Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 129

Archive 125

←

Archive 127

Archive 128

Archive 129

Archive 130

Archive 131

→

Archive 135

Editorializing in the Lead

"Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic." There's no citation here or evidence. It's fair to say that he has undergone criticism for his response to COVID-19, but, I don't there's much evidence to say the initial response was objectively slow. After all, he did react in the beginning by closing down borders while Pelosi and Biden were criticizing that move. That's not exactly a slow response. Let's be more objective here and say he underwent criticism for a botched response, but slow is just patently false. The editorializing in this lead is actually quite disgraceful. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Ambrosiaster, there are no citations in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. Everything that is in the lead is (or at least should be) in the article's body with citations present there. In the case of Trump's response to COVID-19, see Donald Trump#Initial response, where there are citations for the statement. Also see #Current consensus #48, which includes links to the discussions about the use of the word "slow". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The response to COVID-19 was a multi-frontal response. According to NBC News, some elements of Trump's response, were timely, but the messaging was mixed and there was other clear mistakes in his response. Just because one front of the attack on COVID-19 was slow (the one you're referring to in the NY Times and LA Times articles cited) is not enough to mean the entire response was objectively slow. Some parts of it were slow, while others were effective; other parts of it were botched, while others, such as "Operation Warp Speed,' were effective; the messaging was poor and mixed. This just seems like a lot of editorializing to me. "Slow" implies the the entire response was slow. That's at variance with other sources. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a broad summary of what the sources say, as is appropriate for the lead; the body has a more detailed breakdown. But the LA Times says eg. In that key early period, many of the Trump presidency’s most deeply ingrained characteristics — its distrust of the federal bureaucracy, internal personality conflicts, lack of a formal policymaking process and Trump’s own insistence on controlling the public message — severely hampered the federal response, according to current and former White House officials and public health experts. ... Weeks were lost that could have been used to test and isolate the first infected patients, purchase medical supplies, prepare makeshift hospitals and enlist corporations in quickly ramping up production of badly needed respirators and other supplies. The NYT summary is An examination reveals the president was warned about the potential for a pandemic but that internal divisions, lack of planning and his faith in his own instincts led to a halting response, and their article reflects that; the other piece I just added states that that was just one of several examples that underscored the price of the Trump administration’s slow response to evidence as early as January that the coronavirus was headed to the United States - that is to say, they make it clear that his entire response, overall, was slow and halting in a way that had severe costs. The fact that Trump was slow to react to COVID-19 is well-covered in the sources and is broadly uncontroversial among reliable sources; we have to summarize key points like that in the lead. This is especially true in this case because Trump's mishandling of COVID-19 likely cost him re-election, so it's a core part of his biography. --Aquillion (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion, but write to add one more point. Ambrosiaster: You state that parts of [the response] were botched, while others, such as "Operation Warp Speed,' were effective but the statement that Warp Speed was effective is at odds with the sources. Washington Post December 5: "Trump’s Operation Warp Speed promised a flood of covid vaccines. Instead, states are expecting a trickle. The administration pledged several hundred million doses in 2020. Companies will actually ship about 10 percent of that." Or the Associated Press Nov. 15: "Trump ... tried to take full credit for drugmaker Pfizer Inc.'s news that its COVID-19 vaccine may be 90% effective and suggested the mission was basically done. ... His assertions on both matters are untrue. ... Pfizer notably did not accept government money to develop, test or expand manufacturing capacity under Trump's Operation Warp Speed initiative." Neutrality^talk 20:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

#Current consensus #48 does not say there is consensus for "slow". I think a better adjective would be "chaotic".--Jack Upland (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

_ In a recent interview with AFP, Dr Anthony Fauci has actually praised Operation Warp Speed. I quote: "Operation Warp Speed has been very successful and I'm certain that we will continue the pathway of Operation Warp Speed. I think, in credit to what has gone on in the current administration, I think that is a quite successful endeavor. I mean, to come up with a vaccine that is ready for distribution in less than a year, from the time the virus was identified is really an unprecedented speed". Fauci's feedback is probably a more reliable source of information than the rants of reporters in the Washington Post. Ambrosiaster is most likely correct on Operation Warp Speed. Mcrt007 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 December 2020

Can we add trump is succeeded by joe Biden 108.170.65.170 (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

No, per recent RfC consensus at: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Interim use of successor in Infobox officeholder. We will add Biden on January 20, Inauguration Day. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Addition of National security subsection to Domestic policy

I propose a new subsection related to National security in the Domestic policy aspect of the Presidency heading:

National security

See also: Trump Tower wiretapping allegations

As president, Trump repeatedly claimed the Obama Administration had wiretapped communication at his Trump Tower office during the end of his 2016 presidential campaign and amid his transition into the presidency. Due to this belief, Trump sought to deny the FISA Court from targeting resident Americans, which came ahead during the approaching deadline to reauthorize the Patriot Act, of which expanded the authority of the FISA Court in the domestic sphere. Due to Republican resistance after public urging from Trump, efforts to reauthorize FISA Court surveillance authorities were pulled in May 2020.

MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• No mention of the wiretap without his 2019 admission that it was bullshit. [1] ... a long time ago, very early on I used the word ‘wiretap,’ and I put in quotes, meaning surveillance, spying you can sort of say whatever you want ... I said that just on a little bit of a hunch and a little bit of wisdom maybe ... It was pretty insignificant I thought when I said it... starship.paint (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  The claim itself is structured in the way to emphasize he doesn't have evidence for it, the main reasoning for including it is it's regarded by sources to have influenced his decision to block renewal of the Patriot Act. Inclusion of "claimed without evidence" would likely remedy the situation. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  This detail is better suited to the sub-articles. For this bio, the salient point is how it relates to the large number of his other various conspiracy theories and personal grievances. SPECIFICO talk 15:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  Even if we add “without evidence”, the key problem is Due to this belief. If we cut the motive, left out the wiretapping claims, just discussed the FISA actions, I wouldn’t oppose. starship.paint (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  Actually I’m sure this could be done more succinctly. Trump attempted [some sort of FISS reform] from [year], but Republicans ultimately blocked that effort in 2020. starship.paint (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)|

  But the personal motivation was significant. SPECIFICO talk 02:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• It's just another one of the conspiracy theories promoted by Trump (the Greatest Political Crime In the History of the U.S., the Russian Witch-Hunt), in this case coupled with his Obama obsession (you provided the link to the LA Times article containing a list). Ironically, it helped to do away with Bush administration legislation whose renewal a big faction of the Democrats had opposed in March but IMO that's a little thin for a new subsection. It's not at all clear that it would have passed even without Trump's involvement. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  The crux of the subsection is blocking legislation in relation to National security interests, of which the Patriot Act has been well-regarded as one of the most well-known and impactful of the past 20 years; the allegation is not the center-point but added context, otherwise I'd have listed it as Main article and not See also. Harkening back to a comment left by @SPECIFICO: in which the content of the majority of the article relates to the large number of his other various conspiracy theories and personal grievances, it also serves a fitting purpose in the grand scheme.

  The collapsing of the vote to renew it has been regarded as a bipartisan affair by sources covering the story, in which Trump is often named as having played a key role, with his threatening to veto it had it been passed otherwise often referenced. As The New York Times writes here, the president has a history of erratic intervention in FISA legislation politics. I believe it's noteworthy of inclusion for this reason alone. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  For that reason -only-, if at all. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

"Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden"

This is just straight up false, as the election has not been settled yet. If we had a concession from Trump then we could say with certainty that Biden won the election, but not now as there is no concession and clearly legal disputes. The electoral college decides the official winner of the election, which happens at December 14th 2020.

One might not like Trump's accusations of fraud, but that does not mean one can simply deny the fact that no winner has been officially declared yet. At Wikipedia we strive for neutrality, so I think it goes without saying that integrity should be a bare minimum.

Alternate phrasing: "Biden was projected as the winner by the media but Trump refused to concede defeat." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekanel (talk • contribs) 11:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

RS say he won, so far no court case has said he has not.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Concession is not a legal mechanism in any way. Giving a concession speech neither prevents you from winning an election should a recount change the results, nor does giving a concession speech mean you cannot mount legal challenges. The existence of lawsuits, especially frivolous ones, does not constitute true legal challenge or dispute. President-elect, as a title, is never mentioned in the US Constitution, let alone reserving it for only after the Electors have sat. However, the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 does use the phrase "president-elect," and so United States law explicitly states that once the General Services Administration has ascertained the winner of the election (and the law was explicitly created so that the transition could begin well ahead of the seating of the Electors), the person ascertained is the president-elect. That can be superseded by the Electors doing something different, but until they do, the law clearly states that GSA ascertains who is the president-elect. The GSA did so on November 23rd, meaning that after that date, there was no legal argument to be made that Biden could not be called the president-elect. None of this matters much in terms of Wikipedia, where my arguments could be deemed original research or synthesis, but fortunately, my arguments aren't even needed. All reliable sources call Biden the president-elect, and we do what the reliable sources say. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

And now the EC has found Biden won, what more do we need?Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request

Hi, could we please add "grifter" to the list of descriptors of Trump, apropos of this news? https://www.businessinsider.com/jared-kushner-trump-campaign-shell-company-family-ammc-lara-2020-12?utm_source=reddit.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

While true, this is not appropriate. Otherwise I would've added vexatious litigant as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Has Trump been declared a vexatious litigant? I don't think so.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 December 2020

Change

During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. He enacted a tax-cut package for individuals and businesses, rescinding the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but has failed to repeal and replace the ACA as a whole. He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. In foreign policy, Trump has pursued an America First agenda, renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) and withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He imposed import tariffs which triggered a trade war with China, moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and withdrew U.S. troops from northern Syria. He met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, but talks on denuclearization broke down in 2019. He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.

To

During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. He enacted a tax-cut package for individuals and businesses, rescinding the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but has failed to repeal and replace the ACA as a whole. He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. In foreign policy, Trump has pursued an America First agenda, renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) and withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He imposed import tariffs which triggered a trade war with China, moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, facilitated talks leading to the normalization of relations between Israel and several arab states and withdrew U.S. troops from northern Syria. He met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, but talks on denuclearization broke down in 2019. He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. Cylamar (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

What is the change? Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Add "facilitated talks leading to the normalization of relations between Israel and several arab states" Cylamar (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I have to disagree, on the basis that this is not one of the most significant events of his presidency. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I would point out that Jimmy Carters page has in his introductory paragraph "In foreign affairs, Carter pursued the Camp David Accords" which was the normalization or relations between Egypt and Israel. Cylamar (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Camp David Accords were much more substantial, and Carter's role was reported as much more significant than Trump's role in the Abraham Accords. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The Camp David accords did constitute the first israeli-arab normalization, so in that respect, they were more significant, however, the Trump presidency has seen four arab nation normalize relations with israel, tripling the number of arab states with regular ties to israel(two in the Abraham Accords, and two in the aftermath). Furthermore, the now rather widespread normalization(still the minority among arab nations, but no longer simply isolated cases) seems to indicate a wider arab-israeli cooling of tensions. May I ask what you mean by "Carter's role was reported as much more significant than Trump's role in the Abraham Accords"? Reported by who? Both carter and Trump facilitated talks and to an extent provided american incentives (Trump recently recognizing the western saharah as belonging to Morocco as part of Israel-Morocco normalization, for example). Neither directly negotiated as an agent for either israel or the arab nation. Cylamar (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip and Cylamar: This was another misuse of the edit request facility, and the one and only response should've been what Muboshgu did above. Edit requests are by definition not discussions and it's unhelpful to treat them as discussions, thereby perpetuating their misuse. See Wikipedia:Edit requests for more information. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind discussing it first in this case. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 December 2020

A simple addittion of the "succeded by" Joe Biden 2603:7080:AE02:D444:B023:7122:9073:6F47 (talk) 11:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per recent RfC consensus at: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Interim use of successor in Infobox officeholder. This will be done on January 20, Inauguration Day, no edit request necessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Mar-A-Lago Residence Dispute

It appears there is a legal dispute over Trump's declaration of Mar-A-Lago as his residence. Not yet covered in this article... https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/16/politics/donald-trump-mar-a-lago/index.html IHateAccounts (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

But... should it be? Not every little thing should be covered, and I'm not sure the dispute about him moving to Mar-A-Lago full time is significant enough for this article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Its a "there might be", and frankly I think it will blow over. If it becomes a major court case, maybe.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

That source is all of a day old. Don't be so reactive to the continuous stream of daily headlines about Trump – not only because that isn't encyclopedic, but because this article already has a serious size problem and can't afford that. Please propose new content about something that happened two years ago and has received enough press coverage since then to satisfy WEIGHT. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There's already a notation that Trump declared his intention to make Mar-A-Lago his primary residence in this article, so this seems to be related. Also, more sources:

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/trump-mar-a-lago-neighbors-dispute/2020/12/15/bc2ce1d0-3ed4-11eb-9453-fc36ba051781_story.html
2. https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/trumps-move-to-his-florida-estate-challenged-by-neighbor/
3. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/17/trump-mar-a-lago-club-neighbors-florida

WP:DUE level seems to be there with the story hitting international-level WP:RS coverage. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

He'll probably make a deal or tie them up in court for years. Not DUE at this point. O3000 (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Most Trump coverage hits international coverage in the short term, so that's not a useful test for WEIGHT. Wait and see if it's still being widely talked about after a month or two, as that's when it becomes suitable for this one-page biography. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The guardian seems to say it one household sending out one warning letter. So its not a court case, its not an official body, and its not even a large number of objections (and given the town has allowed him to abuse the agreement for four years I am not sure the town will do anything).Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Trump's neighbors appear to have deeper pockets than him, so they may sue him and/or Palm Beach if he doesn't comply with their demands. But that is only speculation at this point and shouldn't be included in the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It's covered at the Mar-a-Lago article. At the moment, nothing much has happened. It might become a court case, but if it does it should probably just be classed under Legal affairs of Donald Trump. As a resident of Australia, I agree that most Trump stories are covered internationally. This doesn't make them particularly important.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Not yet significant enough for this biography. If it escalates into an actual legal challenge we might (or might not) add a sentence. If he winds up actually moving somewhere else we will definitely include it. But right now it's just talk. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Page size again

 Question: isn't the whole article way too long? i mean, we got nearly 1,000 sources! i'm all for verifiability, but that's a touch too much. This article is enormous, things should be cut and/or moved to other articles, i think. Coltsfan (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Coltsfan, the article is vastly oversized. See our discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland, I saw that, but still, it never went anywhere. This article needs to be trim down pronto. Coltsfan (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

What's the fastest way to lose 50 pounds? Have a leg amputated. Not many people go that route. It never went anywhere, nor did any of the preceding dozen or so discussions about this spanning several years. Things look a bit different when one has been around to witness all of them and their net result. In the end, the article will do what a majority of its editors want it to do, and this article may be reduced to a more reasonable size when most of its editors have moved on to the next political battlefield. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

What's the best way to cook pasta? Jump 4 times in a lake. Anyways. It's not even a matter of the topic being contentious or lack of historical perspective. It's lack of will. The article being ginormous is a strong enough deterrent. Coltsfan (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually the article did shrink between July 2019 and April 2020, but this was overwhelmed by an inrush of information about the election and COVID-19. I think it will be quite possibly to cut the article down if and when Trump stops making headlines every day.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

It is much more likely that good cuts will be made with the perspective of months or years' time. I agree we should not be raising this question over and over. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

If it is a problem, then we can't expect people not to raise it. I think we should try in January to cut this article down. It's not a matter of cutting things out. It's a matter of summarising what happened. The detail belongs on other articles.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and now is a good time to add the length tag to the top of the article. The departure of Donald Trump as president should make it easier for editors to trim the article. This should be the number one priority, although there is likely to be news about Donald Trump continuing for years. Please be bold and trim the article where you see value in doing so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not a matter of trimming. It relates to fuzzy editorial understanding and conflicting views as to the the subject and how to describe it. It is not like, all the jellybeans will be in the jar next month and we can start culling the stale ones. SPECIFICO talk 13:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure it will be easier to improve the article in years' time, but that is no reason not to do anything now.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Straw man, thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The article is too large, but I have no intention of making any substantial edits until February 2021. Some of the sections I think are too large, and will probably propose reducing if not done before then:

• The entire "Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op" in its current form should go, possibly replaced by a paragraph about his reactions to Black Lives Matter protests.
• "Migrant detentions" should be reduced and merged into the higher-level "immigration" section.
• "National emergency regarding the southern border" should be at most 1 sentence in the "Trump wall" section.
• "Impeachment" can be reduced by 30-50% in size.
• "2017 FBI counterintelligence inquiry" is probably unnecessary, but could be mentioned in the Firing of James Comey section if need be.
• "Associates" is about other people, and should be reduced to 1 paragraph.
• "2019 congressional investigation" seems not important enough for this article.

There's probably more; for example the COVID section feels long, though I'm not sure what to remove. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with all that. Now that Trump has been defeated, this is certainly redundant, and no sensible editor would support it. I think we should move on this as soon as we can.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You're an experienced and competent editor and I would have no issue with you or any other experienced and competent editor making BOLD trimming edits that do not violate existing consensuses, obviously subject to BRD challenges. I probably don't need to tell you why more smaller edits is preferable to fewer larger edits, and please don't overwhelm the process with more than can be reasonably discussed at one time. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I have no interest in dealing with the stress of editing this article while Trump is still president. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

It really would be best to workshop this sort of thing here on talk, both as to the goal, the approach, and the specific text, before editing the article extensively. With 1RR etc. we could get backlogged and any talk page discussion hamstrung if it's done after the fact.

I continue to think it's not so much a need to cut less DUE detail as it is a need to provide summary sourcing and characterization by secondary and tertiary sources and analysts. So, for example, each of the Associate mentions by themselves may be UNDUE. But the pattern of Trump's entourage and trusted top associates being convicted of crimes and of Mueller's investigation being obstructed -- that is the DUE and bio-worthy content for Trump. Similar levels of detail can possibly be pared elsewhere in the article, but the larger issues should be more clearly and explicitly stated -- as RS increasingly are doing. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Uh, workshopping this on talk is exactly what I'm starting to do here, isn't it? Regarding "Associates", I agree it's relevant that the Mueller probe did find wrongdoing among his associates, we just don't need to say so much about them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood that editors were proposing to make bold cuts prior to discussion. At any rate, I would expect we'd shorten the Associates section to something like "X# of Trump's associates were convicted of felonies related to the campaign and transition. Special Counsel Mueller found... obstruction of justice." With links to pages that narrate the detail. SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Some of us have repeatedly pointed to Wikipedia:Summary style as the correct "approach", and all we've gotten is blank stares from article regulars, who continue adding over-detailed content clearly inconsistent with it and sitting silently by while drive-bys do the same. I'm sick and tired of that and I refuse to continue with it. If I were any good at it, I'd be doing the BOLD edits myself, but I will aggressively support any reasonably competent editor who does so. I know a few other editors who would join me. Stop prior-talking and act, subject to content-based BRD challenges (not "please discuss first") to individual edits. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that has led to mass reverts, endless discussion, and long RfC's in the recent past. Consider whether we should get the DS page restrictions removed and then do as you say? SPECIFICO talk 10:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the history suggests that this "workshopping" would also be endless discussion. My endless discussion would at least have some lasting benefit, as not every BOLD edit would be challenged. It wouldn't surprise me if less than half of them were challenged, particularly now that many editors have already lost interest in the article because there is no longer an election at stake. I don't know what DS has to do with it; it's quite easy to follow standard BRD process within the restrictions. If there is increased disruption by that approach, that's exactly what the discretionary sanctions are for. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

No, 1rr leads to more extensive wholesale reverts. And the kind of summary I proposed for Associates is not merely a trim. SPECIFICO talk 10:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that "workshopping" is not particularly a good idea. It is an invitation to editors to vent their opinions on a range of issues. I think the concern previously was that massive cuts were very difficult for other editors to follow. Therefore, it is better for editors to trim one section at a time over several days. If there are major objections to a particular cut, I would suggest that we restore the text and move on. There is no point debating it. We should concentrate on removing text that is generally agreed to be redundant.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

1RR is not currently in effect at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Good. Let's get rid of the other one as well and roll up our sleeves. SPECIFICO talk 15:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Everybody is correct here. Power Enwiki and Specifico have recommended completely appropriate ways to reduce the size of the article and there is no need to delay on attempting to implement them. Mandruss is right to say that bold edits are what is needed here. I have been making bold edits to reduce the size of the article over I believe two years, and while many of those have been challenged, many have not been. This is while I have only been one editor and the upcoming election being a factor. With several editors making size reductions and fewer editors being instinctively opposed, we could get a long way to reducing this article to a reasonable size in shorter time than we may have thought possible before the election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Some of your edits have been constructive, but you have also made significant changes, against recent consensus, that wasted lots of editor time and attention. E.g. to the Covid text. Removing excessive detail, e.g. about wrestling, real estate deals, is uncontroversial. But to summarize the narrative of the man's life will require a fundamentally different approach, per my example above. SPECIFICO talk 13:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

At best it was arguable that any of those edits were against recent consensus but I'm certainly happy that editor time and attention was focused on reducing the size of the article. There was clearly a low tolerance for what could be removed, but the size of the article was reduced by those edits overall despite that, and those who opposed the removal of content succeeded in stopping that where they felt it was not justified. Anyway yes, I agree with your approach. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Mention election loss in first paragraph

The section I started on this a week or so ago was archived before people replied, so here I am asking it again: should we mention in the first paragraph that Trump lost the election to Biden? I would argue that we should, since, a) one-term presidents are rare and notable, b) with 32 days to go, his presidency is currently defined by its impending conclusion, and c) this is almost exclusively what reliable sources are currently covering about Trump. Just doesn’t seem to me that his defeat should only be mentioned at the end of the lede. Thoughts? Cpotisch (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

As I said before, I don't think being a one-term president is really rare or notable. I think 23 out of 44 presidents had one full term or less. I think 10 failed to win re-election. Of course, the big news now is Trump's defeat, but this article is not about the latest news.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

In agreement with Jack. A US president losing re-election isn't a rarity. GoodDay (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not rare at all. But I think it is important that Trump was defeated in the 2020 election. It has received extensive media coverage. Four years ago, the Hillary Clinton article said in the first paragraph that she lost to Trump.[2] Of course it first says she won the popular vote. TFD (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The first paragraph on inauguration day, being discussed above, should give the dates of his presidency, and so should cover this issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

No, per my comments elsewhere about the special nature of the first paragraph, which I and others feel should apply in any biography (notwithstanding what some other BLPs do). The short version: It should very concisely say who/what he is and nothing more. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Saying that his presidency is ending/has ended in 2021 is sufficient. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Mandruss. The fact that he lost re-election does not go in the lead paragraph. The first paragraph says what he is, does, and did - including "from-to years" he served as president, but that's all. Presidency and election issues go in the last paragraph (or possibly next to last if he does a paragraph worth of notable stuff as past president). George H. W. Bush lost re-election; that's not in his first paragraph. Gerald Ford failed in his bid for (re)election; that's not in his first paragraph. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible Bias

Asking to remove things such as "unsubstantied", or saying that the attempts to change the election results were meant to sow chaos. As evidence is debated upon, I don't think this is a definite fact that can be stated, and stating that, "legal claims were aimed at causing chaos and confusion", is claiming that, this is his intention, is fact. I don't think it's correct for an article, like this, to be giving opinions on trump's legal battles to this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isben99 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

What is in the text is what is in the reliable sources. Additionally, the evidence isn't being debated upon. The Trump campaign is at 60+ cases, losing all but one. A number of these cases were considered on merit and evidence, and they still lost. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source source that says that there is voter fraud/whatnot? It's not an opinion. It's the truth. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 19:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@OurborosCobra The Trump campaign has filed about 5-6 lawsuits. The others are from individual citizens. Stop being dishonest. MostConcernedVoter (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The statement “legal claims were aimed at causing chaos and confusion” projects intent on Trump’s campaign, without primary sources to back it up. Chowlab92 (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't find such a sentence in the article. Am I just missing it, or has it already been removed? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It was removed by someone else. Chowlab92 (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I suggest this edit to the first sentence of the sixth paragraph in Donald_Trump#2020_presidential_election: "The unsubstantiated legal claims and misinformation publicized by Trump and his allies may have been aimed at creating confusion in the nation discourse following the election []. As some of Trump's allies and aides have privately shared, the efforts to overturn the election would also help ensure the loyalty of Trump's supporters after his defeat []. Chowlab92 (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. This certainly does not belong in the lead. It may not belong in the article text either, as it is pretty much editorializing and trying to read Trump's mind about what his intentions are. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree, I was trying to de-editorialize the existing sentence. It was fixed in this edit. Chowlab92 (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You look ridiculous

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.

---

Yes it’s been debated. The fact that you can’t bring yourselves to put “succeeded by” makes you all look entirely pathetic. It’s been done every other time. Shockenb (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This is by community consensus. I have taken the time to link to it for other people making this request, but for you I'll make an exception. I suggest you learn to show some respect for Wikipedia editors or hold your comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:43, 27 December 2020 (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.

Intended annulment of the elections

It seems there is some intention of Trump to have the (lost) elections annuled by some means (involving the military?). Have I understood/heard this aspect properly?--82.137.11.86 (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

A link to the intention: [3]. Can this be inserted in the article?--82.137.11.86 (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

MSM likes to over-react to such things, per ratings. In the real world, Trump's leaving January 20, 2021 & there isn't a thing he can do about it. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what happens instead of reporting before it happens. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we clearly need a sub section on his attempted coup. No, it's not an "overreaction" to discuss an attempted coup, and reliable sources are overwhelmingly clear on that too. [4][5][6]. The coup attempt by a sitting US president is extremely notable and important regardless of whether it actually succeeds. --Tataral (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

A coup attempt requires the full cooperation of the US armed forces or at least a darn good bit of it. So far, we've gotten no concrete evidence of the military backing up such a move. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No, a coup attempt doesn't require that. A successful coup might require it. His coup attempt is highly notable regardless of whether his coup attempt succeeds and whether the military supports him, all RS agree on that. --Tataral (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

An attempted coup does require at least some part of the country's military or some other armed force. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, and a ton of reliable sources don't think it does either. An attempted coup is an attempted coup, even if he only uses the political arena for it. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and when reliable sources overwhelmingly discuss Trump's coup attempt, there is a coup attempt that is notable and that we need to discuss here. --Tataral (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not a literal coup, it's just Trump trying to get lawmakers to certify him as the winner of the election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't paid attention to Trump's scheme to impose martial law, suspend the U.S. constitution, silence the press and hold a new election under military authority. Even if he doesn't succeed (because the military doesn't go along), it's still an attempted coup when a president plans something like that in the Oval Office. --Tataral (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

He hasn't attempted to do any of that. If or when he does, we should add it into the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Tataral, re: Trump's scheme to impose martial law, suspend the U.S. constitution, silence the press and hold a new election under military authority. Tataral, you are way overreacting. I bet you can't find any Reliable Source reporting that he has a "scheme" to suspend the U.S. constitution or silence the press. He has apparently discussed martial law and a new election, but there is no evidence that discussion hardened into an actual plan, and quite a bit of evidence that it didn't. Please let's stick to what has actually being seriously discussed (even if not then decided upon as a "scheme") and avoid the wilder flights of fancy. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems like an over reaction. Lets see what happens at the inauguration. PackMecEng (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No, we're not going to wait "at the inauguration" if there is a notable coup attempt. --Tataral (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I have not seen a "notable coup attempt" or anything close honestly. So yeah, I suppose we will wait for something to actually happen. PackMecEng (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Tataral, you are again claiming incorrectly that V and WEIGHT are the only things that govern such decisions, and you haven't proven the WEIGHT case anyway. Sorry but it isn't sufficient to state reliable sources are overwhelmingly clear on that too and cite New York (magazine), The Atlantic, and Arkansas Times (I feel somehow less than overwhelmed). Unless I'm blind or incompetent, either of which is possible, The New York Times appears to be taking a pass on "martial law" even in their opinion section. The word "coup" was discussed and rejected last month; see archives. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I think NPOV means that we document what Trump has done, but we avoid using inflammatory labels such as "attempted coup".--Jack Upland (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Patience. WP:NODEADLINE O3000 (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Wide coverage of the martial law initiative. More RS have independently confirmed details today. SPECIFICO talk 13:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Until the military or part of the military back up such a ridicules plan, it's all hot air. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Every mainstream publication disagrees with that. Moreover, we have half a dozen distinct instances of Trump using or attempting to use the US military for his personal ends. That fact is bio-significant, regardless of whether this article describes the details. SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I would say "has been accused of", but so far he has not done it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Has/is attempting. Not accused of, RS are clear in their description. Indeed so are Trump and his team. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

A few points:

• This discussion is at the wrong place. Go here: Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results#Description of GOP actions as a coup.
• Generally, we don't focus on "truth" (whether Trump actually plans a coup) but on "verifiability" (have RS mentioned the idea, whether actual or not). Myriad RS have discussed what they see as a soft/bloodless coup attempt (see Self-coup). We do not wait to see if it actually succeeds. We document what RS say.
• An interesting parallel exists here. With COVID19, experts point out that the only way to rapidly defeat it is if everyone acts as if they are infected. With alleged coup attempts, some RS point out that the only way to prevent it from actually happening is to treat it as a very real possibility and not ignore the danger, even after Trump leaves office.

So let's focus on what RS say, not on whether there actually are coup attempts or whether/when they succeed. Then discuss this at the right venue, which isn't here. -- Valjean (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

We document what RS say. But we very often choose to omit something RS say for editorial reasons, and that's within policy per WP:ONUS (as I indicated to Tataral above). I could dig up hundreds of examples of that from this page's archives alone, if I had the time and the motivation. So, when schooling us on proper Wikipedia editing, please don't represent this as anything close to absolute. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. This may not be the right article for this content (so no need for the hostility). Isn't that part of the issue here? -- Valjean (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You're right about venue. Per WP:SYNC this needs to be well established in a Trump sub-article first. The bolded words are essential, inclusion in any old Wikipedia article is not sufficient. We would have to discuss whether Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results is a Trump sub-article. Once SYNC is satisfied, we can discuss whether this is suitable for this one-page biography of an entire life that included four years as president. This is the process that should have been followed for the past four years, and had it been this article wouldn't have had its chronic size issues. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The idea - martial law and a rerun of the elections in the states Trump lost - has been proposed by Mike Flynn, and it was discussed and apparently seriously considered by Trump over the weekend. But discussion is not intention. His advisors were strongly against it, and the agencies that would have to cooperate - specifically the departments of Defense and Homeland Security - have said flatly they would not participate in any such thing, or that they have no legal power to do so. Trump has since dismissed the reports of the discussion as "Fake News". I guess it could be mentioned at the Disputes article, but just as a discussion, not an intention. And not here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

“Ordered non-cooperation”?

This is completely false and misleading, seeing as he gave the go-ahead to the Biden transition team weeks ago. You need to cite your source if you’re going to claim that he ordered non-cooperation. MostConcernedVoter (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

MostConcernedVoter, there are citations. See Donald Trump#2020 presidential election, where it says Trump blocked government officials from cooperating in the presidential transition of Joe Biden.. Also, just today, we have new reports about DOD hating cooperation with the Biden transition. So, there are sources. Where are yours? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

References

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/23/us/politics/trump-transition-biden.html MostConcernedVoter (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

MostConcernedVoter has a point. The current sentence ends "... and ordered government officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition." That is inaccurate because it implies that he never did allow them to co-operate. It should say something like "... and ordered government officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition until three weeks after Election Day." Alternate, simpler and possibly clearer versions: "... and for three weeks ordered government officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition." or "... and initially ordered government officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition." -- MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

He's still making life hard for Biden. As stated before, the DoD stopped cooperating with Biden's campaign. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2020

In Note a of the article, please change president-elect to president-elect (redirecting to President-elect of the United States). DanCherek (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Czello 19:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Section for Kunya

Dear Editors, Donald Trump gained a popular Kunya by Arabic social media users, perhaps you could add a subsection for this nickname, you can search "Abu Ivanka أبو إيفانكا", and google search displays Donald Trump if the search was for "أبو إيفانكا" [7], [8].--Abu aamir (talk) 08:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM; it'll be forgotten in a week or two. Then again, this page is so big because of it! Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 21:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Trump gaslighting himself

Given the high profile of this page, I'll just clarify that my reasons for reverting this here are primarily because the initial editor stated in their edit summary "take it to the Mind of Trump article". As I said, I can find no matching article, so this does seem the best place for notable claims to be made. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, I suggest you create a Mind of Trump article where you can dump various opinions about his innermost thoughts. My mum has some piercing psychological insights into his bowel movements and they are published in the Daily Bugle at Mount Chamberpot, Australia.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to be facetious. You damage your own arguments by doing so. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

One of us is being an idiot. This time it ain't me. Who farted?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I would agree we do not need analysis of his mind, unless it is by experts (and then if they are MEDERS complainant). Just because we do not have an article on it does not mean we need it here (as others have implied).Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

When we present people's opinions, we should say who they are how credible they are and how accepted their opinion is. Here we have the opinions of Trump's estranged niece, a man jailed for perjury and a someone who thinks the world is controlled by the illuminati. Are we saying that anyone who criticizes Trump is automatically reliable? TFD (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nope, but I thought Wikipedia went on reliable sources, not what we think ourselves? Although I agree that Jack's mum probably isn't notable. I'm clearly in the minority, so won't object to its removal again, but will object to Jack Uplands behaviour of facetiousness instead of rationale and personal insults as per WP:NPA - "One of us is being an idiot. This time it ain't me", also that people seem to be missing the point that his original rationale was to place the information into an article that didn't exist. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

A bit too close to vio of #Current consensus #39 for my taste. Stay out of Trump's head, at least in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the point is that this article, bloated as its is, cannot contain all the gases in the known universe, Holy Jupiter! We don't want to make this article the butt of jokes in the annals of the arty farty literati by including every emission by the airheads and blowhards on the airwaves. Trump's mind is an undiscovered planet, veiled in vapours, no doubt protected by noxious fumes and dubious humours. While we would love to shine a penetrating light on the crevices and curves of his grey matter, the fact is we do not know what is going on inside his head. Since America is the guiding light of the free world - Hallelujah! - we can only assume that his thought bubbles are not vacuous...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I had no idea you were so literary. Anyway, there will always be little limit to the vindictive partisan nastiness on both sides of the Trump question, all of it eagerly reported somewhere in RS, and that's why V and WEIGHT are not absolutes. WEIGHT is far too fuzzy a principle to be an absolute anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

No idea??? You've punctured my balloon.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Sanction reminder

@Starship.paint, Jack Upland, Chaheel Riens, and Slatersteven: reminder that this article is under a 24-hour BRD arbitration discretionary sanction. It is worded that you may not restore your own edit if it is reverted, but the intent is to stop edit wars from breaking out over new material added to the article, preferring discussion of reverted content. Please keep this in mind, as you will not receive another reminder. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay. starship.paint (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Can I change the picture for Trump

I have a really cool one I want to use Nex Carnifex (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you can!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Blatantly incorrect. He needs consensus to make such a significant change. Cpotisch (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cpotisch: More accurately, at this article, s/he needs consensus to edit against an existing consensus. Absent that existing consensus s/he would be free to try a BOLD edit, which in the case of an infobox image would probably be immediately challenged by reversion, per BRD, then requiring discussion – and the fact that it was challenged wouldn't mean there was anything "procedurally improper" about it. "Significant" by itself would be a matter of opinion and entirely unpredictable to the editor. Even if they edited against the existing consensus, that would be easily reverted per process, which happens all the time and is no big deal provided they stay reverted. Maybe that's what Jack Upland meant, somewhat curtly? Idunno. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I was just being blatantly incorrect, Trump-style.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I sit corrected. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Sitting for a portrait? I'm sure it will be a cool picture for when you get your 15 minutes in the Oval Office.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Depends on what the new picture is. There is a long-standing consensus on the current picture. Mgasparin (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

How is it better than the one we have?Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The current image is the product of massive discussion (see #Current consensus item 1) and won't be changed easily even after he is no longer president. "Really cool" will not carry much weight as an argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@NexCarnifex: “Really cool” does not provide much information. Can you show the photo so we can make a judgment? Cpotisch (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/i/newscms/2020_44/3423508/201027-donald-trump-ew-724p_0e38b01c3941a3751fa3d61f5ccc2bb5.jpg

here is the image, idk how to make it show up without the link Nex Carnifex (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Really cool, arguably very representative of Trump's nature, and completely unsuitable as the infobox image in a Wikipedia biography article (even if cropped). Might work elsewhere in the article, except that it's likely copyrighted and therefore ineligible under Wikipedia policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that is really cool.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm really getting that German dictator vibe. Anyone else? Mgasparin (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Mmmm... There's also a Star Wars vibe, I think. 1980s music video? Rocky? Anyway, it is very Trumpian, and if we can dodge those crazy copyright laws, I would definitely SUPPORT including it. But because of crazy Wikipedia laws and the crazy rules of aestheticism we can't have it as the infobox photo. Unless marshal lore steps in...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Look, folks, Nex Carnifex can't tell you are joking. Nex, thanks for the suggestion, but you can't use this picture for two reasons. One, it is not a neutral image, and two, it is an NBC photo so it is copyrighted and we do not have permission to use it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Wrestlemania 23

Im not sure if this question has been raised before, but earlier today, I made an edit that included his WWE fight against Vince McMahon at Wrestlemania 23. Not too long ago, that edit was reverted by User:Onetwothreeip with the explanation that it was not notable enough for the article. I want to establish some consensus here, what do you think? Thank you, and Merry Christmas.---Kieran207 (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Kieran207. The content would be appropriate for an article about his pre-presidential life or his entertainment career, but not for this article, as there is much more information about him that is more relevant, particularly his presidency. This wasn't an especially notable event, and doesn't qualify as a sporting event. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with 123 on this. SPECIFICO talk 22:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I think Onetwothreeip has it backwards. The primary go-to for the presidency is Presidency of Donald Trump and too much of this article is devoted to the presidency. The primary go-to for the rest of his life is this article, except where Trump sub-articles are devoted to aspects of the rest of his life. In other words, where a Trump sub-article exists, this article should include only a summary of it, per WP:Summary style. A presidency is not exempt from that structure principle, notwithstanding how many other presidential BLPs have made the same mistake. That said, I don't think the article benefits from information about a wrestling event that only indirectly involved Trump and didn't cost him his hair. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

No, the Trump presidency and presidential campaigns are by far the most notable elements of any biography about Donald Trump, and so are the primary content for the article. In this article there is too much about his presidency and also not about his presidency. As I said in my comment, an event that happened during his presidency is more likely to be relevant to this article than an event happening before it. There is also far too much content at Presidency of Donald Trump. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is inconsistent with the above-linked editing guideline. This article is fundamentally about the man, not the president, and the man is far more than a former president (unlike many former presidents). But I don't expect to resolve this disagreement here. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Most of our articles on politicians focus on their political careers, and this is no exception. To say this is plainly not inconsistent with WP:Summary style, as this does not prevent us from summarising the Trump presidency here, as I have advocated many times. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Most of our articles on politicians focus on their political careers, and this is no exception. Disagree, since Trump is not most politicians, and in fact it's debatable (and has been debated multiple times) that he is a politician at all.

There is wide misunderstanding about what "summary" means. For a clue, see this at WP:SYNC, which is part of WP:Summary style.

it can be convenient to use the subarticle's lead as the content in the summary section, with a {{main}} hatnote pointing to the subarticle.

Now compare this article's Presidency section to the lead of Presidency of Donald Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Most of what he is notable for is his political career, or whatever you want to call his public life from 2015 to present. In this, he is similar to most politicians in that their political career comprises most or all of their notability. Was it you who proposed to replace the entire Presidency section with the lead from the presidency article? A more workable solution may be to copy the lead sections of the X policy of Donald Trump articles. Overall, our guidelines are very broad on how to summarise. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Mandruss. Merry Xmas.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

WrestleMania 23 is one of the most notable WrestleMania events, by attendance, gate and PPV buys (the biggest at the time). WrestleManias are the most significant events of WWE, the largest pro wrestling promotion in Earth's history. Trump was a main eventer here, one of a wrestling card's most important people. This is the main part of why he's in the WWE Hall of Fame (though far from the only part arbitrarily not acknowledged here). All talent who played lesser or equal roles on the same show have this in their bios. None have the mainstream RS coverage for this part of their lives that Trump does. He is the least reasonable person to pretend wasn't there, so why is he the only one Wikipedia does? Nobody has ever been deemed less important for their direct involvement in a WrestleMania main event by virtue of not being booked as the loser, regardless of stipulation, and no wrestler who later (and relatively briefly) held office has ever had their wrestling facts invalidated and scrubbed for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

It belongs in a sub-article. As I said earlier but appears to have been misunderstood, this is not especially notable about him. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not a notable part of any wrestling figure's bio, just noteworthy. It would need general notability to stand alone, just verifiability to be mentioned. Same as the thousands of others who set the precedent. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

These thousands include those who had less to do with wrestling than Trump did. Kevin Greene (American football) is currently a good enough article for the main page, and has a wrestling section. Tommy Lister Jr. was far and away an actor, almost made RD, his wrestling sections acknowledge wrestling facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Previous version of this section better summarized this: "Trump has had a sporadic relationship with the professional wrestling promotion WWE (World Wrestling Federation/Entertainment) since the late 1980s.[187][188] He headlined the record-breaking WrestleMania 23 in 2007 and was inducted into the celebrity wing of the WWE Hall of Fame in 2013.[189]". I don't support the edition proposed here, it gets bogged down in kayfabe storylines which don't belong in this already bloated article. But the previous version included a single line that gave enough detail.LM2000 (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Omitting the opponent and result from any specified match has never been considered "enough detail" for a wrestling bio, no matter how overshadowed by acting, football or whatever. When it's the biggest-drawing main event in history to that point, its absence is more conspicuous, not less. Brief standard facts aren't what's bogging this massive opinion collection down. Hell, even acknowledging his hosting of two other WrestleManias only used to take one sentence. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Spelling out WWE's older names before only mentioning WWE stuff, now that's pointlessly wordy. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

This wasn't a particularly historical event. There absolutely are too many facts on this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

If this wasn't a particularly historical event, why would it have a Wikipedia article, especially one whose lead notes the historical records it set? Trim facts about non-notable events instead. There are too many, just not in the section supposedly about what Trump did in, with and for WWF/E. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I did, and those appear to be records compared to other wrestling events. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Many of which are also notable, by Wikipedia standards, including WrestleMania IV and WrestleMania V. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

For contrast, another section calls a version of a far more recurrent Trump event "inconsequential", in Wikipedia's own voice, as a consequence of the event it paradoxically only exists to describe (and neither of both redundant citations, oddly and inappropriately enough, mention a damn thing about consequence(s) or lack thereof). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Another sentence, same section, changes one writer's opinion that the consequences of some of these repetitive generic events are "calamitous" into a new assertive claim about "some" finding the same "profound and corrosive". In cases like these, simply not bending the facts would eliminate the need for the whole mixed message. Or at least shorten it. You can't spin and reshape who beat whom in wrestling. The ref's decision is final. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

To be clearer, those misattributed, unverifiable and self-falsifying sentences are just examples of entirely uneducational lines that could be replaced by straight wrestling facts. The simpler truth would interest a smaller audience, sure, but it wouldn't deceive anyone, so a net benefit even if somehow longer. Kieran207, I just checked and your wording was a bit wordy. How do you feel about "He headlined the record-breaking WrestleMania 23 on April 1, 2007, successfully betting his hair against Vince McMahon's by cornering Bobby Lashley to defeat Umaga."? I'd like to mention each representative's respective championship and the "Battle of the Billionaires" title, but appreciate how that's gobbledygook to some outsiders. Ready to compromise, save space but preserve some standard biographical data. Anyone else fine with this compromise? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Ixnay on the kayfabe. I don't care if or what record the "record-breaking WrestleMania 23" supposedly broke, that's not reasonable language. "Wagering his hair", given the kayfabe, isn't really true. And "cornering Bobby Lashley to a win over Umaga" is basically gobbledygook as well. I can't support any of that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

That proposal is taking as fact something which is clearly fictional. We wouldn't say in this article either that he successfully directed Macaulay Culkin to a hotel lobby. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

You think readers we expect to understand politics can't understand wrestling is fixed, in 2020? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do expect readers to not understand wrestling is fixed if we don't tell them that. I must not tell lies. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a need to point out the fictional nature of professional wrestling on this article and I have no idea how many people are aware of wrestling as a theatre exhibition as it is in the United States. It's been fun to pretend that this proposal is a matter of real debate but I don't think anything that gives any details of any wrestling event has any chance of being approved by a consensus here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

You should need consensus to ignore every similar bio's established rules. Just link professional wrestling, then say what "happened", in context, no patronizing, no obfuscation. This is the only one whose editors think so lowly of its readers. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

And you sure don't need consensus to remove the "profound and corrosive" line or the paradoxical "inconsequential" one, if you're at all legit concerned about brevity and not lying, regardless of wrestling. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, this was a terrible idea for a Christmas night and I'm disillusioned now, possibly for a while. I just checked the professional wrestling section in the "Media career" article, and can at least give up knowing that it's reasonably complete, just in the totally wrong article. There's hope yet! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

InedibleGulk,"He headlined the record-breaking WrestleMania 23 on April 1, 2007, successfully betting his hair against Vince McMahon's by cornering Bobby Lashley to defeat Umaga." sounds good, I support the text.--Kieran207 (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

[[u|InedibleGulk]] is not {{u|InedibleHulk}}, but it provides a helpful link to our article about the letter U. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I almost called him "2007", it happens. In either case, my ears were barning, so Gulk works for me. Happy Boxing Day to all you foolish American pencil-necked geeks! And no, that's not a veiled jab. Dry, wholesome cardboard. (Also, RIP Danny Hodge, a legit powerhouse technician, in and out of the highest levels of state government!) InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Trump's wrestling appearances are really minor in relation to his life. The current version ("Trump has had a sporadic relationship with the professional wrestling promotion WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) since the late 1980s[183] and was inducted into the celebrity wing of the WWE Hall of Fame in 2013.") is appropriate for this article. Greater detail belongs on his filmography page and various WWE related pages (Wrestlemania 23, the WWE Hall of Fame, and perhaps a few others). --Khajidha (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

This is inane and pointless trivia that adds nothing to our understanding or knowledge of him.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Biden as successor

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.

---

Should Joe Biden be added as President Elect as successor? Since the United States Electoral College has already voted? Zacatero (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I think so, But someone is bound to have some esoteric reason for saying "No". Let's just wait three weeks and avoid argument. HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

There has already been copious discussion about this topic, and the current consensus is to wait until inauguration day. The Template:Infobox officeholder parameters also state to wait for the successor's inauguration as well. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

No, per RfC consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 175#RfC: Interim use of successor in Infobox officeholder. This will be done on January 20, Inauguration Day. The consensus affects the articles for all officeholders, not just Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes we should, there's no other consensus that should apply here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Simply, patently, utterly false. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

No, for the very simple reason that he hasn't been succeeded by anyone yet. Biden is the winner of the election and is scheduled to succeed him, but that is not the same as having succeeded him.--Khajidha (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Khajidha: This is a settled issue per the above-linked RfC. The RfC has been closed without a closure challenge, the RfC has been archived, and the template doc has been updated without objection. This is how the community has decided to handle that infobox field going forward. Per WP:CONLEVEL, the community consensus cannot be overridden by a local one, and, regardless, I don't know why any competent editor would want to throw away the site-wide consistency in this field's usage that was the whole point of the RfC. We respect consensus and that's fundamental to how Wikipedia works. I won't do it, but in my opinion this thread should be closed as pointless, counterproductive, and misleading. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Khajidha: I do get that your !vote above is consistent with the community consensus. My point is that we shouldn't be !voting here or even discussing this beyond linking to the closed RfC. Most of my long comment would have been better directed at Onetwothreeip, the editor who has claimed that the community consensus doesn't apply here. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Recommend this discussion be closed, as RFC-in-question has already spoken. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2021 (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.

Radically charged or racist

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.

---

Are you joking me? Radically charged or racist? Nothing's even cited for it. Everything in the five paragraphs after his name have negative things. Wikipedia is a joke. Extremely biased and has no credibility for being a neutral place anymore. If you want to keep an unbiased Wikipedia, better include in the first few paragraphs of Obama's page that he made the order for the torture of his enemies. 17:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorfolkIsland123 (talk • contribs)

NorfolkIsland123, there are no citations in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. The citations are in Donald Trump#Racial views and Racial views of Donald Trump. Happy reading. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Racially, not radically, charged or racist. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I would support "radically charged". PackMecEng (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

We should just say "considered racist", and anything else is redundant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

What about simply "racist". That currently seems to be the main view of secondary and tertiary sources. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It's subjective so we can't say that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

We say what reliable sources say. O3000 (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2021 (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 5 January 2021

Can we change him to former president already please? And change Joe Biden to President Elect or 46th President. 2603:6010:1607:8BA7:DD75:3488:A1DF:9E06 (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Joe Biden becomes president at noon Eastern time on January 20. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Enough. 1. Edit requests are by definition not discussions, and this request has already received a response by Muboshgu. See WP:Edit requests for more information. 2. This discussion is not only procedurally improper, but moot as well, per the outcome of this RfC. "Succeeded by" is a settled issue and any responses to uninformed comments about it should be limited to that fact. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

We can say “succeeded by” though, but were too afraid to do that on here Shockenb (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC) No, we can't say it because technically it is not yet true. Biden is still not President.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC) The issue isn't one of fear, it is one of "hasn't happened yet and we don't have a crystal ball. It is indisputable, at this point, that Joe Biden has been elected to replace Trump on January 20th. Whether that will happen precisely as elected is another matter... and I don't even mean Trump pulling off a coup. Even if they are unlikely possibilities (and they are unlikely), things can happen that change who will take office on the 20th. For example, an assassination. It isn't at all likely, but we don't say "this WILL happen" when we do not know that. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Succession boxes RC closed

The Village Pump RFC has been closed as 'implement' flatten succession box as proposed. The editor who proposed the new type box, has been away for 'bout six weeks now. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Gallup poll

President Trump is the most admired man in 2020 according to the latest Gallup poll. That should be added to the "Approval ratings" topic, right? - LucasBitencourt (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Source?Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

CNN. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Gallup, Business Insider. ValarianB (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

So its not quite that black and white.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

This is usually won by the sitting President. More remarkable is that this is the first time Trump has won it outright. He was finally able to win it because this year Democrats divided their votes, whereas Republicans did not. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Do we list this on any other president articels?19:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 19:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Only on a few of them. For example, Obama has won it twelve times but I do not see it listed at Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

That tells me no then, its not really all that relevant and just a bit of puffery.Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The article mentions the fact that Trump hasn't won the title in previous years, losing to Obama in 2017 and 2018. Why talk about the years when he lost it, but not about this one when he won it? Just pointing out he finally got one sounds fair to me. LucasBitencourt (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the entry to show his win in 2020. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

I need to add the fact that Joe Biden has won the election in a certain part of the article that it is not in. CC12345678900 (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – And note that an edit request is a request for an edit, not a request for the right to edit. You must have "at least 30 days tenure and 500 edits" to edit this article, per WP:ECP. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Birthplace and education in infobox

In the |birth_place= parameter in the infobox, Trump's birthplace is simply listed as "Queens, New York City". Shouldn't it be changed to "Queens, New York City, U.S.", as every other American politician's page includes the "U.S." country of birth in their individual infoboxes (see Mike Pence, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris for just some examples). I am aware that there is already an established consensus on this issue (Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 36#New York City, New York, U.S. and Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 93#Infobox place of birth), however it seems that this one article is blatantly inconsistent with literally every other one, and we should not use the consensus for just one article as the standard for its content, especially when it is inconsistent with many others. The same issue is true for his |alma_mater= parameter, when Trump's degree is displayed as "(BS in Econ.)", when literally no other politician includes their specific degree (see the examples listed beforehand), and will instead just use "(BS)". --Politicsfan4 (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

New York City is well-known across the world for being in the US. People in Europe or Asia may not know that Scranton (Joe Biden) or Oakland (Harris) are in the US, but they will know where New York is. Furthermore, the points you have contention with have been discussed so many times. In order to change them, you will have to start an RfC. Also, a local consensus on one or more articles should not immediately transfer and become consensus on all related articles. Desiring consistency site-wide is not a reasonable expectation. For certain things, consistency is mandated, but there is no policy or guideline stating that Donald Trump's article must conform to or be in the same layout as all other articles about politicians. For fucks sake, there is no requirement that an article even has to have an infobox at all, as Frank Sinatra's article has so clearly exemplified until recently. Mgasparin (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think it is confusing, as most people would think that a republic wouldn't have queens.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Even if we decided to add US, the proposed wording would not be used. The state name would need to be added between the city and country. --Khajidha (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

So should it be changed to "New York City, New York, U.S.", as this is the normal display for people born in NYC? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Understood. Will change. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Politicsfan4: Please don't interpret a response from one editor as a consensus. I've reverted you pending a consensus for change, and apologies for the delay as I didn't see your edit until now. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Understood. Apologies for the change. I saw that multiple editors agreed with the new revision, and interpreted that as consensus. Also, what is your opinion on the education degree in the infobox? Should that be left alone, or changed for consistency? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, here is my analysis of the three discussions linked in #Current consensus #18, vis-a-vis this BS.

• 11 April 2017. Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 56#Universities in infobox had an uninvolved closure for consensus for (BS Econ.).
• 18 16 April 2017. Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 58#Reopening discussion about 'Universities in infobox', a brief 3-editor discussion without closure, modified the consensus to (B.S. in Econ.). This was based entirely on how the University of Pennsylvania presents the degree on its website.
• The third discussion did not address the degree.

Since this is a style issue, and Wikipedia is not bound by the style elements of its sources (WP:V does not apply to style), I feel the reasoning for altering the first discussion's consensus was flawed, and I support reversion to that first consensus (only as regards the degree). It's perfectly fine for us to show (BS Econ.) when UPenn shows (B.S. in Econ.); the meaning is the same so V is satisfied. However, that's as far as I'll go, I don't think there is sufficient reason to alter the outcome of that first discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Agreed. Also, it is worth noting that the degree was displayed as "(BS in Econ.)" without the periods (even after the second consensus that you mentioned) until this edit, where it was changed to "(B.S. in Econ.)". -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

It had the periods as of this edit, implementing the result of the second discussion. How the periods got removed I don't know. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Yep. The main reason I started this talk section was not to debate the inclusion of the specific Economics degree in the infobox, but to discuss the punctuation of the current "B.S.". I would favor removing the periods, and changing it to "BS" for page consistency, as I cannot find any other article which uses the periods. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I oppose any consistency rationale per my comment below. Mine is about a flawed rationale in the second discussion, more of a point of order. But we end up at the same place, no periods. Now, the trick is to get a few more editors to get on board with that, else we won't have any more consensus than you had before. I don't know of a good way to do that, unless you want to create a new subsection in survey format. Some editors who don't want to talk much are willing to !vote in survey format. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Sorry for the late reply, but I am not exactly sure how to due any of the things you mentioned above to gain a better consensus. Is there any other way to get a good consensus on the education matter? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Politicsfan4: I've created a survey subsection below. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

It is no accident that there is no Wikipedia policy, guideline, or other community consensus supporting your general consistency argument. Wikipedia generally favors flexibility over consistency in such details. The differences tend to be far more important to some editors than to the average reader, and we're here to serve readers, not editors. I'd wager that readers will have no problem understanding the fields as written, and that's what's important. Human minds can deal with such variations quite effortlessly, we do it all the time. You could even argue that widespread consistency in form would seem dry, robotic, and boring.

There is also no community consensus governing how these specific infobox fields should be used. In such situations, editors at different articles are free to reach different consensuses, and that's what this article has done. I'd say let the existing consensus ride (if it had never been discussed before – or if there were a stronger reason to change – that would be a different matter). ―Mandruss ☎ 11:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I've never understood the necessity of dividing up New York City, when it comes to birthplaces. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

It's untenable to me that an infobox omits the country of birth when this is not disputed by reliable sources, or that somehow New York City is known to be in the United States more than any city is known to be in a particular country. We should certainly say New York City, New York, United States. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The post-1707 British bios are a prime example of the birth & death country (Great Britain & later United Kingdom) being excluded. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS:OVERLINK, we omit links of New York City because it's so widely recognized that a link is unnecessary. If NYC is that widely known, so are the state and country where it's located (otherwise it would make little sense to omit the link). Even for a fan of precedent-based argument, which I'm not, I've seen enough precedent for this in my wanderings around the encyclopedia.

This is a great example of why rigid consistency doesn't work, and why there is no guideline for it – it would deprive us of the freedom to treat different situations differently. New York City is not Des Moines and we should not be required to treat them the same. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• On the degree, the reason I favor the university’s spelling of the degree is the same reason I think we distinguish between BA and AB (bachelor of arts vs. artium baccalaureus used by different universities for the same degree). The issuer can call degrees what they wish. On Queens, the five boroughs of NYC are in different counties, have separate borough presidents, and distinct characters. Many, if not most, Manhattanites mean Manhattan when using the name New York (I admit with embarrassment). The post office narrows it further. The official addresses in Queens are subdivided into Astoria, Long Island City, Howard Beach, etc. Which is to say, the federal government does not call these areas NYC. On US, pretty sure anyone who reads WP, and cares, knows where New York City is located. (Well, some American students think Ohio is a country.) As for consistency – hobgoblins. O3000 (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  The issuer can call degrees what they wish. Perhaps, but the difference between BS and B.S. is not the same as the difference between BA and AB. It's punctuation, like FBI and F.B.I. (which some of our news sources use, including the New York Times). I don't think UPenn would object to BS Econ., do you? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think UPenn would object to BS Econ., do you? An answer comes to mind relative to this article – but I should probably keep it to myself. O3000 (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Too late, I used that joke years ago. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

We are more specific in mentioning where in New York City Trump was born because the city is well-known to most educated English speakers wherever they live unlike say, Scranton Pennsylvania. People have heard of Queen's: it's where the Bunkers, the Seinfelds and the Costanzas lived. TFD (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: True, but just because most people know where Queens is doesn't mean that some don't. While it is unlikely, it could be confused with other places in the world named "Queens", and that is why I would favor adding "U.S." at the end of the birth place parameter. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Please explain how "Queens, New York City" could be confused with other places in the world named "Queens". ―Mandruss ☎ 01:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Sorry, I meant just "Queens" and not "Queens, New York City". However, even then, shouldn't it include the "U.S." after that just for specification? After all, it is an encyclopedia, and it should include the county of birth, even when it is obvious, for officiality. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

No, per what I said above about OVERLINK. Strongly disagree with the notion that we should include obvious things. The principle is to avoid as much unnecessary information as possible, since it tends to obscure the important information and increase the clutter factor, and that includes omission of the obvious. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Should simply be "New York City, New York, United States." This is how the city is described in reliable sources and elsewhere on Wikipedia, and there is no need to specify the borough. I don't know if "Queens" would be confused with elsewhere but it's certainly not widely recognisable. It's important to keep these linked as well, so that readers can easily and reliably find more information about the city, state and country of the subject's birth. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Editor opinions vary widely on all of these things and it does not serve the article to keep changing such things depending on the mix of editors currently involved at it (principle of continuity). If you want to pursue a guideline please do it in the appropriate venue; otherwise, #Current consensus #2 is the product of sufficient discussion and is fine. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

That is the reason why I haven't made a change to it myself. The consensus here clearly is to change, and it is only the exact wording that we now need to agree upon. I have no desire to change any guidelines, as these will vary on the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I've just re-read the discussion and I see no consensus to change #2, let alone a clear one. Maybe a survey with pings would help clarify that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but I don't think that means consensus can change when the editor mix changes. That would make no sense as I said, since it would mean that consensus could easily change again (possibly even reverting to the first consensus) after the departure of one or three editors and/or the arrival of one or three others. Rinse, repeat – with no end to it.

Rather, it likely means that consensus can change due to a significant change in the relevant factors. Trump's birthplace, NYC geography and political structure, and relevant guidelines are unchanged since #2 was established. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: "New York City, New York, United States" would be the wrong display, as "United States" is abbreviated as "U.S." in infoboxes and "New York" should be redirected to "New York (state)". Aside from that, I would support the change, however the current display of "Queens, New York City" is also fine by me. I wanted to get a more recent consensus on the issue. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I meant the display, not the articles it would link to. I don't mind US or U.S. instead of United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onetwothreeip (talk • contribs) 05:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Use "New York City, New York, US or USA". New York City is one city, so let's treat it as such. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The United States is one country, so why not just say "United States?" There's no reason behind your argument. Why be vague, when we can be precise? TFD (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Precise? Shall we show the street name as well? GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

We already have a legitimate consensus on birthplace and the circumstances have not changed. Strong oppose any change unless someone can convince me that this reasoning is flawed. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey: University degree in infobox

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 would modify #Current consensus item 18. History:

• 11 April 2017. This discussion had an uninvolved closure for consensus for (BS Econ.).
• 16 April 2017. This discussion, a brief 3-editor discussion without closure, modified the consensus to (B.S. in Econ.). This was based entirely on how the University of Pennsylvania presents the degree on its website. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

---

• (BS Econ.) Revert to the 11 April 2017 consensus. The difference between (BS Econ.) and (B.S. in Econ.) is purely one of style and the meaning is exactly the same. Since we (generally speaking) don't look to sources for style elements, the 16 April 2017 change had a bad rationale. My apologies for not speaking up at the time. There was insufficient reason to modify the 11 April 2017 consensus then, and there is insufficient reason to modify it now. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• (BS Econ.) Revert, per same reasons above explained by Mandruss. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• @Mandruss: It doesn't seem that anyone else has given their opinion on the matter, and therefore there is not much of a consensus. Because the only 2 comments unanimously support the change, should it be changed? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  I'd prefer to give it more time in the hope of avoiding that thorny question. Patience. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• (BS Econ.) for brevity — JFG ^talk 09:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• (BS Econ.) per Mandruss and JFG. Mgasparin (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2020 (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.

Biden as successor

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.

---

It is time to add Biden as the successor now it is now certified by Congress

Source : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55568621

We're not gonna be doing that until noon EST on Jan. 20, since that's when Trump's presidency ends. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 17:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanoscar21 is correct, per the outcome of this RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

They have voted after the protests happened, Trump has said he will commit to peaceful transition and the inauguration will likely going to happen. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-transition-biden-election-result-capitol-riots-b1783710.html

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.

Bias information.

“He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.”

This is more an opinion than it is fact and is up for debate. It should be changed to say something to the effect of some have criticized him for x, y and z while others would argue x, y and z.

I think that would be better because it gives readers both view points. But what is currently there is undeniably bias. 23gaydosg (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable, independent source that supports your view. HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

(For future reference, the word you want is "biased". Information cannot be "bias".) ―Mandruss ☎ 10:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is that up to me? I don’t even have the capability to edit the Wikipedia page. Plus if you go and read the paragraph it doesn’t cite any reliable source that would suggest that he reacted slowly and so on. So it seems like a double standard that it is my responsibility to provide a source when the paragraph that is currently there doesn’t even cite a reliable source.

Better yet just get rid of that part all together, problem solved. 23gaydosg (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

23gaydosg, the lead is not supposed to have citations per MOS:LEADCITE, because all of the information in the lead is supposed to be in the body, where it has its citations. Look to the body and you'll see that it's in the body and there are reliable sources covering that information. Why is it up to you to find sources? Because we already have WP:CONSENSUS, so the WP:ONUS of changing it is on you. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu, seems to me like a cop out. MostConcernedVoter (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I had a look in the body and I can not find it can you provide the number it's under. As what is linked to in the article is just another wikipedia page. To say he reacted slowly would imply slower than other countries in the same situation and there should be something to support that. It's clear you have a bias and I think the community would do better with someone else looking into this matter that is more neutral. WILDGUN96 (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Refer to [640][641][642] Bobsd (talk) 07:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I think what is needed is some positive information to counteract the negative information given about his response to COVID-19, like he reacted slowly at first to the Covid-19 Pandemic but help put together Operation Warp Speed that helped deliver a effective COVID-19 Vaccine by the end of the year.BigRed606 (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

Change "Trump released a video telling the rioters to "go home in peace", but described them as being "great patriots" and "very special"." to "Trump released a video telling the terrorists to "go home in peace", but described them as being "great patriots" and "very special"."

According to wikipedia's own page on Terrorism, the people who stormed the capitol would be considered terrorists. While it is often correctly argued that terrorist is a loaded term, U.S.C. § 2656f(d) defines terrorism as: "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience". The storming of the United States capitol is clearly a case where section 2656f(d) applies.

U.S.C. § 2331 defines "domestic terrorism" as such: (5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States;

The storming of the United States capitol again would count as terrorism. Whether or not the term terrorist is a loaded term as such does not matter, as legally they would be defined as such in the United States.

While some may say that this is also the case for the Black Lives Matter protests, neither U.S.C. § 2331 nor § 2656f(d) would define it as such as there was no violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets (§ 2656f(d)), and no acts dangerous to human life where perpetrated (§ 2331(5a)). 84.26.36.91 (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I see your point and I would personally agree that they are terrorists, but the key here is what reliable sources say. So not your or my interpretation of paragraphs, but rather what reliable media sources say. Jeppiz (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Biased From Beginning to Finish

I thought this was just an informative page to get information, NOT an opinion piece! What is this, The Washington Post?

Example (6th paragraph):

"Trump attempted to overturn the results by making FALSE claims of electoral fraud.."

"False" claims...and you know this how? If your writers/editors were unbiased then you'd simply write it as "claims" NOT "false claims". By doing that you're already inserting your opinions. The news media doesn't set precedent on what's true and what isn't and you of all people should know that. This is suppose to be a page for research and information not your anger and hate. How can you violate the integrity of your own page over some left-wing agenda? Are you under the Democratic control too? Your workers and volunteers need to leave their political views at the door when they work here otherwise what's the point of even having this page? The whole entire page is opinionated too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.251.61 (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Find a reliable source to that says there was fraud and we'll remove the word false. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 23:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Health

In the interest of reducing page size, I suggest we get rid of this section. This section was created because there were concerns about Trump's health when he campaigned for and took the presidency. After discussion, speculation about his mental health was removed from this page. What is left is mostly mundane. Perhaps the Bornstein letter could be mentioned at Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign. The fact he caught COVID-19 is already mentioned in the pandemic section. The remaining information gives us no indication that Trump has serious health issues, bearing in mind he is in his 70s. We now know that he lived through the presidency, and as far as we know, apart from the COVID-19 scare, there were no major health emergencies. Also this section is time-bound. It only relates to his presidency. This is rapidly going to be irrelevant. And, no, we don't want this to be a miscellany of every ailment that has afflicted Trump, from bone spurs to COVID-19 and whatever else preys on him in his final years...--Jack Upland (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree. I'm happy to host the content if anybody thinks all or part of it could be used better elsewhere. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I also agree per the reasons you stated. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree as well. At the moment, it mainly covers his COVID diagnosis, which is covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, and his exercise habits, which belong under "personal life." User:Kokopelli7309 — Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree about deleting the entire section. Some of the detail can be seen or placed in a subsidiary article. BUT the central narrative for this artilce must remain that he misrepresented and caused others to misrepresent material facts about his health. Also that Dr. Bornstein reported Trump's thugs forcibly confiscated records against applicable law and without documented authority. I suggest, Jack Upland, that you provide a brief narrative as to the central fact that would replace the longer recitation of details. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep it. It's very short so it doesn't affect the article length, and it has been a subject of intense public interest, and everything in it has been heavily reported. So IMO it is WP:DUE. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

No, this article shouldn't be for partisan grudges against the subject. Issues with health records absolutely do not meet the notability criteria for this particular article, which is an article about somebody who has been a president of the United States for multiple years. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Please don't suggest that reasoned arguments (above) arise from "partisan grudges" (whatever that might mean). Also please review WP:N which is not the standard for article content. The applicable policy here is WP:NPOV, which is clearly met. RS tell us Trump went to considerable lengths to mislead the public about an important matter of concern for all US presidents. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

In this instance I have to call it out, particularly Dr. Bornstein reported Trump's thugs forcibly confiscated records against applicable law and without documented authority. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I just said that. I called it out. Why are you echoing? SPECIFICO talk 03:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

An example of partisan sentiments that don't belong here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Your terse remarks are unintellegible. Please read the RS reporting on the seizure of Bornstein's records. SPECIFICO talk 06:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

They're not at all "unintellegible". Regardless of the facts, your comment was clearly motivated by opposition to the article's subject, and that doesn't belong here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No. Read the sources. I have no such opinion. SPECIFICO talk 06:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Every word affects the article length, MelanieN. It's true that there were a lot of reports on this issue and there was even a suggestion Trump could be removed on medical grounds. But what we have here is inconsequential. If Trump was hiding something, we don't know what it is. If and when there is a revelation that during his time in office Trump was suffering from X, we probably would include that. If small-scale changes like this meet so much resistance, then there is no chance to trimming the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The point is, Jack, that the details might be removed but the central point -- per the WEIGHT of RS discussion of these events, is that Trump went to considerable lengths to conceal and misrepresent matters pertaining to his health. This was noteworthy because US practice has been to disclose such matters as being in the public interest. This is the central problem with this kind of "trim detail" editing. Yes the detail can be placed in a sub-article, but the underlying significance must be preserved. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The weight of reportage was speculative. If you want to place the information in a sub-article, OK, but in regards to this article it is a dead issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Jack, that's unresponsive and your personal declaration of dismissal is meaningless. SPECIFICO talk 22:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I see nobody ever brought up Noel Casler in these discussions yet. He knows Trump first-hand and he sounds believable to me. Is there a reason why his comments such as these (and this is just the tip of the iceberg) should be disregarded? Jules TH 16 (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, they're not relevant to this discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not go by sounds believable to me. Thankfully. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No, that's Wackopedia. Different site.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think that this discussion and recent events prove the point made in previous discussions that we can't really cut down the article to a reasonable size until the Trump fever subsides. Editors are continuing to push particular content, regardless of page size, and Trump is continuing to be Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Support I don't know why trump thinking his body is like a battery and which specific drugs he took in the hospital matters at all. The whole section seems extraneous Anon0098 (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

There is other significant content there. Read comments above. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of the section. The health trajectory of a (ex)president is always an important section for a biography. Reducing the size of this article requires a strategic redesign of the article. "Trimming" will never get us there and give ridiculous (embarrassing even) situations like the "Media career" section of this article. Bdushaw (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

OK. If that is the case, should I try to add in all information about Trump's heath from his conception to his putative death and hopefully break the Internet? Do you think that would be fair???--Jack Upland (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

New Twitter?

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.

---

Is perhaps https://twitter.com/45_POTUS_Trump a new sockpuppet account of Trumps? GavinTroyJohnTom (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Fake account. — Czello 18:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Silly to think every account with the word Trump in it is used by trump.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2021 (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.

Twitter account

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

---

Just an FYI but I've removed his Twitter account given it was a permanent suspension and reading the blog on Twitter it doesn't sound like the suspension will be lifted anytime soon. I suspect someone somewhere in the world will have a problem with my removal so figured I'd come here just in case. Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 00:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I reverted per Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus item 9. PackMecEng (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

PackMecEng - I respect you as an editor and as a person ... however I certainly agree with your reversion - It's not like I'm replacing his account with someone elses .... I'm simply removing an account which is no longer viewable to anyone ...... what's the point of having a link to a permantely suspended account?, Oh well I'll start an RFC. –Davey2010^Talk 00:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Meh, I don't have an opinion. Here is the RFC that mandated it's inclusion. PackMecEng (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was consensus for its inclusion however reading #9 I read it as his account should be there but not others (IE @FLOTUS, @THEWHITEHOUSE (or whatever that username is), Meh it is what it is, I've started an RFC to save arguements etc etc, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggest replacing the link to Donald Trump's Twitter account with that of the Trump Twitter Archive v2: [9] FunnyMath (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Davey: If it's an obvious and uncontroversial change, establishing a new consensus is fairly straightforward. Best to follow parliamentary procedure. I haven't an opinion on it yet but I may later. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Ironically I've been screamed at before for starting an unneeded RFC where the change wasn't controversial so damned if I do and damned if I don't! :), Meh I just hate situations like this where beuocracy takes over common sense but it is what it is. –Davey2010^Talk 00:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

When something is covered by an existing consensus, we seek a new consensus or leave it alone. If we are unable to reach a new consensus within a reasonable amount of time (definition of "reasonable" depending on the amount of participation), then we go to RfC. This is pretty standard and supported by WP:RFCBEFORE. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Until now, I wasn't aware that we were using his twitter account as an external link. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2021 (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.

Twitter Account

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 reviewing over Donald Trump's article and I saw that his Twitter account is still on the Wikipedia article. Since, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter has ban Trump's account "indefinitely." So, I'm wondering if his twitter account should be removed. Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) | (email me!!) 02:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

He’s back on Twitter. -AdamF in MO (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite does not mean necessarily permanent, as any editor who has been indeffed and successfully appealed can tell you. The title of your own cite says, "at least through end of term". It would make no sense to remove this stuff whenever he gets a temp block for bad behavior, only to restore it when the block expires. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both, User:Adamfinmo and User:Mandruss for clarfying that! I thought it was Facebook, Instagram, AND Twitter. So, thank you both! Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) | (email me!!) 22:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You're quite welcome! Who says this is a thankless job?? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 8 January 2021 (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.

Foreign policy

@SPECIFICO: Per this edit, what parts did you find excessively removed? Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

State Department allegedly updating website to say that Trump's term ended

...appears to be the work of a "disgruntled staffer" and should not be used to update this page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

State department website

As of right now, https://www.state.gov/biographies/donald-j-trump/ claims "Donald J. Trump's term ended on 2021-01-11 19:40:41". Any independent confirmation of this? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

See the section directly above. Also @Ahmetlii:. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:, thanks. I also saw the tweet, but looks like Suffusion of Yellow reverted before me anyway.Ahmetlii (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Section 1 of the 20th amendment of the US Constitution, begs to differ. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Georgia phone call

I added the following to the 2020 presidential election section:

In a phone call January 2, Trump pressured Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger to overturn the state's result, telling him "I just want to find 11,780 votes" and threatening him with legal action if he did not cooperate.

References

I also made a small edit to the last sentence of the lede along similar lines, changing mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results to pressured government officials and mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to try to overturn the results.

These remained for about 45 min. before being reverted by Onetwothreeip, who asserted Too much detail for this article, WP:10YEARTEST. Recognizing that there is (rightly) a high bar for inclusion on this page, I think that this phone call meets it. Reliable sources are treating it with their highest level of bombshell coverage—WaPo used "extraordinary" in its headline, a word they don't invoke lightly in the context of Trump, and other outlets are reacting similarly. It also expands our understanding of Trump's reaction to the election in a way that is likely to be of enduring historical significance, by making it clear that he attempted to overturn the result not just through legal challenges but through an extralegal pressure campaign on government functionaries. Given this, I believe the change should be reinstated. Thoughts? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There are many, many Donald Trump events which have received the highest levels of coverage. This could be covered on Wikipedia, but not at this article. In ten years time, somebody reading this article who knows all about the Trump presidency wouldn't be surprised or astonished that this phone call wasn't included in the article. We already have plenty about his attempts at denying and overturning the results of the election without getting into such specific events. If this ends up being something that actually does come to define the Trump presidency in the view of history then we can change our minds and include it in the article, but otherwise we are jumping at shadows here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• This is obviously noteworthy and must be included for exactly the reasons you mention. This is, and will be, biographically significant (notwithstanding the fact that the effort by Trump is futile). As you note, WaPo described the call as "extraordinary" and other sources describe it similarly, e.g.,

• NY Times ("remarkable act by a defeated president to crash through legal and ethical boundaries as he seeks to remain in power.")
• Associated Press: "unprecedented effort by a sitting president to pressure a state official to reverse the outcome of a free and fair election that he lost"
• Wall Street Journal ("the extraordinary conversation of a sitting president pressuring a state elections official to overturn election result").
• The Guardian ("widespread outrage including calls for a second impeachment")

It borders on frivolous to say that this should be omitted. Neutrality^talk 04:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Almost everything Trump does is remarkable, extraordinary, unprecedented, and so on. If this is still in the news cycle after a few days, we can include it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

We go by the RS coverage, evaluating its extent, quality, and depth. An artificial time lag simply does not play a role in content decisions. Neutrality^talk 04:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed with Neutrality that an artificial lag is ill-advised. For an article of this visibility, WP:The deadline is now. If this discussion trends toward inclusion, I would urge editors to act on the prevailing consensus sooner rather than later. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There definitely shouldn't be an artificial lag. Anyway, the reliable sources don't indicate this is any more important than the myriad of other bombshells to come from Donald Trump. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Give it a day or two and see what happens WP:NORUSH. PackMecEng (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• In favour of the change. Direct pressure on state officials is one of several avenues Trump has pursued, and not just this recent Georgia phone call. These actions are all extraordinary and unprecedented in the US democratic system; the lead should reflect the breadth of pressure Trump has attempted. I noted today there is a lot more use of the word "coup" in recent commentary. (I will take this opportunity to reiterate that many of the "series of legal challenges" were by Trump allies in the various states, rather than Trump himself, and "series" implies a system of some kind. How about "Trump and his allies mounted over 80(?) legal challenges in several states"?) Bdushaw (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'm in the "wait until Thursday" camp for this article; the day-by-day edits can be at Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. We already say He personally communicated with various Republican local officials, state legislators, state attorneys general, a state governor, and federal legislators for help in overturning their election results. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I agree with that.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yep not sure we need a blow by blow account, just say "He personally communicated with various Republican local officials, state legislators, state attorneys general, a state governor, and federal legislators for help in overturning their election results" but add "including legal threats".Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support inclusion (reworded) - Trump's call is on the front page of every national newspaper in America, and features prominently on the websites of almost every major news organization in the world. Legal analysts have said this is a crime under Georgia State Law, and it has brought about consternation from politicians on both sides of the aisle. It passes every conceivable test for relevance and weight, so it must be included in some form. With that said, I believe the wording needs to be rephrased so that it is not in wikivoice. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• One day at the top of the headlines is not a high bar for inclusion in a one-page account of an entire life. Revisit after at least two weeks – a good practice in general – when it will be abundantly clear that this was merely another installment in a protracted campaign of inconsequential posturing that could be summarized in two or three average-length sentences.
  Another good practice would be to (1) make sure WP:SYNC is satisfied before adding something here (or proposing the addition of something here), and (2) note the child article in the edit summary or proposal. A reasonable amount of time should be allowed for the content to be challenged in the child article before any action here. I know it's more complication where things definitely don't need more complication, but it's really the only way to make and implement the point that this article should not be the first place editors think of when they want to propose content based on daily headlines. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  RS tell us this is direct evidence of Trump committing state and federal crimes, not ho-hum. SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Feel free to try to actually make that case, but simply saying it with conviction doesn't make it true. The burden is not on me to prove you wrong, but this NYT article merely refers to various people voicing opinions on both sides of that question. That is not "RS telling us" anything but that it's a matter of public controversy. Please evaluate RS with more objectivity. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Anyone who's read the past 24 hours coverage knows it is correct. Please survey the sources. You should not toss aspersions about objectivity. That too is verified consensus. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Nope, that is not how it works. The burden is on you to make your case, not merely make unsubstantiated statements about RS and demand that others go see for themselves. With reference to a single source that spectacularly fails to support your RS claim, which I was not required to make, I've already gone farther than you have. It ain't "aspersion" if it's supported by evidence, but I invite you to test that theory in a more public venue. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  I presume you have already read the refernces provided by OP and by @Neutrality: above. I suggest you also read the additional WaPo coverage some of which is linked here. DUE WEIGHT is amply established. Please also note, nobody has suggested the article call his actions a a crime. No need to discuss that at this time. Your suggestion that the given sources do not meet the ONUS for inclusion is unintelligible. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Regardless, there is nothing here that can't wait a couple of weeks for perspective. It's ever so painful, but I'll just have to suffer the loss of respect and trust from 108.30.187.155 and any others who can't wait that long to get this bombshell information into this biography. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

If, when and if he is prosecuted we can say it was illegal, and that it is worthy of inclusion. Right now it's just more noise.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Leave it out. For goodness sake, it's not going to overturn the prez election results & so it's of little importance. Do we honestly think this is the only phone call he made to any state? GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• There were two questions posted: (1) whether to include the Georgia phone call in the 2020 presidential election section, and (2) whether to include pressuring government officials in the lead. I am in favour of both of these, as I noted above. The Georgia phone call is a new event - I think it is important enough for inclusion, but waiting a few days for the story to shake out has merit. But the article text already supports the addition of "pressured government officials and " to the lead, irrespective of the Georgia phone call. Having the president of the United States call up a governor or secretary of state to apply pressure to overturn an election as Trump has done is certainly important enough for the lead. Bdushaw (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• OBVIOUS SUPPORT It is blindingly obvious that the Georgia call is notable enough to include (and, yes, in the article lead). Some of you have got to be kidding. "Will this still be in the news cycle..." etc. My God, this is far bigger than Watergate (we could reliably source that claim, too, if you'd like.) I would go so far as to question the good faith of any editors who say this is not notable enough for inclusion. Indeed, Trump may very well spend the rest of his cushy life in maximum security prison, if he does not find some very good lawyers (i.e. not Rudy Giuliani.) Trump: Requests that Georgia government officials end the United State's 300 year tradition of Democracy and install him as King. Wikipedia Editors: "I don't see what's notable about this. NOTNEWS. Grumble grumble" 108.30.187.155 (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• The Trump–Raffensperger scandal is obviously extremely noteworthy and must be included at once. There are already very strong calls for a second impeachment and/or criminal proceedings. As Carl Bernstein noted, this alone is "far worse than Watergate,"[10] and we wouldn't omit Watergate, would we? I also support inclusion in the lead. --Tataral (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Bernstein's catchphrase is "worse than watergate" he says that about everything [11][12] [13]. I wouldn't exactly use that coming from him as evidence for inclusion. On the contrary, it's just another scandal everyone will forget about in exactly 24 hours, after the runoff election Anon0098 (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Bernstein is a broken record. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as explained above. Give it time to see if it holds the public's attention for more than a week Anon0098 (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - If this happened with any other president, it would be headline news. We've just become so desensitized to Trump that there's debate on whether or not to include an attempt to literally be the Richard Daley & LBJ of 2020 (at least Nixon didn't contest it). Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 17:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I would have loved to see some of you after the Pearl Harbor bombing or 9/11. “Give this a day or two, let’s see if it’s still in the news...” let me break it down very slowly for you: we just had an active sitting president illegally attempt to intimidate a government official into “finding” votes that did not exist, overturning America’s 300-year old tradition of democracy, and turning the US into a despotic dictatorship. This is literally an attempt to overthrow the US government from within and some of you are throwing around “not news.” I truly have to wonder if some of you are serious because your position on this is incredible. I cannot fathom how some of you do not think this is encylopedic information. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Disclaimer: Some people might think this above is me signed out, it is not. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 18:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support Per the comment above directly, and as everyone else has explained, this is essential to include both in the article and the header. I know it's easy to get desensitized to Trump's near countless unethical actions, but this is especially egregious.Jonmaxras (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is it though? PackMecEng (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, a sitting president attempting to undermine an election for political gain by intimidating a public official is exceptionally significant. If you're going to respond to a differing opinion, at least engage in an actual conversation. I do not appreciate the sardonic response. Jonmaxras (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
      • But is it really though? I don't know man. PackMecEng (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I see no reason this discussion can't wait a couple of weeks for perspective. There is no urgency to publish NOW, particularly at a biography. I am never convinced by (or impressed by) non-argument words like "obvious" and "essential" – let alone remarkably irrational comparisons to (1) the attack that cost 2,403 American lives and sparked the United States entry into World War II and (2) the deadliest terrorist attacks the world has ever seen, killing 2,977. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  So, you reject overwhelming RS offered to you, as one of the lone dissenters, showing the gravity of their assessment and reporting. Then you promote your personal subjective views about 9-11 and Pearl Harbor being somehow different. SPECIFICO talk 22:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yep. Deal with it. Anyway, I said nothing about strength of RS in my formal !vote, which came long after my previous comments in this thread. The point of my !vote is that discussion about this can and should wait a couple of weeks, including discussion about strength of RS. Sorry if it took a day for my thinking to crystallize. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  There's no deadline, no need to apologize. The problem was only that your thinking was not based on poliy and sources. Thanks. By the time we work out text, you will likely have your two weeks anyway. SPECIFICO talk 23:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  You still miss my point, which is not to defer only the content but also the discussion. Better off thinking about something else for two weeks and then taking a fresh look at this, and there is no shortage of other things to think about. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Oh no, I don't miss that at all. I agree completely. That's also why I have skipped most of this page the past three months. Unfortunately, though, once it's raised we can not always wait and ignore. I've long been anti-recent, etc. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  I don't follow your reasoning. We absolutely can wait if we form a consensus to wait (which of course needn't be unanimous), but the prospects for such a consensus drop from less-than-likely to zero if people like you and me say we can't and don't support it. Anyway I do not propose to ignore but to defer discussion. For two weeks. I think that's very different from ignore. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support this one-sentence summary of the whole article at Trump–Raffensperger scandal‎. -- Valjean (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I've revised this section here and there for hopefully better grammar and organization. In the last paragraph the phrase referring to this Georgia incident is out of place, but the issue is contentious so I leave it alone. It is notable that the Georgia phone call occurred after the electoral college vote (a few days before Congress meets to count those votes) - the article presently does not indicate that, which bugs me. We wait for consensus, however. Bdushaw (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  You don't need prior consensus to improve the text. SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yes...but I am not going to touch it... :) More to the point, I have my own idea what should be there, but there is no consensus about it yet. So that's why I leave it alone. Bdushaw (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  The content is known to be disputed per comments in this thread, so we do in fact need prior consensus. Anyone who needs this demonstrated may add it and I will immediately revert per BRD – and we'll be right back here seeking a consensus. By definition, a BOLD edit has not yet been disputed. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Minor link tweak - extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2021

Very simple change! Under "Political career", > "Election to the presidency", there is a link "He is also the first president" which links to: List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_previous_experience

It should link to List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_previous_experience instead (downcasing the "p" in "Presidents") qaisjp (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Ryk72 ^talk 12:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2021

Edit Request

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and a television personality. Born and raised in Queens, New York City, Trump attended Fordham University for two years and received a bachelor's degree in economics from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He became president of his father Fred Trump's real estate business in 1971, where he renamed it The Trump Organization, and expanded its operations to building or renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses. Trump later started various side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies. He owned the Miss Universe brand of beauty pageants from 1996 to 2015, and produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice from 2004 to 2015. Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist. He entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and was elected in a surprise Electoral College victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote. He became the oldest first-term U.S. president and the first without prior military or government service. His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist. During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. He enacted a tax-cut package for individuals and businesses, rescinding the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but has failed to repeal and replace the ACA as a whole. He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. In foreign policy, Trump has pursued an America First agenda, renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) and withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He imposed import tariffs which triggered a trade war with China, moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and withdrew U.S. troops from northern Syria. He met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. A special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller found that Trump and his campaign benefited from Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, but did not find sufficient evidence to press charges of criminal conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice, and his report neither indicted nor exonerated Trump on that offense. Trump later pardoned five people who were convicted as a result of the Russia investigation. After Trump solicited Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden, the House of Representatives impeached him in December 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate, after refusing to hear witness testimony, acquitted him of both charges in February 2020. Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden, but refused to concede defeat. House Democrats have expressed their intention to impeach Trump for the second time of his presidency because of these actions and also called for Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Trump from office.

Keeping the fact straight RafalJakobsen (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2021

The wikipedia article on President Donald Trump is extremely negative and does not touch upon some of his successes such as operation warp speed, the fact that job growth during the first three years of his presidency was excellent and the stock market grew to its highest levels during his presidency. The current article is very divisive and will alienate his seventy plus million people who voted for him. It is not good for America. It should be fairer. Cleobleo (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please phrase your request in the form of "change X to Y" and provide reliable sources. Mgasparin (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Update to Covid lead wording

In light of the substantial enhancements to the article text since the time we agreed on the lead wording, I proposed an update here. It rids us of the sensitive word "slowly", and it reflects current article text and mainstream narratives. Does anyone oppose this? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I reverted it, and I oppose it. As you know, the current wording was heavily debated, see consensus #48 above. You would need consensus as well as specific sources to replace the current “reacted slowly” with judgmental language like "negligent and ineffective". By the way, neither of those words appear in the article text, and the lead is supposed to summarize the article text. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe many editors have objected to "slowly" on more or less the same grounds. As to procedure, do you think we will need an RfC to change the wording? If so, I will consider wording after comments are received here. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I oppose it as well, specifically the inclusion of the word "negligent". I don't think we can use the word "negligent" without suggesting that he has been legally negligent. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a reasoned objection. Can you think of a word that refers to his lack of engagement and obstruction of ameliorative policies without using the word negligent? Recall that the word "slow" has raised a lot of concern from the first time it was proposed. There must be something along the lines of the proposed tweak that addresses both concerns. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not up to us to "think of a word". We don't invent text. How are Reliable Sources describing his handling of the situation? We should put that into the article text, and THEN we can use it in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Let’s see what Reliable Sources can give us. Here is a source for “slow” and “played down”, as well as “failure”. [14]. Here’s another NYT source, this time for “unsteady, unscientific and colored by politics”, as well as “failure” again.[15] The New England Journal of Medicine described his handling as “dangerously incompetent”.[16]. Scientific American described it as “dangerous and inept”.[17] Any wording here yet that we can use? I didn't see "negligent" or "ineffective" anywhere; maybe one of these other terms, cited to the source? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Well,I believe we frequently think of a word that spans the many diverse words in the mainstream to convey the consensus of their meaning. We as editors cant choose one out of all the words except where that word is the mode among the RS writings. Also, while slow, or belated, response was reported, we really should be using recent sources to cover the entire 9+ months. SPECIFICO talk 00:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I think what is needed some positive information to counteract the negative information given about his response to COVID-19, like he reacted slowly at first to the Covid-19 Pandemic but help put together Operation Warp Speed that helped deliver a effective COVID-19 Vaccine by the end of the year. BigRed606 (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no reporting that Operation Warp Speed had any beneficial effect on the development or deployment of the vaccines. Far from it. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Source:https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/02/trump-covid-vaccine-czar-says-us-should-be-able-to-immunize-nearly-third-of-population-by-end-of-february.html

We can look into including the Moderna info in the body, not Pfizer, not sure about the lede. starship.paint (exalt) 06:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Trump personally. It might go in the presidency article but so far there is little reporting it speeded or supported anything. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

This article in the NY Times today reviewing Trump's pandemic response is relevant to this discussion. It was all about politics, which still needs a bit of development in the article, e.g., the pressures on the states to open early were in the battleground states. Would be in favor of a more general, rather than chronological ("reacted slowly") summary, such as something like "Trump's response to the virus was governed by political, rather than scientific, considerations, resulting in an ineffective, often obstructive, management of the COVID crisis". "Negligent" seems not quite correct - he has been focussed on it, but in a political way. But it likely needs an RfA to change the wording. Bdushaw (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's just think about this. I agree that negligent is somewhat a relative concept -- negligent relative to an expected standard of care. So as MelanieN has pointed out, it may not be the word used in the current weight of RS reports (largely secondary sources, not tertiary). But "slow" is quite ambiguous. It was really intended to mean "late" or delayed, but the fact is that Trump never responded at all to the threat. Although his narratives changed every month or so -- as is his modus operandi for shaping media coverage -- the article text already explains that he adopted a posture of denial and rapidly-shifting, conflicting narratives in a hope that his political prospects would not be derailed. Alternative wording, invoking his, incompetence, ineffectuality, denial, etc. are likely to bother folks as well. But as I have said with respect to other sections of this article, we should not be describing his abdication of duty and promotion of fringe and nonsense messaging as if it were merely a failed effort to deal with the crisis. Those are the scenarious for GW Bush's Iraq War and for Jimmy Carter's travails with Iran or LBJ's in Vietnam. Trump-and-the-virus is not described that way in the mainstream sources. SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not seeing the new text as much of an improvement. I would leave the current for now. PackMecEng (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Bdushaw's suggestion seems like a big step in the right direction to me. Now's obviously not the right time to hash out a new consensus on COVID wording, but I'd like to see this wording revisited soon. I'm not a fan of SPECIFICO's suggestion, negligent doesn't work. The status quo text will have to do until current events die down. Jr8825 • Talk 10:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources for "negligent"

Seems to be fairly widespread in recent RS. Note, the "slow" language in article and lead came in the early months, when the full record of Trump's actions was not yet known. Indeeed, the implication that he eventually responded is, per current state of knowledge from RS, an UNDUE minority view, if not WP:FRINGE. SPECIFICO talk 17:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

"irresponsible sulking"

The 2020 campaign section presently has the phrase "irresponsible sulking". That seems a little odd for an encyclopedia, true though it may be. I am wondering if this could not be replaced by something like how he obsessed over the election results and attempts to overturn it, while abandoning his presidential duties such as managing the rampaging COVID pandemic. I don't know enough about the RS to support that theme, but I think that's true. Would be more substantive than "sulking". (I just hesitantly removed the sentence in that section on the Giuliani allegations, which seemed redundant. Would not object to its return, as loopy as the allegations are. The various sentences/paragraphs seemed a little disjointed to me, hence the better (?) reorganization.) While I am here, I'll note also the recent Biden complaints that the DoD was not cooperating in the transition...one reason for including things as they happen is how rapidly the situation moves from one outrageous thing to another. Bdushaw (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It's used as a quote though, so is appropriate. The title of the source is "Trump's monumental sulk: president retreats from public eye as Covid ravages US" Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

If its a quote fine, we just can't say its a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't say it is wrong or inappropriate - merely suggesting that it is a poor choice of how to frame the situation. Better to convey the information that he abrogated his responsibilities, while pursuing/obsessing election issues than to give a word like "sulking". Bdushaw (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, the exact context is that the phrase is enclosed in quotation marks, and the source is applied directly after it. It's eminently clear that this is a quote taken from a source, not synthesis or opinion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Allegations of inciting violence section

The riot should also be listed under the above mentioned section too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Allegations_of_inciting_violence

2021 storming of the United States Capitol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:2701:64E0:121:DA51:3293:EE2F (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's already there here. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Storming of the Capitol

• Interim action taken. There's clearly some discussion needed to hammer out the exact language to be used, but it's indisputable that an event of the magnitude of rioters breaching the U.S. Capitol Building (the first such instance since 1812) warrants mention here. I have taken the language currently on the In the News section of the main page, Pro-Trump rioters storm the US Capitol Building (pictured), disrupting certification of the presidential election and forcing Congress to evacuate., and copied that as closely as possibly. In the "2020 presidential election" section, immediately after Trump allies in Congress indicated they would object to the congressional certification of the results on January 6, 2021, I added the sentence, On that day, pro-Trump rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol Building, disrupting certification of the presidential election and forcing Congress to evacuate. I hope that this is a reasonable interim state for the page to have; per WP:NOW, it would grossly inappropriate to wait. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• A key missing element from this (heroic) summary is that the mob was incited by Trump, per NY Times headline just now. Trump as the root cause is appropriate for this biography of him. Bdushaw (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Demonstrators who broke into the Capitol building while Congress was in session," aka the "Beer belly Rebellion." It will make a great Trivial Pursuit question in the years ahead, but is of little historical interest. The main significance is the failure of D.C. security, but that belongs in other articles. Let's wait 2 days to see if U.S. democracy has survived. If we wake up Friday and find all the MSNBC hosts have been replaced by grim-faced soldiers, it will be time to consider adding it to the article. TFD (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Ah, right, so Wikipedia must wait for it to be LITERAL and SUCCESSFUL coup before mentioning it? Brilliant. --Calton | Talk 07:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• As a result of President Trump's inflammatory post Capitol storming tweets, twitter suspended his account and threatened permanent suspension for future transgressions of their Civic Integrity or Violent Threats policies.[18] Cryellow (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Repeatedly, there has been significant editor support for a brief wait for perspective, and the content was added anyway with no better basis than two impossibly vague words – "vital content" – in an essay that is otherwise about removing misinformation and lacks widespread community support. Not wishing to seem disruptive, and preferring to work things out in talk, I have refrained from challenging those edits by reversion. I'm afraid that might have to change if this continues. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Headlines, front page, in big letters:

• Wall Street Journal: MOB STORMS CAPITAL
• New York Times: TRUMP INCITES MOB
• Washington Post: Trump mob storms Capitol

• So, yeah, add it, it's no-brainer, hand-wringing to the contrary. --Calton | Talk 07:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is likely very relevant to add that at least four people have died due to this incident:

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/07/congress-riots-senate-georgia-result-donald-trump-capitol-latest/
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/capitol-riots-death-toll-trump-supporters-killed-b1783645.html
• https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/us-capitol-lockdown/index.html

--Redgon (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Isn't it an important consideration that the riot/storming/incident was as a direct result of Trump's tweet inciting followers to do just that? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Absolutely agree. --Redgon (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• The horned one was enthroned in the Capitol. That has universal significance.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Pardoning murderers and Republicans guilty of corruption

I don't know if this article should mention Trump's controversial use of the pardoning power to pardon the convicted murderers of 14 Iraqi civilians and other, it seems to be, solely Republican officials who were convicted of multiple crimes of corruption and money schemes. If it already has, I overlooked it, thanks. Teammm ^talk
_email 15:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

NOt sure this can be done in a NPOV way.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

"Trump was criticized for issuing presidential pardons for [insert names and crimes here]<references>" --Khajidha (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

We have a section in the article, Donald Trump#Pardons and commutations, and it could be updated with a mention of the more recent round - but only a mention, not an evaluation or criticism. There is a much fuller article, List of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump, which goes into more detail about his relationship to the people and mentions criticisms. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The Blackwater pardons are already in. Not sure how the Duncan Hunter and Chris Collins pardons (both supported Trump) compare to the already included pardons of pardoned former Navy sailor Kristian Saucier, who was convicted of taking classified photographs of a submarine, and white-collar criminals Michael Milken, Bernard Kerik, and Edward J. DeBartolo Jr. The pardons will be an enduring part of Trump’s legacy, unlike some of his policies. starship.paint (exalt) 03:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for the responses! Teammm ^talk
_email 22:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

"Solely Republican" would be incredibly disingenuous. While Rod Blagojevich was not pardoned, he had his sentence commuted Serafart (talk) (contributions) 02:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Fugitives wanted by Iraq/Iran

Judges in Iraq:[19] and Iran:[20] have issued arrest warrants on Donald Trump. So far, Trump hasn't complied and surrendered to the judicial systems in these two country's.

Should these two category's be in the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we should include the categories. We include Category:Fugitives wanted by the United States for many citizens of other countries wanted by the US. --Tataral (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (2)

there is some factual inaccuracies 38.141.57.133 (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment

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.

---

Should we protect the page to only be editable by Administrators and above on Inauguration Day, and the day of Senate hearing over conviction (if it were to happen)? Considering what happened in the world on the day of certifying the electoral votes in Capital Hill, anything is possible. Thus I think it would be good to take this type of caution and page protection on the days listed above, protection level will go back to what it was before at the end of those days. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This page is already under DS and extended confirmed protection. If there is disruption from extended confirmed editors on inauguration day, the many admins watching this page can and should fully protect it. But we should not preemptively prevent people from editing one of the most important and visible pages on this free encyclopedia. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This is in no way a proper topic for an RfC, what you are suggesting is a made-up rule that would only apply to one article on one day. ValarianB (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: I honestly think this is counterproductive. One of Wikipedia's strongest defenses against vandalism is that anyone can see and revert the vandalism. If we're contemplating vandalism from extended confirmed users, then we need to contemplate vandalism from admins, and there are way way more extended confirmed users watching this page at any given time than admins. Loki (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose — AFAIK, none of this page's major contributors are admins. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 20:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - This should be at WP:RPP Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 20:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per others. We already have protections on this page, and I'm sure everyone will be on high-alert anyway. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 20:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Absolutely not. We have plenty of tools readily available to stop disruption or vandalism to this page there is no reason to fully protect the page for one day. I would also add that the amount of RfC's for this page is getting excessive. JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and Abort RFC. This is not the place to be discussing this. Mgasparin (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2021 (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.