Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 142

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 135←Archive 140Archive 141Archive 142Archive 143Archive 144Archive 145

RfC: should we add a wiki-link to article subsection President Trump's statements on the Unite the Right rally?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus not to add link. As multiple people in the discussion observed (FormalDude, Specifico, possibly GoodDay), this is ... let's say not the most impactful of decisions. As WP:OVERLINK says, links aren't clicked on nearly as much as we might think. It doesn't actually say "don't put two links to the same article in the same sentence", but I would not be surprised if the reason for that lack was "don't give them any ideas!". Yes, Starship.paint and Bob K31416 argue that the specific section link adds value, but Specifico argues no less eloquently that it actually detracts by removing context. In the end, there are more people against adding the additional link than for adding it, and for a decision of such monumental importance, just counting the "very fine people on both sides" is as good a method as any other. --GRuban (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Rephrased with more detail per request. --GRuban (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Should we add this this wiki-link to the first two words (Trump's comments) of the below paragraph in Donald Trump#Racial views? starship.paint (exalt) 08:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, 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]

We've had discussions with differing views so I thought it should be settled thus. starship.paint (exalt) 08:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey

  • Option A - the focus of the paragraph is Trump's statements, so we should wiki-link "Trump's comments" to the 3,000+ words "Trump's statements" subsection of the Unite the Right rally article. If readers click the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia link, they will either need to read through 9,000+ prior words to get to "Trump's statements", or they will need to find the 26th to 30th subsections out of 45 subsections'. Why make life hard for readers? Retain the link to the rally for those interested in the big picture, and add a specific link to his statements for those focused on Trump. starship.paint (exalt) 08:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
No, they don't need to read through 9,000+ prior words to get to "Trump's statements", or they will need to find the 26th to 30th subsections out of 45 subsections'. They just need to look at the table of contents. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
It's a large table of contents and they wouldn't try to find something in it if they didn't know it was there. The very benign wikilink would direct the reader to the detailed discussion about Trump's comment. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I expressed a similar reaction to this RfC in the discussion section below. Just saying here that without affirmative consensus to change or add the section link, the status quo Option B will remain. It's very unfortunate that this issue was elevated to an RfC, but I do think it is important to reject that model of escalating a failed proposal. SPECIFICO talk 06:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option B. The link to 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia is more helpful to because it provides context for readers not familiar with or even aware of the events (nazi salutes and imagery, racist and antisemitic chants, armed militia groups, a vehicular homicide). We don't need a direct link to the subsection on Trump's statements since this article quotes the comments that were widely critized, and we cite the sources with the details of the criticism. Also, I took a long look at the comment's section which turned out to be a shaggy dog story kind of collection of everything anybody ever said about anything, including Bannon getting fired on August 18, on the heels of an American Prospect interview, in which he mockingly downplayed Trump's threats of military action on North Korea, and put down his administration colleagues and the far-right, which White House aides felt would likely provoke Trump. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees—serves to confuse readers rather than give further information. That's not a subsection we should be linking to (subsection to the "Reactions" section). I was trying hard to assume good faith but I got the impression that the purpose of all that verbiage is to hide the forest. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option C If we link to his comments section, why do we need to link to the rally as well?Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option A The proposed wikilink informs the reader of a Wikipedia section that is a detailed discussion of Trump's remarks about the rally. All we need to do is take what is already in the text, "Trump's comments", and make it a wikilink, "Trump's comments". Bob K31416 (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option B Per the consensus already reached in the talk thread prior to this RfC, a reader wishing further content about Trump's remarks will need to understand further context as to issues and events surrounding and at the rally. Cutting to the garbled and isolated subsection proposed in Option A provides no such critical information. Further per my comment in the discussion section below, I think this is an abominable misuse of the RfC process, which uses lots of editor resources and should be reserved for significant intractible disputes. SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option B, two wikilinks to the same article even in the same article, let alone in the same sentence, is redundant and discouraged. The article linked to already contains the section for any interested reader to view. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option A, Trump's remarks are a significant and distinctive aspect of the Unite the Right rally article. The remarks are significant enough that they would arguably merita a stand-alone article. Adding the link would allow the reader direct access to the discussion on the remarks, without having to read the earlier part of the article. Pakbelang (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option A - It would make sense to me that a link outgoing from the Donald Trump article would go to the relevant section about his statements about the rally. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @PraiseVivec: Its not that simple. The issue is not his comment in isolation. It is how he described the rally, its participants, and the actions and events therein. This context is not within the narrow section link, which would be a whitewash (yes) of his messaging around the event. Btw, if you will read that section, you'll see it is not well written. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC) Repair @PraiseVivec:19:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Trump's five statements are discussed in that section and there is an intro that was recently added by Space4Time3Continuum2x. In fact, Space4Time3Continuum2x started working on that section after this RFC started and has made a considerable number of additions and changes. As is now and before, when the reader goes to click on the link to the section, they see a popup that is a preview of the whole article replete with a picture of people carrying Confederate and Nazi flags. And the wikilink to the article is in the same sentence. There's no whitewash as you say. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option B - it seems extremely redundant to have both links go to the same article, especially when this is additionally filled with extra inline references as well. This appears to be putting far to much WP:WEIGHT on this issue. TiggerJay (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option B Linking to the same place twice within the same article is redundant and encroaches into the realm of "overlinking" WP:OVERLINKWritethisway (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option A - Firstly, this kind of a petty thing to have a RfC on, I agree with FormalDude that this is pretty insignificant. There are really two arguments against the inclusion of the comments link: that we shouldn't change longstanding text and it's redundant. MOS:REPEATLINK states duplicating links should be avoided; however, I don't see this really as a duplicate link since the go to different places, just within the same article. The Unite the Right Rally is a big article and IMO it would be helpful to readers to pinpoint Trumps comments and provide a general link in case their unfamiliar with the event. I understand that this is changing longstanding text, but I doubt any discussion before would be a powerful enough precedent to override this RfC's consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option B It just seems very redundant to have two links in the same sentence for the same article. Mgasparin (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Option A - It's an "ease of finding information" link. I don't see how it lends extra weight, it just seems to be an accessibility thing here. Fieari (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Option B - link to Trump's comments, aren't required. GoodDay (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I stand corrected, I did not realize that the page link was longstanding consensus text. But now that you've pointed that out, everyone can see that there was no affirmative consensus to change the longstanding text and you should have given up this tempest in a teapot long ago. SPECIFICO talk 22:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Do as you wish. I've grown fatigued with the continuing content disputes at this bio article. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Re Seraphimblade's comment, "The article linked to already contains the section for any interested reader to view." — Without a link to the section with a detailed discussion of Trump's comment, the reader would most likely not know about the section. Another editor noted, "If readers click the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia link, they will either need to read through 9,000+ prior words to get to "Trump's statements", or they will need to find the 26th to 30th subsections out of 45 subsections'.[1] And they wouldn't try to find a section that they didn't know existed. Bob K31416 (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
they will either need to read through 9,000+ prior words to get to "Trump's statements", or they will need to find the 26th to 30th subsections out of 45 subsections' That's why articles have tables of content. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
They wouldn't try to find a section in the large table of contents if that they didn't know it existed. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Bob K31416: WTH? Kindly move my edit back to where you found it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Done. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Bob K31416: Kindly move my edit back as well.I hope the irony is not lost on you about readers not knowing where to find pertinent text. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Done. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
This RfC is about linking to the subsection. If the heading of the subsection is modified and if the consensus of the RfC is to link to the heading, we can change the link to Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, condemning "this egregious display—the text doesn't look any different. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC) @Starship.paint: Or you could change the link in Option A now? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The heading change would disrupt the discussion here where the link is used in various places. The heading has been in the article over there for four years. It would take awhile to regain stability if it was changed and the links here would have to be changed each time the heading may be changed. Why can't you wait until after this RFC is over to try to change it? Bob K31416 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The heading change can be accomplished with no disruption using Template:Anchor. I added one at that article so "#President Trump's statements" links still work. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Well done! I accept that. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The original section heading change by Space4Time3Continuum2x that broke the wikilink discussed in this RFC, caused a disruption of this RFC, which is now back on track. Space4Time3Continuum2x is currently working on that section and I hope there isn't any more disruption as a result. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Feathers. I didn't know about anchors. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, I've done about as much as I can to improve the article in this respect. It's taken a lot of my time and it's time for me to leave. I hope the RFC gets consensus. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Merica, Dan (August 26, 2017). "Trump: 'Both sides' to blame for Charlottesville". CNN. Retrieved January 13, 2018.
  2. ^ Johnson, Jenna; Wagner, John (August 12, 2017). "Trump condemns Charlottesville violence but doesn't single out white nationalists". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 22, 2021.
  3. ^ Kessler, Glenn (May 8, 2020). "The 'very fine people' at Charlottesville: Who were they?". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 23, 2021.
  4. ^ Holan, Angie Dobric (April 26, 2019). "In Context: Donald Trump's 'very fine people on both sides' remarks (transcript)". PolitiFact. Retrieved October 22, 2021.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Both FBI investigations were discontinued"

Space4Time3Continuum2x, it is true that both investigations were discontinued, but not for the same reasons. Crossfire Hurricane was folded into the Mueller investigation, but not "after deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein gave the bureau the false impression that the incipient Special Counsel investigation would pursue" it. That was true only for the "counterintelligence investigation into Trump's personal and business dealings with Russia."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&curid=4848272&diff=1060922675&oldid=1060863813

soibangla (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, this doesn't fix it. soibangla (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The latter investigation was discontinued appears to imply that the former was continued. Per the NY Times:
NYT excerpt

Mr. McCabe pushed Mr. Rosenstein to appoint a special counsel to conduct the investigation into Mr. Trump and the broader examination of Russia’s interference in the election. Two days later, Mr. Rosenstein appointed Mr. Mueller.

“It was the most enormous exhale of my life,” Mr. McCabe said. “I had been holding my breath” since the night Mr. Comey was fired, he added.

That day, Mr. Rosenstein joined Mr. McCabe while he briefed lawmakers about matters including the counterintelligence investigation and raised no objections.

The following day, Mr. McCabe briefed Mr. Mueller and his top deputies on the investigation into the president. But Mr. McCabe did not know that Mr. Rosenstein also gave his instruction to Mr. Mueller around that time to focus on whether crimes were committed. Mr. Mueller later told Congress he did not conduct a counterintelligence investigation. Mr. McCabe did not know that Mr. Rosenstein also gave his instruction to Mr. Mueller around that time to focus on whether crimes were committed. Mr. Mueller later told Congress he did not conduct a counterintelligence investigation.

I read that to mean that the FBI/their acting director McCabe believed Mueller was taking over both investigations when Rosenstein's instructions had limited the Special Counsel's investigation to "crimes committed". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump & CIA: "Borrowing From Nixon's Playbook"

Christopher R. Moran; Richard J. Aldrich;

  • Moran, Christopher R.; Aldrich, Richard J. (4 December 2017). "Trump and the CIA". Foreign Affairs. via: google docs. ISSN 0015-7120. Retrieved 19 December 2021. www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2017-04-24/trump-and-cia

0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

0mtwb9gd5wx, do you have a specific edit in mind that you'd like to see made using this source? Please propose one. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The Mueller investigation.

Please re-read the report, which states that there was no Trump-Russia collusion.. There was however, the Hilliary Clinton-Russia-Steele collusion. 107.77.237.191 (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Facepalm Facepalm – Muboshgu (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Please cite which pages of the report state that. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

"Trump renegotiated NAFTA" now in lead but not in article

In this edit, the following text was reinserted in the lead "he renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement as the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement" There was a detailed talk page discussion and poll archived here concerning whether to state that Trump had renegotiated the Agreement -- there is no such statement in the article text -- and the text was removed from the lead. Since then, without new discussion, the lead text was later reinstated. That's why I removed it prior to the current reinstatement. For comparison, the article text does not attribute the new trade deal to Trump. It says "Following a 2017–2018 renegotiation, Trump signed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) as the successor to NAFTA on January 29, 2020." The lead text should be removed and nothing like that should be restored except when and as there is collateral article text and talk page consensus to place it in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC).

I removed it. According to the source, the new agreement is 95% the old agreement with a new name and "great fanfare", providing small boosts for the U.S. auto (higher rules of origin) and dairy industries (opening Canadian markets for U.S. dairy products). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, put the policies into the administration article. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

If it ain't in the article its not going in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Iran deal

I object to this removal because Trump had long said he could negotiate a better deal, it wasn't merely a campaign promise that should be relegated to his campaign article, it was a core foreign policy position for years. If his BLP is to include the Iran deal, we must make it clear that the policy failed. soibangla (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

This is far less about a false or misleading statement than it is about a major foreign policy failure. soibangla (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
It's not major. Iran had already formally disregarded the agreement nobody was practically enforcing anyway, and continued to enrich uranium peacefully under Obama. The exact same speculative alarmism about a potential nuclear attack simply didn't change after Trump falsely claimed he'd better deal with the supposed ongoing threat, misleading those who take campaign promises seriously. Killing Soleimani, now that was a major international failure. Declaring the IRGC an FTO was also a legit boner. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
"I, alone, can fix it" he said at his inaugural. Fix DPRK? Nope. Fix China? Nope. Fix Iran? Nope. Those are the Big Three of his foreign policy. We note the outcomes of DPRK and China in the lead and we should note the Iran outcome as well. soibangla (talk)
Those are your Big Three. A Syrian, Mexican or Dane might think other global intelligence failures were bigger. A Nigerian, Afghan or Venezuelan, same thing. Anyway, major or not, he didn't "fix" whatever "it" was supposed to be, especially "alone". Since the sentence on his lying doesn't limit itself to big or small untruths, I still feel it can include any Big Three (and every Bottom 50). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Russia – Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA)

This information was removed (diff) by User:Space4Time3Continuum2x, with the following edit summary: "No consensus to include." I think it is relevant and should be included.

In 2017, Trump signed the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which has targeted Russia's oil and gas industry, defence and security sectors, and financial institutions,[1][2][3] and his administration imposed sanctions on several third countries for buying Russian weapons.[4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ "US sanctions on Russia could harm India. Congress is wrestling over a fix". Defense News. July 18, 2018.
  2. ^ "CAATSA designed not to take punitive action against friends, allies: US diplomat". The Economic Times. December 18, 2020.
  3. ^ "U.S. imposes sanctions on Russian vessel involved with Nord Stream 2 pipeline". Reuters. January 19, 2021.
  4. ^ "Trump signs bill approving new sanctions against Russia". CNN. August 3, 2017.
  5. ^ Storey, Ian (November 21, 2018). "US assault on Russian arms exports could misfire in Asia". Nikkei Asian Review. Archived from the original on July 1, 2019.
  6. ^ "U.S. sanctions Turkey over purchase of Russian S-400 missile system". CNBC. December 14, 2020.

-- Tobby72 (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I objected to this addition, too, when you first proposed it two weeks ago in U.S.—Russian relations, Igor Danchenko. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Your comment appears to be false. Perhaps I missed something? Bob K31416 (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
It was phrased a little differently but linked to the same piece of legislation: In 2017, Trump signed the legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I see no connection to Trump. Like all US presidents, Trump signed many bills on which they took no initiative or involvement. This appears to be one of them. See here SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The connection to Trump is that he didn't like the bill and submitted a signing statement against the bill he signed. I object to the sentence proposed by Tobby72 because it's clear that he did not sign the bill willingly. It was either that or his veto would be overridden (it passed the House 419-3 and the Senate 98-2). It would need lots of additional context and belongs on the Presidency of Donald Trump article, not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
(response to Tobby72) Trump & Biden both imposed travel bans on some African countries. Do we/should we includes those? or place them in their administration articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
What is this in response to? Seems to refer to COVID19-related travel restrictions. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
All such details, are best kept in the administration articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@GoodDay: wrote: ":All such details, are best kept in the administration articles." What do you think about this content?: Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7. (Trump also wanted to include India, South Korea and Australia [2]), and The Trump administration "water[ed] down the toughest penalties the U.S. had imposed on Russian entities" after its 2014 annexation of Crimea (In 2020, the Trump administration imposed new sanctions[3]). Should we includes those? or place them in their administration articles. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
The Trump administration article. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
"Trump supported the potential return of Russia to the G7". The word "potential" seems redundant there. --Khajidha (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
What this appears to be as an attempt to synthesise] a purported instance of Trump being "tough on Russia" to counterbalance the claims in other sources that he was soft. ValarianB (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
It's not synthesis but your remark that sources claim Trump was soft on Russia is synthesis, unless you can find in the given sources where they explicitly say that. Bob K31416 (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Bob K31416, 37 Times Trump Was Soft On Russia, CNN – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Cherry picking. We would find a lot of examples when he was "tough" on Russia ([4],[5],[6]), a lot of examples when he was "soft" on Russia, a lot of examples when he was "tough" (or "soft") on China, and also a lot of examples when Bill Clinton ([7],[8]), Barack Obama ([9],[10]) or Joe Biden ([11],[12]) were "tough" (and "soft") on Russia, Iran or China. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like you're the one cherrypicking. Consensus of RS is that Trump was soft on Russia, and I provided an "overview" source for it documenting 37 specific examples. This relates to sanctions placed by Obama and Trump not giving a waiver because of appearances, this says he "gently criticized" Russia in a speech as Trump sought to ease the nerves of U.S. allies after failing in May to endorse the principle of collective defense enshrined in Article Five of the NATO treaty, and here he says "Russia is not helping us at all with North Korea" but does nothing. That's "tough"? That's whining. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Any denial of cherrypicking that begins "We would find a lot of examples..." isn't likely to make it across the finish line. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Trump: “We urge Russia to cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere and its support for hostile regimes including Syria and Iran... Do you think this is a "gentle" criticism of Russia? Muboshgu: "Consensus of RS is that Trump was soft on Russia..." In my opinion, most of the mainstream media is biased against Trump. A May 2017 study from Harvard University's Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy of Trump's first 100 days in office found that 93% of CNN & NBC coverage of President Trump during the period was negative. The survey also found 91% of CBS coverage was negative and that 87% of The New York Times coverage was negative during Trump's first 100 days.[13],[14]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
A cherry! Does that sound like Trump's voice to you? What's the link to the context? SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Trump says U.S. is committed to NATO defense, knocks Russia over Ukraine, Reuters, July 6, 2017. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Bush (43), Obama, Trump, Biden. I've given up on any of those bios ever being truly NPOV. You want changes made? go the RFC route. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, most of the mainstream media is biased against Trump. What can I do other than throw up my hands at a comment like that? The mainstream media is what it is, they're the only one we have. If you argue that the referees are biased, you're left with delegitimizing the whole game. And they've been negative to Biden too. Not the same way of course, because they're different people. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
There's material that isn't anti-Trump in main stream media reliable sources and is meeting severe resistance against being put in this Wikipedia article and is being suppressed. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
What? The sources that Tobby72 cherrypicked? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
RS news media, if that is what you reference, is (in the aggregate) not pro- or anti- Trump. It's our NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 03:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
News media endorsements in the 2020 United States presidential election pretty clearly shows which ones aren't even feigning impartiality. Trying to adhere to NPOV in relaying these media's opinions of subjects they openly oppose is one thing, and wise. But pretending the pro-Biden, pro-Clinton or pro-Anyone-But-Trump political news publishers themselves are neutral is a second, more foolish thing to do. No question there are many. But anti-Trump mainstream media isn't the only kind we have; it's just treated favourably by those most invested in maintaining this anti-Trump article. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
And no, that's not a knock on you. Just a friendly nod to your colleague. Maybe a general wave at everyone in that virtual smoky backroom, all good fun, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Newspaper editorial boards make endorsements and write other opinion pieces that are not RS, but for basic facts. Journalists write the articles that are RS. And the skew of anti-Trump articles in the MSM is likely not as bad as you'd expect, at least when compared to a different POTUS. But yes I do agree that that talk page comment linked above was in poor taste. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the comment was in poor taste, I think it was honest and transparent, hence the friendly nod. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
We all have our biases. Hopefully we check them at the door before editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
If "we" means editors who dislike Trump and belittle the reliable mainstream sources which don't agree he's soft on, gay for or otherwise subservient to Russia/Putin, it's too late to hope. I know who "they" are, and so do a lot of outside observers. They've written entire categories of articles based on and in furtherance of that disputed opinion, not just most of their least favourite politician's bio; we whose biases are apolitical or pro-Trump have long used those talk pages to explain this conflict of interest to the same seven or so regulars, and made no progress. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
we whose biases are apolitical or pro-Trump need to take a look at the FAQ at the top of this talk page, stop whining, and make specific proposals for improvement of the article "based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
In a previous comment, Tobby72 presented an article from Reuters, Trump says U.S. is committed to NATO defense, knocks Russia over Ukraine. Is there anything in that article that you think should be put in this Wikipedia article? Bob K31416 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

This is bias and misleading non accurate information.

This is bias and misleading non accurate information 2601:143:C701:42D0:AC6E:D24D:1DA4:50A6 (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

No comparisons with Hitler?

Not a particularly constructive suggestion and now everyone is dunking on OP so let's just close this — Czello 15:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article is strikingly lacking in any comparisons with Hitler, despite numerous such analogies being documented. I propose making a new section dedicated to it. As it is now this article seems way too biased in favor of Trump, so adding this section will give people who disagree with Trump an ability to have their views represented accurately on Wikipedia. 24.228.172.139 (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Biased in favour of Trump??? Now, that's a good chuckle. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, just to say, I do not believe this article should make a comparison between Trump and Hitler. I would also certainly not say that this article is biased towards Trump. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Reductio ad Hitlerum is not really the way we write article on politicians, even if they are demagogues. While Trumpism has similarities to fascism, it is not Neo-Nazism under a new name. Dimadick (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Now, I'm not a fan of Trump's but whatever your opinions on his policies, personality, grooming or anything else, this strikes me as over the top. Not to mention perhaps minimizing the actual horrific nature of Hitler's Germany. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
MAybe one line, maybe. But I am unsure even that is valid, as this is about him. It is not about his presidancy.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

we don't need to know what he did not do?

Slatersteven, I'd likely agree with you if he hadn't promised these things, but he did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1062454471&oldid=1062453895

soibangla (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

So, a lot of people promise things during elections and do not deliver, in fact they all do. This should be about the things that make Trump stand out.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
He repeatedly and loudly promised he'd do these things for years and appeared at rallies with banners declaring "promises made, promises kept." These were centerpiece promises. We need to mention their outcomes. soibangla (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Again, they all do, and never do. This is about him, not his presidency, so this should be abouhis legacy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Candidates declare what they favor and will try to do. Trump's campaign was noteworthy for his promises to do things that are outside a president's sole command. It was an effective campaign stance because he conveyed to many voters the impression that he would deliver these promised actions that other candidates and officeholders failed to delivevr only because they were lazy, corrupt, or indiffereint to the interests of the citizenry. I think a summary statement of the many key campaign promise failures is appropriate -- but a summary that covers the scope and importance would be helpful, rather than a mere list. SPECIFICO talk 16:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
As I said this may be OK in an article about his presidency, this is not it. Also, we would need to show that RS found this exceptional.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I would say this is more a personal characteristic of his, making boastful promises that sound convincing despite being fundamentally ridiculous. SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Then (as long as we can find RS that say this is a defining characteristic) lets say that "he has been characterized as an inveterate liar who makes promises he can't (and had no intention) of keeping", or words to that effect. Lets make it about him, and not his presidency.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Other candidates make promises, too, that they can't or won't keep (see PolitiFact's stats of Obama and Trump's campaign promises) but they don't keep mentioning them or claim that they have kept them. Trump made a few signature promises during the campaign that he kept harping on during the presidency with its continuing rallys: build the wall, repeal and replace Obamacare with something mucho better, bring back manufacturing, the infrastructure plan that never materialized despite several "infrastructure weeks" which became a running joke. Specifico, do you have a suggestion for a summary? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
So he didn't keep all his promises. Nothing unusual for US presidents & politicians overall. GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
No, his record is highly unusual. For starters you can do an internet search on "Trump campaign promises" and a raft of top quality sources will be listed. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Biden's not exactly off to a great start either. But, I guess we can blame that all on Joe 'the DINO' Manchin. GoodDay (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump and Israel

I have suggested in the past to edit the foreign policy section of this article by adding a profound statement the former president stated in his interview with Ari Hoffman on 10-29-2021 [15]. Later to my surprise not only the suggestion was not incorporated in the main article but also even the talking point was removed. No reasons given. Now I would like to revisit this topic in light of the fact that the former president has repeated his remarks, this time in his interview with Barak Ravid, receiving large coverage in CNN and other US and foreign media. [16] MYS1979 (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Then as now, there really wasn't any important context to the former president's words. He stated (inartfully, as he usually does) that Israel's influence on Congress has waned over the years. Honestly, so what? Zaathras (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
This can't be further from just a mere "inartful" statement. We can't possibly ignore that the former president has made Isarel a corner stone in his foreign policy during his term in office. In this regard there were profound actions that he took with significant political, religious and historical consequences, all while congress and senate were debating his impeachment. For example:-
  1. Recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
  2. Recognizing the Golan Heights as part of Israel
  3. Withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear deal
  4. Assassinating the Iranian General Soleimani
  5. Reversing course on the legality of Israeli settlements in the west bank
  6. Cutting ties/funding with the Palestinian authority and closing consulate in Jerusalem
  7. Withdrawing from UNRWA and UNESCO
  8. Adding Israel as a country of birth on American passports for those born in Jerusalem reversing supreme court ruling of Zivotofsky v Kerry
and many others. 47.187.39.94 (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
You will need to propose specific article text that reflects the narrative of mainstream reliable sources. Otherwise, talk page discussion is not going to lead to any such changes to the article. SPECIFICO talk 22:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Any neutral attempt to document the former President's pro-Israeli moves will appear misleadingly one sided. No surprise there, that's because they were one sided. Recognizing that I have left out many pro-Israeli steps out from the following suggested text, I hope this can be an invitation to other writers to expand on this topic. I humbly ask if we can append the following under the foreign policy/Israel:- "Trump supported many of the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[1] Under Trump, the U.S. recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel[2] and Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights,[3] and it abandoned a long-held U.S. position that Israeli settlements in the West Bank break international law [4] leading to international condemnation including from the United Nations General Assembly, the European Union and the Arab League.[5][6]. According to a Pew Research Center survey Donald Trump enjoyed more popularity in Israel than almost anywhere else in the world. [7]. His administration has stopped funding to UNRWA which supports Palestinian refugees, withdrew from UNESCO out of concerns over anti Israeli bias [8][9], abolished the Consulate General of the United States, Jerusalem which served Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza [10], cut funding to the Palestinians [11], altered passport ruling for Jerusalem births [12], assassinated Iranian General Qasem Soleimani with the help of Israelis [13], abandoned Iran's Nuclear Deal, a move hailed by Israeli president then Benjamin Netanyahu as historic and courageous [14]. In an interview with Ari Hoffman Donald Trump said "Well, you know the biggest change I've seen in Congress is Israel literally owned Congress – you understand that, 10 years ago, 15 years ago – and it was so powerful, it was so powerful, and today it's almost the opposite. Israel had such power – and rightfully – over Congress, and now it doesn't. It's incredible, actually."[15]. MYS1979 (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Our current text on Israel: Trump supported many of the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Under Trump, the U.S. recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, leading to international condemnation including from the United Nations General Assembly, the European Union and the Arab League. Breaking the proposed new material down into manageable pieces:
  1. and it abandoned a long-held U.S. position that Israeli settlements in the West Bank break international law
  2. According to a Pew Research Center survey Donald Trump enjoyed more popularity in Israel than almost anywhere else in the world.
  3. His administration has stopped funding to UNRWA which supports Palestinian refugees, withdrew from UNESCO out of concerns over anti Israeli bias, abolished the Consulate General of the United States, Jerusalem which served Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, cut funding to the Palestinians, altered passport ruling for Jerusalem births,
  4. assassinated Iranian General Qasem Soleimani with the help of Israelis,
  5. abandoned Iran's Nuclear Deal, a move hailed by Israeli president then Benjamin Netanyahu as historic and courageous.
  6. In an interview with Ari Hoffman Donald Trump said "Well, you know the biggest change I've seen in Congress is Israel literally owned Congress – you understand that, 10 years ago, 15 years ago – and it was so powerful, it was so powerful, and today it's almost the opposite. Israel had such power – and rightfully – over Congress, and now it doesn't. It's incredible, actually."
The easy ones: oppose item 2—the world-wide ratings mentioned in Approval ratings suffice; oppose items 4 and 5—Soleimani assassination and withdrawal from JPCOA are mentioned in Iran; oppose item 6, echoing an anti-semitic conspiracy theory on local Seattle conservative podcast—I think Racial views covers that. Item 1—maybe but in a different location. The "international condemnation" sources only mention the annexation of the Golan Heights. Item 3: Have to read up on some of that, think about the rest. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-how-trump-and-netanyahu-became-each-other-s-most-effective-political-weapon-1.7569757
  2. ^ https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/trump-move-embassy-jerusalem-israel-reaction-281973
  3. ^ https://www.npr.org/2019/03/25/706588932/trump-formally-recognizes-israeli-sovereignty-over-golan-heights?t=1617622343037
  4. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-settlement/in-trumps-final-days-netanyahu-orders-more-settler-homes-built-idUSKBN29G12E
  5. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/21/world/middleeast/trump-jerusalem-united-nations.html
  6. ^ https://www.euronews.com/2019/03/22/outcry-as-trump-backs-israeli-sovereignty-over-golan-heights
  7. ^ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/11/27/donald-trump-impeachment-escape-hatch-israel-netanyahu-column/4298605002/
  8. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45377336
  9. ^ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/u-s-and-israel-officially-withdraw-from-unesco
  10. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/world/middleeast/us-palestinians-consulate-jerusalem.html
  11. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-47095082
  12. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-usa-passport/first-jerusalem-born-american-gets-u-s-passport-that-lists-israel-as-birthplace-idUSKBN27F295
  13. ^ https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israeli-intel-chief-takes-responsibility-for-assassination-of-iran-s-soleimani-1.10481220
  14. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html
  15. ^ https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/trump-says-israel-literally-owned-congress-in-interview-683759
  • We can't talk about the former presidents actions towards Israel as if we are talking about any president and any other country. Can you remember the last time he didn't mention Israel in his speeches? I can't. The pro Israel steps he took while he was in the office needs to be neutrally documented in his biography for historical purposes. Even if you are a pro Trump Wikipedia writer - we all got our biases don't we - we should let the history judge if they were right or wrong. To say let's not talk about Suleimani's assassination or withdrawal from JPCOA under Israel foreign policy because they are mentioned under Iran overlooks the Israeli factor in these events. Where is that mentioned in the president's biography? We can't act as if Israel is Luxemburg in these events. And no the racial views don't cover him stating "Israel literally controlled our congress and rightfully so". This is an extraordinary and repeated more than once statement by the former president about a foreign country. I personally find that offensive and anti-Semitic but it offers an explanation for his one sided policies towards Israel while he was under impeachment. My recommendation is to add to the points mentioned above and not to reduce them. for example we can add the following
  1. Stop the usage of the term occupied Palestinian territories to describe Gaza and the West bank
  2. Stop the funding to Palestinian hospitals in East Jerusalem
  3. Closing PLO offices in Washington DC
  4. Pressuring Palestinians to accept the one sided peace plan that his son in law orchestrated.
  5. Pressuring Arab countries to normalize relationships with Israel in return of favors (for example recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over Sahara dessert, Taking off Sudan from the countries sponsor of terrorism, and promising UAE to get F35)
  6. Incorporating west bank settlements and the Golan heights in the American Israeli scientific cooperation agreement
  7. considering BDS as anti-Semitic
  8. keeping forces in Syria based on the request from Israel which saw withdrawal plans as a betrayal.

MYS1979 (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Undue—why?

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, please explain why this is undue. It's one of the lawsuits people were prevented from bringing while Trump was president. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The article is already massive, why add sentences about him giving testimony that did not affect his life or the lives of any of his associates? How did this testimony change anything? Bill Williams 22:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Yea it's just not significant. Hasn't proven to be impactful or a considerably important aspect of his post-presidential life. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Good point. I posted it in Legal affairs of Donald Trump instead. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Low Unemployment rate

I see there are many criticisms listed, indicating political bias in my opinion. How come there is no mention that the unemployment rate for blacks and Latinos was the lowest in recorded history under the Trump presidency? You don't have to like the man to appreciate the result of his administration. 68.237.76.212 (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia content depends on reliable sourcing. To include what you want would require reliable independent sourcing that tells us two things - That your claim about the low unemployment rate is true (It seems unlikely to this non-American - Lowest EVER?), and that this low unemployment rate was the result of action taken by Donald Trump. So, do you have such sources? HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Well we would need RS saying it was him personally who caused it, for a start. Otherwise (again) this would be best in an article about his presidancy.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Recorded history? See for yourself (not all of recorded history, just going back to 1948): https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls, select "Civilian unemployment", click "Retrieve Data", click "More formatting options", change output options to 1948-2021 and select "include graphs" and "include annual averages", click "Retrieve data". Nice chart, eh? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Here's the result in a graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE, and the graph and table for 2001–2021: https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Spacetime, your charts are about total unemployment. The claim raised at this discussion had to do with Black and Latino unemployment. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware of that—should have included my reasoning. I looked for statistics breaking down the totals into the subsets prior to 2001 but haven't found any. The table for 2001–2021 shows how the unemployment rates rise and fall along with the total. Stands to reason that that was the case in earlier years, too. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC) I mean this U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics chart and table of unemployment rates from 2001–2021 for the subsets Hispanic/Latino, Black/African American, White, Asian, men 20 years and over, women 20 years and over, 16–19 years old. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Click each subset until all of them are shown in the graph to see how they all rise and fall at the same time. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
This was typical of the Trump talking points that took on a life of their own and go from fabrication to fact merely through repetition. Perhaps this could be included as an example in the context of a well-sourced section about his style of communication? SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's stick to the fact-checkers. Here is one valuable article. It shows It shows that Black unemployment under Trump continued a steady decline (from about 17% in 2010 to about 6% in late 2019). That decline is a straight-line graph, with no change or inflection from the Obama administration to the Trump administration. That much is true. Whether Trump had anything to do with the "record" is highly debatable, since the chart shows it was a continuation of the steady rate of decline since 2010. And of course that steady decline was erased by a sharp increase a few months later when Covid hit. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=KmSq soibangla (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
To MelanieN's point, I have seen no RS that attribute any such decline to Trump. Moreover, per my comment above, I have not seen any RS that say the economic welfare of these groups has improved during Trump's time in office, so a single statistic out of context is not viewed by RS as supporting the implication Trump apparently hoped to establish with this talking point. SPECIFICO talk 18:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
There is absolutely no evidence that Trump magically made these things happen, so it should certainly not be in the lead or ever attributed to Trump's actions, but it might belong in the article as it does in Obama's, with simple statements of the numbers.
The unemployment rate rose in 2009, reaching a peak in October at 10.0 percent and averaging 10.0 percent in the fourth quarter. Following a decrease to 9.7 percent in the first quarter of 2010, the unemployment rate fell to 9.6 percent in the second quarter, where it remained for the rest of the year.[267] Between February and December 2010, employment rose by 0.8 percent, which was less than the average of 1.9 percent experienced during comparable periods in the past four employment recoveries.[268] By November 2012, the unemployment rate fell to 7.7 percent,[269] decreasing to 6.7 percent in the last month of 2013.[270] During 2014, the unemployment rate continued to decline, falling to 6.3 percent in the first quarter.[271] GDP growth returned in the third quarter of 2009, expanding at a rate of 1.6 percent, followed by a 5.0 percent increase in the fourth quarter.[272] Growth continued in 2010, posting an increase of 3.7 percent in the first quarter, with lesser gains throughout the rest of the year.[272] In July 2010, the Federal Reserve noted that economic activity continued to increase, but its pace had slowed, and chairman Ben Bernanke said the economic outlook was "unusually uncertain".[273] Overall, the economy expanded at a rate of 2.9 percent in 2010.[274]
This does not credit Obama with the growth, but states the basic facts on the situation. Bill Williams 19:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Thedarkknightli: Please self-revert. By edit-warring, you are in violation of the 24-hr BRD cycle mandated on this article. Unlinking his residence, all his political parties, and his birthplace from the infobox is wrong. The point of the infobox is to summarize the article, and it should contain links. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see this before reverting, and I regret not leaving time for a self-reversion. That said, I agree with Tartan357. Firefangledfeathers 04:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Someone else reverting is equally welcome :) ― Tartan357 Talk 04:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

6th best us president

Donald J. Trump was the 45th president of the United States and is ranked 6th best president overall. 67.7.46.224 (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

6th best us president

Donald J. Trump was the 45th president of the United States and is ranked 6th best president overall. 67.7.46.224 (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Election fraud

Okay then. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This Wikipedia page makes it sounds like Trump's claims are unfounded however that's not true by any stretch 2601:347:100:FBD0:B8E8:FD43:6EF:43BC (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Election fraud

Okay then. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This Wikipedia page makes it sounds like Trump's claims are unfounded however that's not true by any stretch 2601:347:100:FBD0:B8E8:FD43:6EF:43BC (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2022

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.

Change or remove :Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.

No supporting documentation and all Recent polls, public comments by scholars and historians now have Biden as below Trump. Many scholars and historians also rank Carter as the worst in American history so this is a divisive comment with no support. 96.250.225.113 (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Care to tell us which scholars and historians?Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
"Many scholars and historians also rank Carter as the worst in American history" Is this a joke? We have an entire list of rankings in Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Most of the recent ones have ranked Jimmy Carter as the 26th best president. He outranks such presidents as Gerald Ford (27-28th), George W. Bush (29-33rd), Richard Nixon (29-31st), Herbert Hoover (36th), Warren G. Harding (37-41st), and Donald Trump (41-42nd). Some of the polls we have are ranking Carter even higher, in the 18th or 19th position. In these, Carter outranks both Bill Clinton (19th) and George H. W. Bush (22nd). Dimadick (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Don't fuss over it too much, IP. In about 10 years from now, the rankings will be different. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
There was an extraordinarily long and thorough RFC on this, which resulted in overwhelming support for the inclusion of this statement. There aren’t any footnotes because this is the lede, but if you go to Historical rankings of presidents of the United States, you’ll see how well-sourced this claim is (and how wholly unjustified your claim about Carter is). I'm closing this discussion because it is a rehash of the discussion right before it, which is itself a rehash of the RFC that gave us consensus item #54. Cpotisch (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Worst President in US History

See consensus, item 54, and the RfC. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not that I disagree, but having "Scholars and Historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history" at the end of the opening has to be an NPOV violation, especially given that there is no citation KlammyKlam (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

KlammyKlam, it's cited in the body, and it's not an NPOV violation because it's not us saying it, it's scholars and historians, and we're just including it. Normally things cited in the body don't need to be cited in the lead, per WP:LEADCITE, but this is the kind of controversial information that probably deserves a lead citation. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Should I go ahead and find the citation and include it in the lead?KlammyKlam (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
No (see my response to Muboshgu). The last sentence was added to the lead after an RfC and is now part of our consensus, item 54. It is not an NPOV violation. It's not in Wiki voice (we give attribution to scholars and historians), and the sources are in the Approval ratings section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Muboshgu, what part of the lead—or most of this article, for that matter—has not been defined by someone as controversial at one time or another? 142 archives has to be the WP record. The agreement on this page has been to keep cites out of the lead for as long as I have been editing here (2018). I just noticed that it isn't mentioned in the consensus. That, to me, indicates that it hasn't been controversial so far. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't put much faith in the opinions of historians & scholars, about a former president who's only left office 'bout a year ago. But anyways. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Not again, we have just had a discussion about this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't remember every discussion about the lead or every particular consensus. I'm not in the mood to relitigate them. I do think that the lead would benefit from citations where controversial points are made, but I'll leave it at that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we archive this and then display the previous discussion on the talk page so other users see that consensus was reached? Tyrone (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

See consensus, item 54, at the top of this page. It has a link to the RfC. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

State of the Union Address response in the succession boxes

Thank goodness Trump was never a member of Congress. If he were, he'd have a bit of mess among his succession boxes, with the inclusion of State of the Union Address responses. It's in every bio succession box of anyone who've ever responded to a State of the Union Address, beginning in 1966. My goodness what a massive mess it is, too. GoodDay (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Removals by Spy-cicle

Spy-cicle, you removed content with the rationale of "Revert bold additions to lead," but:

  • You also removed the cited Gallup findings from the body.
  • Is it unreasonable to include that Gallup sentence in the lead, just before the findings of scholars and historians, and in order to support the body content?
  • Is it untrue Trump "made no progress in constraining Iran's nuclear ambitions," as cited in the body and in the lead of Iran deal, and which is actually a generous characterization?
  • Is it untrue he "initiated a trade war with China?"
  • Is it untrue the trade war was "widely characterized as a failure" as cited in the body, and with ten solid citations in the lead of China–United States trade war? soibangla (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    I reckon somebody else restored your edits. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    To answer you points:
    Did not intend to remove that from the body
    Yes, it's WP:UNDUE, the lead is already too lengthy
    Not untrue, but the lead is already too long as it is, sentence about each agreement adjustment under Trump (for example we could his withdrawal from the Paris agreement was critized by climate activists and climate scientists, but we do not have space on his personal biography space)
    The wording was better before.
    I refer to my previous points before about the lead already being too long.
    Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    Lead too long does not make content UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 03:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, do you believe it is neither notable nor leadworthy that Trump is the only one to not hit 50% in over 80 years, especially in conjunction with the consensus of scholars and historians that he is among the worst presidents in history? soibangla (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

National polls are irrelevant, since the national popular vote doesn't always win you the presidency. Ya gotta win the popular vote on a state-by-state basis. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd argue your point is irrelevant because we're not talking about how elections are won, but rather the national sentiment. soibangla (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I oppose what you're proposing, as it's (IMHO) irrelevant info. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I haven't made up my mind yet, still weighing lead being too long versus noteworthyness. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The lead is not particularly long. Anyway as to noteworthiness, polls are widely reported and discussed in RS -- especially notable national tracking polls, so I don't think it's up to WP editors to say they are insignificant. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The guy's been out of office nearly a whole year. Wouldn't it be best to concentrate on the current president, concerning opinion polls? GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how Biden enters into this. A better question is why this Gallup content wasn't included months ago. soibangla (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I've found a number of sources other than Gallup reporting on itself (Fortune, CNN, New York Magazine, The Wrap, Vox, 538). I just don't know how leadworthy one poll among many is—see 538, for example. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Gallup pioneered modern polling in the 1930s. They've been asking the presidential approval question since 1938, encompassing thirteen previous presidents. This is why it stands out. Its combination with findings of scholars/historians makes it even more notable. soibangla (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

If yas wanna have polling in the bios of former presidents, which cover their time in office? then fine. IMHO, that info is best placed in the president's or former president's administration article. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Trump's Gallup polling is unique among fourteen modern presidents. soibangla (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
There is lots of respected polling that finds his unpopularity was largely due to personal traits and behaviors rather than his politcal views and the actions of his administration. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

"And" or "but" made no progress, again

I still think the "but" before the Iran progress has the same inexplicably gratuitous condescending attitude it has with the Korean result, and maintain "and" better reflects the unremarkability of such routine diplomatic outcomes.

The unusual part is only that an American president tried and failed on Trump's watch, rather than the ambassadors, spies and unclassified state department delegates his successor and predecessors usually send to no avail. But make no mistake, a president is traditionally permitted to act as a high-ranking diplomat when it suits his or his nation's interests, and it's in that capacity he should be appraised. Same as how he could have been judged as a general if he'd chosen drone warfare over fruitless conversation.

Anyway, when the Korean version of this closed, it seemed "and" was up 4-2, or at least 3-2. Could we reach a firm consensus this time, or at least a compromise draft we all find merely reasonably unobjectionable? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes a conjunction is just a conjunction, not a Mustela. IMO "but" is the appropriate conjunction in both cases. We’re not just adding information, we’re adding unexpected or different information—that is, unexpected and different than the outcomes Trump promised/predicted. "And" would convey what I expected: failure in both cases. As far as I can tell, the "Korean version" didn’t close, it died of lack of interest and strangulation by rambling musings. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The time allocated for running scripts has expired.

As of the current revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1063790518 there are several instances of "The time allocated for running scripts has expired." in red text where citations or other things should be located. Here's an archive because it's a software issue not content issue https://web.archive.org/web/20220105013508/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

I am unsure what is causing this issue, but it is likely due to the excessive level of citations harming the rendering performance. We might want to parts off of the article to avoid this problem MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

MaitreyaVaruna, I think this happened once before, and I believe it was due to too many templates on the page, in part due to all of the instances of {{cite web}}. There are over 850 citations on this page! We had trimmed them down IIRC but they may have ballooned back up. We need to delete every unnecessary source in this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
The boxes at the bottom of the article are alright. It's just that (as already mentioned) there's an overload of citations in this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed sources

I removed a few sources from the article that verified content that was (a) not particularly controversial and (b) already verified by a different, reliable source. Here are the references I removed, for potential future use here or elsewhere:

Firefangledfeathers 06:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

More removed sources (not all removed for the same reason mentioned above)

IP address -protected edit request on 6 January 2022

Anyone should be able to edit Donald Duck’s I’m mean trumps page Trempu (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

J Trempu (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You have just demonstrated why this page is protected.Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


Sources

Trump's adult learning courses

About this and this edit: Trump actually owned Trump University/Trump Entrepreneur Initiative but he licensed his name and did promotion for Trump Institute, a fraudulent traveling seminar/lecture outfit based in Florida that was in business from 2006–2009. He also did a series of lectures for the The Learning Annex which may not be branding or licensing but they did use his name as the main draw. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I had removed it, and am happy you restored it with a source. Firefangledfeathers 16:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

"Worst President in American History"

Discussion is the subject of recent consensus and consists mostly of personal attacks against the article's editors and objections to Wikipedia policy that should be handled elsewhere. Cpotisch (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I mean... Really?

The final sentence in the lead of Trump's Wikipedia page claims he is the worst president in history. That statement has no citation, and there isn't even any applicable citation in the body as to be compliant with WP:LEADCITE. The article cited to in that sentence, Historical rankings of presidents of the United States, only mentions two polls where Trump is ranked as the worst president, those were polls to the general public, not to scholars as the sentence claims, and the article itself even states that James Buchanan, not Trump, is widely believed to be the worst president. Even Buchanan's article states that he was one of the worst presidents.

I'm not going ahead and making the edit myself, because I'd almost certainly get slapped with a post-1932 topic ban, so I'd like to hear what others have to say first. KlammedyKlam:Nosh 22:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

KK, are you saying you have been topic-banned from American Politics? SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, I believe they are anticipating that making edits to this page would result in getting a topic ban. Which is an interesting comment from a user with not much more than 100 total edits. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Especially since it was changed from 1932 to 1992 well before that account's first edit. SPECIFICO talk 02:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you User:KlammyKlam, however any edit I have made on this page that was even slightly pro Trump was immediately reverted. The majority of WIkipedia editors are anti trump, and you won't get anywhere. Save yourself the heartache. Nerguy (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
KlammyKlam, it says he is one of the worst presidents, not the worst. And this is backed up by reliable sources in the article, specifically in Donald Trump#Approval ratings. Despite what some people think, the editors of this page are not "anti-Trump". We are reflecting reliably sourced coverage of Trump. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't say he was the worst president, it says, "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history." That shouldn't bother Trump supporters. After all, experts also say that coronavirus and global warming are real and the world is more than 6,000 years old. TFD (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
This BLP will never truly reach NPOV status. In the words of Joe Namath "I guarantee it". GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Well said GoodDay, it never will.Nerguy (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Then I suggest we confine ourselves to factual information that can be reliably sourced. "The worst president", no matter who comes to that conclusion, is fundamentally subjective. Even if there were a long list of criteria against which he is to be judged, it's still subjective. Let's have factual information about what he did and what he said, and the public reactions to those things, and let readers form their own conclusions (not that they would need WP to help them). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
It is factual information that is reliably sourced. "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history." If you think that Wikpedia should not report significant opinions then you need to get policy changed, beginning with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Change it to say< Wikipedia articles should not report any views. But this is not the page for that discussion.TFD (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
However, when Wikipedia Users are the ones who decide which sources are considered reliably sourced, then whatever their bias may be, will be reflected in the 'facts' of those sources. The opposing point of view will be silenced. If for example CNN would be the only source considered reliable, and no conservative sources would be considered reliable, then all wikipedia facts would be biased to CNN's point of view. This is why I take everything on Wikipedia with a large grain of salt.Nerguy (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Everyone who has ever lived has been biased, but bias is not the issue. Lying is the issue. Sadly, in recent years it has become increasingly difficult to find conservative sources that don't lie. They have declared war on truth. As Bannon says, they "flood the zone with shit." soibangla (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I find it difficult to find any liberal source that does not lie about conservatives. Nerguy (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
This is off-topic. Use this page only to discuss potential improvements to Donald Trump's page. If you want to hash it out over what source is reliable and which aren't, use WP:RS/N. For issues of neutrality, use WP:NPOV/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Given that this is the subject of the recently-decided consensus item #54, and that this discussion is becoming a forum, with blanket accusations of bias against other editors, baseless assertions that viewpoints are being silenced, and an apparent suggestion that we reimagine the entire process of using reliable sources, I am closing this. Not appropriate for this talk page. Cpotisch (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Birth place in infobox

The guidelines are pretty clear that neighbourhoods should generally not be included in the infobox for the birth/death place. I would be in favour of “New York City, New York, U.S.” being used instead. Is there any particular reason why this is not the case here? --IWI (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, per consensus, item 2. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
A consensus that makes no sense. Put me down for "New York, New York, United States". --Khajidha (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The proposer of the October 2018 discussion pointed out that When the average person (including most New Yorkers) hear New York City, they think of Manhattan. Queens is not a neighborhood, it is by far the largest borough in land area and the second in population (2.4 million). Jamaica Estates is the upper-middle class neighborhood in Queens where Trump grew up. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Calling Queens "a neighborhood" belies a rather stark misunderstanding of the NYC borough system. They are the equivalent of a county. ValarianB (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
And we don't normally list county of birth. --Khajidha (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and "we don't normally" is not synonymous with "we never". NYC boroughs are more uniquely-identifying, culturally and historically, than a regular state county is. So in this instance, we have chosen to list it in this subject's biography. ValarianB (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
His family's NY roots across the river has been cited as a defining insecurity of Trump, who boldly moved into the mainstream of the city by initiating projects and seeking public attention in Manhattan. Queens is significant and should be noted in the infobox. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Which is better handled as text. None of that is conveyed by the presence or absence of Queens in the infobox. --Khajidha (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
It is in the text and should be reflected and conveyed in the infobox summary. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
"New York City, New York, US" would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Please respond to the factors others have raised. This is not a vote. SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I have responded. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
2020 US Census figures
1 Los Angeles 3,898,747
2 Chicago 2,746,388
3 Brooklyn 2,736,074
4 Queens 2,405,464
5 Houston 2,304,580
6 Manhattan 1,694,251
7 Phoenix 1,608,139
8 Philadelphia 1,603,797
9 The Bronx 1,472,654
10 San Antonio 1,434,625
I hate seeing "New York City, New York". That's so vague. Each borough is like a city unto itself. According to the 2020 census, Brooklyn and Queens each have more people than every U.S. city aside from Los Angeles and Chicago. Each of the five boroughs aside from Staten Island would be in the top 10 for population if considered separately. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
New York City is sufficiently well known that most people have heard of the five boroughs. In popular culture, Archie Bunker and Frank Costanza lived in Queen's. More people have heard of Queen's than Scranton, Pennsylvania, or most of the other municipalities where modern U.S. presidents were born. TFD (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
EXACTLY. Prince Akeem didn't go to NYC to find a bride in Coming to America, he went to Queens. There's No Sleep till Brooklyn. We also have The King of Staten Island, currently dating out of his league. I feel very strongly about listing "Borough, New York" for NYC, I should probably start an RfC on this somehwere. I've added this table showing what the top 10 cities of the U.S. by population would look like if we separated the five boroughs. Four out of the five are in the top ten, and Staten Island, at 495,747, fits in between Atlanta and Omaha. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
"My eyes are getting weary, my back is getting tight, sitting here in traffic on the Queensboro Bridge tonight"—King of Queens. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I personally do not care what it is. I still do not see why it cannot be a neighborhood, so I’ll vote for that, but really it is fairly innocuous. (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I might be a little late to this discussion, but I am definitely in favor of including the specific borough rather than simply NYC in general. It is impossible for someone to live in NYC without living in one of the five boroughs, so for the sake of precision, the borough should be included. --Zander251 (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Not too late to join this discussion. I'm thinking about what next steps might be, after updating this infobox to Queens. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The Infobox has been saying "Queens, New York City" for at least two years, "U.S." was added in February 2021 after this exchange between two editors who decided to ignore the consensus formed in this discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

All of this is so divorced from accuracy that it's actually shocking that this conversation has taken place and there has been no voice of reason down here. The guidelines are pretty clear on New York City (to distinguish from the state of New York) (so what is this nonsense about New York City, New York? It's actually New York, New York hence why it has to be separated here.). Perhaps it should be updated further to clarify the confusion its brevity has caused. The fact that people are going in on pop cultural reference for naming a location in an infobox is puzzling. A borough is not a neighborhood. A borough is not a city. A borough is not a county. It's all part of New York City. Just because Queens has 2 million residents doesn't mean it's its own city. It's still New York City! Trillfendi (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Queens County is a county. SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: But Queens County is Queens, which is a borough. Queens County isn't some separate district making Queens it's own city. It's all part of New York City itself. Trillfendi (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Guidelines are not policy, editors can and do decide to make exceptions when warranted. The boroughs of NYC have unique identities apart from each other, and apart from being a part of New York City itself. People who know the area know this well. Following the discussion above, the matter is essentially decided, so, start an RfC if you really wish but honestly it is a silly hill to die upon. Zaathras (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@Zaathras: I'm in Queens right now. I live up the road. 😐 You're preaching to the fucking choir. Trillfendi (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@Trillfendi: I've no objections to using the "city" & excluding the boroughs & counties. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Somebody has edited Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) to add WP:NYCPLACE, saying Neighborhoods within New York City are identified by the standard "Neighborhood, Borough" when not at the base name, where "Borough" is one of the five boroughs: Brooklyn, the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens or Staten Island. I support that change and will say so on its talk page if needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: The biggest problem with is people elongate it so ridiculously long that it clogs up what is supposed to be the most simple information. It goes from New York City to the borough purists changing it to Soundview, Bronx, New York City, New York, United States. It's stupid. (By the way, that would be Sonia Sotomayor.) Trillfendi (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Northern_America_and_the_Caribbean has been saying Neighborhoods in New York City use Neighborhood, Borough, where "borough" is one of the five boroughs: Brooklyn, the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens or Staten Island" at least as far back as November 2017 (I didn’t go back any further). when not at the base name — whatever that means — was added in August 2020. Trillfendi, the infobox does not say "Jamaica, Queens, New York City, New York, United States", so what are you so upset about? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Since what I'm saying is being misconstrued, just forget I said anything. Trillfendi (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Trillfendi, gender never crossed my mind. Why do you assume that I knew or assumed to know yours? I apologize for misconstruing what you said but your phrasing sounded agitated ("so divorced from accuracy that it's actually shocking that this conversation has taken place and there has been no voice of reason down here", "preaching to the effing choir", "ridiculously long", "borough purists", "stupid"). Tempers on this page tend to flare when discussing Trump's greatness/awfulness but usually not when discussing stuff like last name of first wife or city versus borough in the infobox. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Trillfendi, I don't see that anywhere on her page, and I would object to that. For her infobox, it should be The Bronx, New York, and the body can include Soundview. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
As I commented initially above, his insecurity about being "bridge and tunnel" from Queens was central to his early career and his brash promotion of his public profile for the first 20 years of his career. That's why the article mentions this and that's why it goes in the infobox. We don't belabor the origins of other outer borough natives when it is incidental to their notablilty and public demeanor. SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Support for Capitol attackers

I suggest the following sentence is added to the end of the fifth lead paragraph: He repeatedly defended the Capitol attackers after leaving office.. JJARichardson (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

JJARichardson, FormalDude, he did & continues to do so but it's not mentioned in the body. Also seems to be a relatively minor part of the continuing lies about him having won the election. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, surprised it's not mentioned in the body. Should've checked that first, my bad. ––FormalDude talk 23:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't see very much coverage of his statements from the time after his presidency. From what I can find, he more often repeats the claims of election fraud and stolen election rather than praising the insurrectionists. There are also various statements praising extremist candidates relating to 2021 and 2022 elections. SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe he said something along the lines of “I wanted what they wanted.”. Looking for article link now… - Tyrone (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

"What I wanted is what they wanted" – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that. - Tyrone (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's the audio of Leonnig/Rucker's March 2021 Trump interview with transcript. The "loving crowd" being ushered in and hugged and kissed by Capitol Police is just the intro to the big lie—dead people voting, Indians getting paid to vote, poll watchers brutalized, illegal, corrupt election as bad as a third-world country. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It should say "Trump masterminded the atrocities of the January 6th Fascist Uprising Against Democracy" 24.228.172.139 (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

You're kinda getting a tad out of line there. Me thinks, you're trolling. GoodDay (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Lies

They don't tell the truth on Wikipedia, look at a real source for you're information 2600:1700:AF70:E550:29FF:305B:2FAB:18 (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

*Your. And this article cites over 800 sources of information. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
They're not all real, though. Take #800 here. If not fake news, at least clickbaity political shitposting. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
That seems plenty real to me, though maybe that's one of the sources we can be looking to delete so this article isn't so overloaded. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 Done. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
#666 certainly has a sinister and adversarial tone, relative to straight news or scholastic stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
In fact, most of the 32 Guardian articles here look like his enemies' opinions to me, at a glance. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
So? Aren't they being used as sources reporting on what those "enemies" have stated? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
More or less, but when an article excessively reflects hit pieces, it becomes one. Most regulars don't see a problem with that, and most IP/redlinks do. There is no great solution. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The Guardian is considered a reliable source. It is your opinion that these are “hit pieces”. Cpotisch (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's unreliable for facts. But its political opinion section is used like mad to back up opinions here that any reasonable person can see are supposed to make this politician seem evil or stupid or unpatriotic (or worse). When a reliable source with the opposing view (like Fox News) is offered, the same old pagewatchers say it's not reliable for political opinion, bunch of right-wing talking points, lies and so on. I won't sway you, though. It's all good! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Do you have something true from a real source you'd like to add, 2600? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
(If not, I see no reason to keep this possibly trollish conversation going; give the OP a day, at least, pagewatchers?) InedibleHulk (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
InedibleHulk, it may be trollish but it resulted in your removal of one of two sources for a sentence—I'm guessing because you have a problem with MSNBC because the source is neither clickbaity nor political shitposting. Unfortunately, it was the only source for the entire sentence, not just for one incidence of Trump claiming to be the least racist person anywhere. The other source consists of one sentence saying "here's the video to what he said". Steve Benen is a respected journalist, and his article links to any number of times Trump made the claim. Please, revert yourself. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Re "The other source consists of one sentence saying 'here's the video to what he said'." — Actually, the other source says, "Trump: 'I am the least racist person there is anywhere in the world' – video" Bob K31416 (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
You're quoting the headline of the other source. I think it was pretty clear that "here's the video to what he said" wasn't a verbatim quote. The body of the Guardian article, such as it is, merely says that The president called himself 'the least racist person' after he was accused of racist behaviour once again. That isn't a source for Trump repeatedly denying that his comments and actions were racist, just that he was "accused ... once again." Benen's article, in contrast, mentions the many occasions when Trump denied & called himself the world's least racist person. Benen also provides links to his sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Re "Benen's article, in contrast, mentions the many occasions when Trump denied & called himself the world's least racist person." — Benen gives only the one quote for the one incident. I looked at the source links and some of them were broken or go to web pages that don't have the info.
The Vox source from the previous sentence could be moved there and would be more appropriate as it doesn't focus on that specific quote but discusses Trump's quotes in general where he says he was "the least racist person". The sentence could be correspondingly changed to: He repeatedly denied this, saying he was "the least racist person". This also would be keeping the number of extraneous cites down.
And speaking about cites that should be trimmed from the article, there are 3 cites in the first sentence of the subject paragraph that I tried to trim with the edit [18], which had the edit summary "Delete 3 cites (WP one mistitled) about "shithole" comment, that are repetitive and WP:SYNTH". It was reverted [19] with the edit summary "restore valid sources. Use talk." This goes against trying to trim unnecessary or inappropriate cites from the huge number of cites in this article. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
It's important not to delete sources that verify controversial BLP content. It's like keeping your tyres inflated on the car. It prevents troubles down the road, lest relatively new editors claim that the content is not adequately cited. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
You just gave one answer to the question of how the article got screwed up with having a huge number of cites. Essentially the answer you gave was by deliberate repetition. In this case having 3 cites about the "shithole" comment, which wasn't even mentioned in the text that goes with the cites. See the multireference cite in first sentence of section Racial views. And the title of the WaPo article there is actually "Trump derides protections for immigrants from ‘shithole’ countries". The deletion of the 3 "shithole" cites were what you reverted. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I stand by the rationale in my edit summary. We're attributing a quote, period, and that's exactly what the remaining source does, in text and audio. Your or my feelings on this non-journalist's character and purpose aside, his biased opinions are simply not needed to verify our fact. But revert me if it's that important to you. It's just another piece of shit to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
And generally speaking, if you want to make it clear you're not quoting somebody, don't use quotation marks. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, your edits, including non-quote marks, are always such beacons of clarity. Journalist: a writer or editor for a news medium. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Fine, it's personally arguable. But his article (meaning Wikipedia's article about him, not his article about most Americans' beliefs) exclusively uses other professional descriptors, bodily and categorically. Ever see a reliable source call him a journalist? Not important, obviously. Just wondering. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm watching this discussion, but that's all. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I think what I’ve learned here is that sometimes reality may have a liberal bias. Maybe we should give some WP:DUE to fantasy to make this article a little less biased? Tyrone (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

"Worst President in American History"

Discussion is the subject of recent consensus and consists mostly of personal attacks against the article's editors and objections to Wikipedia policy that should be handled elsewhere. Cpotisch (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I mean... Really?

The final sentence in the lead of Trump's Wikipedia page claims he is the worst president in history. That statement has no citation, and there isn't even any applicable citation in the body as to be compliant with WP:LEADCITE. The article cited to in that sentence, Historical rankings of presidents of the United States, only mentions two polls where Trump is ranked as the worst president, those were polls to the general public, not to scholars as the sentence claims, and the article itself even states that James Buchanan, not Trump, is widely believed to be the worst president. Even Buchanan's article states that he was one of the worst presidents.

I'm not going ahead and making the edit myself, because I'd almost certainly get slapped with a post-1932 topic ban, so I'd like to hear what others have to say first. KlammedyKlam:Nosh 22:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

KK, are you saying you have been topic-banned from American Politics? SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, I believe they are anticipating that making edits to this page would result in getting a topic ban. Which is an interesting comment from a user with not much more than 100 total edits. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Especially since it was changed from 1932 to 1992 well before that account's first edit. SPECIFICO talk 02:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you User:KlammyKlam, however any edit I have made on this page that was even slightly pro Trump was immediately reverted. The majority of WIkipedia editors are anti trump, and you won't get anywhere. Save yourself the heartache. Nerguy (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
KlammyKlam, it says he is one of the worst presidents, not the worst. And this is backed up by reliable sources in the article, specifically in Donald Trump#Approval ratings. Despite what some people think, the editors of this page are not "anti-Trump". We are reflecting reliably sourced coverage of Trump. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't say he was the worst president, it says, "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history." That shouldn't bother Trump supporters. After all, experts also say that coronavirus and global warming are real and the world is more than 6,000 years old. TFD (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
This BLP will never truly reach NPOV status. In the words of Joe Namath "I guarantee it". GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Well said GoodDay, it never will.Nerguy (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Then I suggest we confine ourselves to factual information that can be reliably sourced. "The worst president", no matter who comes to that conclusion, is fundamentally subjective. Even if there were a long list of criteria against which he is to be judged, it's still subjective. Let's have factual information about what he did and what he said, and the public reactions to those things, and let readers form their own conclusions (not that they would need WP to help them). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
It is factual information that is reliably sourced. "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history." If you think that Wikpedia should not report significant opinions then you need to get policy changed, beginning with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Change it to say< Wikipedia articles should not report any views. But this is not the page for that discussion.TFD (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
However, when Wikipedia Users are the ones who decide which sources are considered reliably sourced, then whatever their bias may be, will be reflected in the 'facts' of those sources. The opposing point of view will be silenced. If for example CNN would be the only source considered reliable, and no conservative sources would be considered reliable, then all wikipedia facts would be biased to CNN's point of view. This is why I take everything on Wikipedia with a large grain of salt.Nerguy (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Everyone who has ever lived has been biased, but bias is not the issue. Lying is the issue. Sadly, in recent years it has become increasingly difficult to find conservative sources that don't lie. They have declared war on truth. As Bannon says, they "flood the zone with shit." soibangla (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I find it difficult to find any liberal source that does not lie about conservatives. Nerguy (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
This is off-topic. Use this page only to discuss potential improvements to Donald Trump's page. If you want to hash it out over what source is reliable and which aren't, use WP:RS/N. For issues of neutrality, use WP:NPOV/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Given that this is the subject of the recently-decided consensus item #54, and that this discussion is becoming a forum, with blanket accusations of bias against other editors, baseless assertions that viewpoints are being silenced, and an apparent suggestion that we reimagine the entire process of using reliable sources, I am closing this. Not appropriate for this talk page. Cpotisch (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • This was the second time in a 12-day period that user KK opened this discussion. They were advised of consensus item #54 the first time around, too. Also, KlammyKlam is wrong about the Approval ratings section only mentioning polls of the general public. The section says that C-SPAN, which conducted surveys of presidential leadership each time the administration changed since 2000,[1] ranked Trump fourth–lowest overall in their 2021 President Historians Survey, with Trump rated lowest in the leadership characteristics categories for moral authority and administrative skills.[2][3] Just thought this needed to be pointed out, probably not to user KK, but to other users. Other than that, agree with Cpotisch's closing of the discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "C-SPAN Releases Fourth Historians Survey of Presidential Leadership" (PDF). C-SPAN. June 30, 2021. Retrieved June 30, 2021.
  2. ^ Brockell, Gillian (June 30, 2021). "Historians just ranked the presidents. Trump wasn't last". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 1, 2021.
  3. ^ "Presidential Historians Survey 2021". C-SPAN. Retrieved June 30, 2021.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Beginning of employment in real estate

Re this revert [20] with edit summary "If it's not mentioned in the body, it doesn't go in the lead. Also currently unsourced" — see the section Real estate. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I can see why, the lede is a summery and that was almost a word-for-word copy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
All that was added to the lead was "an employee in" and "in 1968, its". Bob K31416 (talk)
And it's not much longer in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that. First you say "almost a word-for-word copy", and when you see that the part you were referring to was already in the lead, you don't seem to mind. What I put in was only "an employee in" and "in 1968, its", and is very briefly about his start in real estate. Are you sure you don't want it in? Bob K31416 (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Almost does not mean exact. I am unsure what it adds to the lede, why does the reader need to know this, when in fact it is so minor we cover it with only slightly more words in the body. One line summarising three lines (just).Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Re "why does the reader need to know this" — One can use that boiler plate argument against anything, so it's not a worthwhile comment. Let's mark you down as a determined !vote against it and see what anyone else thinks. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

For reference, here's what the sentence would look like before and after the small proposed addition.
Before,

He became the president of his father Fred Trump's real estate business in 1971 and renamed it The Trump Organization.

After,

He became an employee in his father Fred Trump's real estate business in 1968, its president in 1971, and renamed it The Trump Organization.

(BTW this is a ridiculous amount of resistance to a small, informative, and neutral edit that shouldn't be objectionable to anyone and I'll leave it to others to pursue it.) Bob K31416 (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I like the After version. We already say when he got into and out of the beauty pageant and reality TV businesses. And we're already saving surplus space by ignoring this Hall of Famer's entire professional wrestling career. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Don't start calling your colleagues ridiculous. The longstanding version is more than enough information for the lead. I'd actually be OK with removing it entirely. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Re "I'd actually be OK with removing it entirely." — I don't know what part of the text you're talking about, but feel free to run it past Space4Time3Continuum2x and see what they think. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I made the edit so you can see it in the article now. SPECIFICO talk 02:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I could say something but I'm unwinding from involvement in this article. I think this is my last message here. Bob K31416 (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
That's too short, IMO. I objected to the addition of the employee bit because it was essentially an apprenticeship in managing residential and commercial properties (Fred had stopped building before Donald joined the company). Compared with the rest of his CV, it doesn't seem lead-worthy, and it made the sentence a bit awkward. But it seems lead-worthy to me that his father named him company president three years out of college while "kick[ing] himself upstairs to be chairman of the board" (Blair). But Fred didn't hand over his company. He was still calling the shots in Trump Management while providing Donald with money and political and other connections, guaranteeing mortgages, for the skyscrapers and casinos. The article lost context when a lot of prepresidency info was pared down—needs to be looked at eventually. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree those details are important, but in the context of everything we know about the Trumps' dealings, the lead placement is perhaps asking readers to make some inference from the chain of events you describe. It certainly belongs in the article, where the significance can be explained with valid sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 03:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

See the second sentence of the lead of this version [21] for how the small addition fits the context. Bob K31416 (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  • When I wrote the edit summary to my removal of your 7 January addition to the lead, I got it mixed up with a recent change to the text in the body removing the unsourced text about Trump having worked for his father's company while he was a student at Wharton. Since you want to add stuff to the lead, the onus is on you to justify why it's due. You haven't done that so far, neither here in Talk nor in the edit summaries in the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    I think it (see after version above) provides a good flow from college to employee to company president, and shows he had 3 years experience as an employee of the company before his father made him president. And this is all with a very small addition to the text. That's about the only thing I have to add to what I already said. If you don't think it improves the article, for whatever reason, then that's the way it goes. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Add more points to lead?

Shouldn't the lead mention that he replaced NAFTA with USMCA, or his involvement in the Iran crisis (soleimani assassination), and first president to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital? Phillip Samuel (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. You might try to make an edit for one of those items and see what happens. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Surely, Bob, you recall we've very recently discussed those points and decided against giving undue weight to them in our NPOV narrative. SPECIFICO talk!
I believe the lead is long enough. Let's maintain its stability, after so many disputes & changes, over the months. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
USMCA used to be in there, I don't know why it was removed. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Because it had very little connection to Trump. SPECIFICO talk 03:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing many Trump accomplishments

You're entitled to your opinion but not to your own facts. Present reliable sources, please. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trump lowered taxes, secured the border better than Joe Biden, fought human trafficking, fought China, fought corruption, appointed many conservative judges. Why all the negativity in this article? Its also inconsistent. How is he most admired but also worst guy ever... it would seem less like a propaganda piece if you mentioned facts.. low inflation, low unemployment and generally a better vibe from 2016-2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1310:3290:505A:2E0C:19E8:C4E4 (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, the article could be reworked even substantially, but that would undoubtedly require a long discussion about how to do it, what to mention and how to mention it. Trump is one of the most controversial contemporary politicians. This talk page has one of the longest histories of discussions and quarrels about even minor wording changes. --2A02:AB04:2AB:700:34A4:6BD5:AA61:52A3 (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

We would also need RS saying much of this, and I am unsure much of it would be all that supportable. Moreover, this is about him, as a person, not him as president that is here Presidency of Donald Trump. So we shuls only have what are widely regarded as major achievements, his legacy if you will.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"T***p" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect T***p and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 17#T***p until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 19:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

G7 expansion

This information was reverted here by SPECIFICO, with the following edit summary: "Observe 24-hour BRD. Use talk". I think it is relevant and should be included.

Trump called for the establishment of a G11, comprising the G7 plus Australia, India, South Korea and Russia.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ "Donald Trump is right that the G7 needs updating. But what for?". The Economist. June 6, 2020.
  2. ^ "Why President Trump's Effort to Expand the G-7 Is Doomed to Fail". Time. June 4, 2020.

-- Tobby72 (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The current wording (Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7) follows the sentence about Russia’s annexation of Crimea which was the reason for Russia’s expulsion from what was formerly called the Group of Eight (G8). The proposed new wording—or is it supposed to be additional text?—refers to a Trump proposal that went nowhere and didn’t receive much coverage other than some ridicule (The Economist in the two paragraphs I can read because the rest is paywalled) and some speculation about his motives (TIME—isolation of China, possibly trying to sneak Russia back in under the guise of expansion). What is the relevance of this DOA proposal for Trump’s top bio? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I think it is relevant and should be included is about as substantive as the former president's expansion idea was, i.e. not very. Please expand your line of reasoning, and provide sources showing there was deep and lasting coverage, that this proposal was a significant milestone in the 75-year life of Trump to merit inclusion in a biography. ValarianB (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd say don't mention it. It is a proposal that didn't get off the ground and will probably need a lot of G-force to resurface. There seems to be an undue focus on Russia here. It is not outlandish for Trump to include Russia in a talkfest, and maybe this will happen soon somewhere on the G-string.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrong year in Trump University section

The article currently says "Shortly after he won the 2020 presidential election, Trump agreed to pay a total of $25 million to settle the three cases" with a link to a 2016 article. That 2020 should be 2016. StevenDoerfler (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

StevenDoerfler, thanks for pointing that out. At Wikipedia, we recognize Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 election. I've fixed the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
My bad—unintentional! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

TRUMP 2024

Trump is best — Preceding unsigned comment added by FJB Trump4President (talk • contribs) 15:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Gallup poll

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a clear consensus against including this sentence in the lead. Most editors feel that including this single statistic from a single poll in the lead would afford it undue emphasis. They argue that there is no independent sourcing suggesting that this figure is particularly significant, and, pointing to the fact that the statistic is mentioned only briefly in the body, they conclude that including it the lead would be disproportionate. Although a handful of editors disagree in good faith, the community at large – from both a numerical and strength-of-argument perspective – feels that this statement does not warrant inclusion in the lead. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)



Should this be included as the penultimate sentence in the lead?

Trump was the only president to never reach a 50% approval rating in the Gallup poll dating to 1938.

It is currently in the body with reference.[22] soibangla (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Yes That is very notable and lead-worthy. -- Valjean (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No - Leave the lead alone. For the first time in quite awhile, the lead's been stable. Put that info into the Trump administration article. GoodDay (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Not on the sourcing provided Gallup is nowhere near enough for the lead. Even a few first-class news sources wouldn't do it. You'd need very high quality, all-over-the-place sourcing. As a comparison point, the assassination of Solemani is not in the lead. How much sourcing is there or that? Adoring nanny (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Probably not The source is perfectly fine, despite the feverish protest above, that's not the point. Trump is one of the most deeply-unpopular presidents in American history, and the lead supports this by noting the double-impeachment, the numerous lies, the misogyny, the conspiracy-theorizing, the poor foreign relations, and of course - on the 1-year anniversary, no less - the incitement of insurrection. Noting his historically-approval ratings would really add very little to what the reader will already learn, the lead really is fine as-is. ValarianB (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    Re "Trump is one of the most deeply-unpopular presidents in American history" — What do you make of him getting 46.9% of the vote in 2020? Bob K31416 (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    "Feverish?" Please. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes: The sentence tightly dovetails with the sentence that follows it showing that both subject matter experts and the general public agree. soibangla (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Absolutely Not not everything in the body needs to be crammed into the lead. It's one poll and plenty of presidents have dipped below 50% as well even for the majority of their presidency. Seems like a very insignificant statistic that you are trying to squeeze in at the top Anon0098 (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No It's a sentence - one sentence - in the appropriate section of the article text; that's enough. The lead is supposed to reflect the MAJOR points of the article. This is not a major point. -- MelanieN (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No. It’s just too trivial and specific for the lede, IMO. In the body though, it’s good to include. Cpotisch (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No I don't think the lead is the place for trivia. Trump's poll ratings are important but they require analysis, which cannot be done in the lead. In fact, the lead already reads like a rap sheet and we should consult relialble teritary sources to see how they describe him. TFD (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No As others have said this sounds almost like trivia and given how negative the lead already is (not necessary unjustified, mind) I don't think we need more. — Czello 08:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No. There is already a ton of important information to cover in the lead; we don't need to clutter it with this piece of trivia. It doesn't help that the source is Gallup itself rather than an independent source commenting on Gallup's findings. It's probably worth including in the body though. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No seems to be a little trivial and insignificant. I concur with Mx. Granger on the lack of independence with the Gallop poll be the reference itself. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No the lead is already negative in tone and this doesn't need to be there. It doesn't qualify because of relative emphasis and I wouldn't say it's a crucial snapshot that readers need immediate access to. (After stepping back from the article for a few months and looking with relatively fresh eyes, I think the lead has become considerably more, and probably too heavily for wikivoice, negative than it was at the end of his presidency). I also agree with Mx. Granger's point re: secondary sourcing. Jr8825 • Talk 04:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No per TFD and Czello.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 06:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No -- as others have mentioned the president's standing in a poll that has existed for less than one century (i.e., for a relatively small subset of presidents) is trivia. Negativity has nothing to do with it: if Trump's rating on the Gallup poll was unusually high, the statement would still be trivia. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Lean yes I actually think the fact that Trump was the most unpopular President in the history of opinion polling is historic and probably lead-worthy. That said such a sentence shouldn't rely on one poll as has been suggested here. I think for this sentence to go in it should replace the "worst president ever" sentence, especially considering that it's way too early to make any kind of historical judgement about Trump and the fact that it makes the lead sound even more biased against him. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No. Looking at the page history, this is the first period in time where the lead is stable and at a good point. There's a million trivial matters that are equivalent to this, and under this precedent those million others could go in the lead. Let's just keep the lead where it is. Sea Cow (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No. The times a president's popularity matter are during their elections; anything beyond that is trivia undue for the lead. Noting that he lost the popular vote in 2016 and lost in 2020 is enough on his popularity for the lead. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No Trump's done a lot of stuff, and the lead is supposed to sum up the most important parts of the article. The fact that Donald trump, during his four year presidential term, is the only president to never have reached a 50% approval rating is relatively minor, and seems to be a case of selectively choosing lead topics. If that addition must be put somewhere, it should be in the Trump Administration article. Even so, it's place in that article could be disputed too, given that what is effectively a piece of approval number trivia is rather unimportant in the shadow of the entire Trump presidency. KlammedyKlam:Nosh 22:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've requested for this discussion to be formally closed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changing the second sentence in the fifth paragraph

I would like to propose that the following sentence be changed:

Current sentence: He falsely claimed that there was widespread electoral fraud and attempted to overturn the results, pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition.
Proposed sentence: He claimed without evidence that there was widespread electoral fraud and attempted to overturn the results, pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition.

I think in the current sentence, the language (false) that left-leaning reliable sources use while a source in the center would use (without evidence). Reuters, for example uses this language (link). Interstellarity (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

And here's the same source in the center a year later, saying that "the Republican former president continues to repeat false claims blaming widespread voting fraud for his loss to Democrat Joe Biden." BTW, I found it googling "claimed without evidence." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Trumps Attorney General, Barr, stated there was no such fraud. If you have not read or seen that, please familiarize yourself with RS reporting before disparaging it on this page.. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Barr didn't mince words, either. "If there was evidence of fraud, I had no motive to suppress it," Barr told Karl. "But my suspicion all the way along was that there was nothing there. It was all bullshit." (See the Reuters source in my previous post.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep it as is. It's not that the claims are unproven; it is that they have been extensively disproven, a point that reliable sources – no matter how "left-leaning" OP thinks they are – make very clear. Cpotisch (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. I couldn't have said it better. -- Valjean (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards "without evidence". Yes it's true that many RS describe his electoral claims as "false", so this term must be fine to use. However, many also use terms like "baseless" and "unfounded", and some use false and baseless together. So it may just be best to tread with caution since this is BLP and try and remain as neutral as possible, hence using "without evidence" since it just sounds more neutral. We should maybe consider using a word like baseless, since it's kind of in between false and without evidence, therefore, more neutral. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

You do realize we're dealing with the most WP:Public figure ever (at least that's his goal), one who is provably (literally all fact-checkers) one of the most deceptive and dishonest American presidents in history? We have multiple articles about this, with myriad RS which document this, so what I'm saying isn't a BLP violation. The sentence and word are based on well-sourced content in the body of the article. This is not the time to soft-pedal his Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election. RS call it false and many other things. We do not choose the softest and most dubious wording for such a dangerous and blatant form of gaslighting that is far beyond merely "unproven" or "without evidence". No, it's false and disproven in spades. Space4Time3Continuum2x and SPECIFICO are right. The current wording is appropriate.
Read: Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election, Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, Trumpism, Firehose of falsehood[1][2][3][4][5][6] -- Valjean (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
RS has called this many things, with false being the most critical and probably unproven being the least. I said we should meet neutrally between the terms with baseless, a word just as abundant in RS as false. I don't think calling it baseless, or even unproven, would be soft-peddling the issue, and it certainly is not dubious since the term is very abundant in RS. The current wording is not inappropriate, but it may not be the most neutral use in RS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

But we are using a neutral, wishy-washy compromise, false claims instead of lies. Evidence is defined by Merriam Webster as "something presented in support of the truth or accuracy of a claim". Without evidence seems to be interpreted by many people (see random sample sources) as "there is evidence, THEY just have hidden it very well," never mind the million-and-one audits. Baseless and unfounded are synonyms, both defined by Merriam Webster as "having no basis in reason or fact"—that’s not even a second cousin twice removed of without evidence or unproven. But none of that matters. RS use false and lies, and that’s what we say in Post-presidency. In addition to Valjean's batch, here's a random sample of RS produced by searching for "trump false claims that election was stolen": [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Paul, Christopher; Matthews, Miriam (January 1, 2016). "The Russian 'Firehose of Falsehood' Propaganda Model: Why It Might Work and Options to Counter It". RAND Corporation. doi:10.7249/PE198. JSTOR resrep02439. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ Brian Stelter (November 30, 2020). "'Firehose of falsehood:' How Trump is trying to confuse the public about the election outcome". CNN.
  3. ^ Maza, Carlos (August 31, 2018). "Why obvious lies make great propaganda". Vox.
  4. ^ Zappone, Chris (October 12, 2016). "Donald Trump campaign's 'firehose of falsehoods' has parallels with Russian propaganda". The Sydney Morning Herald.
  5. ^ Harford, Tim (May 6, 2021). "What magic teaches us about misinformation". Financial Times.
  6. ^ Clifton, Denise (August 3, 2017). "Trump's nonstop lies may be a far darker problem than many realize". Mother Jones.

By whom?

In the lead section it says: "He initiated a trade war with China that was widely characterized as a failure" The by whom tag can be used in this situation. Cable10291 (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Or you could just, y'know, find a citation to support the sentence. Zaathras (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
It has been decided to not use citations in the lead. There are three citations in Donald Trump#China. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
There were originally about ten sources, which can be found in China-United States trade war. soibangla (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

POV in introduction

Because this discussion is the subject of recent consensus item #54, and because contributors did not make any new argument or bring up any new information that would justify us reconsidering that consensus (see the original RFC), I am closing this. Cpotisch (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The introduction it is stated that "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history". Not that I don't agree with this sentence, but that really sounds like a POV (an unsourced POV, actually) and I wonder wether we should change it. This is not a politically-aligned website like RationalWiki, after all.--Karma1998 (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

NO it should not be in the lede, as it does not seem to be summarising any content in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
It is discussed in the body. See the final paragraph of the "Approval ratings" section. Note that while the single survey discussed there may be considered WP:PRIMARY, the fact that it was picked up by numerous WP:SECONDARY sources makes it notable for inclusion. Generalrelative (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Its one line, one line is not a summary of one line. The lede should be for important parts of the article. As such it should summarise the whole section (such as "opinions polls rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history".).Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Whether it belongs in the lead is a separate question. I was responding to your claim that it does not seem to be summarising any content in the body. Given the number of secondary sources which discuss this, however, I don't see why discussion of this ranking couldn't be expanded. Generalrelative (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
That would be because I was looking for a paragraph, not one line at the end of a section, which still means that, no it is not a summary, it is (almost) a verbatim copy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not trying to find fault, just keep track of the arguments that are on the table here. You also stated: one line is not a summary of one line. That seems wrong to me. The lead sentence is 14 words while the statement in the main body is 40. A 14-word statement can certainly be described as a summary of a 40-word one. Now you're saying it is (almost) a verbatim copy. It is not. I wouldn't be at all opposed to expanding the discussion in the body, as I said above. Nor would I be opposed to careful rewording of the short sentence in the lead. Note that I haven't even come down on whether that statement belongs in the lead. But I do think the matter deserves a clear discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I will also note what I hadn't realized before: this precise issue is covered by Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus Item #54. Looks like the matter is settled. Generalrelative (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

AND it's been brought up twice recently: on Jan 15 and on Jan 23. (Slatersteven, you participated in the one on Jan 15.) A 14-word summary of a 40-word sentence is still a summary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you proposed wording such as opinions polls rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. There are two problems with that suggestion. First, we don't base "best" or "worst" on opinion polls. Nothing in our three paragraphs about opinion polls says anything about him being (one of) the worst presidents ever; polls mostly just report whether the respondents "approve" or "disapprove" of him at that moment. Furthermore, opinion polls would split along the partisan lines of the moment, with Democrats saying he was one of the worst and Republicans saying he was one of the best, and no information would be imparted either way. The second reason not to use this wording is that we have had a long-time consensus that our reports of "best" and "worst" presidents are to be based only on evaluations by a large number of academics in the fields of history and political science. The most respected such report is the one by CSPAN, which is generated only after the presidency changes hands, so that normally there would be four or eight years between the surveys of academics. The respondents are not asked for a general or overall opinion; they are asked to evaluate each president on specific categories like "Crisis leadership" and "Administrative skills". -- MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Putting aside my stance on the topic, concerning whether it satisfies NPoV or not. I thought this was settled. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It was. Someone uninvolved should close this. Generalrelative (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Done. Cpotisch (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


From the Washington Post, "To be clear, this was an informal survey whose respondents were selected by C-SPAN, not a scientific poll. Dozens more historians were invited to complete the survey this time than in years past. [142 vs 91] C-SPAN said this was to reflect 'new diversity in race, gender, age and philosophy, ...' "[30] Bob K31416 (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant. C-SPAN was still widely cited by reliable sources as a scholarly evaluation. Plus, it’s not the only one we considered; there were multiple other surveys conducted during his presidency that we factored in in the RFC. We just gave the C-SPAN one a lot more weight because it was conducted after his term ended. Until a new scholarly ranking comes out that doesn’t put Trump at or near the bottom, it strikes me as a waste of time for people to keep challenging that consensus. Cpotisch (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
It's not "scholars and historians", as the lead currently implies a group in general, but a survey of selected scholars and historians. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
You’re splitting hairs. Every single reputable academic survey that anyone has conducted has found Trump at or near the bottom. You can keep arguing about that and continue to get nowhere, or you can find some actual new evidence that would merit reconsidering said consensus. But what you think of an existing survey is not sufficient. Cpotisch (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in the lead is sourced

Okay, I don’t like Trump at all, but why is nothing in the head paragraphs sourced? Many of the statements are clearly controversial and probably require sourcing, just saying. Aardwolf68 (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

They are cited in the body, but I see your concern. WP:LEADCITE does say the content likely to be "challenged" should be cited in the lead generally. I suppose the content in the lead of this article has just gone through so much rigorous discussion, that it kind of makes it an exception. I wouldn't be opposed to citations in the lead for contentious statements. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I figured it was something along those lines, especially given the history of the talk page and such. I’m not a good source by any means, but we could probably use a lot for the sources that come from Trump’s numerous other Wikipedia pages, as well as the body sources. Regardless, hopefully this will be sourced sooner rather than later. Aardwolf68 (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aardwolf68: "Gone though rigorous discussion", indeed, including the punctuation. I'm pretty sure that nothing has been added to the lead that isn't contained and reliably sourced in the body. WP:LEADCITE also says that The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Citations have been kept out of the lead for several years now because of the size of the lead and the article—we have a recurring problem as it is. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Why does size of the article matter? Because somebody in a higher power will throw a fit that an article is now slightly larger? I doubt that the size of an article means more than its integrity. Regardless of whether or not the sources are required, they SHOULD be there. Using the sources from the body to compile one large source has been done for numerous articles and should be done here. I understand that everything here said is true, but that doesn’t mean everyone else will, and it’s up to us to make sure they understand why what’s written here is written here. Aardwolf68 (talk)<

Why does size of the article matter? Because somebody in a higher power will throw a fit that an article is now slightly larger? I doubt that the size of an article means more than its integrity. Regardless of whether or not the sources are required, they SHOULD be there. Using the sources from the body to compile one large source has been done for numerous articles and should be done here. I understand that everything here said is true, but that doesn’t mean everyone else will, and it’s up to us to make sure they understand why what’s written here is written here. Aardwolf68 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Aardwolf68, article size matters because this article is so large that it has caused technical problems. See WP:CHOKING. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The lede is merely a summary of the article–it follows the body. So anyone who continues reading past the lede can rather easily find the sources. ––FormalDude talk 23:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

So maybe instead of sacrificing integrity, we could remove some points that properly belong in a summary of Trump’s administration? That’s where most of the presidential stuff is done anyways, and I don’t see why there can’t be a middle ground . Aardwolf68 (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's best to trade off actual content for mere sources that are already cited in the body, and, as Space4Time said, we aren't required by policy or guideline to do so. Not including sourcing in the lead is also the consistent practice for a lot of high profile politicians who have adequate body sourcing. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
It's also consistent w. Trump's personal style.༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ. I would be careful saying "mere" sources, but otherwise this is right. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

"Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history." That should probably be sourced. It is quite clearly a controversial statement, regardless of whether or not scholars actually say that (again, that's why it should be sourced). Perhaps it would be best to remove it from the lead and leave that in the public profile--approval ratings section. Sriracha person (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You can literally click the link in that very sentence to see all the scholarly surveys that back that claim up. I would also direct you to consensus item #54, for which there was extraordinarily strong support to add the statement. Doesn't matter if it's controversial. We're not going to remove it when every single reputable survey has him at or near the bottom. Cpotisch (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Post-presidency heading

I am proposing that we add (2021-present) after the Post-presidency heading. Should we do this? Interstellarity (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW: Mike Pence has a "Post vice presidency (2021–present)" section heading. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes For consistency with the other articles. Dimadick (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes I agree that it's practically unnecessary, but this would be more consistent and I feel I'm obligated to follow the precedent of other articles. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No The implication is that they are not coming back, which is definitely true of all past presidents except Carter and Trump, who are still alive and not barred from becoming president again. While in Carter's case, it is almost certain he won't return, there is a reasonable chance that Trump will be elected again in 2024. TFD (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Not a problem. We'd simply remove or rename the "Post-presidency" section, if Trump repeats Cleveland's feat. We've already done the same with changing "Post-vice presidency" at Joe Biden's page, when he repeated Nixon's feat. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: I think the issue of whether Trump runs again in 2024 can be taken care of when the time comes should he run and get elected again. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When Biden left office as vice president, we used Post-vice presidency until he become president when we replaced it with Subsequent activities. The case for Trump can be discussed when the time comes. Interstellarity (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The difference is that we knew Biden would never become VP again, since the Constitution forbids it and factually anything he did thereafter was post-vice presidency. But since we don't have a crystall ball, we cannot assume or imply that Trump will not return. TFD (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Umm... no, we didn't know that because the Constitution has no such prohibition. The only limitation on being vice president is that you must meet the requirements to be president. Biden could have conceivably ran for and been elected to the vice presidency alongside another presidential candidate. Whether or not we put dates on the post presidency period for Donald Trump says nothing about whether he will return to the office. It will be the post presidential period of his life until he actually does so return. At which point it could be retitled "interregnum" or some such. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I stand correct on that. But it is reasonable to distinguish between future events based on the likelihood of their occurring according to reliable sources. Since Biden's becoming VP again is less likely than the 2024 election being cancelled, WP:CRYSTALBALL allows us to treat it as a fact his VP days are over. TFD (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
It also allows us to treat current situation as though Trump won't ever get elected US president again. We can always change things, should Trump get elected. By putting in the proposed section heading. Nobody's claiming he'll never return to the White House. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Why not just leave the dates off? That says nothing about whether it is "temporary" or "final". I just don't see why anyone would want dates here but not want them in all the other undated sections. If anything, I would argue about removing the dates from the "office held" section headings. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I've no objections to using "Presidency", "Vice Presidency", "Post-presidency", "Post-vice presidency" as headings/sub-headings, for all the US presidential & vice presidential bios. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The Mike Pence article should be left alone, pending consensus to change it. The dates there are longstanding content; in fact the heading "Post-vice presidency (2021-present)" was added on January 23, 2021 and has been there ever since. If people want to cite it as an example of Wikipedia's usual style, that is their privilege. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC) P.S. Come to think of it, you yourself cited it as precedent earlier in this thread. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes I did, until I noticed that "Post-presidency", rather then "Post-presidency (2021–present)" was being used in 'this' bio article. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - We should be considering @Khajidha:'s idea. Just use "Post-presidency" & "Post-vice presidency", where required. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes for consistency with other articles. I find the “he could be president again” argument frankly absurd. It is indisputable that he is not president and has not been president since 2021. If he ends up in office again, we can just change it to “Between presidencies (2021-2025)” or whatever Cleveland’s article would indicate. None of that changed the undeniable fact that the proposed timeframe is correct. Cpotisch (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes for consistency with the class of ex-president articles but mainly because he hasn't subsided gracefully into retirement and I suspect his post-presidential years are going to be more interesting than most. If - a very long shot IMHO - he attains the presidency again, we can revisit the question if we're allowed to. --Pete (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: I have added the years in the heading since there is consensus to implement this. Interstellarity (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

UTC)

@Cpotisch: MelanieN is involved and voted yes in this discussion and the change has already been made. Interstellarity (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah just realized that. Cpotisch (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Remove "multiple deaths" from description of Capitol attack in the lead

NO CHANGE
Four editors supported keeping the sentence as is, three opposed mentioning the "multiple deaths", and one supported adding a note stating that most deaths were of natural causes. Since there is narrow plurality support for the status quo, no changes should be made, although the lack of a strong consensus means that the matter should not be considered 'settled' at this time. Cpotisch (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this sentence, On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which hundreds then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count., "multiple deaths" should be removed since it's misleading to the reader. It creates the connotation that several people died as a result from violence during the event, which is not correct. Of the deaths associated to the event, one woman was shot by police, three were natural deaths, and one was overdose. The proper context is not there, and creates a not only a neutral point of view issue, but an issue of accuracy. In the 2021 United States Capitol attack article any time these deaths are mentioned the proper context of the cause of death is provided. Since providing context in the lead of this article would create an overemphasis on the deaths, hence WP:UNDUE, it should just be removed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The deaths, regardless of the precise circumstances, still came about as a result from the Jan 6 insurrection. The text is fine as-is. Zaathras (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Not fine. "Resulting", in a death context, is heavily associated with cause of death and more lightly with contributing factors/other significant conditions. Current version makes them all sound like homicides, directly attributed to hundreds of Trump supporters (but not one police officer), and that's clearly a wrong thing to suggest. Put a period after "attacked", then say five people died and the count was interrupted, in any reasonably similar words. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Quite fine. The deaths are an indirect result of Donald Trump's incitement of insurrection. Whitewashing the affair one year later is disingenuous. Zaathras (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Clarifying facts supported by literally all RS is not whitewashing. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Do we blame Bush and Obama, or their followers, for everyone who died (even non-violently) during the actual wars they incited? Of course not, it'd seem partisan and undue. And in their cases, Republicans and Democrats generally agree those two wanted the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan to take up arms in the overthrow of their governments. Here, only most of the House alleged an insurrection even happened, and most of the Senate officially dismissed that idea. Wikipedia is undecided on it. More importantly, no pathologist has determined even an indirect link between these dead and anybody besides one cop. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
(And for the record, I've been been trying to get it through to readers that only one woman was killed by only one officer's only shot fired since Day Two, Three in UTC. Didn't even wait for my topic ban to expire in February, much less till now. I'm inedible, not incredible.) InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I noted how many of them died, kept the result of their support and saved 14 bytes. That was a nice job, and I politely ask it remain. That's not an order, though, reverting would simply be rude. And, of course, reinstate the clearly wrong suggestion. Plus 14 bytes! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
And yes, I discounted the police. This is not an anti-cop or pro-mob deduction. They just died after the voting resumed and finished. I thought about counting Sicknick as a Trump supporter, since he was. But he wasn't a marcher, attacker or whatever "Trump supporter" conjures up to Trump opposers. Plus, trying to explain why any cops came to be sometimes counted at all could take a kilobyte; let the body handle the complications, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which hundreds then attacked. Four of them died, interrupting the electoral vote count. You're blaming the dead for interrupting the vote count? The mob storming the Capitol interrupted the vote count, on account of lawmakers having to be evacuated to avoid being hung (Pence) or shot (Pelosi). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
"They interrupted the electoral vote count, and four died", then. But of course you or SPECIFICO will object to that, too. I'll only help get the lies and wordiness out of this article after you guys die, retire or reform. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I would politely suggest that you reconsider leaving your post above as-is. It is a bit unbecoming to state that one's editing preference being accepted is conditional on a fellow editors death, among other outcomes. Zaathras (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
We're all going to die. Some of us might retire or reform. Is it more unbecoming to acknowledge these possibilities among colleagues "backstage" or to accuse living people behind their backs in a high-traffic lead of killing their fellow Americans? I've been disparaged many times on this talk page, often by these two, and I'm far from the only one. It comes with the territory. I did consider, but won't rephrase or do anything to hasten anyone's death, retirement or reformation. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't know whether the four people who died of "natural causes" would have suffered these natural causes if they hadn't been running with the mob or, in the case of Officer Sicknick, attacked by the mob. We also don't know whether the two officers who killed themselves a few days or weeks later would have done so without the attack. We do know that seven people died then and there or shortly thereafter, so "resulting in multiple deaths" sounds just fine to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Going out on a limb here, but I doubt the Capitol Police succumb to "natural causes" at the rate of 3-4 per day. SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Only 1 capitol police officer died of natural causes. The the medical examiner said he died of natural causes and his death hasn't been associated with deaths at the Captol, go see the infobox of 2021 United States Capitol attack. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Second verse, same as the first. CP doesn't lose a cop a day to natural causes. Medical examiner's job does not include comment on the conclusion you are denying. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
What matters is RS and the medical examiners report. By reaching the conclusion that surely it was caused by the riot, you are promoting a form of original research. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
That's like saying that Biden's innaugural didn't remark that Trump had Covid and then using that to support removing Trump's covid. Or more recently like WP editors trying to use the inspector general of the Parks Service to conclude that Trump didn't violently disperse the Lafayette Square protest. Nobody asked the medical inspector about the insurrection details. He's not the insurrection inspector. Many many RS support the consensus view you are proposing to dislodge here. SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
He's not the medical inspector or the insurrection inspector, he's the medical examiner. And by the law of the land since 1855, as enacted and amended by your Congress, he is Washington's highest authority on cause of death, which is what we're talking about. Police asked him about the details of these suspicious deaths, per routine and legal requirement. Unimportantly, he's also more qualified than Biden to diagnose COVID. Politicians are nothing like doctors, keep on track. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Response to OP: "Multiple deaths" is an exaggeration, obviously. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I would support changing "multiple" to "several". Otherwise keep as is. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I could also support Inedible Hulk's suggestion to break it into two sentences, with the second saying "Five people died" not implying who died (not all were protesters) or what they died of. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I also support "several" and generally I think we should never use "multiple" except in the event of multiplication. This usage is spreading and should be curtailed. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
"Several" generally is understood to mean less than five. We are talking about five to nine fatalities (four attackers, officer Sicknick, the four officers who died by suicide in January and July), so IMO the more general term "multiple" is the better descriptor—more than one without the limitation of "several" and without claiming "many". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Apparently the sources do use "multiple" so I am now neutral. So either one of those, or perhaps "nearly a dozen"? SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Resulted in multiple deaths" (or words to that effect) are how the sources describe it. For example, these are how sources are describing it today:
  • NYT: ...the Capitol riot, which resulted in multiple deaths and dozens of injuries.[1]
  • Politico: ...a riot that led to multiple deaths.[2]
  • ABC: ...despite the riot resulting in multiple deaths and injuries as well as property destruction.}[3]
  • WaPo: The insurrection resulted in five deaths and injured about 140 members of law enforcement.[4]
  • Bloomberg: To date, the department has charged more than 725 individuals for storming the Capitol, resulting in the deaths of some police officers and rioters.[5]
There's some room to slightly tweak the wording based on those, but I would strenuously oppose "four of them died" or the like, which is a weird passive-voice construction that doesn't match the sources. The sources say that these people died as a result of the riot, so we have to say the same. I also feel we might expand the sentence to include injuries, which is just a few more words and seems to be something most sources mention. --Aquillion (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
You don't "have to" echo verbatim the opinions of political writers who work for outlets with openly stated interests in ousting and keeping Trump from office. You could choose to believe the objective autopsy reports completed by experienced doctors instead. Their factual findings are also covered by the NYT, WaPo and the rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment if we're not going to remove it, we could put a note on multiple deaths explaining it further for the reader, that would include the cause of deaths of the five people during the attack and the 4 suicides later. This would provide good context and is hard to oppose. The note could say:

Five people died either shortly before, during, or following the event: one was shot by Capitol Police, another died of a drug overdose, and three died of natural causes.[6][7] Additionally, within 7 months, four police officers who responded to the event had died by suicide.[8]

All those sources are used in the 2021 United States Capitol attack page, and the first sentence is a copy and paste from the lead of that article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Do you want to put that in the lead or in the body? If lead, no, too much. I just replaced the three sources for the last sentence in the body with a recent NYT article that sums up the deaths and injuries. It also has this about Officer Sicknick's death: natural causes: multiple strokes that occurred hours after Officer Sicknick’s confrontation with the mob. The medical examiner added, however, that "all that transpired played a role in his condition."[9] Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I proposing it being put in the lead as a note. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposition

If it's not clear, my proposition would read as this in the lead with the note:

On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which hundreds then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths[a] and interrupting the electoral vote count.

Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't get the purpose of adding the note. The lead is a summary of the most important points of the bio. We expect readers to read the body if they're interested in reading more. Why add a long note to the lead with information that we don't even mention in the body (I'm undecided whether we should)? A better place for the info is the main article, 2021 United States Capitol attack, where the deaths, including the suicides, and the injuries are mentioned in the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
That note is not an improvement and at any rate, no such note should go in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Can you please explain how a note that clarifies something to the reader is not an improvement? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
It's distracting, it (at best) equivocates as to "natural causes", it interrupts the flow of the lead in a way that vitiates the statement that there were so many deaths, and more. Lots of detail condensed in a footnote denotes information of lesser significance rather than information that's necessary detail. I appreciate your effort, but it has the effect of negating the core text and moreover it adds lots of lenght after we took the scalpel to many sections here. SPECIFICO talk 22:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Here's the thing, right now there are 4 editors who want "multiple deaths" included, and 3 who don't. What we need to be doing is finding a compromise. I think you should maybe consider putting your concerns about "flow" aside and try and reach the best community consensus. This note isn't a major disruption, most readers can't even tell a note from a reference apart. Additionally, there's already another note in the lead that explained something that needed further detail (the popular vote and electoral college note). Some editors see the multiple deaths statement as needing elaboration and clarification. It's not the end of the world for this note to be there. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
It's not flow for flow's sake. It alters the sense of the text. It is no good. It's longer, less faithful to RS narratives and WEIGHT and there's no consensus to change this longstanding text. There does not need to be a compromise. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's less faithful to RS narratives, RS completely supports everything in the note. I wouldn't say WEIGHT is much of a concern since it's a note. I'm sure it wouldn't necessarily be considered appropriate weight to explain in 2 long sentences how the US electoral system works in Donald Trump's lead, but we do it anyway, but with a note. Thats what notes are for, the operate separately from WEIGHT. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
No, WEIGHT/NPOV is always a top concern, second only to Verification and BLP. This article is not "Trump according to Trump", it is Trump per RS WEIGHT. Everything else has been said. I suggest we move on to other issues. SPECIFICO talk 13:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no place to link to United States Electoral College in the lead, so the note on the electoral college system was added and changed several times because readers not familiar with this U.S. peculiarity kept editing the lead to something that made more sense than the winner of the popular vote by a few million not winning the election. In this case, the lead does have a link to the 2021 United States Capitol attack and the table of contents also lists it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The sentence in its current state in the lead has the false implication that Trump supporters committed homicide. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Broadwater, Luke (30 November 2021). "Meadows Agrees to Cooperate in Capitol Attack Investigation". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-01-29 – via NYTimes.com.
  2. ^ Schor, Elana. "Why the Jan. 6 panel is on the clock". POLITICO. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
  3. ^ News, A. B. C. "Trump claims Capitol rioters posed 'zero threat,' says some being persecuted". ABC News. Retrieved 2022-01-29. {{cite web}}: |last1= has generic name (help)
  4. ^ "Capitol Police officer Eugene Goodman speaks publicly for first time since Jan. 6 insurrection". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2022-01-29 – via www.washingtonpost.com.
  5. ^ "U.S. Attorney General Garland Vows to Go After All Jan. 6 Perpetrators 'at Any Level'". www.bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
  6. ^ "Capitol attack: the five people who died". the Guardian. 8 January 2021. Retrieved 29 January 2022.
  7. ^ "Medical examiner: Capitol Police officer Sicknick died of stroke; death ruled 'natural'". WTOP News. 19 April 2021. Retrieved 29 January 2022.
  8. ^ Wolfe, Jan (3 August 2021). "Four officers who responded to U.S. Capitol attack have died by suicide". Reuters. Retrieved 29 January 2022.
  9. ^ Cameron, Chris (January 5, 2022). "These Are the People Who Died in Connection With the Capitol Riot". The New York Times. Retrieved January 29, 2022.
  10. ^ "Capitol attack: the five people who died". the Guardian. 8 January 2021. Retrieved 29 January 2022.
  11. ^ "Medical examiner: Capitol Police officer Sicknick died of stroke; death ruled 'natural'". WTOP News. 19 April 2021. Retrieved 29 January 2022.
  12. ^ Wolfe, Jan (3 August 2021). "Four officers who responded to U.S. Capitol attack have died by suicide". Reuters. Retrieved 29 January 2022.

Notes

  1. ^ Five people died either shortly before, during, or following the event: one was shot by Capitol Police, another died of a drug overdose, and three died of natural causes.[10][11] Additionally, within 7 months, four police officers who responded to the event had died by suicide.[12]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_142&oldid=1071282871"