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 155 | ← | Archive 160 | Archive 161 | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 |
Should we add a comment that states that he is now officially recognized as a rapist, per the comments today from Judge Lewis Kaplan, who wrote that the trial evidence demonstrated Trump "raped" Carroll in the plain sense of the word? 76.102.148.6 ( talk) 04:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Seems pretty clear. Yes. We'd do this if it were almost anyone else. Nfitz ( talk) 04:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I haven’t found anything in the article about the E. Jean Carroll trial at all. If it’s there, it seems to be hidden. Surely the article should state that the trial took place and that Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse. I can’t see how that could possibly be controversial. TheScotch ( talk) 13:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
That's silly and pathetic. The trial has been over for some time, and it was covered extensively by all mainstream news sources. Just report in this article that it took place and what the outcome was. if you wait for an appeal, you'll wait forever because Trump will never stop appealing. Complaining you don't know where in the article it should go is absolutely no excuse. It can go perfectly well in several places. It doesn't matter much where, but it absolutely HAS to be here somewhere. TheScotch ( talk) 04:42, 3 August 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.
What anyone thinks of Trump notwithstanding, this Wikipedia entry is one of the first completely biased I’ve ever read. Specific economic performance indicators that were favorable during his presidency are omitted and the entry borders on opinion. The opinion of scholars or him as worst president is just that - opinion and not fact which should be the primary basis for an entry. A poll number indicating / supporting this would be fact, there is no supporting facts for many opinions in this article. I am not a Trump advocate but I do value Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. 2601:49:80:2F30:E5C5:D06F:497C:A032 ( talk) 08:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
On May 15, 2023, Durham released the "Report on matters related to intelligence activities and Investigations arising out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns" (aka The Durham Report).[37] The report was highly critical of the FBI and concluded that "the FBI should never have launched a full investigation into connections between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election."[38] The report also stated, " the FBI used raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence," to launch the "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation into Trump and Russia but used a different standard when weighing concerns about alleged election interference regarding Hillary Clinton’s campaign."[38] 192.119.33.181 ( talk) 13:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
have been heavily criticized?), with the House Intelligence Committee investigations, chaired by Schiff, into the Trump campaign. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Currently, the lead length is too long. There are six paragraphs and goes against the standard set in the Manual of Style which states maximum of four. 1keyhole ( talk) 17:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Disregarding his own admissions and academic scandals:
Cheezesatzu ( talk) 08:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
References
The article is currently more than 100 kb long in prose. WP:SIZERULE advises that articles of such length "almost certainly should be divided". The section of the presidency alone is 57kb at the time of this writing. The article Presidency of Donald Trump is an even larger article than the featured one, 149 kb. There are other related articles even longer, like First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. Given that the topic of Donald Trump generates so much interest, my suggestion is to move out portions of the Presidency section to new articles or delete some text that is already duplicate in other existing articles, in order to reduce the size of the featured page. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Survey
Can interested editors in this tread state your position whether you think the article needs trimming by bolding TRIM, NOT TRIM, NEUTRAL and a very brief summary of your position for further discussion afterwards? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply.(I interpret the second sentence to mean that content WITHOUT lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy should be deleted.) If you or other editors have specific content in mind, go BOLD with an edit summary explaining your reasons or bring it to the Talk page. As always, be prepared to be reverted and defend your edit — this article, like its subject, is not for the faint of heart [[File:|20px]]. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Elaborate discussion
Please if you like to have an elaborate discussion use this section for improved utility and order of the thread. Ping replies to survey positions above if you want to expand on said points, if there are any. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I've moved the {{ section sizes}} header item out of the collapsed banner holder in the Talk header while this discussion is going on. It's a very useful tool, that may help inform this discussion, and in its collapsed state, I wonder how many people are even aware that it is there. Mathglot ( talk) 20:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
@ ValarianB: According to the Article size guideline, it impacts usability in multiple ways:
Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Specifico, there seems to be more support for a trim than not, at least from the editors who participated in this discussion. Although I would say that other offshoots of this article are in much more urgent need for a trim, like "First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency" at 332kb. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
While I am all for trimming, SPECIFICO has made some really good points above. This discussion should be closed and a willing editor should propose something specific. A consensus to trim is a consensus I could do without. The long-term implications of such a consensus will, in my mind, inevitably lead to new, article-worthy content that only marginally adds to the prosesize being shut down per 'consensus to trim'. (Prosesize is the issue, not byte size; I'm tired of do not trim !votes above using some form of this isn't 2002, we ain't using dial-up no more, mobile data is much faster than it was, etc. That's not the point of splitting the article.) Cessaune [talk] 04:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The authors of this page have used manipulative language to create a negative portrayal of President Trump. Wikipedia articles need to tell the verifiable truth, not frame opinion and speculation as fact. For example, the statement of "many false and misleading statements" is an example of such language that either needs to cite a verifiable source or replace it with language that is defensible as truthful. This statement should be rewritten as "controversial statements". CoreyDel ( talk) 02:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
"New research published in Public Opinion Quarterly reveals a correlation between the number of times President Donald Trump repeated falsehoods during his presidency and misperceptions among Republicans, and that the repetition effect was stronger on the beliefs of people who consume information primarily from right-leaning news outlets." -- New study reveals correlation between Trump’s repeated falsehoods and public misperceptions. Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 05:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
While it is common to avoid usage of citations in the lede since that section of the article should be a summary of its body, where everything should already be cited appropriately, it is true that contentious material, likely to be challenged, can and should still be cited in the lede, according to MOS:LEDECITE.The material isn't just 'likely' to be challenged, it has been challenged. Cessaune [talk] 01:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
seriously over-citedfor a very long time, if at all IMO. Or maybe I'm mistaken. Do you have a diff that shows an over-cited lead?
The lead is fine, in its current status. GoodDay ( talk) 13:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
pointless and contrary to sense. However, since we are stuck with #58, the consensus also says that "editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations". This particular edit request was made by a drive-by editor whose only other activity on WP was an edit on Ken Paxton's page changing "false claims of election fraud" to "controversial claims of election fraud". The editor didn't cite any sources to support their claim that "'false' is not factual" and immediately left the discussion they started here. And yet, here we are mired in another discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Close this as a waste of our time. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
The subject has been judged guilty of fraud. C.f., [1] The subject also faces, what, 94(?), felony criminal indictments in four separate federal and state trials? Realities such as these should appear toward the top of the summary. Catuskoti ( talk) 23:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Such information seems more relevant to readers than, e.g., his alma mater or his major in college.
It's a finding of civil liability, like his liabilty for denying rape,etc. SPECIFICO talk 00:15, 27 September 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.
Mandruss: Once again, I'm challenging this revert.
Consensus item #60 reads:
Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023. (Rough consensus)
None of the other consensus item statements contain a characterization of the degree of consensus. Especially considering the fact that the "(rough consensus)" characterization was added by an editor ( Space4T) that has opposed adding links to the lead at every major turn ( November 2022 discussion, December 2022 discussion, January RfC, to name the most recent), IMO it comes off as a biased and unnecessary addition that should be removed.
Either we state the degree of consensus for every consensus item, or we avoid stating the degree of consensus for this specific consensus item. I don't see why this specific consensus item deserves to be treated any differently from the other ones. Cessaune [talk] 18:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
stating "rough" when the closer says "rough". Cessaune [talk] 11:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
stat[ing] the degree of consensus for every consensus itemwould be a step too far – and it would be impossible, anyway, because closers often don't say anything about degree, and we're certainly not going to require them to start doing so. ― Mandruss ☎ 12:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
making a concerted effort to understand and mitigate the objections of their fellow editors. Here we have 2>1, 1>2, option 3 for now, 1 or 2, 2 or 1, 1 definitely 2 maybe, etc., i.e., confusion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Please don't infer "rough" or "weak" from the closer's words, as that would improperly introduce an assessment of the assessment.Valid statement, but watch this:
22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. ( RfC Aug 2017) (no clear consensus; leaning towards "do not use")
26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a
"useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow"or an"unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". ( RfC April 2018) (clear consensus)
30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "
Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." ( RfC Sep 2018 [weak consensus], Oct 2018, RfC May 2019 [{t}he result was characterized])
help[ing]] editors decide whether to challenge a particular consensusisn't
worth it, which is the only other major argument that leans towards inclusion of consensus strength. That is exactly why we should do away with the rough consensus characterization—after all,
we treat all consensuses the same regardless of strength, and, as I was saying above, there is no practical way to implement such a statement for all the consensus discussions smoothly without inference of "rough" and "weak", something that you explicitly said we shouldn't do. Cessaune [talk] 15:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
it will create formatting inconsistencies. I gave some examples.
there is no practical way to implement such a statement for all the consensus discussions smoothly without inference of "rough" and "weak". Something you explicitly said we shouldn't do.
would improperly introduce an assessment of the assessment. I define formatting in this case as everything pertaining to the user interface that us Wikipedia editors have control over (talk page banners, prosesize, word choice consistency, etc). If we tried to add consensus strength characterizations for everything, it would introduce word choice inconsistency.
Please don't infer "rough" or "weak" from the closer's words.Right?
Everything settled, on the topic-in-question? GoodDay ( talk) 14:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
There are seveal instances of content that say Trump sold this or that asset. Well, yes he sold them but these sales were almost always under duress and arranged with the approval of bank lenders as part of forced arrangements to avoid or resolve foreclosures. The current wording doesn't fully convey the circumstances of these sales. SPECIFICO talk 15:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Between 1991 and 2009, he filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for six of his businesses, the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan, the casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and the Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts company.
The hotel filed for bankruptcy protection in 1992, and a reorganization plan was approved a month later.[60] In 1995, Trump sold the Plaza Hotel along with most of his properties to pay down his debts, including personally guaranteed loans, allowing him to avoid personal bankruptcy.and
Struggling with debt from other ventures in 1994, Trump sold most of his interest in the project to Asian investors, who were able to finance the project's completion, Riverside South.
Both casinos filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 1992.and
Trump filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 1991. Under the provisions of the restructuring agreement, Trump gave up half his initial stake and personally guaranteed future performance.[72] To reduce his $900 million of personal debt, he sold the Trump Shuttle airline; his megayacht, the Trump Princess, which had been leased to his casinos and kept docked; and other businesses.and
THCR purchased the Taj Mahal and the Trump Castle in 1996 and went bankrupt in 2004 and 2009, leaving Trump with 10 percent ownership.
OK Done - it was all in the cited NYT source. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
This article has been created over a long period during which the mainstream narratives and RS secondary reporting on Trump have changed markedly.
For a long time, even in the face of unprecedented "negative" facts and actions by Trump, the media gave him what in hindsight is now considered undue deference owing to his stature as a political figure and president. Some of this article content and the way it's organized are sourced from Trump's era of undue deference.
The mainstream view of Trump is today overwhelmingly focused on events and his actions of the past 3 years. The article and the narrative of the lead do not reflect this, per recent comments and edit requests here. Some of the negative facts, narratives, and tertiary conclusions about Trump need to be more prominently presented in the lead and article content.
At the same time, it is a fact that 20-40 percent of the American public do not share what Wikipedia considers mainstream reliably sourced views. Fortunately, there is a lot of secondary and tertiary sourcing about Trump's steadfast support that can be used to balance the more negative article content while not presenting his statements and actions with the false equivalences and unwarranted deference that were prevalent in the past.
This is going to be a lot of work, but it does need to be done. The article now is not well organized or balanced. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
balance the more negative article content— pray tell, how? Of course the news are overwhelmingly focused on current events. Quoting Gremlins 2: "All they have to do is to eat three or four children and there'd be the most appalling publicity!" Wikipedia is not news. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
The mainstream view of Trump is today overwhelmingly focused on events and his actions of the past 3 years.This sounds like WP:RECENTISM. His past three years are important, but so are the previous four, when he was president. And we need to give proper, due weight to everything that came before. Remember, we native New Yorkers have known all about this guy since he was getting himself plastered on the backpages of the New York Post in the 1980s. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
May we please leave the opening paragraph as is, per consistency with other US presidents? GoodDay ( talk) 22:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021- neutral enough? GoodDay ( talk) 16:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
The lead for this article is the longest I've seen. I tried adding a {{ leadtoolong}} tag but it was reverted without being addressed. The MOS:LEADLENGTH guideline addresses this issue: "a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway." Even the article on Jesus Christ manages to be compliant. The article itself is WP:TOOBIG: I count over 20,000 words, which is well over the maximum recommended length. Praemonitus ( talk) 17:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Something like this:
Editorially, about half the current content needs to be trimmed back. It can just stick to the key points; everything else is still covered by the article. Praemonitus ( talk) 19:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
If the article sees fit to mention that he declared he wants to run for President again in 2024, it should definitely also clarify that it would currently be unconstitutional (by the 14th Amendment, section 3) for him to actually appear on ballots or hold office, without getting amnesty from 2/3 of Congress. Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751 Lynn Ami ( talk) 05:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
the specific series of events leading up to and culminating in the January 6, 2021 attack [qualify] as an insurrection within the meaning of Section Three. Some of those reasons are, quote:
it seems to us to be quite clear,
[i]n our view, etc.)
We acknowledge that applying the term “rebellion” to the events of 2020-2021 goes beyond the Civil War era dictionaries. The attempt to overturn the 2020 election was neither an “open and avowed renunciation of the authority of the government,” as Webster would have it, nor (outside of the insurrection of January 6) “the taking up of arms” or “forcible opposition” as Bouvier would have it. It is not a perfect fit.
Who all, by virtue of their personal, voluntary conduct, can be said to have “engaged in” insurrection or rebellion in connection with the efforts to overthrow the result of the presidential election of 2020 and unlawfully maintain Donald Trump in office as President of the United States? Who, while perhaps not a direct or indirect participant in insurrectionary or rebellious conduct, provided “aid or comfort” to those who did?
In our view, on the basis of the public record, former President Donald J. Trump is constitutionally disqualified from again being President (or holding any other covered office) because of his role in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 election and the events leading to the January 6 attack.
never directly and literally called for attacking the Capitol or the Vice President, which in their view, only strengthens the debate over whether Trump could/would be ineligible to run for office based on the Fourteenth Amendment.
The bottom line is that Donald Trump both “engaged in” “insurrection or rebellion” and gave “aid or comfort” to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close. He is no longer eligible to the office of Presidency, or any other state or federal office covered by the Constitution. All who are committed to the Constitution should take note and say so.
it would currently be unconstitutional (by the 14th Amendment, section 3) for him to actually appear on ballots or hold office—is not exactly a true description of the source, and does nothing to address the nuance present in the argument. At best, the source is saying we believe that it would be unconstitutional from Trump to hold office. Cessaune [talk] 07:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I would say it’s an open-and-shut case... sure, go ahead and say that. However, Wikipedia policy bars us from stating anything that isn't reliably sourced.
[i]n our view,
it seems to us to be quite clear, etc. Even if the authors of this paper did not explicitly state that their writings were opinion, it would still be their opinion. At least to me, it's clear that they are synthesizing an argument using facts, logic, and reasoning, but their overall point is not a fact, merely an opinion.
it would currently be unconstitutional (by the 14th Amendment, section 3) for him to actually appear on ballots or hold office, especially given that you've only provided a single source to back that claim up. A singular source is not nearly enough to state something in Wikivoice so matter-of-factly. Cessaune [talk] 15:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
This edit (by a phone user, I presume Tim O'Doherty?) changed the format from standard to reflist/20em, saying "goes way too far down". I don't know how to measure "far down" on my screen. On a wide screen, scrolling appears to take just as long with the new setting as with the standard one, and IMO the four to six columns with those narrow lines are harder to read. Opinions? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Simple grammatical change: removal of an unnecessary comma.
Change "At age 13, he was enrolled at the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school,[7] and, in 1964, he enrolled at Fordham University." to "At age 13, he was enrolled at the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school,[7] and in 1964, he enrolled at Fordham University." Evanf32 ( talk) 20:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I would write about this but I feel a large COi of wanting to call him some very bad words while writing it. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/08/world/middleeast/hamas-attacks-trump-us-taxpayer-iran.html?smid=url-share
Megabits000 ( talk) 00:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Donakd Trump has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2 § Donakd Trump until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
A sentence in Donald Trump#Scholarly assessment and public approval surveys reads:
By mid-2020, only 16 percent of international respondents to a 13-nation Pew Research poll expressed confidence in Trump, a lower score than those historically accorded to Russia's Vladimir Putin and China's Xi Jinping.
In the source, it says:
Ratings for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping are overwhelmingly negative, although not as negative as those for Trump.
I don't like this sentence. IMO, it assumes that the reader understands the context around why it would notable that Trump's score < Jinping or Putin. The source also assumes that the reader understands this context. I would change the sentence—"By mid-2020, only 16 percent of international respondents to a 13-nation Pew Research poll expressed confidence in Trump." Cessaune [talk] 15:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
The publics surveyed also see Trump more negatively than other world leaders. Among the six leaders included on the survey, Angela Merkel receives the highest marks: A median of 76% across the nations polled have confidence in the German chancellor. French President Emmanuel Macron also gets largely favorable reviews. Ratings for British Prime Minister Boris Johnson are roughly split. Ratings for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping are overwhelmingly negative, although not as negative as those for Trump.
By mid-2020, only 16 percent of international respondents to a 13-nation Pew Research poll expressed confidence in Trump, the lowest overall score among the six leaders surveyed.
not as negativeis not a comparison, then what is? starship .paint ( RUN) 23:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
It provides context to just how low Trump's rating is, you assume that the reader already understands the initial context—the fact that
Jinping and Putin are other superpower leaders, and, more broadly, the tension between the countries. Does the reader know this? Maybe, maybe not. Cessaune [talk] 03:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
the tension between the countrieswould be inappropriate. We provide wikilinks so readers can find applicable related content without having to mention everything about them. –– FormalDude (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Well-sourced article text concerning the role Trump played in the fictionalized TV reality show has been removed with the edit summary WP:NPOV.
The description of Trump's television character needs to be restored. The show was not a documentary, it was a fictionalized reality show like so many others of the genre. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
portrayed a fictionalized version of himself as a wealthy and successful executivesuggests that he wasn't a wealthy or successful executive, which, at least to the first adjective, is verifiably untrue. Cessaune [talk] 02:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
portrayed a fictionalized version of himself.-- User:Khajidha ( talk)
portrayed a fictionalized version of himself as a wealthy and successful executiveimplicitly states that he isn't a successful businessman, as opposed to simply explicitly making the claim. Cessaune [talk] 14:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
which became part of Trump's mythmaking(inspired by this) or
rescuing/revitalizing/crafting Trump's brand as a shrewd businessmanor
burnishing his image as a successful businessman. Just ideas. See also this, this, and this for inspiration. DFlhb ( talk) 20:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. A detail that is only mentioned once to me does not seem like one of this article's most important contents. Also, the source itself does not even say that he portrayed a
fictionalized version of himself as a wealthy and successful executive, but that the series introduced
millions of viewers - and, later, voters - to a highly flattering, highly fictionalised version of Trump, more appealing than the real-life developer whose successes were tempered by bankruptcies and personal turmoil. Let us not misrepresent sources.-- DeathTrain ( talk) 00:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
With all due respect (and perhaps because I'm middle-aged), I've heard about & seen Trump in media, long before any reality show he was in. He's been a public figure since the 1980's. GoodDay ( talk) 18:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
The current language in the lead is confusing and/or misleading because it suggests he wasn’t really wealthy or successful as a businessman, whereas the cited source doesn’t suggest that. I propose “He co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, in which he portrayed a fictionalized business executive, a wealthier and more successful version of himself.” The cited source (NYT) said he portrayed “highly fictionalized version of Mr. Trump, more appealing than the real-life developer whose successes were tempered”. I also support all other proposed versions that would fix the current problem in the lead which currently says, “he portrayed a fictionalized version of himself as a wealthy and successful executive.” Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, in which he portrayed a fictionalized version of himself as a wealthy and successful executive. DFlhb's version:
bolstering his personal brand. That's only one of the effects of the fictionalized Trump portrayal, enabling him to license his name on everything from hotels to pyramid schemes. It also changed a significant part of the public's conception of him from loud-mouth New York guy with tabloid-covered divorces and bankruptcies (or introduced people unfamiliar with local NY celebs) to the superrich, super-successful business executive he played on the show. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Trump had been a celebrity since the eighties, his persona shaped by the best-selling book “The Art of the Deal.” But his business had foundered, and by 2003 he had become a garish figure of local interest—a punch line on Page Six.
Mr. Trump had emerged from the early ’90s greatly diminished.And prior to The Apprentice,
Mr. Trump’s actual financial comeback hadn’t happened yet.
Divorced for the second time, and coming off the failure of his Atlantic City casinos, Mr. Trump faced escalating money problems and the prospect of another trip to bankruptcy court. On his income tax returns, he reported annual net losses throughout the 1990s, some of it carried forward year to year, a tide that would swell to $352.8 million at the end of 2002.
Before being approached to host “The Apprentice” nearly 20 years ago, Trump was not in an enviable position.
Tax documents obtained by the paper show how Trump squandered a $413m inheritance in a series of losing plays in real estate and casinos. On his tax return in 2004, he declared $89.9m in net losses from core businesses the previous year.–– FormalDude (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Your proposal says that the show embellished Trump's wealth and success a little but there was no impact on his financial situation, public image, etc. Do you have any sources backing up that opinion? Also, "starring role on a TV show" — I hear Joe Exotic had one of those, too, and look where that got him. Future cellmates? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
My favorite proposal is still my original one: which became part of Trump's mythmaking
. Or, even more simply: which helped Trump rebrand himself as a successful businessman
, or which helped Trump
. I'm not saying we wrongly downplay his pre-Apprentice financial success, I'm saying the current clause only really makes sense if you've read our sources; otherwise it's unclear what it tries to say. It's not plain-worded enough.
DFlhb (
talk) 18:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
establish create an aura of success
which became part of Trump's mythmaking. I oppose
which helped Trump rebrand himself as a successful businessman(Wikipedia should not be opining that he was not a successful businessman), and
which helped Trump establish an aura of success(Wikipedia should not be opining that he lacked an aura of success). Let’s follow the cited NYT source, which is plenty anti-Trump already without augmentation by us. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
On Tuesday evening, the Times dropped another story that delved into the President’s financial past. Written by Buettner and Craig, and based upon “printouts from Mr. Trump’s official Internal Revenue Service transcripts” that the reporters obtained, the story further undermined the assiduously promoted fiction that Trump, before he became a reality-television star and entered politics, was a highly successful self-made businessman. He was anything but.
By all appearances, Donald J. Trump was an unusually bad business man.
Claim: Trump has repeatedly claimed that the reason he is qualified to be president is because he’s a successful businessman. Rating: This claim is MOSTLY FALSE. Although Trump has made considerable money from his entertainment and real estate career, his tax returns from the last two decades reveal that he has lost much more money than he has made.
|
Trump may not have been highly successful in business, but he was not unsuccessful either, AFAIK. And he is clearly still wealthy, contrary to our unclear lead.– Our lede makes no claim about his current wealth, it is explicitly talking about the past. I also linked you numerous reliable sources that say he was unsuccessful, please let me know why you seem to be ignoring them as well as a report that shows an overall loss of $1.17 billion between 1985 and 1994. –– FormalDude (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorta loss track of which way this 'discussion' is going. May help if editors would put forward proposals for their desired re-write. GoodDay ( talk) 14:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, in which he portrayed a fictionalized version of himself.Verifiably true, more concise, less controversial.
From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, in which he portrayed a wealthier and more successful version of himself.Verifiably true, less controversial.
From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, bolstering his personal brand.This gets the main point across well IMO.
From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, in which he portrayed a fictionalized version of himself.. I would also not object to DFlhb's suggestion of
From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, bolstering his personal brand.-- User:Khajidha ( talk) ( contributions) 14:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Timeline: bot edit suggested by Whoop whoop pull up, reverted by me, reinstated by Whoop 10 hours later. Do the active arbitration remedies apply to what appears to be an editor using a bot for a manual revert ("(Tag: Manual revert)")?
The bot always targets the Washington Post exclusively and now apparently has been set to find "cite web" as well as "cite news". At least 90% of our current 844 citations are web-based newspapers, news magazines, and TV and cable news stations, i.e., strictly speaking "cite news". I changed all of them to "cite web" to circumvent the bot — so much for that bright idea. Now we're back to WaPo being singled out as a "newspaper" and all others being "work". Could we establish a local consensus to use "work", per all examples at Template:Cite_news, for all news articles in print, video, audio or web? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
FormalDude, they are both wikilinked in other sections, Donald_Trump#Russia and Donald_Trump#China, respectively. Do we need to link them again? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
but it may be repeated if helpful for readers. Cessaune [talk] 00:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
at the first occurrence in a sectionif helpful. –– FormalDude (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
MOS is helpful cryptic once again, helpful being in the eye of the beholder. So far, we haven't used repeated links in this article 'though I just noticed a few in captions, e.g., Kim Jong-Un. Why make an exception for Putin and Xi? They're a bit better known than, e.g., Giuliani and Barr.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(cowabunga) 17:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Helpful to whom and why?about all or even many such links? Is that a good use of limited editor time and brain power? Who can really predict when a reader will want to know more about a term or person mentioned in the prose? Not I. In my opinion, it's better to have too much blue (it's only a color) than to risk making readers hunt for links, and MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:SEAOFBLUE should be our only limiters. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as [...] at the first occurrence in a section.One could interpret that to mean that linking the first occurrence in a section can be seen as always "helpful for readers", depending on local consensus. Thus, my position is not necessarily inconsistent with REPEATLINK. It's one of many attempts to please everybody, which ultimately translates to "If it seems right to you, do it." Might as well remove the guideline, for all the good it does. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Trumpesque has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2 § Trumpesque until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
The redirect D Trump has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2 § D Trump until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I was wondering if there is a consensus on whether or not there should be mention of the CARES Act and Operation Warp Speed within the Presidency Section of Donald Trump specifically relating to his handling of the Covid-19 Pandemic. I do think they fit the qualification of him personally lauding them as achievements as he did heavily campaign on the stimulus checks provided alongside vaccine production during his 2020 campaign (alongside general pandemic downplaying of course) [1] [2] [3] even stating that "'The vaccines turn out to be a tremendous thing,' he said in the interview with Dan Bongino. 'It’s something I’m very proud of.". [4] Given there is no current mention of it as of now should such a reference be present? LosPajaros ( talk) 00:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Donald Trump. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Donald Trump. until a consensus is reached. Gonnym ( talk) 12:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
If anybody is wondering what happened to their OneClickArchiver links (this is a user-optional facility), the old script has been superseded by a new version. Your fix may vary depending on your method of installation, but I fixed mine with this edit. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:53, 26 October 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.
After reading the complete article and checking your sources for your information, I'm very disappointed that you only used biased sources as reference material. It also explains the numerous errors and disproven misinformation on many sections as well perhaps as your own personal biased political views.
Whenever you write about a person keep your personal feelings about that person should never be used when researching the information. The truth is found between sources of opposite view points. Also, you should have extended your research to sources from all decades that cover your subject, not just a majority of sources from 2015 to present.
Overall this review is one of the most extreme, one sided, misinformation filled, severely biased and very badly researched articles that's more akin to propaganda than an actual unbiased, honest and neutral report.
I suggest, reworking the whole page and expanding your research to include more neutral sources and sources from same time period you're presenting in a particular sentence or paragraph.
Consider this particular page a rough draft with potential to be a good one after a few revisions. 2600:8807:2003:A200:6CCD:2C7B:F7E3:A314 ( talk) 04:35, 22 November 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 155 | ← | Archive 160 | Archive 161 | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 |
Should we add a comment that states that he is now officially recognized as a rapist, per the comments today from Judge Lewis Kaplan, who wrote that the trial evidence demonstrated Trump "raped" Carroll in the plain sense of the word? 76.102.148.6 ( talk) 04:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Seems pretty clear. Yes. We'd do this if it were almost anyone else. Nfitz ( talk) 04:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I haven’t found anything in the article about the E. Jean Carroll trial at all. If it’s there, it seems to be hidden. Surely the article should state that the trial took place and that Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse. I can’t see how that could possibly be controversial. TheScotch ( talk) 13:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
That's silly and pathetic. The trial has been over for some time, and it was covered extensively by all mainstream news sources. Just report in this article that it took place and what the outcome was. if you wait for an appeal, you'll wait forever because Trump will never stop appealing. Complaining you don't know where in the article it should go is absolutely no excuse. It can go perfectly well in several places. It doesn't matter much where, but it absolutely HAS to be here somewhere. TheScotch ( talk) 04:42, 3 August 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.
What anyone thinks of Trump notwithstanding, this Wikipedia entry is one of the first completely biased I’ve ever read. Specific economic performance indicators that were favorable during his presidency are omitted and the entry borders on opinion. The opinion of scholars or him as worst president is just that - opinion and not fact which should be the primary basis for an entry. A poll number indicating / supporting this would be fact, there is no supporting facts for many opinions in this article. I am not a Trump advocate but I do value Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. 2601:49:80:2F30:E5C5:D06F:497C:A032 ( talk) 08:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
On May 15, 2023, Durham released the "Report on matters related to intelligence activities and Investigations arising out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns" (aka The Durham Report).[37] The report was highly critical of the FBI and concluded that "the FBI should never have launched a full investigation into connections between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election."[38] The report also stated, " the FBI used raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence," to launch the "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation into Trump and Russia but used a different standard when weighing concerns about alleged election interference regarding Hillary Clinton’s campaign."[38] 192.119.33.181 ( talk) 13:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
have been heavily criticized?), with the House Intelligence Committee investigations, chaired by Schiff, into the Trump campaign. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Currently, the lead length is too long. There are six paragraphs and goes against the standard set in the Manual of Style which states maximum of four. 1keyhole ( talk) 17:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Disregarding his own admissions and academic scandals:
Cheezesatzu ( talk) 08:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
References
The article is currently more than 100 kb long in prose. WP:SIZERULE advises that articles of such length "almost certainly should be divided". The section of the presidency alone is 57kb at the time of this writing. The article Presidency of Donald Trump is an even larger article than the featured one, 149 kb. There are other related articles even longer, like First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. Given that the topic of Donald Trump generates so much interest, my suggestion is to move out portions of the Presidency section to new articles or delete some text that is already duplicate in other existing articles, in order to reduce the size of the featured page. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Survey
Can interested editors in this tread state your position whether you think the article needs trimming by bolding TRIM, NOT TRIM, NEUTRAL and a very brief summary of your position for further discussion afterwards? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply.(I interpret the second sentence to mean that content WITHOUT lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy should be deleted.) If you or other editors have specific content in mind, go BOLD with an edit summary explaining your reasons or bring it to the Talk page. As always, be prepared to be reverted and defend your edit — this article, like its subject, is not for the faint of heart [[File:|20px]]. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Elaborate discussion
Please if you like to have an elaborate discussion use this section for improved utility and order of the thread. Ping replies to survey positions above if you want to expand on said points, if there are any. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I've moved the {{ section sizes}} header item out of the collapsed banner holder in the Talk header while this discussion is going on. It's a very useful tool, that may help inform this discussion, and in its collapsed state, I wonder how many people are even aware that it is there. Mathglot ( talk) 20:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
@ ValarianB: According to the Article size guideline, it impacts usability in multiple ways:
Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Specifico, there seems to be more support for a trim than not, at least from the editors who participated in this discussion. Although I would say that other offshoots of this article are in much more urgent need for a trim, like "First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency" at 332kb. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
While I am all for trimming, SPECIFICO has made some really good points above. This discussion should be closed and a willing editor should propose something specific. A consensus to trim is a consensus I could do without. The long-term implications of such a consensus will, in my mind, inevitably lead to new, article-worthy content that only marginally adds to the prosesize being shut down per 'consensus to trim'. (Prosesize is the issue, not byte size; I'm tired of do not trim !votes above using some form of this isn't 2002, we ain't using dial-up no more, mobile data is much faster than it was, etc. That's not the point of splitting the article.) Cessaune [talk] 04:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The authors of this page have used manipulative language to create a negative portrayal of President Trump. Wikipedia articles need to tell the verifiable truth, not frame opinion and speculation as fact. For example, the statement of "many false and misleading statements" is an example of such language that either needs to cite a verifiable source or replace it with language that is defensible as truthful. This statement should be rewritten as "controversial statements". CoreyDel ( talk) 02:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
"New research published in Public Opinion Quarterly reveals a correlation between the number of times President Donald Trump repeated falsehoods during his presidency and misperceptions among Republicans, and that the repetition effect was stronger on the beliefs of people who consume information primarily from right-leaning news outlets." -- New study reveals correlation between Trump’s repeated falsehoods and public misperceptions. Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 05:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
While it is common to avoid usage of citations in the lede since that section of the article should be a summary of its body, where everything should already be cited appropriately, it is true that contentious material, likely to be challenged, can and should still be cited in the lede, according to MOS:LEDECITE.The material isn't just 'likely' to be challenged, it has been challenged. Cessaune [talk] 01:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
seriously over-citedfor a very long time, if at all IMO. Or maybe I'm mistaken. Do you have a diff that shows an over-cited lead?
The lead is fine, in its current status. GoodDay ( talk) 13:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
pointless and contrary to sense. However, since we are stuck with #58, the consensus also says that "editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations". This particular edit request was made by a drive-by editor whose only other activity on WP was an edit on Ken Paxton's page changing "false claims of election fraud" to "controversial claims of election fraud". The editor didn't cite any sources to support their claim that "'false' is not factual" and immediately left the discussion they started here. And yet, here we are mired in another discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Close this as a waste of our time. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
The subject has been judged guilty of fraud. C.f., [1] The subject also faces, what, 94(?), felony criminal indictments in four separate federal and state trials? Realities such as these should appear toward the top of the summary. Catuskoti ( talk) 23:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Such information seems more relevant to readers than, e.g., his alma mater or his major in college.
It's a finding of civil liability, like his liabilty for denying rape,etc. SPECIFICO talk 00:15, 27 September 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.
Mandruss: Once again, I'm challenging this revert.
Consensus item #60 reads:
Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023. (Rough consensus)
None of the other consensus item statements contain a characterization of the degree of consensus. Especially considering the fact that the "(rough consensus)" characterization was added by an editor ( Space4T) that has opposed adding links to the lead at every major turn ( November 2022 discussion, December 2022 discussion, January RfC, to name the most recent), IMO it comes off as a biased and unnecessary addition that should be removed.
Either we state the degree of consensus for every consensus item, or we avoid stating the degree of consensus for this specific consensus item. I don't see why this specific consensus item deserves to be treated any differently from the other ones. Cessaune [talk] 18:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
stating "rough" when the closer says "rough". Cessaune [talk] 11:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
stat[ing] the degree of consensus for every consensus itemwould be a step too far – and it would be impossible, anyway, because closers often don't say anything about degree, and we're certainly not going to require them to start doing so. ― Mandruss ☎ 12:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
making a concerted effort to understand and mitigate the objections of their fellow editors. Here we have 2>1, 1>2, option 3 for now, 1 or 2, 2 or 1, 1 definitely 2 maybe, etc., i.e., confusion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Please don't infer "rough" or "weak" from the closer's words, as that would improperly introduce an assessment of the assessment.Valid statement, but watch this:
22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. ( RfC Aug 2017) (no clear consensus; leaning towards "do not use")
26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a
"useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow"or an"unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". ( RfC April 2018) (clear consensus)
30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "
Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." ( RfC Sep 2018 [weak consensus], Oct 2018, RfC May 2019 [{t}he result was characterized])
help[ing]] editors decide whether to challenge a particular consensusisn't
worth it, which is the only other major argument that leans towards inclusion of consensus strength. That is exactly why we should do away with the rough consensus characterization—after all,
we treat all consensuses the same regardless of strength, and, as I was saying above, there is no practical way to implement such a statement for all the consensus discussions smoothly without inference of "rough" and "weak", something that you explicitly said we shouldn't do. Cessaune [talk] 15:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
it will create formatting inconsistencies. I gave some examples.
there is no practical way to implement such a statement for all the consensus discussions smoothly without inference of "rough" and "weak". Something you explicitly said we shouldn't do.
would improperly introduce an assessment of the assessment. I define formatting in this case as everything pertaining to the user interface that us Wikipedia editors have control over (talk page banners, prosesize, word choice consistency, etc). If we tried to add consensus strength characterizations for everything, it would introduce word choice inconsistency.
Please don't infer "rough" or "weak" from the closer's words.Right?
Everything settled, on the topic-in-question? GoodDay ( talk) 14:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
There are seveal instances of content that say Trump sold this or that asset. Well, yes he sold them but these sales were almost always under duress and arranged with the approval of bank lenders as part of forced arrangements to avoid or resolve foreclosures. The current wording doesn't fully convey the circumstances of these sales. SPECIFICO talk 15:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Between 1991 and 2009, he filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for six of his businesses, the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan, the casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and the Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts company.
The hotel filed for bankruptcy protection in 1992, and a reorganization plan was approved a month later.[60] In 1995, Trump sold the Plaza Hotel along with most of his properties to pay down his debts, including personally guaranteed loans, allowing him to avoid personal bankruptcy.and
Struggling with debt from other ventures in 1994, Trump sold most of his interest in the project to Asian investors, who were able to finance the project's completion, Riverside South.
Both casinos filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 1992.and
Trump filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 1991. Under the provisions of the restructuring agreement, Trump gave up half his initial stake and personally guaranteed future performance.[72] To reduce his $900 million of personal debt, he sold the Trump Shuttle airline; his megayacht, the Trump Princess, which had been leased to his casinos and kept docked; and other businesses.and
THCR purchased the Taj Mahal and the Trump Castle in 1996 and went bankrupt in 2004 and 2009, leaving Trump with 10 percent ownership.
OK Done - it was all in the cited NYT source. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
This article has been created over a long period during which the mainstream narratives and RS secondary reporting on Trump have changed markedly.
For a long time, even in the face of unprecedented "negative" facts and actions by Trump, the media gave him what in hindsight is now considered undue deference owing to his stature as a political figure and president. Some of this article content and the way it's organized are sourced from Trump's era of undue deference.
The mainstream view of Trump is today overwhelmingly focused on events and his actions of the past 3 years. The article and the narrative of the lead do not reflect this, per recent comments and edit requests here. Some of the negative facts, narratives, and tertiary conclusions about Trump need to be more prominently presented in the lead and article content.
At the same time, it is a fact that 20-40 percent of the American public do not share what Wikipedia considers mainstream reliably sourced views. Fortunately, there is a lot of secondary and tertiary sourcing about Trump's steadfast support that can be used to balance the more negative article content while not presenting his statements and actions with the false equivalences and unwarranted deference that were prevalent in the past.
This is going to be a lot of work, but it does need to be done. The article now is not well organized or balanced. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
balance the more negative article content— pray tell, how? Of course the news are overwhelmingly focused on current events. Quoting Gremlins 2: "All they have to do is to eat three or four children and there'd be the most appalling publicity!" Wikipedia is not news. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
The mainstream view of Trump is today overwhelmingly focused on events and his actions of the past 3 years.This sounds like WP:RECENTISM. His past three years are important, but so are the previous four, when he was president. And we need to give proper, due weight to everything that came before. Remember, we native New Yorkers have known all about this guy since he was getting himself plastered on the backpages of the New York Post in the 1980s. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
May we please leave the opening paragraph as is, per consistency with other US presidents? GoodDay ( talk) 22:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021- neutral enough? GoodDay ( talk) 16:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
The lead for this article is the longest I've seen. I tried adding a {{ leadtoolong}} tag but it was reverted without being addressed. The MOS:LEADLENGTH guideline addresses this issue: "a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway." Even the article on Jesus Christ manages to be compliant. The article itself is WP:TOOBIG: I count over 20,000 words, which is well over the maximum recommended length. Praemonitus ( talk) 17:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Something like this:
Editorially, about half the current content needs to be trimmed back. It can just stick to the key points; everything else is still covered by the article. Praemonitus ( talk) 19:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
If the article sees fit to mention that he declared he wants to run for President again in 2024, it should definitely also clarify that it would currently be unconstitutional (by the 14th Amendment, section 3) for him to actually appear on ballots or hold office, without getting amnesty from 2/3 of Congress. Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751 Lynn Ami ( talk) 05:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
the specific series of events leading up to and culminating in the January 6, 2021 attack [qualify] as an insurrection within the meaning of Section Three. Some of those reasons are, quote:
it seems to us to be quite clear,
[i]n our view, etc.)
We acknowledge that applying the term “rebellion” to the events of 2020-2021 goes beyond the Civil War era dictionaries. The attempt to overturn the 2020 election was neither an “open and avowed renunciation of the authority of the government,” as Webster would have it, nor (outside of the insurrection of January 6) “the taking up of arms” or “forcible opposition” as Bouvier would have it. It is not a perfect fit.
Who all, by virtue of their personal, voluntary conduct, can be said to have “engaged in” insurrection or rebellion in connection with the efforts to overthrow the result of the presidential election of 2020 and unlawfully maintain Donald Trump in office as President of the United States? Who, while perhaps not a direct or indirect participant in insurrectionary or rebellious conduct, provided “aid or comfort” to those who did?
In our view, on the basis of the public record, former President Donald J. Trump is constitutionally disqualified from again being President (or holding any other covered office) because of his role in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 election and the events leading to the January 6 attack.
never directly and literally called for attacking the Capitol or the Vice President, which in their view, only strengthens the debate over whether Trump could/would be ineligible to run for office based on the Fourteenth Amendment.
The bottom line is that Donald Trump both “engaged in” “insurrection or rebellion” and gave “aid or comfort” to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close. He is no longer eligible to the office of Presidency, or any other state or federal office covered by the Constitution. All who are committed to the Constitution should take note and say so.
it would currently be unconstitutional (by the 14th Amendment, section 3) for him to actually appear on ballots or hold office—is not exactly a true description of the source, and does nothing to address the nuance present in the argument. At best, the source is saying we believe that it would be unconstitutional from Trump to hold office. Cessaune [talk] 07:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I would say it’s an open-and-shut case... sure, go ahead and say that. However, Wikipedia policy bars us from stating anything that isn't reliably sourced.
[i]n our view,
it seems to us to be quite clear, etc. Even if the authors of this paper did not explicitly state that their writings were opinion, it would still be their opinion. At least to me, it's clear that they are synthesizing an argument using facts, logic, and reasoning, but their overall point is not a fact, merely an opinion.
it would currently be unconstitutional (by the 14th Amendment, section 3) for him to actually appear on ballots or hold office, especially given that you've only provided a single source to back that claim up. A singular source is not nearly enough to state something in Wikivoice so matter-of-factly. Cessaune [talk] 15:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
This edit (by a phone user, I presume Tim O'Doherty?) changed the format from standard to reflist/20em, saying "goes way too far down". I don't know how to measure "far down" on my screen. On a wide screen, scrolling appears to take just as long with the new setting as with the standard one, and IMO the four to six columns with those narrow lines are harder to read. Opinions? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Simple grammatical change: removal of an unnecessary comma.
Change "At age 13, he was enrolled at the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school,[7] and, in 1964, he enrolled at Fordham University." to "At age 13, he was enrolled at the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school,[7] and in 1964, he enrolled at Fordham University." Evanf32 ( talk) 20:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I would write about this but I feel a large COi of wanting to call him some very bad words while writing it. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/08/world/middleeast/hamas-attacks-trump-us-taxpayer-iran.html?smid=url-share
Megabits000 ( talk) 00:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Donakd Trump has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2 § Donakd Trump until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
A sentence in Donald Trump#Scholarly assessment and public approval surveys reads:
By mid-2020, only 16 percent of international respondents to a 13-nation Pew Research poll expressed confidence in Trump, a lower score than those historically accorded to Russia's Vladimir Putin and China's Xi Jinping.
In the source, it says:
Ratings for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping are overwhelmingly negative, although not as negative as those for Trump.
I don't like this sentence. IMO, it assumes that the reader understands the context around why it would notable that Trump's score < Jinping or Putin. The source also assumes that the reader understands this context. I would change the sentence—"By mid-2020, only 16 percent of international respondents to a 13-nation Pew Research poll expressed confidence in Trump." Cessaune [talk] 15:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
The publics surveyed also see Trump more negatively than other world leaders. Among the six leaders included on the survey, Angela Merkel receives the highest marks: A median of 76% across the nations polled have confidence in the German chancellor. French President Emmanuel Macron also gets largely favorable reviews. Ratings for British Prime Minister Boris Johnson are roughly split. Ratings for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping are overwhelmingly negative, although not as negative as those for Trump.
By mid-2020, only 16 percent of international respondents to a 13-nation Pew Research poll expressed confidence in Trump, the lowest overall score among the six leaders surveyed.
not as negativeis not a comparison, then what is? starship .paint ( RUN) 23:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
It provides context to just how low Trump's rating is, you assume that the reader already understands the initial context—the fact that
Jinping and Putin are other superpower leaders, and, more broadly, the tension between the countries. Does the reader know this? Maybe, maybe not. Cessaune [talk] 03:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
the tension between the countrieswould be inappropriate. We provide wikilinks so readers can find applicable related content without having to mention everything about them. –– FormalDude (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Well-sourced article text concerning the role Trump played in the fictionalized TV reality show has been removed with the edit summary WP:NPOV.
The description of Trump's television character needs to be restored. The show was not a documentary, it was a fictionalized reality show like so many others of the genre. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
portrayed a fictionalized version of himself as a wealthy and successful executivesuggests that he wasn't a wealthy or successful executive, which, at least to the first adjective, is verifiably untrue. Cessaune [talk] 02:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
portrayed a fictionalized version of himself.-- User:Khajidha ( talk)
portrayed a fictionalized version of himself as a wealthy and successful executiveimplicitly states that he isn't a successful businessman, as opposed to simply explicitly making the claim. Cessaune [talk] 14:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
which became part of Trump's mythmaking(inspired by this) or
rescuing/revitalizing/crafting Trump's brand as a shrewd businessmanor
burnishing his image as a successful businessman. Just ideas. See also this, this, and this for inspiration. DFlhb ( talk) 20:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. A detail that is only mentioned once to me does not seem like one of this article's most important contents. Also, the source itself does not even say that he portrayed a
fictionalized version of himself as a wealthy and successful executive, but that the series introduced
millions of viewers - and, later, voters - to a highly flattering, highly fictionalised version of Trump, more appealing than the real-life developer whose successes were tempered by bankruptcies and personal turmoil. Let us not misrepresent sources.-- DeathTrain ( talk) 00:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
With all due respect (and perhaps because I'm middle-aged), I've heard about & seen Trump in media, long before any reality show he was in. He's been a public figure since the 1980's. GoodDay ( talk) 18:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
The current language in the lead is confusing and/or misleading because it suggests he wasn’t really wealthy or successful as a businessman, whereas the cited source doesn’t suggest that. I propose “He co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, in which he portrayed a fictionalized business executive, a wealthier and more successful version of himself.” The cited source (NYT) said he portrayed “highly fictionalized version of Mr. Trump, more appealing than the real-life developer whose successes were tempered”. I also support all other proposed versions that would fix the current problem in the lead which currently says, “he portrayed a fictionalized version of himself as a wealthy and successful executive.” Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, in which he portrayed a fictionalized version of himself as a wealthy and successful executive. DFlhb's version:
bolstering his personal brand. That's only one of the effects of the fictionalized Trump portrayal, enabling him to license his name on everything from hotels to pyramid schemes. It also changed a significant part of the public's conception of him from loud-mouth New York guy with tabloid-covered divorces and bankruptcies (or introduced people unfamiliar with local NY celebs) to the superrich, super-successful business executive he played on the show. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Trump had been a celebrity since the eighties, his persona shaped by the best-selling book “The Art of the Deal.” But his business had foundered, and by 2003 he had become a garish figure of local interest—a punch line on Page Six.
Mr. Trump had emerged from the early ’90s greatly diminished.And prior to The Apprentice,
Mr. Trump’s actual financial comeback hadn’t happened yet.
Divorced for the second time, and coming off the failure of his Atlantic City casinos, Mr. Trump faced escalating money problems and the prospect of another trip to bankruptcy court. On his income tax returns, he reported annual net losses throughout the 1990s, some of it carried forward year to year, a tide that would swell to $352.8 million at the end of 2002.
Before being approached to host “The Apprentice” nearly 20 years ago, Trump was not in an enviable position.
Tax documents obtained by the paper show how Trump squandered a $413m inheritance in a series of losing plays in real estate and casinos. On his tax return in 2004, he declared $89.9m in net losses from core businesses the previous year.–– FormalDude (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Your proposal says that the show embellished Trump's wealth and success a little but there was no impact on his financial situation, public image, etc. Do you have any sources backing up that opinion? Also, "starring role on a TV show" — I hear Joe Exotic had one of those, too, and look where that got him. Future cellmates? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
My favorite proposal is still my original one: which became part of Trump's mythmaking
. Or, even more simply: which helped Trump rebrand himself as a successful businessman
, or which helped Trump
. I'm not saying we wrongly downplay his pre-Apprentice financial success, I'm saying the current clause only really makes sense if you've read our sources; otherwise it's unclear what it tries to say. It's not plain-worded enough.
DFlhb (
talk) 18:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
establish create an aura of success
which became part of Trump's mythmaking. I oppose
which helped Trump rebrand himself as a successful businessman(Wikipedia should not be opining that he was not a successful businessman), and
which helped Trump establish an aura of success(Wikipedia should not be opining that he lacked an aura of success). Let’s follow the cited NYT source, which is plenty anti-Trump already without augmentation by us. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
On Tuesday evening, the Times dropped another story that delved into the President’s financial past. Written by Buettner and Craig, and based upon “printouts from Mr. Trump’s official Internal Revenue Service transcripts” that the reporters obtained, the story further undermined the assiduously promoted fiction that Trump, before he became a reality-television star and entered politics, was a highly successful self-made businessman. He was anything but.
By all appearances, Donald J. Trump was an unusually bad business man.
Claim: Trump has repeatedly claimed that the reason he is qualified to be president is because he’s a successful businessman. Rating: This claim is MOSTLY FALSE. Although Trump has made considerable money from his entertainment and real estate career, his tax returns from the last two decades reveal that he has lost much more money than he has made.
|
Trump may not have been highly successful in business, but he was not unsuccessful either, AFAIK. And he is clearly still wealthy, contrary to our unclear lead.– Our lede makes no claim about his current wealth, it is explicitly talking about the past. I also linked you numerous reliable sources that say he was unsuccessful, please let me know why you seem to be ignoring them as well as a report that shows an overall loss of $1.17 billion between 1985 and 1994. –– FormalDude (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorta loss track of which way this 'discussion' is going. May help if editors would put forward proposals for their desired re-write. GoodDay ( talk) 14:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, in which he portrayed a fictionalized version of himself.Verifiably true, more concise, less controversial.
From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, in which he portrayed a wealthier and more successful version of himself.Verifiably true, less controversial.
From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, bolstering his personal brand.This gets the main point across well IMO.
From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, in which he portrayed a fictionalized version of himself.. I would also not object to DFlhb's suggestion of
From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, bolstering his personal brand.-- User:Khajidha ( talk) ( contributions) 14:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Timeline: bot edit suggested by Whoop whoop pull up, reverted by me, reinstated by Whoop 10 hours later. Do the active arbitration remedies apply to what appears to be an editor using a bot for a manual revert ("(Tag: Manual revert)")?
The bot always targets the Washington Post exclusively and now apparently has been set to find "cite web" as well as "cite news". At least 90% of our current 844 citations are web-based newspapers, news magazines, and TV and cable news stations, i.e., strictly speaking "cite news". I changed all of them to "cite web" to circumvent the bot — so much for that bright idea. Now we're back to WaPo being singled out as a "newspaper" and all others being "work". Could we establish a local consensus to use "work", per all examples at Template:Cite_news, for all news articles in print, video, audio or web? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
FormalDude, they are both wikilinked in other sections, Donald_Trump#Russia and Donald_Trump#China, respectively. Do we need to link them again? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
but it may be repeated if helpful for readers. Cessaune [talk] 00:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
at the first occurrence in a sectionif helpful. –– FormalDude (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
MOS is helpful cryptic once again, helpful being in the eye of the beholder. So far, we haven't used repeated links in this article 'though I just noticed a few in captions, e.g., Kim Jong-Un. Why make an exception for Putin and Xi? They're a bit better known than, e.g., Giuliani and Barr.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(cowabunga) 17:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Helpful to whom and why?about all or even many such links? Is that a good use of limited editor time and brain power? Who can really predict when a reader will want to know more about a term or person mentioned in the prose? Not I. In my opinion, it's better to have too much blue (it's only a color) than to risk making readers hunt for links, and MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:SEAOFBLUE should be our only limiters. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as [...] at the first occurrence in a section.One could interpret that to mean that linking the first occurrence in a section can be seen as always "helpful for readers", depending on local consensus. Thus, my position is not necessarily inconsistent with REPEATLINK. It's one of many attempts to please everybody, which ultimately translates to "If it seems right to you, do it." Might as well remove the guideline, for all the good it does. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Trumpesque has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2 § Trumpesque until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
The redirect D Trump has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2 § D Trump until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I was wondering if there is a consensus on whether or not there should be mention of the CARES Act and Operation Warp Speed within the Presidency Section of Donald Trump specifically relating to his handling of the Covid-19 Pandemic. I do think they fit the qualification of him personally lauding them as achievements as he did heavily campaign on the stimulus checks provided alongside vaccine production during his 2020 campaign (alongside general pandemic downplaying of course) [1] [2] [3] even stating that "'The vaccines turn out to be a tremendous thing,' he said in the interview with Dan Bongino. 'It’s something I’m very proud of.". [4] Given there is no current mention of it as of now should such a reference be present? LosPajaros ( talk) 00:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Donald Trump. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Donald Trump. until a consensus is reached. Gonnym ( talk) 12:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
If anybody is wondering what happened to their OneClickArchiver links (this is a user-optional facility), the old script has been superseded by a new version. Your fix may vary depending on your method of installation, but I fixed mine with this edit. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:53, 26 October 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.
After reading the complete article and checking your sources for your information, I'm very disappointed that you only used biased sources as reference material. It also explains the numerous errors and disproven misinformation on many sections as well perhaps as your own personal biased political views.
Whenever you write about a person keep your personal feelings about that person should never be used when researching the information. The truth is found between sources of opposite view points. Also, you should have extended your research to sources from all decades that cover your subject, not just a majority of sources from 2015 to present.
Overall this review is one of the most extreme, one sided, misinformation filled, severely biased and very badly researched articles that's more akin to propaganda than an actual unbiased, honest and neutral report.
I suggest, reworking the whole page and expanding your research to include more neutral sources and sources from same time period you're presenting in a particular sentence or paragraph.
Consider this particular page a rough draft with potential to be a good one after a few revisions. 2600:8807:2003:A200:6CCD:2C7B:F7E3:A314 ( talk) 04:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)