days earlier near the White House, protestors injured more than sixty Secret Service agents, and eleven were transported to the hospital. The Secret Service recommended that Trump and his family move to an underground bunker. Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Cessaune, you may want to acquaint yourself with the events of that evening. The main article,
Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church, has 300 cites. The cite for the Milley sentence in this article is right where it belongs, following the sentence. Quote: "As many of you saw the results of the photograph of me in Lafayette Square last week, that sparked a national debate about the role of the military in civil society," Milley said. "I should not have been there. My presence in that moment, and in that environment, created the perception of the military involved in domestic politics."
The cites I provided above are additional background information on how the events that evening affected events down the line. Two of your links refer to the vandalism that occurred the night before, Sunday night, May 31. (Your third link, BBC, produces a 404 Not Found.) As a result, Mayor Bowser announced a curfew for 7 p.m. on Monday, June 1. The demonstration that took place during the daytime on June 1 were
peaceful until the Secret Service, the Park Police, and other federal forces began to forcefully push back demonstrators half an hour before curfew and without a prior audible announcement to clear the streets. What caused Trump’s decision to "dominate"? On May 29, the Secret Service had moved Trump & family
into the underground WH bunker, which news, it being the Trump WH, was immediately leaked, and Trump was mocked in the Twitterverse where he lived, hash tag #BunkerBoy. Trump
was furious "that he looked weak and insisted he be photographed outside the White House gates, a demand that ultimately led to his visit Monday to St. John’s Church across Lafayette Square."
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk) 11:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
recanting your previous opinion: which source(s) did Anything present to convince you that
Arson at a church across the street from the WH prompted Trump to go and express soliditary with the victims, and show he wasn’t cowering in a bunker? George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C. doesn't make that claim, and neither does Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church. The "victims" (the church officials who said the fire damage was minor) begged to differ since Trump neither contacted them nor did he enter the church to inspect the damage. He also didn't read from the generic Bible Ivanka pulled out of her $3,000 Max Mara bag and he pawed and held aloft like some sort of trophy while talking about the country "coming back strong. It'll be greater than ever before". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Here's the sentence.
Bob K31416 ( talk) 20:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Here is the link in question [3], we do not need ref on the talk page, links are fine. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
I made this edit and this edit to this page, a topic I have deeply studied since 2015. They were reverted by users @ Zaathras: and @ Cessaune:. I'm more than happy to elaborate on my edits, but I think they speak for themselves. I would appreciate rationale for your reflexive reverts beyond the dismissive "overlink" and the insulting "fringe" Volvlogia ( talk) 07:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
...he announced at CPAC 2023 to be his supporter's "warrior, [...], justice, [and] retribution". [1]
There is consensus towards using inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations.This consensus should include an only somewhere. Consensus at this article has been to leave out citations in the lead, unless it's a controversial statement, per MOS:LEADCITE.
References
Hereby, 🎈, a preemptive appeal not to launch an immediate RfC on reinstating those edits to the lead. SPECIFICO talk 17:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I replaced a list of crowd-control weapons, "batons, rubber bullets, pepper spray projectiles, stun grenades, and smoke" with the term "crowd-control weapons", and it was reverted [4]. I thought use of the term, instead of the list, was more concise without losing the point. I mention it here so that editors can decide which version they want. Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
On second thought, this has generally been a strange response to a proposed simple edit that improves the article. Like stirring up a weird hornet's nest. What I see is a ridiculously uphill battle for a simple worthwhile edit which seems to have almost zero chance of being accepted. So I'll leave this discussion. Thanks. Bob K31416 ( talk) 20:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Its interesting that some call this a Political Upset. It was not. The simple fact that the People choose Hillary Clinton should remove all doubt of that. Please removed the statement. Thank you MagnummSerpentinee ( talk) 16:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I was surprised to find something significant about the Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op that is not in the article but instead there is an opposite false implication.
Police did not clear D.C.'s Lafayette Square of protesters so Trump could hold a photo op, new report says NBC, June 9, 2021
Report: Park Police didn’t clear Lafayette Square protesters for Trump visit Washington Post, June 9, 2021
Watchdog report finds Park Police did not clear racial injustice protesters from Lafayette Park for Trump’s visit to St. John’s Church last June CNN, June 10, 2021
Review of U.S. Park Police Actions at Lafayette Park Office of Inspector General, June 8, 2021
Instead there is a false implication in the article that the protesters were cleared for Trump's photo op. Bob K31416 ( talk) 14:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Our description is about as neutral and bland as it can get. A happened and then B happened, and saying that is neither an implication nor a false implication. And we’re following that up with Trump’s false narrative. (That’s the content we should remove!) It wasn’t just the Salon commentator, there are also
Vox,
Politico, WaPo analyst Phillip Bump
on Twitter and in WaPo
here and
especially here, and others. The June 2, 2020, WaPo article Bump mentions is
this one. The Park Police was planning to install another perimeter fence and remove demonstrators after the 7 p.m. curfew. At 6 p.m., they started drafting the public announcement they intended to make. Quoting the Jun 2 article: Other administration officials said the move to clear the crowd was part of a previously planned effort to extend the perimeter around Lafayette Square. Two federal law enforcement officials said that authorities decided either late Sunday or early Monday to broaden it by one block and that Barr participated in those discussions. The plan was to be executed the following afternoon, according to the Justice Department official, who was not authorized to comment ahead of Barr addressing the matter himself publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity. But when Barr went to survey the scene, he was "surprised" to find the perimeter had not been extended and huddled with law enforcement officials, the Justice Department official said. "He conferred with them to check on the status and basically said: 'This needs to be done. Get it done,’ " the Justice Department official said. Police soon moved on the protesters.
On the subject of "inspection of damage" vs. "dominating": WSJ’s Michael C. Bender wrote in Frankly, We Did Win This Election, pg. 164-165, that Trump had "huddled" with Jared Kusher, Ivanka Trump, and Hope Hicks that afternoon and that
Trump wanted to counter that footage of the darkened White House and show he wasn’t cowering in fear. With Park Police planning to push the perimeter farther back, the White House had notified the Secret Service that the president was interested in walking through Lafayette Square to inspect damage at the park and to speak to law enforcement in the area. But inside the Oval Office, Trump discussed two other destinations to demonstrate he was out of the bunker and in control. … The other choice was St. John’s Church … The chapel where Lincoln had prayed was a powerful symbol of faith in the heart of Washington, and a visit from Trump would be an unmistakable communiqué to the evangelical base the president had wooed for years. … Trump loved the idea of walking to the church.
There is also the testimony of Major Adam De Marco of the D.C. National Guard. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Proponents were outnumbered by the opposers two-to-one. Those arguing for retaining the passage suggested that Milley's apology was basically a veiled rebuke of his boss, and since he could not refuse his orders, this is about as big a repudiation of Trump as he could make. They argued it is important to mention for context, as Milley's apology was highly unusual in the circumstances. For opposers, the fragment is about Milley not Trump. It also clutters the already too large article with relatively minor details, so they belong in articles with narrower scope. Finally, if the criticism of Trump's actions is to be included, it must be directly stated and not inferred from the text's framing.
For several reasons, the proponents failed to establish consensus to include. The !vote count does not favour the "yes" side. The proponents did not address the argument that the article must be trimmed and did not look for shorter alternatives to the text.
As for the implication of criticism that the proponents want to give by including this statement, it does not convince me as a strong argument. Writing that that apology is veiled criticism without a source stating so could reasonably be treated as an unsupported assertion. If you mean to say that was a rebuke, why not write it upfront and why stick to an apology?
There might be relevant scholarly commentary or journalist analysis on what this incident tells about Trump's broader style of governance (authoritarian? egoist?). It is not there yet, but new sourcing may justify inclusion. Another suggested possibility is to merge Milley's reaction with the previous sentence, whom it does not cover for now. This may be discussed. But for now, there is clearly no consensus to retain the fragment. ( non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 21:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now) under the subsection Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op?
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, later apologized for accompanying Trump on the walk and thereby "creat[ing] the perception of the military involved in domestic politics". [1]
Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 07:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
References
this article should focus on Trump's actions/statments and direct responses to his actions/statments. Milley's statement, blaming himself for going along on the walk Trump ordered him to go on, is as direct a response to his Commander in Chief as he could give without directly criticizing Trump for making Milley accompany him. (Trump was the president; when he says we're going to take a walk, you take a walk.)
Milley was not actually present at the photo-op itself, just a portion of the walk.: he was still behind Trump when they walked past the bathroom on H Street opposite St. John’s at 3:56 in the C-SPAN video but did not cross the street towards the church, i.e., he peeled off at the first opportunity short of making a run for it inside the park while being filmed.
not ... a significant enough part of Trump's legacy or his presidency: less significant than the Tour de Trump or the star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame or his physician’s 2015 letter stating he would "be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency?" Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The actions and statements of Trump in this incident are one of a handful of defining moments that reveal his personal stance and agenda. Like the Charlottesville march and the Putin/Helsinki. The statement by Milley, still in command of the institutions Trump sought to subvert, was an extraordinary and unprecedented action that gives definitive context to who and what Trump is about.Maybe, but this is a) original research/unsourced and b) only hints at the idea instead of directly making the claim, which is what it should do. Cessaune [talk] 03:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
|
Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Suddenly, cabinet officials and White House staff were being lined up to walk out the north side entrance of the White Houe; they were told Trump wanted them to join him looking at the damage outside. … Milley and Esper walked out of the White House alongside Trump, but Esper quickly realized that they had been "duped" into something. Milley pulled away en route, telling an aide "this is fucked up" as he did.. Pg. 438:
Esper and Milley were incensed to have been used as props in what was clearly a political portrayal of Trump against the protesters. Both drafted memos the following day, on June 2, choreographed for when they’d be released; together, they underscored an oath to the Constitution, the military remaining apolitical and the right to freedom of speech.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Iamreallygoodatcheckers Why an RfC for this? You can start with a regular talk page discussion. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 08:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Withdraw RfC Chex, Please, we don't jump to an RfC on a discussion that failed or disappointed a few editors. This is the worst way to collaborate on contentious talk pages. Please withdraw this. There is no deadline for your advocacy or views, but formalizing the discussion when even your !vote above, does not reflect the views raised in the prior discussion - that's the worst thing for any talk page. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC.Tried that; got nowhere.
mention Milley in the preceding sentence while avoiding the second separate sentence that cites him, so I don't get your point here. I don't think anyone is against including something like
including General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time.
marginal or fringe,
highly disruptive,
undue RfCand others. I don't necessarily disagree, but treat your opinions like opinions.
...consider whether any article could ever be improved one sentence at a time in isolation and without regard to alternative sentences that state similar content—it's not that it isn't possible to regard any alternate wordings, it's that no one has. Yes, I agree, but I don't think that's what's happening.
The RfC posts one editor's up or down version of the issue, as if it were black and white and there were no room for a compromise or all-inclusive solution—I don't agree. Here's OP's sentence:
Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now) under the subsection Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op?I feel like this leaves room for a compromise. Again, present your wording and a source.
Undue RfCso matter-of-factly and without first stating that its your opinion is stating your opinion like it's fact. Unless this is, objectively, an undue RfC, which it isn't per Nemov, at least.
has prevented spontaneous collaborative work here.Let's collaborate. No one's stopping you.
...the discussion failed to change the established consensus textisn't true IMO, as there doesn't seem to have ever been a consensus. A truly NPOV reading would be something along the lines of "the discussion failed to generate a consensus either against or for the sentence's inclusion". Cessaune [talk] 23:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
The RFC is already in progress, so let it run its (one month) course. There can be only two results. GoodDay ( talk) 20:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I just noticed that this RfC about a biography wasn't even listed in "Biographies". Also, the incident in question being about an event produced for media consumption, I added "Media", as well, and "History", which seems just as relevant as "Society, sports, and culture". I'm not sure whether listing the categories the way I did is sufficient or whether I need to do something different to alert the bot. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Current text is "Trump bought a third Atlantic City venue in 1988, the Trump Taj Mahal. It was financed with $675 million in junk bonds and completed for $1.1 billion, opening in April 1990. It went bankrupt in 1989."
I propose to correct the last sentence to: "It filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 1991." source Please note the change of year (1989 -> 1991). Jeran Renz ( talk) 14:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Given that all U.S. presidents who are known to have an audio recording of their voice have one uploaded onto their Wikipedia page I think it's only fitting that Donald Trump has one as well. That being said I do not have enough edit access to upload any myself so I would like to request someone with high enough edit access do so in my stead. I have uploaded a short, concise, and non-controversial audio Clip of Donald Trump announcing the formation of the U.S. Space Command that should satisfy all parties as a non-controversial audio recording of him. If you would like, it should be the most recent audio recording of him in the Wikimedia Commons section, however I have also provided the file in full as it appears here: Donald Trump on the formation of the United States Space Command.ogg
Additionally, the date this event took place was August 29th 2019.
LosPajaros (
talk) 05:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
https://www.c-span.org/video/?463778-1/president-trump-launches-us-space-command LosPajaros ( talk) 23:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
We know he’s going to plead Not Guilty, so there’s going to be a trial. Givin the amount of attention to his article it will obviously bring I think that the current event tag is necessary throughout it. 2A00:23C7:6140:C601:F150:C4A7:AD40:15AA ( talk) 14:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Should we keep or delete this
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
template from the talk page?
Space4Time3Continuum2x is keen on removing it so what do you think? 195.20.17.82 ( talk) 10:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
In history, surely...? 31.54.248.212 ( talk) 20:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I added info on how Burr was previously the highest ranking official charged. I see why it was removed, but wanted to know what others thought. 3Kingdoms ( talk) 02:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
LanallahYazid ( talk) 21:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Good day, members of the Wikipedia community,
I stand before you today to humbly request that my application for editing rights on Wikipedia be accepted. I am excited at the prospect of contributing to this incredible platform, and I believe that I have much to offer.
Firstly, I would like to express my passion for knowledge and my eagerness to share it with others. I have always had a love for learning, and Wikipedia has been an invaluable resource for me over the years. I am eager to give back to the community by helping to ensure that the information provided on Wikipedia is accurate, reliable, and up-to-date.
Secondly, I am a detail-oriented person who takes great pride in the work that I do. I understand the importance of fact-checking and source verification, and I am committed to ensuring that any contributions I make to Wikipedia are of the highest quality. I am willing to put in the time and effort necessary to make sure that my edits are accurate, informative, and valuable to the community.
Finally, I am respectful of the guidelines and policies set forth by the Wikipedia community. I understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, and that every contribution made has an impact on the quality and credibility of the platform as a whole. I am committed to upholding the standards and expectations set forth by the community, and I believe that I can make a positive contribution to the ongoing growth and development of Wikipedia.
In conclusion, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the opportunity to speak with you today. I hope that my passion for knowledge, attention to detail, and commitment to community guidelines have convinced you that I would be a valuable asset to the Wikipedia editing community. Thank you for your time and consideration.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I suggest reading how all other Wikipedia entries are and coming back to this one. It's full of people's emotions and feelings towards the man. It's not a good source for a school paper or any form of report. I suggest it be rewritten to only include facts not linked to controversial or opinionated anecdotes. Instead u can say that he has controversies surrounding him and policy's that many considered negative. But to specify them and to report them as facts when it's speculation and open to interpretation makes this entry biased and too emotional on the writers part. And totally degrades the authenticity of Wikipedia Justsomegirl05 ( talk) 19:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the about template, should have Donald Trump Jr. to the first text, and link "Donald Trump Jr.". ErceÇamurOfficial ( talk) 09:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
(Not sure if our collective leg is being pulled here.) Trump has more than one son, and those looking for Donald Trump Jr. will just have to search for "Donald Trump Jr." in their browsers (his WP article is probably the top result) or in the WP search bar, or read the infobox or the Donald_Trump#Family section in this article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2023 (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.
Just read the main section of the article and you will see exactly what I am talking about. Many of the things mentioned in the main section seemed to be cherry picked to be the negative aspects of Trump, neutral aspects skewed to seem negative, false information or just the author's opinion. There is also only two citations for the whole thing, both relating to the opinion of the media and other institutions known for bias. Jordan LaQuey ( talk) 22:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
As no substantive request has been made, and therefore can't be discussed or actioned I move we close this. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Proponents were outnumbered by the opposers two-to-one. Those arguing for retaining the passage suggested that Milley's apology was basically a veiled rebuke of his boss, and since he could not refuse his orders, this is about as big a repudiation of Trump as he could make. They argued it is important to mention for context, as Milley's apology was highly unusual in the circumstances. For opposers, the fragment is about Milley not Trump. It also clutters the already too large article with relatively minor details, so they belong in articles with narrower scope. Finally, if the criticism of Trump's actions is to be included, it must be directly stated and not inferred from the text's framing.
For several reasons, the proponents failed to establish consensus to include. The !vote count does not favour the "yes" side. The proponents did not address the argument that the article must be trimmed and did not look for shorter alternatives to the text.
As for the implication of criticism that the proponents want to give by including this statement, it does not convince me as a strong argument. Writing that that apology is veiled criticism without a source stating so could reasonably be treated as an unsupported assertion. If you mean to say that was a rebuke, why not write it upfront and why stick to an apology?
There might be relevant scholarly commentary or journalist analysis on what this incident tells about Trump's broader style of governance (authoritarian? egoist?). It is not there yet, but new sourcing may justify inclusion. Another suggested possibility is to merge Milley's reaction with the previous sentence, whom it does not cover for now. This may be discussed. But for now, there is clearly no consensus to retain the fragment. The reason for this outcome is that according to WP:NOCON, disputed content about living persons generally gets removed for no consensus closures, and I see no good reason presented in this discussion to override that recommendation. ( non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 21:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now) under the subsection Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op?
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, later apologized for accompanying Trump on the walk and thereby "creat[ing] the perception of the military involved in domestic politics". [1]
Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 07:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
References
this article should focus on Trump's actions/statments and direct responses to his actions/statments. Milley's statement, blaming himself for going along on the walk Trump ordered him to go on, is as direct a response to his Commander in Chief as he could give without directly criticizing Trump for making Milley accompany him. (Trump was the president; when he says we're going to take a walk, you take a walk.)
Milley was not actually present at the photo-op itself, just a portion of the walk.: he was still behind Trump when they walked past the bathroom on H Street opposite St. John’s at 3:56 in the C-SPAN video but did not cross the street towards the church, i.e., he peeled off at the first opportunity short of making a run for it inside the park while being filmed.
not ... a significant enough part of Trump's legacy or his presidency: less significant than the Tour de Trump or the star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame or his physician’s 2015 letter stating he would "be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency?" Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The actions and statements of Trump in this incident are one of a handful of defining moments that reveal his personal stance and agenda. Like the Charlottesville march and the Putin/Helsinki. The statement by Milley, still in command of the institutions Trump sought to subvert, was an extraordinary and unprecedented action that gives definitive context to who and what Trump is about.Maybe, but this is a) original research/unsourced and b) only hints at the idea instead of directly making the claim, which is what it should do. Cessaune [talk] 03:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
|
Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Suddenly, cabinet officials and White House staff were being lined up to walk out the north side entrance of the White Houe; they were told Trump wanted them to join him looking at the damage outside. … Milley and Esper walked out of the White House alongside Trump, but Esper quickly realized that they had been "duped" into something. Milley pulled away en route, telling an aide "this is fucked up" as he did.. Pg. 438:
Esper and Milley were incensed to have been used as props in what was clearly a political portrayal of Trump against the protesters. Both drafted memos the following day, on June 2, choreographed for when they’d be released; together, they underscored an oath to the Constitution, the military remaining apolitical and the right to freedom of speech.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Iamreallygoodatcheckers Why an RfC for this? You can start with a regular talk page discussion. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 08:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Withdraw RfC Chex, Please, we don't jump to an RfC on a discussion that failed or disappointed a few editors. This is the worst way to collaborate on contentious talk pages. Please withdraw this. There is no deadline for your advocacy or views, but formalizing the discussion when even your !vote above, does not reflect the views raised in the prior discussion - that's the worst thing for any talk page. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC.Tried that; got nowhere.
mention Milley in the preceding sentence while avoiding the second separate sentence that cites him, so I don't get your point here. I don't think anyone is against including something like
including General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time.
marginal or fringe,
highly disruptive,
undue RfCand others. I don't necessarily disagree, but treat your opinions like opinions.
...consider whether any article could ever be improved one sentence at a time in isolation and without regard to alternative sentences that state similar content—it's not that it isn't possible to regard any alternate wordings, it's that no one has. Yes, I agree, but I don't think that's what's happening.
The RfC posts one editor's up or down version of the issue, as if it were black and white and there were no room for a compromise or all-inclusive solution—I don't agree. Here's OP's sentence:
Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now) under the subsection Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op?I feel like this leaves room for a compromise. Again, present your wording and a source.
Undue RfCso matter-of-factly and without first stating that its your opinion is stating your opinion like it's fact. Unless this is, objectively, an undue RfC, which it isn't per Nemov, at least.
has prevented spontaneous collaborative work here.Let's collaborate. No one's stopping you.
...the discussion failed to change the established consensus textisn't true IMO, as there doesn't seem to have ever been a consensus. A truly NPOV reading would be something along the lines of "the discussion failed to generate a consensus either against or for the sentence's inclusion". Cessaune [talk] 23:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
The RFC is already in progress, so let it run its (one month) course. There can be only two results. GoodDay ( talk) 20:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I just noticed that this RfC about a biography wasn't even listed in "Biographies". Also, the incident in question being about an event produced for media consumption, I added "Media", as well, and "History", which seems just as relevant as "Society, sports, and culture". I'm not sure whether listing the categories the way I did is sufficient or whether I need to do something different to alert the bot. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Somedifferentstuff just added a piped link to the recently renamed Donald_Trump#False_or_misleading_statements section. (I'm 3 for 3RR today, so I can't do anything about that 11-word #005ccc wall.) Does that mean that it's OK now to use piped links to the body of the article instead of other articles, something I tried to do fairly recently? 'cause I'm ready to do just that . Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a lot a articles saying they divorced in 1992 which has been proven false by court records, [9] which specifically state the divorce was granted on December 11, 1990 and a post-divorce settlement reached in 1991. The reason i added the footnote is to prevent people changing it back to 1992 because they are a lot of articles that ran with this misinformation. Aaron106 ( talk) 00:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
My point is they are thousands of sources online that ran with this misinformation. If so many articles didn't exist saying otherwise we wouldn't need a explanatory footnote. It's necessary in order to prevent people changing it back because they are thousands of articles out there that ran with this wrong year. -- Aaron106 ( talk) 16:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes I added the New York Times article in March, also with this edit in 2017 my point is it could be changed again just like that, because a lot of news articles say 1992. That’s why an explanatory footnote would be helpful so editors do not make the same mistake and change it. If you don't wish to have a explanatory footnote though then you could remove the cite you added in the Infobox. Aaron106 ( talk) 20:41, 11 April 2023 (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.
My edit was reverted by for WP:STATUSQUO reasons which linked "building a wall" in the lead sentence diverted military funding towards building a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border
to the
Trump wall. Would like to obtain consensus on adding this link per WP:BRD. I believe that this link can additionally be helpful for readers looking for more information not he wall itself as the link to the article on Trump's wall is more prominent is placed here. InvadingInvader (
userpage,
talk) 19:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
one of two metaphors that animate Trump's rhetoric, and describes how it ties-in to everything else: the "President-as-CEO" metaphor, dealmaker symbolism ("I'll make Mexico pay for it"), nativism, protectionism, and soundbyte-as-policy. DFlhb ( talk) 22:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
The concept for the proposed expansion was developed by campaign advisers Sam Nunberg and Roger Stone in 2014 as a memorable talking point Trump could use to tie his business experience as a builder and developer to his immigration policy proposals.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
relevant to his presidency— about as relevant as the other PR stunts, the meetings with Kim Jong-Un, currently commemorated on Trump's I-love-me wall at Mar-a-Lago. They were all distractions from the real agenda, tax-cuts for the super-rich and further dismantling of the social safety net. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per Link clarity: "The article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link." Trump's wall is "an expansion of the Mexico–United States barrier" begun under Trump. But Trump never explained what the wall would be except that it would be beautiful and Mexico would pay for it. TFD ( talk) 21:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Please don't treat every talk page discussion as if it needed an up or down !vote off the top. Horrible. And the link is silly, per OP. We need more tertiary sourcing and less holding up each individual action or controversy as if it is dispositive of some unstated conclusion about the subject. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
...holding up each individual action or controversy as if it is dispositive of some unstated conclusion about the subjectis something we're all guilty of on this page. The article definitely needs to use more tertiary sources, especially now that many tertiary RSs exist on the man.
Silly side comment: given what article this is, I find this subsection title to be unintentionally humorous. -- User:Khajidha ( talk) ( contributions) 05:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the type of discussion that is so typical of this page. We have a minor content dispute of relative unimportance and it leads to some discussion among editors and nothing will ever be accomplished from it because everybody is too scared to act on it. Now of course, it doesn't make sense to escalate this further into the dispute resolution process (noticeboards, RfC's, etc.) because it's just not that important. So it results in status quo being aggressively kept in place. This unfortunate reality creates an environment where nothing will ever be readily accomplished and literal hundreds, or thousands, of hours of editor time is sunk for nothing. I understand that I'm involved in this dispute and can't be a fair closer or judge of this discussion, but most closers would probably find a rough consensus or so for inclusion. But, this can not and will never be implemented because on this article status quo is king unless you damn near got a RfC result closed by admin or something equivalent. Frankly, it's analogues to a form of filibuster. WP:Closing would seem to suggest not closing discussions of this nature, but it's written under the pretense that those involved in the discussion saw the consensus and understood that it should be respected, whether they like or not. I sincerely believe that standard can never be successfully applied onto this talk page, and from my experience it rarely happens. That is why for this article, we should have a practice of uninvolved editors going through these simple threaded discussion to determine if there is a consensus of any kind. I believe this would be a effective way to make progress on this article and a more efficient way of ensuring consensus prevails over the status quo. It would also be a reasonable way of avoiding time being spent on time-draining, contentious RfC's, which may be reserved for the big, clearly defined questions or perhaps when a smaller discussion was closed with no consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 03:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
rely on uninvolved editors unfamiliar with all the reasons for the status quo and have them make decisions instead of the most experienced and knowledgeable cohort here, why would you care about the silent opinions of those who watch the page but don't contribute to discussions or the article to any meaningful degree? If someone raises an issue on the talk page, people should have free rein to !vote on it, and, if they choose not to, I don't like the idea that we should assume silence is a form of consensus. Cessaune [talk] 16:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)