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 160 | ← | Archive 165 | Archive 166 | Archive 167 | Archive 168 |
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Trump is a candidate in the 2024 Republican presidential primaries.
[remove the part about Trump being the defacto leader of the republican party. There is no RS voted for this statement. The leader of the Republican Party is not a position other than the RNC chair (which is not Trump).
Helpingtoclarify ( talk) 06:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:00, 11 February 2024 (UTCUnlike other former presidents, Trump continued to dominate his party; he has been compared to a modern-day party boss. He continued fundraising, raising more than twice as much as the Republican Party itself, hinted at a third candidacy, and profited from fundraisers many Republican candidates held at Mar-a-Lago. Much of his focus was on the people in charge of elections and how elections are run. In the 2022 midterm elections he endorsed over 200 candidates for various offices, most of whom supported his false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him. [1] [2] [3] A majority of candidates endorsed by him won in Republican primary elections. [2]
A flurry of drama over the past week on and off Capitol Hill has made it clear that Republicans currently have just one dominant leader: Donald Trump.Julia Azari, professor of political science at Marquette University, in December:
it now seems that Trump is not so much a party leader, but a movement figure. This might seem like the kind of distinction that only academics care about. But it’s key to understanding the current state of American politics, and the dilemmas now facing GOP leaders as the MAGA movement threatens to completely overtake the Republican Party itself.Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
In the first paragraph the article states:
After a series of business failures in the late twentieth century, he successfully launched side ventures that required little capital, mostly by licensing the Trump name
My take away of his overall business success before he switched to primarily licensing his name was more mixed. I'd go so far to say that taking everything as a whole it was more failure then success. However saying only "a serious of business failures" implies to me all failures with no successes which seems a bit unfair. Either this line needs proper citation, if one can prove it's justified, or it needs cleaned up to better describe a more complex tract record then just failures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.51.12.161 ( talk) 19:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
In the entire top section, there's a note for the election but no reference for it. There are two references and they're both only for his ranking in regards to his presidency. Compare that to most other pages on this site and there's usually at least one reference per sentence.
This section just drones on about him without citing any sources outside of a single note and two sources for just one sentence. That's insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.140.70 ( talk • contribs)
I think the sentence "After he tried to pressure Ukraine in 2019 to investigate Biden," in the lead section is unclear and should be edited for clarity and/or context. Options I've come up with are:
JackTheSecond ( talk) 06:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I just created a draft for Trump’s new sneakers: Never Surrender High-Tops. Any help would be appreciated! Thriley ( talk) 01:59, 19 February 2024 (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.
First paragraphs are filled with assertions that have no evidence to back it up. For example “ he successfully launched side ventures that required little capital” and “ Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist and many as misogynistic”. Another example is “He met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization”. This is straight conjecture, how can so many assertions be made with no evidence to back it up when there is an election coming? This page is full of assertions, and on Super Tuesday when this candidate will most likely win the nomination, this page is making Wikipedia look like a democrat run website. Caendral ( talk) 07:35, 5 March 2024 (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.
Donald Trump’s Wikipedia article states that he was declared the Republican presumptive nominee on May 4, 2016. In actuality, it was on May 3, 2016.
Look up “trump may 3 2016” and you’ll see portraits of Trump at an event in Manhattan with his family members celebrating his win.
See this article: 2016 Indiana Republican presidential primary Ijohnbaptiste ( talk) 22:28, 5 March 2024 (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.
Clearly more on democrat side rather than Republican. Doesn’t mention the good things he did in office. 2600:8807:800:6E00:9C35:21FB:FEEF:DA03 ( talk) 21:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Donald Trump Places Last in New 'Presidential Greatness' Rankings Respondents were asked to rate each U.S. president on a scale of zero to 100 for their "overall greatness," with zero being failure, 50 being average and 100 being great.
Lincoln placed first with a 95.03 average.
Trump received the lowest rating with a 10.92, closer to being a failure than any other president.
The survey also ranked Trump as the "most polarizing" U.S. President.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-places-last-new-presidential-greatness-rankings-1871043
https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2024/02/presidential-greatness-projects-2024-survey-finds-lincoln-is-the-best-trump-is-the-worst.html 2600:8801:219C:7900:11EA:65A3:FEA3:573F ( talk) 01:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Draft:Five: The Parody Musical. If possible, please expand this draft (but please leave it in the draft namespace) with whatever is known about this musical; we know it is about Donald Trump. Georgia guy ( talk) 15:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
“Poised to make America laugh again, FIVE is an irreverent musical comedy revue starring some of the women in the life of America’s past (and hopefully not future) President. Ivana, Marla, and Melania are joined by crowd favorite Storm and daddy’s girl Ivanka as they each take the spotlight and sing their hearts out for your vote”
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: Trump's comments on the 2017 Unite the Right rally, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters. [1] [2] [3] [4]
To: Trump's comments on the 2017 Unite the Right rally, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters -- even though in the same speech, President Trump stated: "And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly." [5] [6] [7] [4] 2601:147:4700:73C0:1DCF:F59A:A770:D341 ( talk) 08:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template. —
Czello (
music) 09:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.
We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.On August 15, reporters questioned him about that remark at another prescheduled televised event (on infrastructure). That's when he said he wasn't "talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists" and doubled down on the "very fine people on both sides" at the rally. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I didn’t contribute?
Quoting myself: Our summary-level text reflects the sources accurately.
Nobody replied to your last proposal, so a day later you went bold, removed content you called "an unqualified clause", citing this talk page discussion, and were reverted:
WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS,
WP:SILENCE. I don’t know what you meant by "unqualified clause". You want Trump’s comment that there were "very fine people, on both sides" removed because A person reading this as is might get the impression that Trump explicitly endorsed white supremacy.
WP:NPOV — well, that's the impression RS got and reported, and that's why reporters kept asking him to explain himself.
In 2019, Trump defended his 2017 statement that there were "very fine people" on both sides of the deadly white supremacist protests
.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
🖖 11:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
blamed the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend on both sides of the conflict – equating the white supremacists on one side with the “alt-left” on the other side – after his top White House aides spent days trying to clean up after Trump’s initial vague response to the violence( CNN),
clashes between the white nationalists, some of whom looked like soldiers because they were so heavily armed, and the counterprotesters who showed up to challenge them( WaPo). Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
"He was the first U.S. president with no prior military or government experience." He is the "first U.S. president with no prior military or government experience." Please update. 172.56.29.192 ( talk) 04:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Not sure why my edit has been completely reverted. The current "residence" parameter in infobox definitely violates MOS:GEOLINK. As for the "awards" parameter, I intended to make it consistent with other BLPs. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says, "Wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." Thedarkknightli ( talk) 14:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
E.g., $406,000 in 2023, not including utilities. I'd be inclined to mention. [1] Thoughts?
References
Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Space4T reverted this edit, and I was wondering: does consensus #60 preclude addition of any links that haven't been discussed? In my imagination this is a consensus #43 thing, but I don't know. Cessaune [talk] 17:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Tagging User:Space4Time3Continuum2x
Hi, you recently reverted this edit of mine on what I think are incorrect grounds. A reader would expect the link in "As provided for by the Former Presidents Act" to link only to the Former Presidents Act article, not to a section of the article detailing the Act's applications in this specific context. Per MOS:MORELINK, piping the whole clause clarifies that the link will take the reader to the information detailing this specific context, not just to the article as a whole.
Thank you. Loytra ( talk) 15:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Trump opened the "Office of the Former President" in Palm Beach County. (At the time, nobody knew that the office was the bride's dressing room above the Trump ballroom at Mar-a-Lago.) Then someone created a page (or possibly a second page?) with that title which someone else redirected to the subsection. And then I replaced the link to the redirect page with the link to the redirect's target without noticing the egg. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I have before argued it makes no sense to only mention that he is the only PRESIDENT to be twice federally impeached, when he is in fact more broadly the only official. It perhaps will even give some the false implication that there perhaps are other officials that have been, and that is why we cut-off this distinction at the “president” descriptor.
it really makes no sense. this would be like only saying that New York City is the most populous city in New York State, and leaving it there. Making no mention that it is, more broadly, the most populous in all of the United States. Deciding that’s unimportant to mention. That’d be bizarre, would it not? Then why is anyone insistent that we essentially do the same thing?
we wouldn’t say “George Washington was the first male president in US history”, would we? Because he holds a broader distinction. So why are some editors insistent here that we only mention the narrower distinction and that we must exclude the fuller distinction?
I have provided a reliable source already.
SecretName101 ( talk) 03:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
got side-tracked by other discussion related to language(when we’re discussing whether to use one word or another, we’re discussing language, no?), and IMO there were more participants clearly in favor of "president" than those who supported another term or didn’t care enough to have a clear preference. There’s a long list of RS on the only president — leader of the world’s only remaining superpower, one of the world’s most influential and powerful people — to have been impeached twice. There are very few RS mentioning federal officials who were impeached in the United States. That’s a pretty clear indication of a lack of interest in the officials who weren't presidents. A judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana or the Southern District of Texas, a secretary of war in 1876 — who cares? (Double "who cares" after Republicans in the House just downgraded impeachment to "did his job implementing his president's policy because we disagree with that policy".) Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
To save you some scrolling, 37 is:
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. ( June 2019)
That made sense in June 2019 when we were in the middle of Trump's presidency. It doesn't make sense now, years later, because now we have sources about his presidency (and sources about his life that include his presidency). As such, whether something about his presidency is included or not should be based on traditional
WP:DUE and
WP:ASPECT analysis -- in proportion to its coverage in RS -- and not based on editors' assessments of whether it is likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy
. A
WP:LASTING-type analysis makes sense for current events, when we don't have the benefit of retrospective RS for a DUE/ASPECT analysis. But now that years have passed and there are RS about the whole presidency, we should just look at RS to tell us what's "lasting", i.e. what's a significant aspect or perspective due for inclusion in the article.
I suggest changing #37 to be about current events rather than about his presidency:
Content related to current events about Trump should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply.
Levivich ( talk) 00:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
writing this practice into stoneSee superseded #4, #7, #11, #15, #16, #17, #18, #21, #23, #24, #35, #36, and #45. Twenty percent of consensus items to date have been superseded. If that's stone, it's very low on the Mohs scale. I have previously made this point directly to you, [2] and I really hate having to repeat myself to the same editor. Your persistent hyperbole is counterproductive and I'd ask that you temper it.
I agree that it's appropriate for the consensus list to be under continuous review and improvement. But I do not think it's wise to consider amendments during an ongoing discussion of specific content to which such changes would apply. Even when the specific content issue has given rise to the review and need for clarification. What's going to become of this tortured RfC in the event of a revision? I suggest ditching the RfC, burying it and proceeding with the discussion of 37. SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Abraham Accords RFC by my count: 21 !Support, 12 !Oppose. Loser would love to cancel the game. DonFB ( talk) 18:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Current Consensus #37:
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. ( June 2019)
Proposed:
Content related to current events about Trump should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term legacy.
Changes "Trump's presidency" to "current events about Trump" and strikes the last sentence. I think this covers the issues raised in the above discussion? Levivich ( talk) 16:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
There is a "See also" under "Post-presidency" that links to Legal affairs of Donald Trump which is now a redirect. Should this be changed? Jack Upland ( talk) 23:25, 6 March 2024 (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.
Your job is to share information. Not persuade your readers into feeling a certain way. Do better. 24.106.235.2 ( talk) 21:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if the following could be placed in the correct order. The current entry says "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.". In reality it should say "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, media personality, and politician who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." as that is the chronological order of his life. 86.29.220.49 ( talk) 23:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
The US Supreme Court has over-ruled Colorado's barring of Trump from the Republican primary & November ballot. GoodDay ( talk) 16:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
it's still a landmark election case before the Supreme Court to have happened specifically relating to his presidential campaign. It should still be noted upon *because* he won it.The case was about Trump remaining on the ballot for the Republican primary in Colorado. The court didn't examine the question whether Trump incited an insurrection; it said that Colorado cannot disqualify him under the 14th Amendment's ban for insurrection. Can you cite any RS calling it a landmark decision? Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 11:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
deemed relevant enough
: the difference to now is that Colorado and Maine had actually removed Trump's name from the ballots. They put it back when he filed his appeals. Nobody even bothered to add Illinois to this article because the
court order to take him off the ballot was immediately stayed, pending the SC's decision. It's all moot now — states can't remove Trump from their ballots based on section 3 of the 14th amendment. Most legal scholars who published opinions on the efforts said this was going to happen. What you're saying is that he "won", and we should say that, correct? We've removed tons of other relevant material because it's a long article, and other material was deemed more important.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
🖖 14:04, 7 March 2024 (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.
Shouldn't the Wealth section under Personal Life be updated. A lot has changed since 2021. Millions spent on lawyers, fines, campaign expenses, bank loan repayments, golf course purchases, taxes, etc. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 15:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Can we please add this part?
In February 2024, former President Trump asserted absolute immunity against investigations into any crimes committed during his tenure. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on this matter on April 25. [1] [2]
Sources
|
---|
|
Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 12:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
As you may know, Trump was indicted in New York on 34 counts, in Florida on 40 counts, in DC on four counts, and in Georgia on 13 counts, with a grand total of 91 felony counts. I want to focus on the Georgia counts since three of them were dismissed recently, bringing the total count down to 10 (grand total 88 across four indictments). Even though the lead section is extremely lengthy, and does cover the criminal charges, I want to know why this does not take the dismissal of those three charges into account, and because he was initially indicted on 13 charges, we could add a note saying three of the charges were dismissed. Unknown0124 ( talk) 14:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "to now" to "not to" in the following sentence, if it is an error, as I suspect:
Donald Trump claimed to now know who David Duke was in 2016, Feldonian ( talk) 10:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria, your recent revert of reliably sourced context doesn't help with expanding a woefully thin "sub-section", which is barely 2 sentences long. I don't see why his tenure as president and his golf hobbies are necessarily mutually exclusive. So, why is this an issue and are there other ways we can expand this section? Cheers. DN ( talk) 22:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
User:Nikkimaria, I made a bold edit, you challenged it, removing longstanding material along with it, and then DN challenged your edit. You would be right if I had reverted your edit but in this case I think the onus per WP:EDITCONSENSUS currently is on you to obtain consensus. My reason for adding: it's remarkable for a former president to be working at a club, with duties — according to the justification Trump's attorney submitted to the town of Palm Beach — including "overseeing the property, evaluating the performance of employees, suggesting improvements to the club's operations, reviewing the club's financials, attending events, greeting guests and recommending candidates for membership". Not quite on the same level as 91 felony counts but far from the norm. This Palm Beach Daily News article may be a better source than the current Forbes cite: [1] (Palm Beach may have been looking for a way to avoid another 80-foot flagpole lawsuit). Background: Trump was broke in 1993, selling off property to stave off personal bankruptcy. He signed an agreement with Palm Beach that allowed him to turn Mar-a-Lago, which was zoned as a private residence, into a private club and sell memberships. Part of the agreement was that members of the club, including proprietors, were not allowed to live there for more than 21 days per year and more than 7 days at a time. He’d been violating the agreement all along but nobody paid attention until he starting showing up with the presidential motorcade and a throng of reporters in tow. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 11:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
"there is no consensus to include, and that is what is required."...and this
"I'm telling you you're not allowed to do this and need to undo it unless/until your or others' participation here results in a positive consensus in favour of that change.... I've been clear that I prefer the format and reasoning provided by S4T. Until someone has a better solution I'm going to drop the STICK. Cheers. DN ( talk) 01:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement.Your edit (i.e., reverting my bold edit) also met with disagreement, and the third new edit now has presumed consensus. If—then, no end to the loop, unless it turns into edit-warring. Change through editing, per the last paragraph —
in this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time.Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
References
in this edit:
Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I get Trump is in a lot of court cases. I do. But, half of the article is about the cases. A lot less of the article showcases what he did in office. If we were to highlight some of these things he did in office and how he impacted the country. This also tags along to bias. Nothing here screams positive in this guy which is completely incorrect. No matter what he did he is still a caring person for his family. If this is the only thing that younger generations can learn about Trump he will be remembered as a terrible man. This is where it raises alarm. Generations can be influenced by lies which can lead to bad decisions. 2600:8807:800:6E00:4C79:ED18:CC8B:A601 ( talk) 06:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
According to her bio article, she was born Melanija Knavs (with a "j") and changed her name to Melania Knauss when she became a model (~19 years before Trump acquired her). Our infobox shows "Melania Knavs"; this is an odd and unexplained hybrid of the two names and is inconsistent with the "Melania Knauss" that we use in the body. Suggest changing the infobox to "Melania Knauss", as this was her name at the time of acquisition. ― Mandruss ☎ 16:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Reframed version:In the foundation's final years, its funds mostly came from donors other than Trump, who did not donate any personal funds to the charity from 2009 until 2014. [1] The foundation gave to health-care- and sports-related charities, as well as conservative groups. [2]
The foundation gave to health- and sports-related charities and conservative groups. [3] Trump did not donate any personal funds to the charity from 2009 to 2014. [4]
From 1987 to 2006, Trump gave his foundation $5.4 million which had been spent by the end of 2006. After donating a total of $65,000 in 2007–2008, he stopped donating any personal funds to the charity, [5] which received millions from other donors, including $5 million from Vince McMahon. [6] The foundation gave to health- and sports-related charities, conservative groups, [7] and charities that held events at Trump properties. [5]
Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Trump's PRIVATE foundation not having been registered to solicit/accept money from other donors while accepting millions from other donors over many yearsUnless I'm mistaken that information is not covered in any of the versions presented here. Readers are not given a reason to understand why the external donations, or Trump's lack of donations, are significant.
It's not copy-editing if someone removes material from this page, even if it's moved to another page. At summary-level, we should provide enough information for readers to decide whether they want to look up the details in the main article. The Trump Foundation was a tax-exempt family foundation that was supposed to be "governed and funded by family members and must meet all the same IRS guidelines for private foundations". Instead, they solicited donations from others, as well as guided others to make payments for services rendered under the guise of donations, such as the McMahons' $5 million "donation" to the tax-exempt foundation for Trump's appearances in 2007's Wrestlemania 23 and the June 2009 RAW storyline of Trump allegedly buying WWE and selling it back to McMahon the next week. Trump used foundation funds as a personal piggy bank, e.g., for paying the fine in the 80-foot flagpole lawsuit we discussed in "Business career - Golf courses", above.
Flagpole settlement
|
---|
Trump had racked up a fine of $120,000 and counting when he sued the town of Palm Beach in 2006 for "abridgment to his constitutional right to free speech" for not allowing him to violate the town's restrictions on the size of private flagpoles and flags. The lawsuit ended with the town allowing him a 70-foot pole instead of the 42 feet allowed under the ordinance and waiving the fine, with Trump agreeing to make a $100,000 donation to a veterans' charity. He didn't use his own money, though, he directed the foundation to pay. |
The foundation, created in 1988, received more money from outside donors since 2001, i.e., during more than half of its existence, not just in its final years. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
charities that held events at Trump propertiesin the original version, which is worth mentioning. I now see the point of your version & support it. I've also tried fixing the issue I brought up; feel free to bold-refine or kick it back to the talk page if needed. DFlhb ( talk) 22:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update the Business section to include DJT stock that had its 1st trading day today, 3/26/2024. Per this article, Trump’s Net Worth needs to be increased to $6.4 Billion:
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-25/donald-trump-6-4-billion-net-worth-makes-him-one-of-world-s-richest-people
136.175.96.252 (
talk) 21:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Shouldn't the fact that Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll in a civil trial be in the lead? It is a highly relevant biographical detail about someone, that he was found to have raped a woman in a judicial proceeding.
And yes: it was rape. It wasn't rape under the anachronistic definition of NY Criminal Law (because it was with his hands), and hence the finding of the court that it was "sexual abuse," not rape, for purposes of NYC law. But the jury did find that Trump had raped Carroll, since the conduct he was found to have to engaged in [forced penetration with his hands] fits within the common meaning of rape. A filing by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, rejecting Trump's motion for a second trial in the Carroll case, clarified this. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
To quote the judge:
The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.' Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that. HistorianEzzat ( talk) 02:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
In 2023, a civil trial jury found that Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll.We had discussions about sexual abuse vs. rape "within the meaning of the New York Penal Law", archived here and here, and went with what the jury's decision said. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
common meaning of rape. Digital penetration is not what I think of when I hear the word. The entry in my dictionary-of-choice says "usually sexual intercourse", so, if there's a "common meaning", it would be that. Interpretations may differ in other parts of the world, but this is an American article. "Sexual abuse" is even more vague, but we're giving Trump the benefit of the ambiguity for purposes of the lead. It's a common problem with leads: there is not enough room to be as accurate and nuanced as we'd like.But all this is fairly irrelevant per policy. I haven't reviewed the previous discussions, but I assume they concluded that the word "rape" was not used in the preponderance of reliable sources. If you want to say "rape" without explanation (a necessity in the lead), you'll need to show otherwise. You have cited only one secondary source.This does not necessarily preclude further elaboration in the body section, bearing in mind that it links to an article dedicated to the subject. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
sexually abused" to avoid bikeshedding. The Trump claim that "it wasn't rape" relies on a technicality in New York law. The federal judge said it unequivocally:
Mr. Trump in fact did 'rape' Ms. Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York Penal Law. It's been litigated, it's a settled issue; I don't understand on what basis people say otherwise. DFlhb ( talk) 00:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Under the law, Trump is innocent of the crime of rape, and also innocent of any crime at all, because he has not (yet) been convicted of any crime in a court of law. People in civil trials are not entitled to any presumption of innocence, and they also cannot be found guilty of any crime. Whatever we write about Trump, we should be clear about this distinction, and clear that Trump is currently presumed innocent of any crime. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Read wp:npa and wp:agf we are governed by policies such as wp:blp which means we cannot say someone committed a crime they have not been prosecuted for, even if we think they are guilty. We are not here to right great wrongs, we are here to present what RS say. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The issue is Wikipedia is edited by a select few..meaningless articles regarding say celebrities or sports are generally ignored by most people..an article like this will be viewed by millions..everyone that edits these articles has an agenda of some kind which is why I refuse to edit articles..I am honest..in the end whoever is the slickest rhetorical bullshit artist will get their way here it has nothing to do with the truth..I will not..I am not a lawyer or a wannabe lawyer ie politician...Donald Trump is a known sexual predator who has preyed on underage girls..it is common knowledge Anonymous8206 ( talk) 14:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
Greetings, all. Re: New York State's civil fraud case
As the news came that the New York Appellate Court, First Division, lowered the bond amount Trump had to post and granted an extension of payment, I added to that section the following: "On March 25, New York's Appellate Division ruled that Trump can post a lower bond, "in the amount of $175 million," and granted a delay of payment by 10 days," followed by a source to that effect.
User:Space4Time3Continuum2x reverted my edit giving the following reason: "The lower bond doesn't affect the trial court's decision which stands unless overruled on appeal." I found the reason frankly absurd since the information about a lower bond quite evidently did not affect the ruling for the payment itself and reverted the edit. After being reminded of the WP:CTOP procedure, I deleted my edit and I'm now bringing this here for discussion. I still cannot fathom why anyone would delete the information about the lower-amount decision and leave the article without any mention of it just because the information was not, per their opinion, complete. Even if they were correct in this, the obviously proper move forward would be to add the ostensibly missing information rather the delete the entire text. So, I'd appreciate some light in this Alice tunnel, please. - The Gnome ( talk) 15:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
just because the information was not, per their opinion, complete— huh? My edit summary may have been a tad obtuse, definition 2b, but that's your opinion, not mine. Unless Trump files an appeal, the trial is over, and the decision stands. The appeals court's Lex Trump makes it likelier that Trump will be able to post bond and file an appeal but, until he does, WP:NOTNEWS applies. If he does appeal, our second sentence should simply replace "said he would appeal" with "appealed". Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
very much "news of the day", and WP is not a newspaper. This article isn't about the legal process; those details belong in New York civil investigation of The Trump Organization. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Spinoff from the above edit request.
But wait, it gets worse. The article currently says: "In their 2021 billionaires ranking, Trump's net worth was estimated to be $2.4 billion (1,299th in the world)." It follows with a citation with the title, "#1001 Donald Trump", accessed April 2020. And following the link takes you to the page I linked above, which verifies neither the $2.4B nor the 1,299th. What's the point of a citation that doesn't (and can't) provide verifiability? Just to give the appearance that we're complying with policy, with the hope nobody will notice that we're doing anything but? What a hot mess. If we can't do better than this in the long term, we should revisit #5 and find a better methodology. ― Mandruss ☎ 06:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
the archived discussion doesn’t mention the Forbes 400 list at all-- As I tried to indicate, if the consensus didn't include inclusion of the U.S. ranking, removal of that from #5 was the correct action. Consensus items should always be made to accurately reflect the underlying discussions, even when discrepancies are discovered years later.I could live with
removing the parenthesisfrom #5, which moots the preceding.My only gripe with your article edit is that its citation links to the home page of the Forbes billionaires list, instead of its page for Trump. If that's necessary for verifiability, I'm missing it. I generally dislike citations that make readers search for something, when that can be avoided. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Friendly reminder to read the notices and warnings above the editing window: The Contentious_topics procedure applies to Donald Trump. "You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message." You failed to adhere to the procedure with this edit and the source you added here. Please, self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
A majority of candidates endorsed by him won in Republican primary electionsinstead of adding more material about the performance of Republican candidates in the 2022 United States elections. Your proposed and the BBC source may be better placed at 2022_United_States_elections#Democracy. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 22:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: this isn't an article about the outbreak, it's an article about Trump, so what happened to Trump is what is essential to be included in this article. Additionally "struggling with the disease" is unclear phrasing. Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page/article is clearly heavily skewed and biased towards Donald Trump. This article is filled with loaded language, and the numerous links to "scandals" and "fraud" relating to Donald Trump need to be either removed and edited to retain neutral language, or altogether removed and replaced with a non-bias article. I understand that Wikipedia must note all events relating to a certain figure, but this article is clearly against Donald Trump. Please fix this.
Thanks, Pilotnance ( talk) 17:44, 15 April 2024 (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.
"These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources" - Wikipedia
"CNN has been involved in various controversies, criticisms, and allegations since its inception in 1980. The channel is known for its dramatic live coverage of breaking news, some of which has drawn criticism as overly sensationalistic."
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: Please don't remove cleanup tags without addressing them; {{ repetition}} is a redirect to {{ copy edit}}. We've now got the same trade war discussed in multiple subsections, which is confusing for readers. Please pick one and consolidate. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
{{ repetition}} is a redirect to {{ copy edit}}.)
"China" mentions the trade war among a number of other things:and launched a trade war with China by sharply increasing tariffs on 818 categories (worth $50 billion) of Chinese goods imported into the U.S.[343] While Trump said that import tariffs are paid by China into the U.S. Treasury, they are paid by American companies that import goods from China.[344]
As president, Trump launched a trade war against China that was widely characterized as a failure
to avoid the repetition. IMO, it’s a necessary repetition because China is the U.S.’s largest supplier of goods and its third largest customer.
streamliningis apparently not an issue. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Current text
|
---|
Foreign policy Trump described himself as a "nationalist" [1] and his foreign policy as " America First". [2] His foreign policy was marked by praise and support of populist, neo-nationalist, and authoritarian governments. [3] Hallmarks of foreign relations during Trump's tenure included unpredictability and uncertainty, [2] a lack of consistent policy, [4] and strained and sometimes antagonistic relationships with European allies. [5] He criticized NATO allies and privately suggested on multiple occasions that the U.S. should withdraw from NATO. [6] [7] Trade Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, [8] imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, [9] and launched a trade war with China by sharply increasing tariffs on 818 categories (worth $50 billion) of Chinese goods imported into the U.S. [10] While Trump said that import tariffs are paid by China into the U.S. Treasury, they are paid by American companies that import goods from China. [11] Although he pledged during the campaign to significantly reduce the U.S.'s large trade deficits, the trade deficit in July 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, "was the largest monthly deficit since July 2008". [12] Following a 2017–2018 renegotiation, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) became effective in July 2020 as the successor to NAFTA. [13] Russia China Before and during his presidency, Trump repeatedly accused China of taking unfair advantage of the U.S. [14] As president, Trump launched a trade war against China that was widely characterized as a failure, [15] [16] [17] sanctioned Huawei for alleged ties to Iran, [18] significantly increased visa restrictions on Chinese students and scholars, [19] and classified China as a currency manipulator. [20] Trump also juxtaposed verbal attacks on China with praise of Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping, [21] which was attributed to trade war negotiations. [22] After initially praising China for its handling of COVID-19, [23] he began a campaign of criticism starting in March 2020. [24] Trump said he resisted punishing China for its human rights abuses against ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region for fear of jeopardizing trade negotiations. [25] In July 2020, the Trump administration imposed sanctions and visa restrictions against senior Chinese officials, in response to expanded mass detention camps holding more than a million of the country's Uyghur minority. [26]</nowiki> |
Proposed text
|
---|
Foreign policy Trump described himself as a "nationalist" [27] and his foreign policy as " America First". [2] He imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum, among other imports; [28] [29] however, the trade deficit in July 2020 "was the largest monthly deficit since July 2008". [30] He also withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, [31] and renegotiated the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA, effective July 2020) as the successor to NAFTA. [32] Hallmarks of foreign relations during Trump's tenure included unpredictability and uncertainty, [2] a lack of consistent policy, [33] and strained and sometimes antagonistic relationships with European allies. [34] His foreign policy was marked by praise and support of populist, neo-nationalist, and authoritarian governments. [35] He criticized NATO allies and privately suggested on multiple occasions that the U.S. should withdraw from NATO. [36] [37] Russia China Before and during his presidency, Trump repeatedly accused China of taking unfair advantage of the U.S. [38] As president, Trump launched a trade war against China that was widely characterized as a failure, [39] [40] [41] sharply increasing tariffs on Chinese goods imported into the U.S. [42] While Trump said that import tariffs are paid by China into the U.S. Treasury, they are paid by American companies that import goods from China. [43] Trump also juxtaposed verbal attacks on China with praise of Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping, [44] which was attributed to trade war negotiations. [45] Trump sanctioned Huawei for alleged ties to Iran, [46] significantly increased visa restrictions on Chinese students and scholars, [47] and classified China as a currency manipulator. [48] After initially praising China for its handling of COVID-19, [49] he began a campaign of criticism starting in March 2020. [50] Trump said he resisted punishing China for its human rights abuses against ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region for fear of jeopardizing trade negotiations. [51] In July 2020, the Trump administration imposed sanctions and visa restrictions against senior Chinese officials, in response to expanded mass detention camps holding more than a million of the country's Uyghur minority. [52] |
I haven't had the time to compare them. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 20:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
started by the same editor as the Talk:Donald_Trump#Discussion_pointer January discussion, also without notifying editors on this page: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#WP:PEIS, resulting in a couple of edits on the main page that added 6,000 bytes ( Reduce WP:PEIS and WP:PEIS improvements from WP:VPT courtesy of User:Ahecht). I haven't a clue what the alleged improvement is supposed to be or do. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The PEIS reduction continues. Where do I find the WP guideline on adding #invoke:cite ...| (<ref>{{'''#invoke:cite news|'''|last= |first= |url= |title= |work=[[ ]]|date= |access-date= }}</ref>) to citations? Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Apparently I'm too dumb to figure this out.
PEIS limit is 2,097,152
Immediately before #invokes were added: 1,596,217
Immediately after #invokes were added (in three edits): 1,085,380
So the #invokes reduced PEIS by 510,837
[Ten intervening unrelated edits]
Immediately before my revert: 1,082,220
My revert should have resulted in 1,593,057 (1,082,220 + 510,837), or so I thought
After my revert: Busted PEIS limit (it doesn't tell you by how much)
So I self-reverted.
Immediately after Nikkimaria's edit: 1,836,402
We should be much closer to the original 1,596,217, after allowing for those ten intervening edits
Ping Ahecht and Locke Cole and Nikkimaria. ― Mandruss ☎ 02:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Should we mention it? See [7]. Jack Upland ( talk) 01:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to remove and refine un-cited examples of "public opinion or perception." One example is the following: "During the campaign, his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist." This has no citations and/or references, and seems to be a example of opinion. Pilotnance ( talk) 17:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Yuyugfu ( talk) 21:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I will try my best to make it good as possible
I think Operation Warp Speed should be mentioned in the lede, while discussing his response to COVID-19. It is really significant! Tejas Subramaniam ( talk) 20:05, 4 April 2024 (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 160 | ← | Archive 165 | Archive 166 | Archive 167 | Archive 168 |
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Trump is a candidate in the 2024 Republican presidential primaries.
[remove the part about Trump being the defacto leader of the republican party. There is no RS voted for this statement. The leader of the Republican Party is not a position other than the RNC chair (which is not Trump).
Helpingtoclarify ( talk) 06:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:00, 11 February 2024 (UTCUnlike other former presidents, Trump continued to dominate his party; he has been compared to a modern-day party boss. He continued fundraising, raising more than twice as much as the Republican Party itself, hinted at a third candidacy, and profited from fundraisers many Republican candidates held at Mar-a-Lago. Much of his focus was on the people in charge of elections and how elections are run. In the 2022 midterm elections he endorsed over 200 candidates for various offices, most of whom supported his false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him. [1] [2] [3] A majority of candidates endorsed by him won in Republican primary elections. [2]
A flurry of drama over the past week on and off Capitol Hill has made it clear that Republicans currently have just one dominant leader: Donald Trump.Julia Azari, professor of political science at Marquette University, in December:
it now seems that Trump is not so much a party leader, but a movement figure. This might seem like the kind of distinction that only academics care about. But it’s key to understanding the current state of American politics, and the dilemmas now facing GOP leaders as the MAGA movement threatens to completely overtake the Republican Party itself.Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
In the first paragraph the article states:
After a series of business failures in the late twentieth century, he successfully launched side ventures that required little capital, mostly by licensing the Trump name
My take away of his overall business success before he switched to primarily licensing his name was more mixed. I'd go so far to say that taking everything as a whole it was more failure then success. However saying only "a serious of business failures" implies to me all failures with no successes which seems a bit unfair. Either this line needs proper citation, if one can prove it's justified, or it needs cleaned up to better describe a more complex tract record then just failures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.51.12.161 ( talk) 19:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
In the entire top section, there's a note for the election but no reference for it. There are two references and they're both only for his ranking in regards to his presidency. Compare that to most other pages on this site and there's usually at least one reference per sentence.
This section just drones on about him without citing any sources outside of a single note and two sources for just one sentence. That's insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.140.70 ( talk • contribs)
I think the sentence "After he tried to pressure Ukraine in 2019 to investigate Biden," in the lead section is unclear and should be edited for clarity and/or context. Options I've come up with are:
JackTheSecond ( talk) 06:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I just created a draft for Trump’s new sneakers: Never Surrender High-Tops. Any help would be appreciated! Thriley ( talk) 01:59, 19 February 2024 (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.
First paragraphs are filled with assertions that have no evidence to back it up. For example “ he successfully launched side ventures that required little capital” and “ Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist and many as misogynistic”. Another example is “He met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization”. This is straight conjecture, how can so many assertions be made with no evidence to back it up when there is an election coming? This page is full of assertions, and on Super Tuesday when this candidate will most likely win the nomination, this page is making Wikipedia look like a democrat run website. Caendral ( talk) 07:35, 5 March 2024 (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.
Donald Trump’s Wikipedia article states that he was declared the Republican presumptive nominee on May 4, 2016. In actuality, it was on May 3, 2016.
Look up “trump may 3 2016” and you’ll see portraits of Trump at an event in Manhattan with his family members celebrating his win.
See this article: 2016 Indiana Republican presidential primary Ijohnbaptiste ( talk) 22:28, 5 March 2024 (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.
Clearly more on democrat side rather than Republican. Doesn’t mention the good things he did in office. 2600:8807:800:6E00:9C35:21FB:FEEF:DA03 ( talk) 21:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Donald Trump Places Last in New 'Presidential Greatness' Rankings Respondents were asked to rate each U.S. president on a scale of zero to 100 for their "overall greatness," with zero being failure, 50 being average and 100 being great.
Lincoln placed first with a 95.03 average.
Trump received the lowest rating with a 10.92, closer to being a failure than any other president.
The survey also ranked Trump as the "most polarizing" U.S. President.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-places-last-new-presidential-greatness-rankings-1871043
https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2024/02/presidential-greatness-projects-2024-survey-finds-lincoln-is-the-best-trump-is-the-worst.html 2600:8801:219C:7900:11EA:65A3:FEA3:573F ( talk) 01:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Draft:Five: The Parody Musical. If possible, please expand this draft (but please leave it in the draft namespace) with whatever is known about this musical; we know it is about Donald Trump. Georgia guy ( talk) 15:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
“Poised to make America laugh again, FIVE is an irreverent musical comedy revue starring some of the women in the life of America’s past (and hopefully not future) President. Ivana, Marla, and Melania are joined by crowd favorite Storm and daddy’s girl Ivanka as they each take the spotlight and sing their hearts out for your vote”
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: Trump's comments on the 2017 Unite the Right rally, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters. [1] [2] [3] [4]
To: Trump's comments on the 2017 Unite the Right rally, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters -- even though in the same speech, President Trump stated: "And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly." [5] [6] [7] [4] 2601:147:4700:73C0:1DCF:F59A:A770:D341 ( talk) 08:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template. —
Czello (
music) 09:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.
We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.On August 15, reporters questioned him about that remark at another prescheduled televised event (on infrastructure). That's when he said he wasn't "talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists" and doubled down on the "very fine people on both sides" at the rally. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I didn’t contribute?
Quoting myself: Our summary-level text reflects the sources accurately.
Nobody replied to your last proposal, so a day later you went bold, removed content you called "an unqualified clause", citing this talk page discussion, and were reverted:
WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS,
WP:SILENCE. I don’t know what you meant by "unqualified clause". You want Trump’s comment that there were "very fine people, on both sides" removed because A person reading this as is might get the impression that Trump explicitly endorsed white supremacy.
WP:NPOV — well, that's the impression RS got and reported, and that's why reporters kept asking him to explain himself.
In 2019, Trump defended his 2017 statement that there were "very fine people" on both sides of the deadly white supremacist protests
.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
🖖 11:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
blamed the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend on both sides of the conflict – equating the white supremacists on one side with the “alt-left” on the other side – after his top White House aides spent days trying to clean up after Trump’s initial vague response to the violence( CNN),
clashes between the white nationalists, some of whom looked like soldiers because they were so heavily armed, and the counterprotesters who showed up to challenge them( WaPo). Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
"He was the first U.S. president with no prior military or government experience." He is the "first U.S. president with no prior military or government experience." Please update. 172.56.29.192 ( talk) 04:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Not sure why my edit has been completely reverted. The current "residence" parameter in infobox definitely violates MOS:GEOLINK. As for the "awards" parameter, I intended to make it consistent with other BLPs. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says, "Wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." Thedarkknightli ( talk) 14:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
E.g., $406,000 in 2023, not including utilities. I'd be inclined to mention. [1] Thoughts?
References
Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Space4T reverted this edit, and I was wondering: does consensus #60 preclude addition of any links that haven't been discussed? In my imagination this is a consensus #43 thing, but I don't know. Cessaune [talk] 17:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Tagging User:Space4Time3Continuum2x
Hi, you recently reverted this edit of mine on what I think are incorrect grounds. A reader would expect the link in "As provided for by the Former Presidents Act" to link only to the Former Presidents Act article, not to a section of the article detailing the Act's applications in this specific context. Per MOS:MORELINK, piping the whole clause clarifies that the link will take the reader to the information detailing this specific context, not just to the article as a whole.
Thank you. Loytra ( talk) 15:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Trump opened the "Office of the Former President" in Palm Beach County. (At the time, nobody knew that the office was the bride's dressing room above the Trump ballroom at Mar-a-Lago.) Then someone created a page (or possibly a second page?) with that title which someone else redirected to the subsection. And then I replaced the link to the redirect page with the link to the redirect's target without noticing the egg. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I have before argued it makes no sense to only mention that he is the only PRESIDENT to be twice federally impeached, when he is in fact more broadly the only official. It perhaps will even give some the false implication that there perhaps are other officials that have been, and that is why we cut-off this distinction at the “president” descriptor.
it really makes no sense. this would be like only saying that New York City is the most populous city in New York State, and leaving it there. Making no mention that it is, more broadly, the most populous in all of the United States. Deciding that’s unimportant to mention. That’d be bizarre, would it not? Then why is anyone insistent that we essentially do the same thing?
we wouldn’t say “George Washington was the first male president in US history”, would we? Because he holds a broader distinction. So why are some editors insistent here that we only mention the narrower distinction and that we must exclude the fuller distinction?
I have provided a reliable source already.
SecretName101 ( talk) 03:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
got side-tracked by other discussion related to language(when we’re discussing whether to use one word or another, we’re discussing language, no?), and IMO there were more participants clearly in favor of "president" than those who supported another term or didn’t care enough to have a clear preference. There’s a long list of RS on the only president — leader of the world’s only remaining superpower, one of the world’s most influential and powerful people — to have been impeached twice. There are very few RS mentioning federal officials who were impeached in the United States. That’s a pretty clear indication of a lack of interest in the officials who weren't presidents. A judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana or the Southern District of Texas, a secretary of war in 1876 — who cares? (Double "who cares" after Republicans in the House just downgraded impeachment to "did his job implementing his president's policy because we disagree with that policy".) Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
To save you some scrolling, 37 is:
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. ( June 2019)
That made sense in June 2019 when we were in the middle of Trump's presidency. It doesn't make sense now, years later, because now we have sources about his presidency (and sources about his life that include his presidency). As such, whether something about his presidency is included or not should be based on traditional
WP:DUE and
WP:ASPECT analysis -- in proportion to its coverage in RS -- and not based on editors' assessments of whether it is likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy
. A
WP:LASTING-type analysis makes sense for current events, when we don't have the benefit of retrospective RS for a DUE/ASPECT analysis. But now that years have passed and there are RS about the whole presidency, we should just look at RS to tell us what's "lasting", i.e. what's a significant aspect or perspective due for inclusion in the article.
I suggest changing #37 to be about current events rather than about his presidency:
Content related to current events about Trump should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply.
Levivich ( talk) 00:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
writing this practice into stoneSee superseded #4, #7, #11, #15, #16, #17, #18, #21, #23, #24, #35, #36, and #45. Twenty percent of consensus items to date have been superseded. If that's stone, it's very low on the Mohs scale. I have previously made this point directly to you, [2] and I really hate having to repeat myself to the same editor. Your persistent hyperbole is counterproductive and I'd ask that you temper it.
I agree that it's appropriate for the consensus list to be under continuous review and improvement. But I do not think it's wise to consider amendments during an ongoing discussion of specific content to which such changes would apply. Even when the specific content issue has given rise to the review and need for clarification. What's going to become of this tortured RfC in the event of a revision? I suggest ditching the RfC, burying it and proceeding with the discussion of 37. SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Abraham Accords RFC by my count: 21 !Support, 12 !Oppose. Loser would love to cancel the game. DonFB ( talk) 18:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Current Consensus #37:
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. ( June 2019)
Proposed:
Content related to current events about Trump should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term legacy.
Changes "Trump's presidency" to "current events about Trump" and strikes the last sentence. I think this covers the issues raised in the above discussion? Levivich ( talk) 16:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
There is a "See also" under "Post-presidency" that links to Legal affairs of Donald Trump which is now a redirect. Should this be changed? Jack Upland ( talk) 23:25, 6 March 2024 (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.
Your job is to share information. Not persuade your readers into feeling a certain way. Do better. 24.106.235.2 ( talk) 21:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if the following could be placed in the correct order. The current entry says "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.". In reality it should say "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, media personality, and politician who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." as that is the chronological order of his life. 86.29.220.49 ( talk) 23:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
The US Supreme Court has over-ruled Colorado's barring of Trump from the Republican primary & November ballot. GoodDay ( talk) 16:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
it's still a landmark election case before the Supreme Court to have happened specifically relating to his presidential campaign. It should still be noted upon *because* he won it.The case was about Trump remaining on the ballot for the Republican primary in Colorado. The court didn't examine the question whether Trump incited an insurrection; it said that Colorado cannot disqualify him under the 14th Amendment's ban for insurrection. Can you cite any RS calling it a landmark decision? Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 11:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
deemed relevant enough
: the difference to now is that Colorado and Maine had actually removed Trump's name from the ballots. They put it back when he filed his appeals. Nobody even bothered to add Illinois to this article because the
court order to take him off the ballot was immediately stayed, pending the SC's decision. It's all moot now — states can't remove Trump from their ballots based on section 3 of the 14th amendment. Most legal scholars who published opinions on the efforts said this was going to happen. What you're saying is that he "won", and we should say that, correct? We've removed tons of other relevant material because it's a long article, and other material was deemed more important.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
🖖 14:04, 7 March 2024 (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.
Shouldn't the Wealth section under Personal Life be updated. A lot has changed since 2021. Millions spent on lawyers, fines, campaign expenses, bank loan repayments, golf course purchases, taxes, etc. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 15:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Can we please add this part?
In February 2024, former President Trump asserted absolute immunity against investigations into any crimes committed during his tenure. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on this matter on April 25. [1] [2]
Sources
|
---|
|
Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 12:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
As you may know, Trump was indicted in New York on 34 counts, in Florida on 40 counts, in DC on four counts, and in Georgia on 13 counts, with a grand total of 91 felony counts. I want to focus on the Georgia counts since three of them were dismissed recently, bringing the total count down to 10 (grand total 88 across four indictments). Even though the lead section is extremely lengthy, and does cover the criminal charges, I want to know why this does not take the dismissal of those three charges into account, and because he was initially indicted on 13 charges, we could add a note saying three of the charges were dismissed. Unknown0124 ( talk) 14:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "to now" to "not to" in the following sentence, if it is an error, as I suspect:
Donald Trump claimed to now know who David Duke was in 2016, Feldonian ( talk) 10:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria, your recent revert of reliably sourced context doesn't help with expanding a woefully thin "sub-section", which is barely 2 sentences long. I don't see why his tenure as president and his golf hobbies are necessarily mutually exclusive. So, why is this an issue and are there other ways we can expand this section? Cheers. DN ( talk) 22:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
User:Nikkimaria, I made a bold edit, you challenged it, removing longstanding material along with it, and then DN challenged your edit. You would be right if I had reverted your edit but in this case I think the onus per WP:EDITCONSENSUS currently is on you to obtain consensus. My reason for adding: it's remarkable for a former president to be working at a club, with duties — according to the justification Trump's attorney submitted to the town of Palm Beach — including "overseeing the property, evaluating the performance of employees, suggesting improvements to the club's operations, reviewing the club's financials, attending events, greeting guests and recommending candidates for membership". Not quite on the same level as 91 felony counts but far from the norm. This Palm Beach Daily News article may be a better source than the current Forbes cite: [1] (Palm Beach may have been looking for a way to avoid another 80-foot flagpole lawsuit). Background: Trump was broke in 1993, selling off property to stave off personal bankruptcy. He signed an agreement with Palm Beach that allowed him to turn Mar-a-Lago, which was zoned as a private residence, into a private club and sell memberships. Part of the agreement was that members of the club, including proprietors, were not allowed to live there for more than 21 days per year and more than 7 days at a time. He’d been violating the agreement all along but nobody paid attention until he starting showing up with the presidential motorcade and a throng of reporters in tow. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 11:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
"there is no consensus to include, and that is what is required."...and this
"I'm telling you you're not allowed to do this and need to undo it unless/until your or others' participation here results in a positive consensus in favour of that change.... I've been clear that I prefer the format and reasoning provided by S4T. Until someone has a better solution I'm going to drop the STICK. Cheers. DN ( talk) 01:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement.Your edit (i.e., reverting my bold edit) also met with disagreement, and the third new edit now has presumed consensus. If—then, no end to the loop, unless it turns into edit-warring. Change through editing, per the last paragraph —
in this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time.Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
References
in this edit:
Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I get Trump is in a lot of court cases. I do. But, half of the article is about the cases. A lot less of the article showcases what he did in office. If we were to highlight some of these things he did in office and how he impacted the country. This also tags along to bias. Nothing here screams positive in this guy which is completely incorrect. No matter what he did he is still a caring person for his family. If this is the only thing that younger generations can learn about Trump he will be remembered as a terrible man. This is where it raises alarm. Generations can be influenced by lies which can lead to bad decisions. 2600:8807:800:6E00:4C79:ED18:CC8B:A601 ( talk) 06:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
According to her bio article, she was born Melanija Knavs (with a "j") and changed her name to Melania Knauss when she became a model (~19 years before Trump acquired her). Our infobox shows "Melania Knavs"; this is an odd and unexplained hybrid of the two names and is inconsistent with the "Melania Knauss" that we use in the body. Suggest changing the infobox to "Melania Knauss", as this was her name at the time of acquisition. ― Mandruss ☎ 16:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Reframed version:In the foundation's final years, its funds mostly came from donors other than Trump, who did not donate any personal funds to the charity from 2009 until 2014. [1] The foundation gave to health-care- and sports-related charities, as well as conservative groups. [2]
The foundation gave to health- and sports-related charities and conservative groups. [3] Trump did not donate any personal funds to the charity from 2009 to 2014. [4]
From 1987 to 2006, Trump gave his foundation $5.4 million which had been spent by the end of 2006. After donating a total of $65,000 in 2007–2008, he stopped donating any personal funds to the charity, [5] which received millions from other donors, including $5 million from Vince McMahon. [6] The foundation gave to health- and sports-related charities, conservative groups, [7] and charities that held events at Trump properties. [5]
Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Trump's PRIVATE foundation not having been registered to solicit/accept money from other donors while accepting millions from other donors over many yearsUnless I'm mistaken that information is not covered in any of the versions presented here. Readers are not given a reason to understand why the external donations, or Trump's lack of donations, are significant.
It's not copy-editing if someone removes material from this page, even if it's moved to another page. At summary-level, we should provide enough information for readers to decide whether they want to look up the details in the main article. The Trump Foundation was a tax-exempt family foundation that was supposed to be "governed and funded by family members and must meet all the same IRS guidelines for private foundations". Instead, they solicited donations from others, as well as guided others to make payments for services rendered under the guise of donations, such as the McMahons' $5 million "donation" to the tax-exempt foundation for Trump's appearances in 2007's Wrestlemania 23 and the June 2009 RAW storyline of Trump allegedly buying WWE and selling it back to McMahon the next week. Trump used foundation funds as a personal piggy bank, e.g., for paying the fine in the 80-foot flagpole lawsuit we discussed in "Business career - Golf courses", above.
Flagpole settlement
|
---|
Trump had racked up a fine of $120,000 and counting when he sued the town of Palm Beach in 2006 for "abridgment to his constitutional right to free speech" for not allowing him to violate the town's restrictions on the size of private flagpoles and flags. The lawsuit ended with the town allowing him a 70-foot pole instead of the 42 feet allowed under the ordinance and waiving the fine, with Trump agreeing to make a $100,000 donation to a veterans' charity. He didn't use his own money, though, he directed the foundation to pay. |
The foundation, created in 1988, received more money from outside donors since 2001, i.e., during more than half of its existence, not just in its final years. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
charities that held events at Trump propertiesin the original version, which is worth mentioning. I now see the point of your version & support it. I've also tried fixing the issue I brought up; feel free to bold-refine or kick it back to the talk page if needed. DFlhb ( talk) 22:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update the Business section to include DJT stock that had its 1st trading day today, 3/26/2024. Per this article, Trump’s Net Worth needs to be increased to $6.4 Billion:
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-25/donald-trump-6-4-billion-net-worth-makes-him-one-of-world-s-richest-people
136.175.96.252 (
talk) 21:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Shouldn't the fact that Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll in a civil trial be in the lead? It is a highly relevant biographical detail about someone, that he was found to have raped a woman in a judicial proceeding.
And yes: it was rape. It wasn't rape under the anachronistic definition of NY Criminal Law (because it was with his hands), and hence the finding of the court that it was "sexual abuse," not rape, for purposes of NYC law. But the jury did find that Trump had raped Carroll, since the conduct he was found to have to engaged in [forced penetration with his hands] fits within the common meaning of rape. A filing by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, rejecting Trump's motion for a second trial in the Carroll case, clarified this. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
To quote the judge:
The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.' Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that. HistorianEzzat ( talk) 02:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
In 2023, a civil trial jury found that Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll.We had discussions about sexual abuse vs. rape "within the meaning of the New York Penal Law", archived here and here, and went with what the jury's decision said. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
common meaning of rape. Digital penetration is not what I think of when I hear the word. The entry in my dictionary-of-choice says "usually sexual intercourse", so, if there's a "common meaning", it would be that. Interpretations may differ in other parts of the world, but this is an American article. "Sexual abuse" is even more vague, but we're giving Trump the benefit of the ambiguity for purposes of the lead. It's a common problem with leads: there is not enough room to be as accurate and nuanced as we'd like.But all this is fairly irrelevant per policy. I haven't reviewed the previous discussions, but I assume they concluded that the word "rape" was not used in the preponderance of reliable sources. If you want to say "rape" without explanation (a necessity in the lead), you'll need to show otherwise. You have cited only one secondary source.This does not necessarily preclude further elaboration in the body section, bearing in mind that it links to an article dedicated to the subject. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
sexually abused" to avoid bikeshedding. The Trump claim that "it wasn't rape" relies on a technicality in New York law. The federal judge said it unequivocally:
Mr. Trump in fact did 'rape' Ms. Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York Penal Law. It's been litigated, it's a settled issue; I don't understand on what basis people say otherwise. DFlhb ( talk) 00:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Under the law, Trump is innocent of the crime of rape, and also innocent of any crime at all, because he has not (yet) been convicted of any crime in a court of law. People in civil trials are not entitled to any presumption of innocence, and they also cannot be found guilty of any crime. Whatever we write about Trump, we should be clear about this distinction, and clear that Trump is currently presumed innocent of any crime. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Read wp:npa and wp:agf we are governed by policies such as wp:blp which means we cannot say someone committed a crime they have not been prosecuted for, even if we think they are guilty. We are not here to right great wrongs, we are here to present what RS say. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The issue is Wikipedia is edited by a select few..meaningless articles regarding say celebrities or sports are generally ignored by most people..an article like this will be viewed by millions..everyone that edits these articles has an agenda of some kind which is why I refuse to edit articles..I am honest..in the end whoever is the slickest rhetorical bullshit artist will get their way here it has nothing to do with the truth..I will not..I am not a lawyer or a wannabe lawyer ie politician...Donald Trump is a known sexual predator who has preyed on underage girls..it is common knowledge Anonymous8206 ( talk) 14:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
Greetings, all. Re: New York State's civil fraud case
As the news came that the New York Appellate Court, First Division, lowered the bond amount Trump had to post and granted an extension of payment, I added to that section the following: "On March 25, New York's Appellate Division ruled that Trump can post a lower bond, "in the amount of $175 million," and granted a delay of payment by 10 days," followed by a source to that effect.
User:Space4Time3Continuum2x reverted my edit giving the following reason: "The lower bond doesn't affect the trial court's decision which stands unless overruled on appeal." I found the reason frankly absurd since the information about a lower bond quite evidently did not affect the ruling for the payment itself and reverted the edit. After being reminded of the WP:CTOP procedure, I deleted my edit and I'm now bringing this here for discussion. I still cannot fathom why anyone would delete the information about the lower-amount decision and leave the article without any mention of it just because the information was not, per their opinion, complete. Even if they were correct in this, the obviously proper move forward would be to add the ostensibly missing information rather the delete the entire text. So, I'd appreciate some light in this Alice tunnel, please. - The Gnome ( talk) 15:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
just because the information was not, per their opinion, complete— huh? My edit summary may have been a tad obtuse, definition 2b, but that's your opinion, not mine. Unless Trump files an appeal, the trial is over, and the decision stands. The appeals court's Lex Trump makes it likelier that Trump will be able to post bond and file an appeal but, until he does, WP:NOTNEWS applies. If he does appeal, our second sentence should simply replace "said he would appeal" with "appealed". Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
very much "news of the day", and WP is not a newspaper. This article isn't about the legal process; those details belong in New York civil investigation of The Trump Organization. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Spinoff from the above edit request.
But wait, it gets worse. The article currently says: "In their 2021 billionaires ranking, Trump's net worth was estimated to be $2.4 billion (1,299th in the world)." It follows with a citation with the title, "#1001 Donald Trump", accessed April 2020. And following the link takes you to the page I linked above, which verifies neither the $2.4B nor the 1,299th. What's the point of a citation that doesn't (and can't) provide verifiability? Just to give the appearance that we're complying with policy, with the hope nobody will notice that we're doing anything but? What a hot mess. If we can't do better than this in the long term, we should revisit #5 and find a better methodology. ― Mandruss ☎ 06:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
the archived discussion doesn’t mention the Forbes 400 list at all-- As I tried to indicate, if the consensus didn't include inclusion of the U.S. ranking, removal of that from #5 was the correct action. Consensus items should always be made to accurately reflect the underlying discussions, even when discrepancies are discovered years later.I could live with
removing the parenthesisfrom #5, which moots the preceding.My only gripe with your article edit is that its citation links to the home page of the Forbes billionaires list, instead of its page for Trump. If that's necessary for verifiability, I'm missing it. I generally dislike citations that make readers search for something, when that can be avoided. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Friendly reminder to read the notices and warnings above the editing window: The Contentious_topics procedure applies to Donald Trump. "You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message." You failed to adhere to the procedure with this edit and the source you added here. Please, self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
A majority of candidates endorsed by him won in Republican primary electionsinstead of adding more material about the performance of Republican candidates in the 2022 United States elections. Your proposed and the BBC source may be better placed at 2022_United_States_elections#Democracy. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 22:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: this isn't an article about the outbreak, it's an article about Trump, so what happened to Trump is what is essential to be included in this article. Additionally "struggling with the disease" is unclear phrasing. Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page/article is clearly heavily skewed and biased towards Donald Trump. This article is filled with loaded language, and the numerous links to "scandals" and "fraud" relating to Donald Trump need to be either removed and edited to retain neutral language, or altogether removed and replaced with a non-bias article. I understand that Wikipedia must note all events relating to a certain figure, but this article is clearly against Donald Trump. Please fix this.
Thanks, Pilotnance ( talk) 17:44, 15 April 2024 (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.
"These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources" - Wikipedia
"CNN has been involved in various controversies, criticisms, and allegations since its inception in 1980. The channel is known for its dramatic live coverage of breaking news, some of which has drawn criticism as overly sensationalistic."
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: Please don't remove cleanup tags without addressing them; {{ repetition}} is a redirect to {{ copy edit}}. We've now got the same trade war discussed in multiple subsections, which is confusing for readers. Please pick one and consolidate. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
{{ repetition}} is a redirect to {{ copy edit}}.)
"China" mentions the trade war among a number of other things:and launched a trade war with China by sharply increasing tariffs on 818 categories (worth $50 billion) of Chinese goods imported into the U.S.[343] While Trump said that import tariffs are paid by China into the U.S. Treasury, they are paid by American companies that import goods from China.[344]
As president, Trump launched a trade war against China that was widely characterized as a failure
to avoid the repetition. IMO, it’s a necessary repetition because China is the U.S.’s largest supplier of goods and its third largest customer.
streamliningis apparently not an issue. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Current text
|
---|
Foreign policy Trump described himself as a "nationalist" [1] and his foreign policy as " America First". [2] His foreign policy was marked by praise and support of populist, neo-nationalist, and authoritarian governments. [3] Hallmarks of foreign relations during Trump's tenure included unpredictability and uncertainty, [2] a lack of consistent policy, [4] and strained and sometimes antagonistic relationships with European allies. [5] He criticized NATO allies and privately suggested on multiple occasions that the U.S. should withdraw from NATO. [6] [7] Trade Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, [8] imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, [9] and launched a trade war with China by sharply increasing tariffs on 818 categories (worth $50 billion) of Chinese goods imported into the U.S. [10] While Trump said that import tariffs are paid by China into the U.S. Treasury, they are paid by American companies that import goods from China. [11] Although he pledged during the campaign to significantly reduce the U.S.'s large trade deficits, the trade deficit in July 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, "was the largest monthly deficit since July 2008". [12] Following a 2017–2018 renegotiation, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) became effective in July 2020 as the successor to NAFTA. [13] Russia China Before and during his presidency, Trump repeatedly accused China of taking unfair advantage of the U.S. [14] As president, Trump launched a trade war against China that was widely characterized as a failure, [15] [16] [17] sanctioned Huawei for alleged ties to Iran, [18] significantly increased visa restrictions on Chinese students and scholars, [19] and classified China as a currency manipulator. [20] Trump also juxtaposed verbal attacks on China with praise of Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping, [21] which was attributed to trade war negotiations. [22] After initially praising China for its handling of COVID-19, [23] he began a campaign of criticism starting in March 2020. [24] Trump said he resisted punishing China for its human rights abuses against ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region for fear of jeopardizing trade negotiations. [25] In July 2020, the Trump administration imposed sanctions and visa restrictions against senior Chinese officials, in response to expanded mass detention camps holding more than a million of the country's Uyghur minority. [26]</nowiki> |
Proposed text
|
---|
Foreign policy Trump described himself as a "nationalist" [27] and his foreign policy as " America First". [2] He imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum, among other imports; [28] [29] however, the trade deficit in July 2020 "was the largest monthly deficit since July 2008". [30] He also withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, [31] and renegotiated the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA, effective July 2020) as the successor to NAFTA. [32] Hallmarks of foreign relations during Trump's tenure included unpredictability and uncertainty, [2] a lack of consistent policy, [33] and strained and sometimes antagonistic relationships with European allies. [34] His foreign policy was marked by praise and support of populist, neo-nationalist, and authoritarian governments. [35] He criticized NATO allies and privately suggested on multiple occasions that the U.S. should withdraw from NATO. [36] [37] Russia China Before and during his presidency, Trump repeatedly accused China of taking unfair advantage of the U.S. [38] As president, Trump launched a trade war against China that was widely characterized as a failure, [39] [40] [41] sharply increasing tariffs on Chinese goods imported into the U.S. [42] While Trump said that import tariffs are paid by China into the U.S. Treasury, they are paid by American companies that import goods from China. [43] Trump also juxtaposed verbal attacks on China with praise of Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping, [44] which was attributed to trade war negotiations. [45] Trump sanctioned Huawei for alleged ties to Iran, [46] significantly increased visa restrictions on Chinese students and scholars, [47] and classified China as a currency manipulator. [48] After initially praising China for its handling of COVID-19, [49] he began a campaign of criticism starting in March 2020. [50] Trump said he resisted punishing China for its human rights abuses against ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region for fear of jeopardizing trade negotiations. [51] In July 2020, the Trump administration imposed sanctions and visa restrictions against senior Chinese officials, in response to expanded mass detention camps holding more than a million of the country's Uyghur minority. [52] |
I haven't had the time to compare them. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 20:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
started by the same editor as the Talk:Donald_Trump#Discussion_pointer January discussion, also without notifying editors on this page: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#WP:PEIS, resulting in a couple of edits on the main page that added 6,000 bytes ( Reduce WP:PEIS and WP:PEIS improvements from WP:VPT courtesy of User:Ahecht). I haven't a clue what the alleged improvement is supposed to be or do. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The PEIS reduction continues. Where do I find the WP guideline on adding #invoke:cite ...| (<ref>{{'''#invoke:cite news|'''|last= |first= |url= |title= |work=[[ ]]|date= |access-date= }}</ref>) to citations? Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Apparently I'm too dumb to figure this out.
PEIS limit is 2,097,152
Immediately before #invokes were added: 1,596,217
Immediately after #invokes were added (in three edits): 1,085,380
So the #invokes reduced PEIS by 510,837
[Ten intervening unrelated edits]
Immediately before my revert: 1,082,220
My revert should have resulted in 1,593,057 (1,082,220 + 510,837), or so I thought
After my revert: Busted PEIS limit (it doesn't tell you by how much)
So I self-reverted.
Immediately after Nikkimaria's edit: 1,836,402
We should be much closer to the original 1,596,217, after allowing for those ten intervening edits
Ping Ahecht and Locke Cole and Nikkimaria. ― Mandruss ☎ 02:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Should we mention it? See [7]. Jack Upland ( talk) 01:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to remove and refine un-cited examples of "public opinion or perception." One example is the following: "During the campaign, his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist." This has no citations and/or references, and seems to be a example of opinion. Pilotnance ( talk) 17:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Yuyugfu ( talk) 21:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I will try my best to make it good as possible
I think Operation Warp Speed should be mentioned in the lede, while discussing his response to COVID-19. It is really significant! Tejas Subramaniam ( talk) 20:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)