Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 119

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115 ← Archive 117 Archive 118 Archive 119 Archive 120 Archive 121 → Archive 125

Trump and North Korea

I am responding to comments about North Korea made in the "Dispersion of protesters/Church Photo-op" section here, because they really have little relevance there. Firstly, to repeat it ad nauseum, the fact that editors think Trump's activities have been a "failure" etc is no reason to exclude the topic from this article. Secondly, we need to have perspective here. The Korean conflict began in 1945, rapidly erupting into the Korean War. North Korea's nuclear weapons program first became a major concern in the time of President Clinton. Its first nuclear bomb test was in 2006, in the time of George W Bush. The history of U.S. diplomacy toward North Korea is rife with failure and frustration. Past sitting U.S. presidents, Democratic and Republican alike, never met with their North Korean counterparts, and yet struggled and ultimately failed to permanently dismantle North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, was accused of essentially giving up on the North Korea nuclear issue, even as he managed to strike a nuclear deal with Iran.[1] It is hopelessly partisan to somehow heap the blame on Trump. I don't believe there is consensus among sources that Trump has failed. What the president currently has to show for his efforts are the toughest international sanctions ever imposed on North Korea; a nonbinding suspension of North Korean nuclear- and long-range-missile tests; a shattered taboo against American and North Korean leaders meeting; a vague North Korean commitment to denuclearization; a semi-destroyed nuclear-test site; and the return of some American hostages and the remains of U.S. soldiers. The crisis with North Korea is less acute now than it was in 2016 and 2017, but the progress is modest and subject to change at any moment.[2] Trump’s strategy at this writing has calmed the situation and reinvigorated the negotiating track by having U.S. and North Korean officials meet at the highest level for the first time in history. He has addressed, at least temporarily, what matters most to U.S. vital national interests—the suspension of North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests, whose systems directly threaten the U.S. mainland. It appears unlikely that this would have happened without Trump’s dramatic if unorthodox approach, and through his negotiation the United States is now in a somewhat better position to reduce the threat from North Korean nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles than it was when he entered.[3] I am all for the improvement of the article on this issue, but given the fact that the article is oversize, and given the there is a diversity of opinion, and given the many issues that should be considered, especially President Moon's Sunshine Policy, I don't think we can simply sum it up here.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

What do you propose we do? Seems to me that the article covers NK accurately. Your lengthy quote from the Council of Foreign Relations PDF was published in April 2019 and says that progress was modest and subject to change at any moment. Quoting your December 19, 2019, Atlantic article source: Although Trump says his friendship with Kim has produced a more peaceful North Korea, the reality, especially of late, has been quite different. Since May, North Korea has tested more missiles than it has in any other year in its history, except possibly 2016, according to the analyst Ankit Panda. It never stopped producing fissile material for nuclear bombs. ... The name-calling is back: Kim is once more “Rocket Man,” Trump a senile “dotard.” Satellites are spotting renewed activity at North Korean nuclear sites, while Kim has resumed testing at a rocket-launch site he had promised to dismantle in 2018. U.S. officials are yet again warning of military options. North Korean officials are proclaiming the days of denuclearization negotiations over. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
In this recent Bloomberg article, "North Korea launched two unidentified projectiles off its eastern coast, South Korea’s defense ministry said, a move that comes just after the year anniversary of the failed Hanoi summit between leader Kim Jong Un and U.S. President Donald Trump." Also "Talks between the two sides have achieved little since Trump walked out of his second summit with Kim in Hanoi on Feb. 28, 2019." It's basically fail, fail, fail all the way with Trump and North Korea. Christopher R. Hill, who served as a US envoy in the Bush administration in the 6-party talks pushing for NK denuclearization, describes the NK talks as "another foreign policy failure" in Time. So as I have said previously, any coverage we have of North Korea must necessarily include the fact that Trump's talks have all failed and we are basically back to where we were, only now Kim has lots of lovely pictures of him next to the President of the United States that show he is now on an equal footing on the world stage (exactly what he wanted). Oh, and let's not forget Trump's lie about an "armada" heading to North Korea, when in fact the carrier group was heading to Australia, in the opposite direction. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
You wouldn't get an argument from me but considering how hard it was to reach the current compromise (without lauding Trump for getting his dictator buddy to the photo op negotiation table) what would another discussion accomplish? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Jack Upland, you're reciting facts and views already known to the rest of us, but you are not responding to the point other editors made in that thread above. RS accounts of Trump's actions describe an entertainment/TV show with no policy, no goal, no strategy, no change in NK's behavior, but on the contrary, with disruption of US relations with South Korea and Japan and capitulation to Chinese interests in the region. Overall, the bluster, charade, and "friendship" with Kim -- along with the weakening of US military and diplomatic standing in Asia -- is described not as the result of a failed "policy" but rather as Trump's indifference to the vital interests of the US as defined by 75 years of policy, strategy, and international cooperation. You may support Trump's actions, good for you, but you have no basis to assert they arise from or constitute a "policy" or to scold editors for articulating the mainstream description of Trump's actions. SPECIFICO talk 13:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
To Jack Upland You are mistaken. Past US Presidents negotiated formal-binding written Agreements with North Korea. Trump only got a "joint statement" but no formal Agreement.  When Trump signed a non-binding "joint statement" (not an Agreement), the New York Times [4] reported,  Trump  "failed to reach an agreement on how to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs or when to ease United Nations sanctions against the North.  Experts say Trump's joint statement “is the most watered-down joint statement concerning these two nations ever." 
The Washington Post[5] reports, previous U.S. Presidents extracted more concessions from N. Korea than what Trump did, "the denuclearization pledge in the Trump statement is “diluted from the six-party talks provision, and there was no mention of North Korea moving towards complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization, as the administration had hinted."
On testing: May 2019 - March 2020 North Korea tested ballistic missiles - which means they have been ignoring their "joint statement" for over a year - and Trump has done nothing about it. In May 2020 New York Times [6] reports, "Kim Jong-un, convened the country’s top military-governing body, outlining “new policies for further increasing” its nuclear capabilities and promoting top weapons officials."
In the 1950s [7], with the help of U.S.S.R and China, North Korea started their nuclear program. North Korea's nuclear program became a 'major' concern for America in 1986, when Ronald Reagan was President. Washington Post [8] reports that in 1986 North Korea started their nuclear program under the North Korea Ministry of Atomic Energy Industry and "formally declared Kim Il Sung’s intention to develop a nuclear weapons program."
Experts say Trump has weakened America's position to negotiate with North Korea. The Washington Post [9] reports, “It’s a victory for North Korea, in having initiated an open-ended, drawn-out negotiation process that ensnares the U.S. into not enforcing sanctions. The question is, will Trump have the fortitude to admit he was duped?” BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
All these arguments prove is there are a wide range of opinions about Trump and North Korea. And if you want to argue that the nuclear weapons program became a major concern in 1986, OK! This only underlines how right I was with my initial comment.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Jack, you've given us a fitting summary to your disappointingly unresponsive participation here, "How right I was!" -- That is not really going to mean much to the other half dozen editors who disagree with you. If you do not believe that the NK nuclear activity was a prime threat by 2016, that would at least support your POV. As it is, nothing and no editor have supported your views. SPECIFICO talk 00:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Jack Upland - Agree, editor OR remarks and other posturing aside, not a failure. Factually, President Trump sought talks, visited, talks happened and a few small gestures, worth an wikiarticle Peace Treaty on Korean Peninsula. Think the article is currently Ok-ish. FWIW, Clinton, Obama, and generally others ... Think NYT probably not a good RS here, not sure of WaPo. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

There no doubt that there have been failures, as documented below by reliable sources. starship.paint (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Reuters The failure of U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to secure even a limited deal at their second nuclear summit means any breakthrough now depends on working-level talks that have made little progress since last year.
  • AFP the failure of a Kim-Trump meeting in Hanoi in February
  • AP The lack of substance and fruitless working-level discussions set up the failure in Hanoi
  • AP ... the United States, which has been trying, and failing, to get North Korea back into serious talks
  • Reuters failing to agree on a deal to lift U.S. sanctions in exchange for North Korea abandoning its nuclear and missile programs
User:Starship.paint However, this missed all the other RS that have no mention of some part failing, or even offer compliments, or just report facts and skip OPINION. What the article has now seems OK-ish. Thank you for showing the MrX rant with “comically” fail is not supported, but otherwise think your ability to google and filter and look only at ones using the word “fail” is not useful, any more than the descriptive “historic”, “courageous”, “praiseworthy”, etcetera. Try googling with OUT a bias, possibly by date range, and see the other materials. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Markbassett - when you call the Big Three news agencies AP, Reuters, AFP "OPINION" and then bring up the New York Post, I can't help but laugh. Yes, Trump has done many new things, as evidenced in your first to third sources, but the end result, as seen from your fifth source, the most recent, the most reputable, Reuters: prospects for the U.S. efforts to persuade Pyongyang to denuclearize appear as bleak as ever … North Korea has shown no willingness to abandon weapons it sees as vital for defense of the nation and the Kim dynasty … [Trump's] lack of progress in persuading North Korea to give up a weapons program that now threatens the United States. Thanks for making my case. starship.paint (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • On second thoughts, all the "historic", "courageous", "praiseworthy" things done actually makes the lack of progress look even worse. starship.paint (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Starship.paint Thank you for at least acknowledging there are also RS accounts that described President Trump’s actions and events as "historic", "courageous", "praiseworthy" things. And so, the end result in praiseworthy efforts for a difficult situation is slightly more accomplished than was before, some notable more precedents made that had not been made before, and some positive remarks and gestures between the two nations — as you note the most recent of the not-filtered-for”fail” above was Reuter’s which noted “long-range missile and nuclear testing suspended since 2017”. A glass not yet as full as wished is still not an empty glass, and things are definitely better. If President Trump is not yet finished with a long hard task does not despise his starting it as worth pursuing, and having made progress to hand things along improved from where they were is all any President can hope for. A glass not as full as wished is still not an empty glass. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Markbassett: - I took you at your word for those descriptions, Mark (...you know "courageous" was actually Kim's words, not RS right? also I couldn't find "praiseworthy" in your links) starship.paint (talk) 06:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Starship.paint well, perhaps as a prime participant the Kim quote would be suitable to have Kim, through a translator, called Trump's decision to meet with him a "courageous and determined act." But in general my text said to exclude descriptives, not that they were in the cites later shown. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Markbassett - Trump is the first US President to give the brutal, murderous tyrant Kim Jung Un "legitimacy" & to put NK leader "on equal footing with the president of the United States." [10] [11] [12]. For good reason, no other President has ever wanted to give NK leader "legitimacy" nor wanted to put NK leader "on equal footing" to a US president. As the experts (I quoted in my comment above) said [13], "“It’s a victory for North Korea, in having initiated an open-ended, drawn-out negotiation process that ensnares the U.S. into not enforcing sanctions. The question is, will Trump have the fortitude to admit he was duped?” BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
User:BetsyRMadison you have bad facts, and would maybe be better served to try looking at more diversity of sites that are not so tabloid sensationalist/hyperbolic in expression. Look, Peace Treaty on Korean Peninsula is not a bad thing to pursue, and there factually were already lots of prior efforts in the North Korea–United States relations. The Clinton and Carter efforts, or the more recent Obama efforts for example. On a sidenote, those emotionalism expressions don’t come across well. The use of meaningless phrases “equal footing” to a U.S. President, or “legitimacy” seems rather false, as does the portrayal of diplomacy as a gift. Should we take seriously anyone who would portray the leading of NK as somehow equal to leading the U.S.? And who seriously doubts that Kim *is* the leader of NK ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
To Markbassett - It appears you are confusing RS to "tabloids." RS report that Trump elevated the brutal, murderous tyrant Kim Jung Un to be "on equal footing with the president of the United States" and "by staging a high-profile photo-op absent nuclear concessions, was bestowing legitimacy on Kim and undermining global pressure to force the North to accept a denuclearization deal." [14] [15] [16] [17]. From Time Magazine [18], "Kim is not inviting Trump so that he can surrender North Korea’s weapons. Kim is inviting Trump to demonstrate that his investment in nuclear and missile capabilities has forced the United States to treat him as an equal.” Time continues, "Kim will pocket the optics, show his people and the world he is received as a legitimate head of state, and in the end keep his programs intact.”
So yes, Markbassett, we should absolutely "take seriously" RS reporting that. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
User:BetsyRMadison Again you have bad facts and short too - this lacks or ignores the full history and diversity of views. Albright went. Carter went. Obama stated he was willing to meet NK (as well as to Cuba and Iran) but didn’t get there. President Trump went and some things were accomplished. The glass is somewhat full and there was never a guarantee of getting everything (or anything) but rather hope in trying something new. The Time article you cite also includes “There’s nothing wrong with meeting, even if the chances of success are exceedingly slim”. This meeting did get the article-mentioned goal of halting nuclear tests (plus no more long range missile tests) so is progress. That there were remains returned, people released, and at least some more moments of nice things being said also seem here. That the California professor Jeffrey Lewis (academic) didn’t think it wise I do note - among others that feel differently - but his view seems not especially prominent nor relevant. His expertise is about weapons after all, not about politics. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I would also question this line of argument in the context of this discussion. It asserts that Trump and Moon should have avoided diplomacy with Kim. On the other hand, we have people who are asserting that Trump has "failed" because North Korea hasn't given up its nukes and that this presents a real danger to the USA. How do we reconcile these two positions? If Trump refused to negotiate, it is hardly likely there would have been progress on disarmament. Does doing nothing about a problem constitute success? Alternatively, is there nothing a US President can do about the issue?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The following text has been inserted into this article: As of May 2020, North Korea has shown no indication that it is willing to unilaterally denuclearize as the U.S. intends for it to. While this is basically true, it has very little to do with Trump. Firstly, this refers to the attitude of the North Korean government. Secondly, no other US president has had success in achieving this. I don't accept it was up to Trump alone to fix this. Bill Clinton had a chance to nip this in the bud. North Korea's arsenal now gives many Americans cause for concern, but at the same time the North Korean government is less likely to give it up now that it has advanced so far. It is hopelessly partisan to blame Trump for a problem that Obama, George W Bush, Clinton etc failed to solve.[19]--Jack Upland (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Jack, this comment contains so many hidden assumptions, irrelevant agendas and narratives, and assertions contrary to the consensus on the above thread that it provides no guidance as to how you are proposing to edit the recent article content you cite. SPECIFICO talk 01:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It’s just a status update on the whole situation. Who said Clinton, Dubya, Obama have no blame? Who said it was up to Trump alone to fix it? Trump tried to solve a problem and it hasn’t been solved yet. The text reflects that. starship.paint (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • But why do we need a status update? All that happened in May is that Kim turned out to be still alive. It's an unnecessary addition in an article that's over-large. And it's clear from the comments above that several editors think this is a unique failure by Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
We heard you Jack, but consensus disagrees. SPECIFICO talk 02:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
We need a status update not exactly because Kim is still alive, but because there's no equivalent sentence in the entire article about North Korea (regardless of the date/month/year). Whatever editors think on this talk page is irrelevant - does the article say that only Trump is to blame? I get that this article is long, but consensus has explicitly affirmed that North Korea is important. starship.paint (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
North Korea is certainly more important than a controversial photo op, but I can't see a consensus in the discussion above.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Jack Upland - I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to the consensus that North Korea should be mentioned in this article's lede. That would make North Korea important for this article, no? Also, on September 21, 2017, Trump said that his goal was for the "complete denuclearization" [20] of North Korea. I hope that shows you the relevance of North Korea's refusal to denuclearize to this article. starship.paint (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
In response to the recent edits: "improved technology" and "increasingly seen"— too vague. Address to the UN — adds nothing. Cancelling and reinstating summit — too much detail. May 2020 update — unnecessary and unexplained. The big thing missing here is President Moon's diplomacy which started it off. And if you condemn Trump for meeting Kim, you should condemn Moon for going to Pyongyang. Ironically, as people are marching round the world saying "Black lives matter". We are having a rather racially exclusionist discussion here at Wikipedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
May 2020 update — unnecessary and unexplained - come on Jack Upland. I literally explained it to you right above and I even pinged you for that explanation. Address to the UN — adds nothing. - threatening to "totally destroy North Korea" is nothing?! More like nothing would be left of North Korea. And if you condemn Trump for meeting Kim, you should condemn Moon for going to Pyongyang. - Whataboutism and irrelevant to this article. Also, I haven't condemned Trump for meeting Kim. Are you here to WP:Right great wrongs? starship.paint (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I meant "unexplained" in context of the article. The UN address just echoes the fire and fury comment. As for the rest, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Context matters. Moon met a North Korean delegation at the Winter Olympic Games and then met Kim twice before the Singapore Summit. Trump's meetings with Kim occurred in the context of this South−North diplomacy. Just as they occurred in the context of many other US president's grappling with the same issue. Bill Clinton, for example, support Trump's attempt.[21] But this context is missing.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jack Upland: - you've pointed out in this section that this article is over-large. Now you say context is needed. You can't have it both ways. If you want to add context of Korean meetings, fine, go ahead. But former president supports success of summit, not so important IMO, many people have opinions, we can't just list one opinion. "Fire and fury" may be contained, "totally destroy" is not contained. That's the difference. starship.paint (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I can have it both ways! The article is over-large, and in the past I worked on trimming the "North Korea" subsection down. However, if it is possible to expand it, I think what's missing is context. We don't need intricate detail or repetition (a "quotefarm").--Jack Upland (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Stick-dropping time, Jack. Disarmament applies to talk pages as well ☮. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
To Jack Upland - regarding your above comment diff [22] - RS reports that Trump says, "I alone can fix it" but he did not fix it. Personally, I think (and always thought) it was childish & ridiculous for Trump to proclaim himself 'fixer of all things,' - but my opinions don't matter here - that is how Trump describes himself & that is what matters.
  • LA Times [23] writes, "Trump suffered in both cases by insisting on his “I alone can fix it” approach to the nation’s and the world’s problems. He raised expectations of success in each case and personalized the negotiations, all but dismissing the typical groundwork of advisors — both to persuade Kim to halt North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and ..."
  • Washington Post [24] reports that Trump touted his face-to-face with Kim as "an opportunity for him to become a historic president." Trump administration said they expect Trump's face-to-face with Kim "to produce incremental progress, including perhaps arriving at an agreed-upon definition of denuclearization and laying out a timetable for future negotiations for North Korea to freeze its nuclear weapons and missile programs."
  • NBC [25] reports, "Trump said that his goal was for the "complete denuclearization" of North Korea."
So, I support this WP article saying, "As of May 2020, North Korea has shown no indication that it is willing to unilaterally denuclearize as the U.S. intends for it to." BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Betsy, that is a crushing non-sequitur. The quotations you give suggest we should mention his portrayal of himself as having a historic role, his supposed relationship with Kim, the suggestions of a Nobel Prize etc...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Latest from North Korea SPECIFICO talk 12:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

What improvements are you suggesting? As I have said before, there are many sources:[26][27][28][29][30].--Jack Upland (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Jack Upland you can ignore that -- the lack of text is clue that there was no proposal involved. Bare URL posts are commonly just an OFFTOPIC something pasted in the story du jour. Here a URL out of an NYT feed that is not something really relevant to this discussion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I never want to ignore Citizen SPECIFICO. Someone needs to watch what he's up to.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Pfiffner "quote"

First, thanks due to Mandruss for all the careful work! I am sure you do not get enough appreciation. Regarding the Pfiffner quote in the section "False statements". Firstly, I was following others, as seen in the Talk above - the quote seemed a good one, and there seemed to be support for it. In the article itself, however, the lines were drawn from several places in the introductory text of Pfiffner's chapter - someone looking for the specific quote given in the article now would not be able to find it. Material specific to Pfiffner's essay was left out. Then there is the curious wording "enlightenment epistemology" which I had no idea what it was - I gather these words are specific to philosophy and mean a specific theoretical construct in philosophy. I wasn't going to put those words in this article, so I translated it to "a fundamental understanding of facts and knowledge". So I am not sure it is correct to call the last block of text of the section a quote. I am not sure what to do; I will leave it to others better versed in Wikipedia policy to decide what to do. Perhaps place "a fundamental understanding of facts and knowledge" in brackets? The chapter can be read by clicking on the article citation link - it goes to a docx file provided by the author. Bdushaw (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bdushaw: For the benefit of others, this is the edit in question. Sorry, I thought it was a quotation. I've never seen the block format used when there was any change in wording (even identified as a paraphrase, as you had it before my edit). I would now consider it a "close paraphrase", which is discouraged at WP:CLOP. It needs to be reworded more, dramatically shortened per WP:WEIGHT, and taken out of block format, while maintaining the attribution to Pfiffner. I wouldn't know how best to do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Per your suggestion, I've removed some of the text. I've also returned it to a quote, using ellipses to indicate removed text and brackets to indicate the translated terms. I think it is OK now, but leave it open for revision. Bdushaw (talk) 08:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bdushaw and Mandruss: - trimmed. [31] starship.paint (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • ?? Not seeing a reason to quote that person/bit in particular, but the phrase “liberal democracy” reads odd - it could be read as “leftist democracy”, as in a way Trump disrupts the Democratic extremists. Just saying. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this the talk page for Trump?

I couldn’t find it earlier — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B12B:C88A:9D09:D5EC:201A:FD76 (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't know what do you mean. This is a discussion board where editors discuss about the reliability of the biography about the US President Donald Trump. If you want to contact with the president, go to Twitter. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Soumya-8974, I was looking for the first one. I have no desire to contact the current president but I am well aware that he is on Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B122:876A:35ED:49DD:6CF0:F7BC (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Help

I am curious about how to get the privilege to edit this page SuperRegex (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Howdy! You'll find that info here. Mewnst (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Demagogue?

A while ago I gave up editing the article on Francisco Franco as too politically charged for my taste...but I can't help but make an observation about this article. The article goes to great length describing and documenting all the false and misleading statements made by President Trump, but fails to follow through and explain why he does this. President Trump is a demagogue, as indeed the first paragraph of that article describes the president to at T. He does not lie for the sake of lying, or because of some mental or psychological defect, but for several reasons, e.g., energize his political supporters, distract from other dangerous scandals, undermine his opposition, muddy the dialog for political ends, undermine the legitimacy of the press, self aggrandizement, etc etc. The article should explain this. There are ample citations to support the characterization of the president as a demagogue - a NPOV approach could be to say something like: "Numerous pundits have characterized the president as a demagogue...". (Curiously, or not so, there is continued argument as to whether to list the president among the famous demagogues on Demagogue; not listing him is POV, IMO.) If not demagogue, then the article has to at least explain why the president lies so frequently; to not do so is...illogical and pushing a POV. Perhaps those that think the president is not a demagogue can provide the alternate explanations for the extensive pattern lying, often euphemistically called "false statements". Bdushaw (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree a hundred percent..he is obviously a narcissist with delusions of grandeur..except that I believe he has multiple psychological disorders that have made him that way with seeing himself as a demagogue being a result of many other issues..I agree that this needs to be explored and included in the article 2600:1702:2340:9470:1C18:AF42:E8EC:3A7F (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
There is ironclad consensus against any such label. It's a waste of time to discuss this further. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, let us set aside the label. The question of a discussion of the motivations and aims behind all the "falsehoods" remains. (Which leads us to words that describe a demagogue, a word we have in English for this purpose, but without using that word, the label.) Bdushaw (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
We can describe his words and deeds, but I don't see that labels add anything to the description. They are only likely to be misinterpreted. Anyway, they say demagogues are "born not made". SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I've agreed with you on the label - no label. But it is still important to describe the president's motives for why he states falsehoods (lies); the context for them, perhaps a matter of explicitly stating the obvious. I've been contemplating the word Gaslighting recently, a concept fairly new to me. Bdushaw (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the mainstream view is that he speaks in ways that get attention and that arouse the sympathies of people who are important to him. That's kind of a separate issue than writing that he says false things that acoomplish those ends, but I'm not sure what really needs to be said to more fully describe him. Maybe think of specific text you would suggest that doesn't label or guess at what's under the hood. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd just add one thought. There has been quite a bit of weaseling and euphemistic language in this and other Trump-related articles. We've danced around wording about racist speech, lies, even his slow and negligent response to the pandemic that a recent academic study found has already cost America tens of thousands of needless deaths. You might consider giving close attention to the wording of this and other Trump-related content in other articles to see whether you find some weasel-worded text similar to the edit I removed this morning. My impression is that there is still room for improvement and more straightforward exposition of RS narratives. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
As I've thought about the issue, it is tricky - the main thing would be to find good citations that interpret the rationale for particular patterns of lies. My own instinct is to state things straight up, in black and white, so I get annoyed with "falsehood" when "lie" is more to the point. As a discussion point, what about using "demagogue" as a verb? I am reminded of a presidential debate in the past moderated by Lehrer who, after one candidate described how the other was demagoging, declared "you opponent has accused you of being a demagogue, how do you respond?" (to the obvious annoyance of the first candidate).
Perhaps we can discuss here a particular example to see how we might approach the issue. At the start of his presidency, the president overstated the numbers of the Inaugural crowd...why? Are there citations that explain why? "Guessing" (as you say...a bad approach) he wanted to self-aggrandize, to be greater and more accomplished than he really was, then followed by additional spin and lies to avoid having to admit the initial lie (recalling the ridiculous hurricane danger to Arkansas incident). Is there a way to state the reasons for such a lie that would be appropriate to Wikipedia? I make this not as a rhetorical question; I think it is an error to assume the reader can see the reason for the lie - these lies are NOT innocent (ignorance, oversight, casual misstatements, sloppiness, etc.), seems clear, but for purpose. I would be content if we could find 3-4 examples, say, of such lies for which the motivation or aim of the lie can be briefly stated. Why does the president accuse well-respected journalists of "fake news" endlessly? The master of fake news makes the accusation. One of the verbal attacks on federal judges might be another example that could be explained. I will see what can be found along these lines in reputable citations. Bdushaw (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I think I understand "falsehood" vs "lie". The difference is as I say above - what the motivation is. "Falsehood" and other such euphemisms, as in the present lede for example, do not admit an overt intent to deceive. Whereas "lie" does. The most basic question for this forum is whether the article is to state the intent to deceive. I think my own view is clear. Bdushaw (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Well we won't know his motivation for his actions for a long time, if ever. But I agree with you there are too many euphemisms and weasels, and I'll just warn you that some editors here will oppose more straightforward language. Before you jump to motivations for lies you could, as you say, start off by taking the entire narrative from Sean Spicer through "just redecorating the bunker last week" and see whether RS warrant calling any of that "lies" or what? One step at a time. I think it's rather clear from the text, but you may want to make it stronger or add mainstream commentary about it. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
We have to leave to readers to make up their own minds. In any case, you shouldn't be dishonest about dishonesty. Many people make slips of the tongue, verbal infelicities, faux pas, flatuent tweets, exaggerations, sloppy comments, weaselly remarks, inaccurate claims, ill-informed prognostications, insupportable arguments, selective quotes, evasive responses, questionable comparisons, false rememberings, ignorant outbursts, outrageous metaphors, flimsy prevarications, stonewalling responses, equivocal answers, erroneous ripostes, statistical fudges, fantastical allusions, rhetorical subversions, bombastic utterances, intellectual failures, inappropriate word choices, lies etc. It is difficult to pin down exactly which is which many times, just as it is difficult to pin down what Trump meant by "covfefe". And even if you think you've pinned it down, your comrade in the next stall might not agree. We have to leave to the readers.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Jack Upland - could you avoid using "comrade", please? Thank you. starship.paint (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Starship.paint, "comrade" is a perfectly acceptable, normal English word. Would you prefer I said "bosom buddy" or "boon companion"?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Jack Upland - yes, please use those. starship.paint (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Jack, your comment ignores the central point OP has raised. When the false statements number well into the thousands and are demonstrably beyond any previous American president's, it is false and POV to characterize them with a meaningless recitation of irrelevant nomenclature. Please try to be responsive to the topic at hand. SPECIFICO talk 11:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I am losing enthusiasm for this project given all the flack I am likely to receive, but Jack has illustrated one point I was trying to make - some people can see Trumps "erroneous" statements as just the harmless bumbling of a careless man. That is clearly not the case, and I was searching for a way we could state the purpose of the misinformation. Someone reading the "Falsehoods" section might conclude "So?". I have found the recent statement by Powell that Trump lies CBSNEWS, which crosses an important threshold, as Powell explicitly states. I see even now, some reports put "lies" in quotes. Perhaps this solid citation (and others similar, Politico, CNN, Newsweek) justify a statement on the issue in the "Falsehoods" section. Bdushaw (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, I've looked over the article to a large extent, and it is remarkably well written, under the circumstances. I am sticking to my guns on the two editorial points with the lede, given below, but otherwise can't find much to polish up. Bdushaw (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Powell's opinion is just one man's opinion. As Trump points out, Powell is a proven liar himself.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
"just one man's opinion" - hardly so. As you well know, Powell is a Republican, and was a general with lengthy and extensive government experience. The statements he made were widely reported in the media and garnered a reply from the President of the United States. I am not sure you have Trump's reply correct though, here is a citation-Hill; do you have the citation for Trump calling Powell a liar? Such a citation could be useful for the article. Besides, your reply attempts to undermine the integrity of the man, while failing to respond to the substance of the argument. To add to the general theme we are discussing, is this citation-BBC on how Twitter is now adding fact checking messages to the president's Twitter messages (also supporting my suggestion below to include the Twitter use in the lede). The citation includes some statements on how Trump's anti-muslim Tweets served a domestic political agenda. related-BBC Has Trump ever apologized for, or retracted, a misstatement? There is an obvious reality here, stated by Powell, that I wonder how long Wikipedia can continue to skirt around... Bdushaw (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that is the nub of the problem. Powell led the world into war, claiming that Iraq had WMDs and displaying the proof in front of the United Nations. That had far more devastating consequences than any of Trump's falsehoods. Now, maybe Powell wasn't really a liar. Maybe he was a bumbling fool. Maybe he was putty in the hands of that super-intelligent mastermind, George W Bush. Maybe he was just exaggerating. Maybe he was a little boy lost in the fog of war. Etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Powell was a career military man, and it was in his DNA to support his commander in chief or quit. Rice and others did the same, and that hardly equates them to Trump. Now when does this whole thing get folded up per WP:NOTFORUM? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
This is a valid discussion which illustrates that calling someone a liar is a very POV matter. Some apparently excuse falsehoods when they come from a military man... I don't.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Bdushaw and TWIMC - Enough already. WP:NOTBLOG and WP:OR -- the current text resulted from substantial discussion, to approach it from the view of 'I want to say this, so how to go about it' is treading into OR. While I think the lede is too long and already gives an UNDUE amount of text to this, the existence of fact-checking and commentary about it is factual, and there is substantial partisan framing about this area -- but to unpack it more should then get into WP:NPOV of also presenting the positive views in proportion to their WEIGHT. If we go down to the level of detail where your perspective is likely in there somewhere, it is along with many others such as perspectives that he said Truth or that the Media Elite is the bad one here, and the common cynical view of any politicians moving their mouth.... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Markbassett I couldn't disagree with your advice more. To recap: The discussion in this section is not related to the lede, but to the section "False statements". I am sorry that was not clear. There is no OR, but I seek an appropriate discussion concerning falsehoods/lies, as supported by citations. I am attempting to develop an NPOV discussion, supported by citations such as I've given above, giving an explanation for the extraordinary falsehoods from Trump. Above, alternate explanations to "lies" have been stated, but I have not yet found a reputable citation supporting benign explanations. This article has required extraordinary discussion over the changing of a few words, so my intent here is to achieve a consensus as to what to say, before attempting to write in the article directly. To now complain about this discussion going on too long is not logical. Meanwhile the issue we are addressing is a difficult one - see, e.g. Politico, AP, requiring a careful preliminary discussion. Lastly, I had expected that there would be knowledgeable editors here who would have greater knowledge of this subject than me and could provide help and guidance. (So far those opposed to this line of inquiry have provided next to nothing.) If the consensus is that a consensus has been reached on the issue of Trump's misinformation, then I will proceed to add a brief paragraph to the "False statements" section. If that section is to remain unchanged, with no explanations given for the large numbers of misstatements, then I don't see what purpose that section, with its figure, serves - it could be replaced by a single sentence. But there are vast numbers of citations that can be used to support a brief discussion as to why Trump misinforms as he does, and why calling these "lies" can be problematic.
I will comment again that this article vastly underplays the subject of Trump's misinformation and use of Twitter. This is the opposite of undue weight - nowhere near enough weight is given to these factors. They are dominant factors of Trump and his administration - As of 27 May 2020, Trump had made 52,000 tweets BBC, many of them having to do with announcing major policies or personnel decisions (firing people); seriously unprecedented. (If it is 5 min. a tweet, that's 4333 hrs or 180 days spent continuously tweeting!) The non-stop attack on the press as "fake news", by, well, lies, is unprecedented. A reader would not appreciate these factors from this article. Bdushaw (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Alternatively, it seems to me what I am seeking is for a brief one paragraph summary of some of Veracity of statements by Donald Trump to be included in the "False statements" section. (Still learning the ropes of these Trump articles.) Bdushaw (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Since Trump is clearly not as bad as Powell, I think this is undue.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
That's just an absolutely astonishing statement, Jack. I don't agree with assigning this label to any individual, so I am as opposed as you are, but your claim about Trump being "not as bad" as Powell is just the worst kind of topsy turvy bullshit. Trump's mendacity is on a level we have never seen before in an American president. Even in the deepest, darkest depths of the Dick Cheney's fever dream of war lies we saw nothing as bad as the sort of crap Trump blurts out on a daily basis. And your concern about lies from a military man is laughable given all the lies that have come from Trump's own military men (Flynn, Mattis, Milley, Esper, Jackson, Kelly, to name but a few). -- Scjessey (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The most important lies of Donald Trump differ significantly from previous presidential lies. Other presidents have [committed] serious lies of policy deception. But the most significant Trump lies are egregious false statements that are demonstrably contrary to well-known facts. If there are no agreed-upon facts, then it becomes impossible for people to make judgments about their government. Political power rather than rational discourse then becomes the arbiter. Agreement on facts, of course, does not imply agreement on policies or politics. [...] Trump’s consistent lying has undermined enlightenment epistemology and has corroded the premises of liberal democracy.

James P. Pfiffner, George Mason University [32] starship.paint (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a cogent comment from a "conservative" scholar - should be a very high quality reference and a worhty basis for article text on the matter raised by OP. In the past such comments by conservatives have been rejected by a small number of vocal editors here. Thanks for finding this. Needless to say, Jack Upland's comments on Powell are based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the facts in the matter of Saddam. SPECIFICO talk 13:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bdushaw: - Op-ed today, a slightly different perspective on the issue. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Thx - There are many, many opinion pieces in the major newspapers/media that speak of "lies". I've wondered what their status is insofar as an article like this is. I suppose if they are countered by equal opinion pieces from the other side (but false equality - the opinions on the nature of Trump's statements from the Trumpist side do not appear in my searches, but I'll keep a closer look out) they would be ok. One pundit says this, another says that, let the reader decide? Bdushaw (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Have a look at WP:NPOV, in particular the WP:WEIGHT section. As I've said, I think labels such as "demagogue" are not helpful, but neither are euphemisms and false balance. I encourage you to keep trying to find better text. I hope other editors will contribute. I would not pay attention to snide or obviously uninformed opinions. Nobody is likely to take them seriously, and it's not necessary to respond to them. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the reason that Colin Powell's lies to the UN were worse than Trump is that his lies led to the Iraq War with half a million deaths and continued instability in the region and a heightened terrorist threat around the world. Trump — as far as I know — has perpetrated anything on that level. Many of Trump's falsehoods, such as claiming his grandfather came from Sweden, are basically harmless. Saying that other military men make false claims is true, but I don't see how that gets Powell off the hook.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
You need to stop calling Powell a liar. Next time may get you blocked. SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Please stop with the straw men. Nobody has proposed that this article say that Trump's lies are the worst lies ever told. We have a persistent and long-standing consensus, here and throughout the project, that RS says Trump's chronic lying is a serious problem, and that's where the discussion ends. Your comparisons are irrelevant and are becoming disruptive. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Please note that Colin Powell was introduced into the conversation by Bdushaw.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Bdushaw oh, I think you can disagree with me more if you try. Mostly I’d say too much detail for the BLP. But other than that... Your thread start seemed on adding the word “demagogue”, and then more about falsehoods and want NPOV. OK then, try this: to give more detailed NPOV means all significant views in proportion to weight - more detail would need to add *other* views in this area that you are apparently not considering but are out there in the mix held by many people. Try some of these on for size.
  • That 40% of people polled believed President Trump did not tell any lies and 70% think the media spread fake news;
  • That ‘lies’ is mostly the obviously adversarial Media that has said hundreds of thousands of fake things and lies about him;
  • That fact-checkers only said “inaccuracies” (not “false”);
  • That what’s unprecedented is this is the first time “fact-checkers” have kept put a microscope and counted every trivial item;
  • That unlike past presidents big lies (Obama ‘you can keep your doctor’, Clinton ‘I did not have sex with that woman’, Bush ‘no new taxes’) this is making a mountain out of trivial items;
  • That fact-checkers have many issues and should not be taken too seriously
  • . That there’s differences between fact, truth, Truth, and TRUTH ....
I’m just saying these POVs exist in sizeable amounts - and I think you will agree that’s correct - so to go into deeper detail is going to open up a welter of mixed views that would *not* be clearer or helpful BLP content. All the mud-slinging left everyone looking dirty and nobody looking especially dirty. That people simply don’t care and mostly don’t *believe* the media in this is a big part of the topic. There’s enough factual faults or misbehaviours on the other sides that led to this, but as I said at the start — none of this is BLP material. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Based on this discussion, the issue is not that Trump lies. Even true American heroes, who I'm not at liberty to mention, lie. It's just that Trump rarely tells the truth. For example, his recent attack on Joe Scarborough about the death of a staffer 20 years ago, is not actually untrue but innuendo, as far as I can see. Trump's utterances seem to be a slew of exaggerations, boasts, insinuations, insults, inaccuracies, flimflam, and downright nonsense (such as covfefe). These misleading comments have not led to the destruction of a foreign country, or even the dissolution of a foreign royal family. On the contrary, they have been shot down by the Hawk Eyes of the legendary American Press as soon as they took flight from the presidential lips. So fundamentally the issue is not that the Commander in Chief has been deceptive, but rather that he has been completely incoherent.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
It is true that Trump is often incoherent. But in the times he has not been, he has been deceptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Given the above discussion, with an eye on WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT and the available citations to draw text from, I am close to adding a brief paragraph or two to the section "False statements". Something like a discussion of the reluctance of the press to term the misinformation lies, examples of how the misinformation is used for effect, with breakdowns in media to finally use the word "lie", citing Powell's assessment, and employing the Pfiffner quote above. I would like to consolidate the sections "False statements", "Social media", and "Relationship with the press" together (not merged, but next to each other), as all being related. I note that already the text has extensive citations employing the word "lie". Bdushaw (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we should mention Powell as he is a true American hero. Scjessey, what statement by Trump were you deceived by?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I personally wasn't deceived by any of them, but it is clear a substantial portion of the American voting public is. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Is there a source that says this? Sure, many Americans support Trump, but to what extent do they believe that his comments are 100% accurate? Or do they admire his verve, braggadocio, and sledgehammer wit?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, I couldn't possibly care any less and I don't see how it has any relevance to this discussion whatsoever. I think it is enough to say that there are people drinking bleach out there. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The terms "deceptive" and "deception" suggest people were actually deceived. If I run round telling people I'm a hippo, that is clearly a falsehood (say), but if no one actually believes me, it would be strange to call it deceptive. Trump's constant trash talk, incoherent ramblings, florid rantings etc are not particularly deceptive because there is no evidence that large numbers of people were fooled by them. On the contrary, many of his dodgy claims were slapped down immediately. People have always drunk bleach. The point is that the US of A is the same redneck wonderland that it always was. Shine, perishing republic! It is worthwhile to discuss what the best wording is, as Wikipedia is constantly improved, and this article will outlive us all...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I've reorganized some of the subsections to put Social Media, Falsehoods, and Press together, as far more natural. I've also added text to the Falsehoods section, attempting to adhere to the above discussion and citations as much as possible. I've tried to be brief, but, really, the subject is not brief. I have reminded myself several times that this article is about Donald Trump and not his presidency, for which there is another article. As such, I noted that much of the material in other sections was more about his presidency and less about the man. I say this because, IMO Trump's tweeting and continuous misinformation are far more relevant to this article - the nature of the man. I suspect the "Falsehoods" section warrants its own section, rather than a subsection - the world is awash with all this. I think with this entry I will stand down, and let others edit, attack, defend, etc. my text (well cited, balanced, and NPOV, IMO). Bdushaw (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC) I may edit the Social Media section to include some short statements quantifying the number of tweets: 52,000 total, 22115 before his candidacy, 8158 during his candidacy, and 14186 during his presidency to the end of 2019. He seems to live on twitter - also this medium, strangely, conveys official presidential actions (firing Tillerson) and policy. Thanks to all for their comments and assistance above! Bdushaw (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone back there said something about lies being black or white...also I remember something about facts..Facts truth..Truth..comrades...this is the problem..whatever is a fact is the truth..there is nothing in between..I don`t know how to relate that to this article but there is no in between..a lie is a lie....anything that he says needs to be heard as what it is..trump is what`s called a pathological lier 2600:1702:2340:9470:5495:F7A9:2143:A90B (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2020

<! - - I saw some grammatical errors in the text that I would like to correct. Our great president does not deserve having those simple mistakes in his article. Ninkyminjaj (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Ninkyminjaj, what are the grammatical errors? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Muboshgu, judging by his comment, and subsequent silence, there were no "grammatical errors". Keiiri (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Keiiri, agreed. I was being extra nice, especially with that "out great president" bit. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2020 (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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Honorifics

So, regarding this reversion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=963617146&oldid=963606154&diffmode=source Is there a reason to not have the title in there other than "i hate trump and dont want him to have it" ? an earlier discussion also didnt provide any reasons at all (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_118#The_Honorable). Urgal (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

MOS:HON. Honorific prefixes are not commonly used for U.S. Presidents. - MrX 🖋 11:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Why didnt someone link this all along lol Urgal (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
A better question would be: When have you ever heard anyone refer to Donald Trump as "The Honorable"? - MrX 🖋 23:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
No, but i was pretty sure that doesnt matter; as long as he technically has the title, i thought it had to be listed Urgal (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Your attribution of motives to those who had removed the honorific suggests YOUR motives might be otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
......... ok Urgal (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Using a better swearing-in image

I believe the image being used right now depicting him being sworn in (Trump Family Hand Up.jpg) is suboptimal. It is slightly blurry, out of focus and of low quality. Considering the swearing-in ceremony of a United States President is a historically significant event, I strongly believe it should be replaced with the clearer and higher quality "Donald Trump swearing in ceremony.jpg". Anirudhgiri (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Anirudhgiri, The proposed image is many times better than the image currently in use. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 16:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Image in use
Proposed image
User:Anirudhgiri - I agree. Also, the image ‘Donald Trump swearing in ceremony.jpg’ is more a close-up and clear face picture, plus it has has Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan in the background. Are you proposing that it be a replacement in the Family section, or proposing any shift in placement ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I would argue that the first image shows everyone (Trump, his family, and the Chief Justice), whereas the second image focuses entirely on Trump. I think the first image should be the one in the infobox at Inauguration of Donald Trump, and this new image should be used here, since this article is about Trump and not about the Inauguration particulars. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Markbassett, The post was made to propose a replacement of the image in the Family section but I would not be opposed to a shift in placement if you think it needs to be moved. I'm fine with it being anywhere, as long as the image is replaced with the higher quality one. User:Scjessey, Agreed. But I believe the image in Inauguration of Donald Trump should be "Donald Trump swearing in ceremony.jpg" as well solely due to how clear and high quality it is compared to the other one. But I guess that's a discussion for Inauguration of Donald Trump's talk page. Anirudhgiri (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose as proposed. In the Family section, the focus is Trump's family – not Trump, and not the inauguration. If you can find a better image for the Family section, fine, but this isn't it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair point, I do see that the closer focus trimming the right side lost Tiffany Trump and Jared Kushner. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd support the proposed image as replacement for the one now at Donald Trump#Presidency, which shows the back of Trump's head as he shakes Obama's hand at the inauguration. I would have little problem with two swearing-in images, in widely-separated sections and with different purposes. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Are trump supporters allow to edit the page?Megasupport2020 (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Megasupport2020, anyone is, until they violate policy, at which point they may be removed from it. Guy (help!) 21:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I don`t see Barack Obama in any of these pictures..the second picture looks more like trump today..at least you can see part of trump`s face comrade 2600:1702:2340:9470:2CA0:429A:C82E:3C6A (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
? I don’t see that it matters much, but Obama would be the right side of the picture in the front row .. Tiffany is standing in front of him. Biden sat on Obama’s left side, their wives in the second row, and third row was the Clintons and Bushes. I think you might note Michelle Obama’s head. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
It doesn`t matter at all..the one where you can see part of his face actually looks like him..the other just some person in a suit 2600:1702:2340:9470:5495:F7A9:2143:A90B (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Renewing unresolved lede change suggestions

Two discussions regarding changes to the lede have been archived At the End Here without a resolution. I repost them here:

  • Regarding "false statements", revised text in a new paragraph: Often employing the social media platform Twitter, Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The misinformation has been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. Justifications are that Trump is on twitter a large portion of every day, and "statements" have not been documented, the errors/lies/misinformation has.
  • Regarding "America First agenda", new sentence: Trump has pursued a foreign policy called America First that resulted in the United States withdrawing from or renegotiating several international agreements. Justifications are that "America First agenda" accepts "America First" as a label, the article is about Donald Trump not his presidency, and the lede is long. The revision removes a list - as most of you know, when one includes a list, it invites additions to the list, e.g., NAFTA revision.Bdushaw (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Both of these changes, the product of our initial discussion, seem good to me. Bdushaw (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing the archived discussions that you reference, most of the editors who commented expressed opposition. This doesn't mean that the sentences you discuss should not be changed, but it means that simply reposting your suggested phrasing is unlikely to succeed. Try soliciting input on different phrasing, perhaps? I would gladly help, but have no cogent suggestion to offer at this time. — JFG talk 14:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
What you say is true, but I repost just to continue the dialog. I had replied in the archive to some of the opposition (e.g., to those opposed to including a mention of Twitter). The suggested sentences above were what evolved over the existing discussion. Mostly, there was a lack of response (IMO), so I repost to reach a consensus. If there is no opposition (or no one cares), I can make the edits suggested. Bdushaw (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I've implemented the first suggestion in the article. As I thought about the 2nd suggestion and studied the lede further, larger problems in "foreign policy" became apparent deserving of discussion. "America First" was also the trade war with China, I believe. The WHO was recently added to the list, but, while no doubt partly "America First", that was more Trump trying to shift blame to WHO away from his pandemic response. Then there was the NAFTA renegotiation, and then there was threatening to withdraw from NATO. Then there was...then there was... At this point I get apoplectic and am unsure how to revise the lede. I am in favor of "foreign policy" being a separate paragraph. I half think the proposed sentence above, initially intended to do away with the following list, could serve as an introductory sentence for the paragraph. The lede is long, to be sure, but as the Francisco Franco article, this article is not normal.Bdushaw (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bdushaw: Re the "first suggestion", #Current consensus #35 was established by RfC and so requires an RfC to modify it. Even disregarding that point, I see no consensus for the change in the non-RfC discussion. As for this discussion, lack of participation does not constitute consensus. I'm reverting that part of your edit. For guidance on how to start an RfC, see WP:RFC. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the process and the rules, but I will disassociate myself from this article. Bdushaw (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Historical perspective

Although self-reverted because of 1RR issues, I wanted to bring up this edit by Urgal (talk · contribs) in the lead in case it comes up again. I have two problems with this:

  1. The edit summary said "unsourced" despite the fact that it is sourced in the body of the article (under Donald Trump#Trump wall) and we do not use references in the lead.
  2. The use of "so far" breaks the convention of writing BLPs from the historical perspective.

I would be interested in Urgal's responses to my concerns. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

no the 'unsourced' was related to your edit summary, "BLPs are written in the historical perspective". could you provide a link where it says you have to do that? Urgal (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
alot of people seem to have a problem with the "so far", so how about changing it into "but has managed only to renovate pre-existing fencing."? note that in the same paragraph we have a sentence saying "Trump HAS advocated a stricter immigration policy" Urgal (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd support "has managed" instead of "managed", because efforts to build "the wall" are still ongoing. Trump held a briefing about that with border patrol officers in Arizona just yesterday. — JFG ;;talk 07:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure of where the convention for writing from the historical perspective came from, although you can get a sense of it at WP:RELTIME and WP:PRECISELANG, but it is what we have always done when describing events. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Scjessey, I'm not opposed to writing from the historical perspective, but I don't think that writing from the historical perspective would include presenting an ongoing effort as though it has finished. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 17:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Mandruss (talk · contribs) probably knows. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, that whole area of Wikipedia perspectives and tenses is on my to-learn list. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

i re-added the "has" for now until someone can provide a source regarding the "historical perspective" etc. Urgal (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Urgal, I have a vague recollection that there is a guideline which states that we should not use temporal anchors like "As of March 2, 2019..." and the like if they can be avoided, but I'm not aware of any policy or guidelines that says exactly what's at issue here. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 12:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
per MOS:CURRENT: "Except on pages updated regularly [...], terms such as now, currently, to date, so far, soon, and recently should usually be avoided". obviously this is a page updated regularly. so i dont see the problem. Urgal (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
"as of June 2020" is fine to use Urgal (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Urgal, that's a particularly unfortunate edit of yours, adding "has managed" in lieu of "managed" and marking it "minor". There is no consensus for this and it continues the pattern of your edits currently under review at AE. Please self-revert. SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
yeah i can do that, but then we might as well delete every other "has" from the same paragraph Urgal (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Urgal: I don't see a process reason for you to self-revert. Rules are hard enough to follow, but here you have discussed your proposed change, gotten replies from various people, and addressed their concerns by removing the "so far" part, so your edit is fine by my book. If someone wants to revert you, that's on them. — JFG talk 15:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2020

His net worth is unknown as he has not released his tax returns so I think it should be removed 31.221.152.235 (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Jack Frost (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

RFC: First sentence

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This RfC proposes two things. It proposes that the word current should be linked to President of the United States rather than Presidency of Donald Trump and also proposes a change to the wording (adding since 2017). In the discussion not all participants seemed to understand the two part nature of this RfC or else chose to only comment on one of the two pieces. There is consensus against the change of wording. While those in favor suggested it added clarity and/or is reflective of other articles on presidents, the consensus of editors is that it was unnecessary for a sitting president.
There is no consensus on which link should be used. Those in favor of President of the United States suggest that, as an international encyclopedia, readers might be unfamiliar with the office and so that link would be most helpful. Those in favor of Presidency of Donald Trump pointed to an April discussion establishing consensus for that position and suggested, based on the readership differences between this article and that article, that readers are looking for information on Trump's presidency and so that link would serve them best. Editors are nearly evenly divided between these two positions and as there is no weighting to be done based on applicable policies and guidelines there is no consensus about which link to use.
A no consensus outcome means that we use the stable version of the content. In this instance determining the stable version proves to be complicated. The current version was implemented following an April discussion. A consensus can certainly be formed through such talk page discussions. It should be noted that several of the participants in the RfC expressed frustration with the challenging of consensus that had been established, which needs to be respected. The April discussion was held for 3 days, which is a short period of time but can be appropriate in a heavily watched and participated talk page such as this. Ten days after the change was implemented, this RfC was opened. This is near enough that it can be considered a continuation of that discussion, especially given that the person who proposed the wording/formatting that was implemented in the April discussion voting against the link in this RfC. There was nothing wrong in determining a consensus through informal discussion, in implementing that consensus, or noting that consensus in the Current consensus list. However, when the informal discussion moved into the more formal discussion the consensus that had appeared to be present was actually no consensus at all. As such the stable version was what was present prior to the April discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Should we change the intro of this article to bring it in line with the other US presidents bio intro?

Do we need linking to Presidency of Donald Trump? GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey: First sentence

  • Abort on the basis this RfC has not been created properly. Per WP:RFCST, it should be a "brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue." Instead, GoodDay has told us what should change and told us what we shouldn't have. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC) - RfC question has been rephrased. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Calm down. I've rephrased it into a 'question'. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per the discussion further up. Since he is currently president, this is a different situation than former presidents. I also think it's just more useful to link to his presidency rather than the general concept. -- Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As documented at #Current consensus item 17, the first sentence has been thoroughly flogged in recent years, with the last revisitation only two weeks ago. I think it's good enough. The main rationale given for this proposed change is conformity between presidents' BLPs, and there is nothing found in PAGs or other community consensus indicating that as a goal. I oppose that cookie-cutter approach, as it appears to serve a tiny minority of editors far more than it serves readers. No reader is going to be thrown for a loop if this article's first sentence has a different structure than those of other presidents' articles – if they even notice the difference. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm not particularly bothered one way or the other, but I oppose on the basis we have a consensus for the existing text and I see no reason why we cannot have its slightly differing language approach for the current officeholder. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - As we don't link to Presidency of... articles in the other aforementioned bios. Also, we show the years of service in the others. Like any hard-copy encyclopedia, we should have consistency in a series of bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah, but this is not a hard-copy encyclopedia. We can, you know, edit stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    "We should do x" is a completely empty argument without the "why" we should do x. I'd be interested to know "why" it's really important to be like hard-copy encyclopedias in this way, when in many other ways we are happy (or proud) to be different. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    We can't accept sloppiness in the intro, which is what we now have. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
    I've just looked again, and I see no sloppiness. Are you sure you're at the right article? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
    Are you sure you're at the right article? Quit it. PackMecEng (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes the intro should include President of the United States as what was consensus #17. The April 2020 discussion was *not* a consensus to eliminate the commonly included POTUS link, it was asking about potential alternative techniques to add a link and TALK mentioned to keep the POTUS. There was not an RFC or stated question to drop POTUS, so that should still be present as the explicit consensusifying. There wasn’t technically even an explicit ask to change consensus and add a link - it was just asking for potential means, and a later proposal might have been done. Perhaps “...is the 45th and current President of the United States, since 2017.“ Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Among the other stated reasons, see MOS:CURRENTLY, which discourages the use of that word. – Muboshgu (talk)`
    "Except on pages updated regularly". ―Mandruss ☎ 09:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    I still feel its good practice to keep it out of pages that are updated regularly, but it seems consensus is not with me on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. ~ HAL333 22:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per everyone above as well as per the consensus to have the current text. –Davey2010Talk 19:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
There wasn't a consensus to have the current intro. This RFC is what will determine which version gets a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there absolutely was a consensus. We all discussed it in your absence and agreed to the change. An RfC is only necessary in a deadlocked discussion, which was not the case. This RfC is your attempt to overturn an existing consensus because you weren't happy. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
A tiny number of editors changing a long-kept version, after a few days of discussion? No consensus there. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The change was not made by a tiny number of editors. Most or all of the editors who participate on this page saw the change, saw the discussion, and chose not to object to the change on the basis of the discussion. Many did not participate in the discussion, but nevertheless contributed to the consensus by their silence. The consensus list entry #17 was updated without objection. You were not here to participate in the discussion, nor around to object to the change on this basis of it, and you can't drop in ten days after a change and cry "no consensus". This concept has been reaffirmed many times at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
We obviously disagree on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but don't confuse that with having equally valid positions. No one can force you to respond to reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I see you unhatted your personal comment eroniously citing TPG.[33] Sorry but no it is commenting on the contributor and not on their content and should be hatted as off-topic personal commentary. Stuff like No one can force you to respond to reason are not helpful and if you want to be taken seriously you should probably stop making them. Quit badgering people that disagree with you. PackMecEng (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, PackMecEng, but your comment is way out of line. So far, your only contributions to this thread have been to criticize Mandruss, so maybe you need to heed your own advice. GoodDay missed the consensus party and is now abusing the RfC process (which is really only meant for deadlocked discussion) to try to overturn the will of the editors who participated in the original discussion. Mandruss is right to point that out, and GoodDay's refusal to accept the normal Wikipedia process here is the troubling aspect of all this. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
We have been having a discussion about it on my talk page, you are welcome to stop by. I do not plan on continuing here unless asked to. PackMecEng (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The starting year of his presidency is an important piece of information that should be in the lede, but currently it is not even mentioned there. Given that other presidential articles have term years in the first sentence, then I don't understand why the present article doesn't have it. The infobox has this information, but per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)". The starting year of Trump's presidency should be added to the first sentence and it would be of use to the reader who probably, like me, wonders when did Trump start his presidency. Thinker78 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support As we write for an international audience, better we link to the page that discusses what a US President is rather than just to the one about this President.--MONGO (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The link was discussed (see consensus #17) and the agreement was to change it to the "Presidency of Donald Trump" page. Also, point of grammar, "since" requires the use of present perfect, i.e., "has been." tempted, but nah Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Abort per current consensus item 17. This matter was recently discussed and satisfactorily resolved, and it is irresponsible to have an RfC that does not link to the extremely relevant context of the prior discussion in the opening statement. Nothing has changed in the past month that would require revisiting this so soon. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Was not resolved at all. A tiny number of editors decided to change #17 among themselves & after only a few days. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Linking to Trump's specific presidency is more useful to readers than linking to the generic article about what a U.S. president is. — JFG talk 06:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As far as I'm concerned, no logical argument has been presented to necessitate the need to change this long-standing lead. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The current lead is not longstanding. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support linking to president of the United States makes far more sense than the presidency article helping meet MOS:LINKCLARITY. Consensus for the lead paragraph is not formed in a matter of days on such a high traffic article. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    Spy-cicle, you've listed your vote as support, but your argument appears to be to oppose? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    No I support changing the link to president of the United States as opposed to Presidency of Donald Trump (which was the longstanding consensus) to keep it in line with MOS:LINKCLARITY. Readers expect to be linked to the former, especially since that is how it is done on every other US president article, as opposed an article on his presidency. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 08:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the linking regarding "current presidents of the United States"; I oppose the linking regarding the 45th since it links to the article itself instead of a section. The linking to "his presidency" can be done somewhere else, and what in the world is a president of the U.S.? It's worth linking to. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 00:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This reasoning is not policy-based and is poor. It takes minimal effort to look at the history for the pages of previous two presidents, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush, and see what the text was when they were still in office.
Obama @ Special:Permalink/707327762: is an American politician serving as the 44th President of the United States, the first African American to hold the office
Bush @ Special:Permalink/254965548: is the forty-third and current President of the United States.
There is consensus, and there has been consistency. There is no link of the text to the article of that incumbent's presidency. We do not mention the year they started their presidency. There is a style here that has been upheld for more than a decade. There is not sufficient consensus here to change that style, nor would this be the appropriate place to do it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion: First sentence

  • Seems an oops. The April discussion asked about possible ways to add, not about removal. There wasn’t even an agreement *to* add, it just was asking for methods. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @GoodDay: For this RfC to have any validity, you need to at least refactor to link to the April discussion in the question. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
You can link to that 'short discussion' if you like. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 21 May 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.

Closure question/challenge: First sentence

@Barkeep49: Thank you for taking the time to close this RfC. But I'm curious how you reconcile the logic of your last paragraph with this statement at WP:RFCBEFORE: "If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." How can the "no consensus" of the RfC override the consensus of the prior discussion, when the RfC never should have been started in the first place? With the reasoning of your last paragraph, what's to stop editors from starting an RfC whenever the "informal" discussion yields a consensus they don't like? TIA for your explanation. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss, I think it's clear that an editor was not able to come to consensus or have questions answered through discussion with others. In three days time many editors didn't even have a reasonable chance to express a concern before the change had been made and entered as formalized consensus. There wasn't anything wrong with that but nor was there something wrong, in this fact pattern, with an RfC being opened. If an editor had participated and was clearly on the wrong end of things without support and then decided to open an RfC that could very well be disruptive and actionable under DS. And a pattern of these kinds of RfCs might, in an aggregate, be disruptive even if any individual one is not. That is why I made sure to note that legitimate concern in the close. I hope that explains the logic and internal consistency of the close for you better. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Angela Stanton-King

New Trump related article. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I have added to the article more information about her media appearances.--2600:8802:2200:1430:7423:41E4:EFB6:AE53 (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
There's not enough there for a Wikipedia article. Rather than seek deletion, which would happen in a week, I have moved it to draft space at Draft:Angela Stanton-King, so it can be fleshed out over at least six months. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2020

This posting is very biased and makes several claims that are not backed up by fact. I would specifically highlight the second paragraph that speaks about his policies. The posts makes claims about racists posts and other claims that do not have proper attribution. The post needs to be rewritten to reflect a more fact based and moderate view. 2600:1700:3A80:1E70:2009:584E:A0AB:C5C9 (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~ Amkgp 💬 11:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Implementing the suggestions from the recent Peer Review

It has been about a month since I opened the PR of this article, (linked here) and I did get a few good suggestions on how to improve the article, especially its lead.

Some of the issues raised were:

  • Trump's proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel gets proportionally much more coverage in this lead compared with his presidency article. This is because the presidency article has 5 paragraphs on the subject whereas this article has only a few sentences. Given the low amount of coverage it receives here it could be dropped from the lead.
  • A low amount of coverage in this article as far as deregulation is concerned.
  • An incomplete summary in the lead of certain social and immigration issues, given that the lead does not mention the lengthy government shutdown or the border wall.

Your comments or suggestions on which suggestions we should implement and how are most welcome. Mgasparin (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  • @Mgasparin: - regarding immigration, in the body I've expanded the family separation section, created/expanded the migrant detention section, and created the Trump wall section. starship.paint (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Starship.paint What about Jerusalem though? What should we do there? (An RfC may be necessary). Mgasparin (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Mgasparin: - yeah, we should go to an RfC on Jerusalem. At least that will provide a consensus whether or not it should remain. starship.paint (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Mgasparin: - I've expanded the Trump wall section, the shutdown section, created/expanded the national emergency section. We should be good to go in proposing a change to the lead regarding immigration. starship.paint (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump's strict immigration policy resulted in travel bans on citizens from several countries and increased policing of the Mexican border, including migrant detentions, family separations, and expansion of border fencing ("the wall").

  • @JFG: - we originally worked on the above. You wrote that there is increased policing of the Mexican border. Is this already in the body of this article? I did write in the article that the Trump administration is granting less exemptions for migrant detentions, but that's not totally the same, is it? From what I’ve read, it’s more of harsher policing. Sources below. starship.paint (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Santa Clara Law Review [34]: ...President Trump's systematic efforts to dramatically escalate immigration enforcement ... The Trump administration seeks to significantly build on the Obama administration's coldly efficient immigration enforcement program, while narrowing, and perhaps eliminating, more generous treatment of immigrants subject to possible removal from the United States.
    • Wake Forest Law Review [35] Trump has pursued a full assortment of tough enforcement measures ... the Trump administration responded to Central American asylum seekers through measures tougher than the policies pursued by any modern president.
    • Critical Social Work [36]: The use of detention and deportation policy and procedure was initiated to a heightened degree under the Obama administration and ramped up considerably under the Trump administration
    I was thinking of the measures detailed at Immigration policy of Donald Trump#Increased immigration enforcement, including the "zero tolerance" policy on illegal crossings, the efforts to avoid "catch and release" scenarios and intent to patch relevant loopholes in law, and the summoning of the army to the border (which apparently has precedent under G.W. Bush). All this can be neatly summarized for the lead with "increased policing", but I'm open to other wording suggestions. — JFG talk 06:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    @JFG: - the thing is, I don't think intent to patch relevant loopholes in law, and the summoning of the army to the border (which apparently has precedent under G.W. Bush). are in this article yet. It has to go into the body.

    Trump's immigration policy resulted in travel bans on citizens from several countries, while at the Mexican border, he increased policing, expanded border fencing ("the wall"), and implemented harsher immigration enforcement, causing increased migrant detentions and family separations.

    starship.paint (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, absolutely, and thanks for your job so far expanding the relevant sections. I have limited time for this today; would you like to continue on your stride or rather wait for help? — JFG talk 07:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    @JFG: - please always ping me to alert me. I've just added that he was sent 6,000 troops to the border. The body now reflects the proposed text above. Are you okay with it? Oh, and I didn't know what you were referring to by intent to patch relevant loopholes in law. So I probably missed it. starship.paint (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Trump has implemented restrictive immigration policies and travel bans. At the Mexican border, he increased policing, expanded border fencing ("the wall"), and harshened immigration enforcement, causing increased migrant detentions and family separations.

@JFG: - re-thought this. starship.paint (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I'd suggest this phrasing:

Trump has advocated a stricter immigration policy: he imposed travel bans on various countries, and tightened enforcement of immigration law, which increased migrant detentions and family separations. He also vowed to "build the wall" on the Mexican border, but only managed to renovate pre-existing border fencing.

I think it covers all the salient facts, while being as succinct as possible. Comments? — JFG talk 19:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@JFG: - I can’t agree with tightened enforcement of immigration law, which increased migrant detentions and family separations. It’s clearest for family separations - they weren’t mandated by law. It was policy. Trump could have detained families together under the law. He chose family separations at the start, only publicly stating he would detain families together in June 2018. As for migrant detentions, the Trump administration flouted federal guidelines for detention standards, in terms of length of time and conditions. Flouting seems to be the opposite of tightening. starship.paint (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Opinions differ as to whether the tougher policies consisted of stricter enforcement of existing law or running around established standards; there's probably a bit of both, with assorted blunders and consequences. There's a lot more to immigration law enforcement than the issues that caused scandal, and the U.S. treatment of migrants has been hotly debated for decades (ever since Carter, per sources). What matters is that enforcement practices changed at Trump's behest, and it has weight because he made that a signature policy of his candidacy and presidency. We can avoid taking a position by removing the consequential statement "which resulted in" or "which increased". So:

Trump has advocated a stricter immigration policy: he imposed travel bans on various countries, tightened enforcement of immigration law, and increased migrant detentions and family separations. He also vowed to "build the wall" on the Mexican border, but only managed to renovate pre-existing border fencing.

Are we good to go? Perhaps we should mention the rescinding of DACA, although I'd rather wait until the Supreme Court rules on the case (they heard arguments in November, and a decision is expected "in the coming weeks"[37]). — JFG talk 08:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@JFG: - yes, we are good to go. You go ahead, I'm going to be away for a few days. starship.paint (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Done.[38] — JFG talk 09:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@JFG: - sorry, just came to my mind and I had to ask, when you wrote tightened enforcement of immigration law, were you referring to the increased policing at the border? Anything else? starship.paint (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
In addition to the reinforcement of ICE and CBP patrolling with military support, the administration has attempted to crack down on the so-called "catch and release" loopholes such as the 20-day limit on detention of children. As of September 2019, the Flores Agreement was still subject to legal battles.[39] — JFG talk 07:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it was premature to place this in the article, reversing such an extensively discussed prior consensus. The two of you have done good work here, but I for one did not comment yet because I expected you to present a proposal to the large group that participated in the past discussion(s). @JFG: please undo your replacement of the longstanding prior consensus and make a proposal that we can all sign of on with comments and/or a poll. Perhaps we can have some community input ready by the time @Starship.paint: returns next week. SPECIFICO talk 13:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Getting started looking at some better sources and more NPOV statement of Trump's border/immigration policy. This article has downplayed the Trump/Sessions strategy of terror and atrocities on the border for the purpose of scaring asylum-seekers back to whence they journeyed. But now we have a growing body of tertiary sourced analyis that should obviate a rehash of past denials. Here are a few references to consider for revisions to the article text and ultimately to the lead, while we await the return of JFG and Starhip.paint.
1
2
3
4
5
SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The recent peer review highlighted that the former consensus text #23 from 2018 was obsolete, as it focused only on the travel bans, and failed to mention other salient points of Trump's immigration policy. Several editors have worked on an appropriate replacement; this thread documents the outcome of this process. Given that nobody else has commented in 5 days, it does not look that there is much appetite for further discussion at this stage, so I have reinstated the edit that you had reverted. Feel free to suggest further improvements in a new thread. — JFG talk 05:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@JFG:- You wrote, The recent peer review highlighted that the former consensus text #23 from 2018 was obsolete. That is not what the peer review said at all. And it certainly did not suggest you violate the 24-hour BRD, as you've just done. Peer review suggested an update to reflect article content. In my comment, after reopening the thread, I menteioned one point on which the proposed new lead inadequately reflects the article text. I also provided several references that better represent the weight of tertiary sources on the subject, in order that we can improve and better cite the article text as well. And as I reminded you above, @Starship.paint: is away until tomorrow. Your reinstatement of your edit was premature, and I hope you will do the right thing and undo today's edits and await a broader discussion with Starship and others when he returns. There were 40+ editors involved in the previous discussion of the border atrocities and other immigration topics. It's not credible to claim that the discussion is closed when two editors refresh without seeking the assent of interested parties. There is no rush to change consensus text. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I would be against any change that removed Trump's disgusting "Muslim ban". -- Scjessey (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Another specific problem with JFG's text: Trump's immigration was not "stricter" -- it was harsh at best, and "enforcement" was not the goal. In fact it was designed, according to Trump and Sessions, to terrorize would-be asylum-seekers to turn back the imaginary invading caravan Trump pounded day after day. The word "stricter" does not reflect the current article text, and it certainly does not reflect NPOV weight of RS discussions of Trump's actions. He caged children away from their families. Lost track of the parents in many cases, and oversaw the deaths of numerous children, sparking an international outcry that led him -- in a relatively rare move -- to reverse course. JFG's "stricter immigration enforcement" doesn't quite convey the facts or current article text or previous talk page discussion of the atrocities. I hope we do not suggest to our readers that the egregious displays of brutality and terror constitute "strict enforcement". JFG, please review the RfC on article content, here as well as the tertiary sources I provided above. SPECIFICO talk 23:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
A first-pass relatively quick update of the article text and lead would be to conform the brief description and sourcing of Trump's immigration stances to those aspects of our detailed articles that deal specifically with his bio-significant statements and actions. We can refer to Immigration policy of Donald Trump, Trump administration family separation policy, and Trump administration migrant detentions. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
All three articles you mention are linked from the new lead-section text. — JFG talk 07:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Then we should be careful not to misrepresent them in the lead. Simple. SPECIFICO talk 15:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @SPECIFICO: - I'm back, could you propose what you want? Same for Scjessey? Meanwhile, JFG - could you answer my question from 10:50, 17 June 2020? Thanks. starship.paint (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
    Done — JFG talk 07:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Per your request, let's just try to get these three points right and NPOV. The current wording equivocates or misguides our readers on these points:

  1. The lead text should not suggest that Trump merely "increased" family separations. His action was fundamentally qualitatively different and he reversed it when it was condemned worldwide.
  2. He and Sessions described "zero-tolerance" as a tactic to scare asylum-seekers away from the USA. That is not "stricter enforcement" and should not be misrepresented as such. Other actions like sending the military, repairing the border fencing, etc. likewise did not enhance enforcement, they provided cable TV news fodder.
  3. Per @Scjessey: the "Muslim ban" and tweaks should not be referenced as bans from countries when their essence was the "Muslim ban" narrative, reluctantly tweaked until it was legal.

Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your patience. I hope to have time to get to it later today or tomorrow, just to change the tone away from what I've said I feel is Trump Administration spin, which change I think can be acccomplished with a few edits to the text you and JFG wrote. It's too bad that version is still in the article. SPECIFICO talk 13:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    @SPECIFICO: - just a reminder that we can't go further in the lede than what the body of this article is. starship.paint (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Right, although as I've said, editors who have the time should be conforming the article text to the narrative in our standalone immigration article (which you've contributed to). My concern is that JFG's text frankly uses language that does not reflect either the article text or the more thoroughly edited and cited Immigration article. We also have Scjessey's view to include and others. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Revitalizing fascism discussion

Prior discussions regarding the allegations that Donald Trump is a fascist or holds fascist tendencies arrived at some sort of consensus that it wouldn't be entirely appropriate to describe Trump as such, namely because his politics up until then hasn't resulted in a discernible death toll or some other definitional nuance. Recent developments regarding the George Floyd protests and his response has challenged that caution, with some outlets calling Trump's fascist qualities "undeniable." Some relevant links. Trump has also taken up the position of being decidedly anti-anti-fascist, as documented here and by other sources. These new factors strengthen the case for including that Donald Trump has been appropriately likened to fascists, or is fascist, or is otherwise a sympathizer to fascism. Mewnst (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I think readers of this article (and frankly any BLP article) are better served with less use of labels like "fascist". It is enough to draw material from reliable sources that document Trump's fascist behaviors and let readers draw their own conclusions and apply their own labels. For example, the article explains and documents Trump's many lies in their appropriate weight, but it does not label him as a liar. This is a far better approach. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Using the term "fascist" is already done on articles concerning Hindutva, and other political entities and ideologies that have varying levels of real-life representation in politics. Is it fair to point out "ultranationalism, racial supremacy, populism, authoritarianism, nativism, xenophobia and opposition to immigration, as well as opposition to liberal democracy" in India and among Hindutva leaders, but refuse to do so on articles concerning United States politicians? It puzzles me how using the term "fascist" is entirely neutral in the case of Indian politics but is avoided like the plague anywhere close to the Anglosphere. I concede that calling Trump a fascist outright is not the most properly informative means to go about this. At the very least, the mention of fascism in regards to his politics should be done (which is currently not the case, as there is no mention). Mewnst (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Mewnst It was more that as BLP folks wanted to avoid fringe name-calling WP:LABEL items. You can search the archives for previous discussions on this. Factually it doesn’t fit as he is not advocating the violent overthrow of elections and anti-capitalist advocating nationalising production, so it seems just relatively seldom said and “to the right of Adolph Hitler” comes off as just a full nutter. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
It sounds reasonable to include some mention of fascism with regards to trump as he aspires to that..he is not a true fascist but a figurehead for who I do not know..he does not have the power he thinks he has or wants..this is still a democracy although limited 2600:1702:2340:9470:2CA0:429A:C82E:3C6A (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Factually, it fits. In addition to the fascist qualities mentioned in an earlier comment, there is a long, documented history of anti-democratic sentiment (and action) on the part of Donald Trump, from dishonest statements about voter fraud to dishonest statements about vote-by-mail to hiring an official previously convicted of voting suppression in a position directly related to the electoral process. If your only response to claiming that the fascism label does not fit is to bring up the one item in a laundry list that is not seen in Trump I have to challenge your neutrality here. In wording within the article, the label "fascist" for Trump should be avoided because of that policy. That does not mean any mention of fascism is to be erased, as it would be entirely neutral to mention his ideological similarity to neo-fascism that has been pointed out by scores of scholars over the past three and a half years. Mewnst (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Markbassett, please read up on the meaning of "fascist". At any rate, there's very little well-sourced content about any head of state in office that could be a BLP violation. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Not going to happen We can save us all a long and pointless discussion by just accepting this is not going to happen. It's not I necessarily disagree with the premise; I personally think Trump is very close to fascism but that's just my POV. For us to describe somebody as fascist, they or their party would have to use that label (as Mussolini did) or by universally considered a fascist. The label 'fascist' is almost exclusively used by political opponents of those who are labelling them, not for self-identification. As such, it qualifies as a slur. The fact that fractions of the far-left for decades has used 'fascist' to label moderate democratic centre-right parties has made the label practically useless. I don't doubt some semi-decent sources can be found that describe Trump as fascist (again, it's my own opinion as well) but that doesn't even come close to being enough as long as it is exclusively used by political opponents using it to discredit him. If Trump or the Republican Party start embracing the label, we can revisit this discussion. Until then, it's going nowhere. Jeppiz (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Mewnst, It's not going to happen, nor should it happen. Labels are problematic to begin with, and only get more problematic when politics are involved and the label is used as a derogatory statement. It is better to simply describe his actions and let the reader come to their conclusions. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
There are plenty of reliable sources on the topic. I understand that some editors may doubt academic consensus on a personal level, but we have to go by what the reliable sources say. And there are a litany of sources that support inclusion. I can really see no reason why this shouldn't be included. Mewnst (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Mewnst, The British online newspaper The Independent is "academic consensus"? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 13:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
There is an academic consensus that fascism is characterized “not just through the terror of police intimidation, but by denying and distorting information, by undermining systems of justice, by paralyzing the education system, and by spreading in a myriad subtle ways nostalgia for a world where order reigned, and where the security of a privileged few depends on the forced labor and the forced silence of the many.” Going by purely definitional standards, fascism is very relevant to Donald Trump's politics. The article already includes information regarding Donald Trump's history of alt-right association and racism. There have been criticisms of Trump's racially charged statements, white nationalist tendencies, anti-immigration, xenophobia, anti-anti-fascist actions that are all included in this article. Trump's likening to fascism is not a fringe position, as it has received plenty of press and much renewed interest beyond the first round of discourse in 2016. Editorializing these fascist tendencies by exclusion is against WP:NPOV. Mewnst (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Mewnst, What you're proposing requires quite a lot of synthesis and editorializing to end up where you want to go. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 16:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Setting aside whether to use the problematic label, there was an article today that related his actions to biographical personal traits. [40] SPECIFICO talk 01:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Please do not cite opinion columns. — JFG talk 07:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Cite? This is the talk page. It is a form of tertiary source that helps determine NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
He may be very against the whole antifa anti-fascist thing, but I don't think it would serve anyone well to label him as a fascist until he starts being referred as that by multiple sources. Keiiri (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

My God. Antifa is more fascist than almost any of the people they call fascist. Trump is in no way whatsoever fascist. Chaz was fascist, Trump is not. Mya Sato (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

That`s opinion..plenty of people called Lincoln a tyrant as well as Obama..doesn`t mean it`s true .. what we want is direct democracy with universal voter particicipation 2600:1702:2340:9470:E15A:2C5D:2047:A608 (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • comment: Several RS [41] [42] [43] [44] [45][46] have described Trump as "authoritarian" and "dictator" both of which are descriptors & synonyms for Fascism. Whether it is good or not good, media are reluctant to use words like "fascism" to describe American politicians and opt to describe 'fascist' American politicians as authoritarian, dictator, and will also point to their ties to neo-Nazi groups (as was the case in describing ousted GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa). Media also opt to use the word "misleading" instead of "lie." My point is, RS do write about Trump's 'fascist tendencies' -- they just use synonyms to describe Trump's fascism. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

DACA

I mentioned above that we should wait until the Supreme Court decision to mention Trump's attempt to halt the DACA program. Meanwhile the SC has ruled that the rescission process was not adequate, so DACA must remain in force.[47][48][49] What, if anything, should we say about these developments in the article text and in the lead section? — JFG talk 07:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

This should be part of a reconsideration of the body text immigration section, about which editors have recently expressed concerns. There also needs to be larger context that Trump has chosen to surround himself with ignorant, inexperienced, and incompetent individuals in the cabinet and White House circle. These policy defeats, sources tell us, are often the result of staff fearing to provide advice, feedback or expertise that would enable Trump to pursue his goals more effectively. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it is worth mentioning that Trump attempted to reverse DACA, but his executive order was nullified by the courts. I would keep it short though. TFD (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I support this: he sought to reverse DACA via exec order but the Supreme Court nullified it. If he tries again, we can mention that also. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Since he failed, nothing in the lead. Body is fine. starship.paint (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree: we need a couple sentences in the body, nothing in the lead for now. — JFG talk 15:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Support..it`s relevant...needs to be in the lead 2600:1702:2340:9470:75CF:F0D7:D27B:FDC9 (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Nothing or one-line as a bit non-BLP OFFTOPIC and relatively low WEIGHT compared to other topics. I think that’s more an item for the Presidency than here, but ... At most a single sentence here with the Supreme Court ruling as the second part. It is after all about something that didn’t happen and in the realm of things that did not happen this did not have ongoing coverage WEIGHT anywhere near the level of the collusion delusion or the impeachment theatre. In the realm of things that did happen, this is notably less WEIGHT than WWE, the wall, TPP or USMC trade deal, or pardon for Sheriff Arpaio. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
That Supreme Court ruling indeed has enough weight to merit a mention, albeit perhaps not in the lead. Keiiri (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree..it will probably be in there eventually 2600:1702:2340:9470:9A2:CFFD:AFB1:63A4 (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Politically, the decision was notable (regardless of whether it should be in the intro), but the decision itself was narrow and technical and had more to do with how to interpret the Administrative Procedures Act. Because of that, the focus shouldn't be on the SCOTUS decision itself but the effect of the decision on Trump's effort to end DACA. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Nicely said, it keeps the focus on the subject we're talking about. Keiiri (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Please repeat in English 2600:1702:2340:9470:9A2:CFFD:AFB1:63A4 (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
in English starship.paint (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
very funny..I have a legitimate gripe...the average person myself included and just so you know I`m educated has no idea what most of what`s posted here means 2600:1702:2340:9470:ACBA:5CDD:5E2:89D3 (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll try to explain more clearly: The SCOTUS did not rule on the merits of Trump's decision to undo DACA -- in other words, it did not say that Trump cannot undo it, and it did not say that DACA is legal (or illegal, for that matter). What they did say was that Trump was sloppy and did not properly follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when he undid it, meaning that he now has to repeat the process. The dissenting judges said that Trump did not violate the APA's provisions. In other words, it was more of a technical APA-interpretation case, rather than a DACA-legality case. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Going on a tangent, this case was very similar to the citizenship question case, Department of Commerce v. New York. The SCOTUS ruled it's legal to add the question, but that the Trump Administration was sloppy and didn't properly follow the APA when trying to add it. It said the Trump Administration could try again, but practically, there wasn't enough time to successfully do so. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Still no clue..would it kill you to relate some of this in plain English ? Again I have a legitimate issue with this..I understand there are rules for editing articles..which is one of the reasons I don`t do it...I don`t understand the process...I could probably decipher it if I had time but I don`t...the talk page is different..this should be accessible to all...I get the part about waiting for the Supreme court to make a decision..sounds like a good idea on the surface but as to the consequences I`m lost...I understand the part about trump not following procedure as to the point that it`s relevant and I`m not saying it isn`t I don`t know and I admit it..we may be on the same page with regard to this but I don't know and I admit it 2600:1702:2340:9470:E15A:2C5D:2047:A608 (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
2600, the Trump administration could have removed DACA legally. However, the way the Trump administration actually tried to remove DACA was judged by the Supreme Court to be illegal. Therefore, the Trump administration can still remove DACA if they do it in a way allowed by the law. The Supreme Court did not say that DACA is forever un-removable. This means that the battle for DACA isn't over. Got it? starship.paint (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Not really but whatever..I`m about done here anyway..no point to it 2600:1702:2340:9470:F550:EEC0:403A:CCE8 (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems the article has some neutrality issues

I really hate to say this but the article on Trump reads almost like it was a political ad showing Trump in a very favorite light. In my opinion it is no where close to neutral. TimeTravler777777 (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Vague statements about neutrality are not useful. If you can suggest any particular improvements to the article, please post them here. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
How unusual. Normally, people say this article is too anti-Trump. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Very true, such as this paragraph:
"Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist" Mya Sato (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Disagreed! 100 percent of the citations on this page were from liberal media sources known to have unfavorable bias towards Trump. No conservative news sources have been cited, nor have conservative views been expressed.

So, I agree there are neutrality issues. However, I believe it is due to the left wing bias on the page prevalent throughout. Raj208 (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't look for "conservative" sources or "liberal" sources. We look for reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2020

 Already done Already done at List of honors and awards received by Donald Trump. No need to duplicate that list here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

State or government honors and awards

References

  1. ^ Tangel, Andrew (August 28, 2017). "Thanks for Making Me a Kentucky Colonel. What Do I Do Now?". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 26, 2019.
  2. ^ "State Awards Issued by Georgian Presidents in 2003-2015". Institute for Development of Freedom of Information. May 10, 2016. Retrieved November 10, 2018.
  3. ^ Zurabashvili, Tornike (January 26, 2017). "Waiting for Misha's second coming". Open Democracy. Retrieved November 10, 2018.
  4. ^ "Saakashvili, Trump Unveil Tower Project, Praise Each Other". Civil Georgia. April 22, 2012. Retrieved November 11, 2018.
  5. ^ Wilts, Alexandra (May 20, 2017). "Donald Trump awarded with Saudi Arabia's highest civilian honour within hours of landing in the country". The Independent. Retrieved May 20, 2017.
  6. ^ "Military Medals of Saudi Arabia - Archives | King Saud". www.kingsaud.org. Retrieved 2018-04-22.
  7. ^ Afghanistan, 1TV. "Afghans in Logar award bravery medal to Trump". www.1tvnewsaf. Retrieved 2018-04-23.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ "Afghan province awards Trump bravery medal after tough talk on Pakistan". Stars and Stripes. Retrieved 2018-04-23.
  9. ^ "Afghans give Trump gold medal after he cut off military aid to Pakistan: Report". Washington Examiner. 2018-01-17. Retrieved 2018-04-23.
  10. ^ "Trump Awarded 'Bravery' Medal By Afghans For Pakistan Stance". RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty. Retrieved 2018-04-23.

Mention of coronavirus in lead, Take 3? Take 4? Take 5?

This RfC doesn't reach a consensus about whether to mention coronavirus in the lead of Trump's article. It also doesn't reach a consensus about what to say if we did mention it.—S Marshall T/C 20:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

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

A few weeks ago, we had an RfC about how Trump's response to the coronavirus should be mentioned in the lead, and it was closed as aborted, but with zero prejudice against future discussion. In particular, people wanted more options about how to mention it. Can we first a) reaffirm a consensus that coronavirus needs to be mentioned in this article, and then b) Get several (many as many as 10) different options? It's still gobsmacking to me that there's no mention of coronavirus in the lead, even though many less significant elements of his life and presidency are mentioned. pbp 00:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I believe, the RFC discussion had no consensus, not even that anything was needed. The close was

No consensus on any of the items listed/the "abort RfC" had a sizable showing. If people want to work towards a more refined list of options through the normal consensus building process and then start a new RfC quickly, that could work. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey: Support some mention of coronavirus in lead

Support
  1. pbp 00:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Certainly due in the lead. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Per comment below. This one should be a no brainer and I’m still scratching my head of how people can justify an oppose. Volunteer Marek 07:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. A genius said this is worse than Pearl Harbor or 9/11, therefore it is surely very important. This personally affects Trump, as he "seems intent on being the public face of the effort against what has become his most serious challenge". This is indeed "Donald Trump's chaotic coronavirus crisis", and the "world looks on in horror as Trump flails over pandemic". starship.paint (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Some sort of mention is necessary. The virus is the dominant story of 2020, and it's a dominant part of his presidency now. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  6. No question per WP:WEIGHT. Extremely important.Casprings (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  7. Support In November 2019, U.S. Intel warned Trump that coronavirus was spreading and "it could be a cataclysmic event" but Trump "ignored the clear warning signs, failed to follow established pandemic response protocols" which put all Americans in harms way [50].
    Donald Trump has made the Coronavirus a part of his biography, his legacy, because of Trump's willful inactions/actions, Trump's repeated untruthful statements about COVID19[51], Trump's sending of 18 Tons of U.S. Stockpiled PPE, ventilators, masks etc., to China on February 7 [52] despite being warned by his Adviser, Peter Navarro, in January that "that the coronavirus crisis could cost the United States trillions of dollars and put millions of Americans at risk of illness or death."[53], Trump's January 18 demands that HHS Secretary Azar not do massive testing because [54] "more testing might have led to more cases being discovered of coronavirus outbreak, and the president had made clear - the lower the numbers on coronavirus, the better for the president, the better for his potential reelection this fall." Trump ignoring Dr. Fauci and other medical experts and instead "pushed" U.S. governors force businesses to reopen[55] as coronavirus was spiking and "despite failing to achieve benchmarks laid out by the White House for when social distancing restrictions could be eased to ensure the public’s safety[56]. Yes, Trump has made Coronavirus a part of his biography, so naturally it belongs in the lead. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  8. Support as a defining issue worldwide, and Trump's actions have been central to the U.S. response. Whether that's effective is more complex, but the basic figures make this significant to Trump's presidency. . . dave souza, talk 15:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  9. Support as the pandemic is the most important worldwide event that happened during Trumps presidency, and the response has influenced how the pandemic influenced the USA. --Gerrit CUTEDH 13:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  10. Support This pandemic isn`t even close to being over..it will be in the LEAD eventually one way or the other..it`s just a question of time as will be the George Floyd protests 2600:1702:2340:9470:7103:703D:723F:1DC8 (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  11. Strong support per WP:WEIGHT. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. There is no rush to include things and we can wait. After all, Dr. Fauci said at first the estimates were 2 million now it's well under that, and he praised Trump's shutting down flights from China for that, among other reasons. There is no reason to include it at this point. Everything the media is writing now is conjecture. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. . Can't see as this topic is worthy of any mention in the lede of his life story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson no mention there either, or here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping there are plenty of places his actions regarding corona are well suited but the lede here is clearly not one of them. 18:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Govindaharihari (talk)
  4. Oppose a carte Blanche for undefined “something”. That’s had bad results before - until specific proposals are developed we just cannot tell whether ‘nothing’ is better. I think the last RFC observed there was no consensus but offered the thought for a more refined list. I’ve added a quote and link to the archive of what RFC I think is being referred to. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. The previous discussion was about how to mention the pandemic in the lead. It's pretty clear from the previous discussion and the few editors who have commented in this one so far that a consensus will not be reached any time soon. Secondly, we don't need to reaffirm a consensus that coronavirus needs to be mentioned in this article. That appears to be undisputed, judging by the five paragraphs in the "Coronavirus pandemic" section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. There is little lede-worthy that can be said in this article about the Covid-19 crisis. Trump's performance in this regard has been approximately par for the course, with some of his responses lauded as successful and some of his responses derided as failure. It is not inconceivable that further developments could bring about something that is lede-worthy. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    • some of his responses lauded as successful - That would be what in particular? Source? Please don't cite his own claim that his "China ban" was his great achievement. SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Trump's performance in this regard has been approximately par for the course [citation needed] starship.paint (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    User:Starship.paint - see BBC comparisons to other world leaders for example, or look at individual items such as travel bans like Politifact ”While the United States was not one of the first countries to impose restrictions against travel from China, nor was it late to do so relative to the actions of others," said Samantha Kiernan, a research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Rather, the United States acted around the same time that many other countries did.". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Markbassett: - no, you cannot just look at individual items for responding to a global health emergency. You can't just focus on the travel restriction on foreigners from China. The Associated Press wrote that from January 23 to February 22: key steps to prepare the nation for the coming pandemic were not taken. Life-saving medical equipment was not stockpiled. Travel largely continued unabated ... White House riven by rivalries and turnover was slow to act. Urgent warnings were ignored by a president consumed by his impeachment trial and intent on protecting a robust economy that he viewed as central to his reelection chances ... critical weeks lost before the president spoke to the nation on Feb. 26. Also, if you want to mention a BBC source, at least link it. starship.paint (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    User:Starship.paint oh not ‘just China’... feel free to add travel restrictions for Europe ahead of others, a timely and significant financial support, and a now-major and robust testing regime, Democrats largely not even attending the briefings because of that doomed impeachment distraction, and note “stockpile” in advance would have required a psychic foreknowledge that nobody had. I think it’s time you just note saying he did do “par for the course” is an OK view for Busstop to express. Over & out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    Markbassett - it's funny how you totally ignored what the Associated Press said: slow to act in favour of your own opinion. Here's more from the Associated Press [57]: the Trump administration squandered nearly two months that could have been used to bolster the federal stockpile of critically needed medical supplies and equipment. Here's the Guardian [58]: the U.S. dithered and procrastinated, became mired in chaos and confusion, was distracted by the individual whims of its leader, and is now confronted by a health emergency of daunting proportions, and is experiencing Trump’s failed leadership. Par for the course, you endorse. starship.paint (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    [59]: Nationally, the U.S. needs to be doing about 900,000 tests a day - but it's doing around half of that [60]. Travel back in time to 12 March. BBC says: [61] Relative to other countries dealing with coronavirus, the US has done only a handful of tests ... far fewer than 10,000 people have been tested - compared to 20,000 per day in South Korea.. starship.paint (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    User:Starship.paint *sigh* Don't be silly. You seem to be demanding "par for the course" prove 'absolutely everything must be perfect', including knowledge of things nobody knew at the time and foreknowledge of things to come. It's sad that you also ignored RS saying 'not slow' and the mix of highlights plus that there are normal items in the mix. You're just offering negatives, fine -- and sometimes imagined negatives, not fine -- and not admitting that there are valid positives or reasonable results in the mix. For example, please ignore wishful thinking and get real about what the testing performance level is -- just look at COVID-19_testing#Virus_testing_statistics_by_country and see that most of the world is doing little to no testing, the U.S. is the most tests by far of any nation listed, is robust in the most ways of testing and most advanced testing, and per capita is about typical for developed world right between the UK and Canada for example. Not that testing was really affected by President Trump - he seems to have favored testing and thought everyone could get tested despite the production realities there -- nor was he able to move it along much more than it was going to be anyway. Seems to me Busstop can reasonably say "par for the course", but your insistence that he not be allowed to express that view is what seems unreasonable here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Really? Trump's "response" has been almost universally vilified, according to around eleventy-billion sources. 100,000 dead Americans isn't "par for the course" in any stretch of the imagination. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    User:Scjessey actually, between whether world generally made mistakes versus whether there is actually ‘eleventy-billion’, it’s obvious Busstop is being the saner and more plausible...And the number of dead is sad but unavoidable — since very early a pandemic was viewed as likely unavoidable and what has since been learned about asymptomatic carriers and the actual earlier spread has only cemented that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    • This particular pandemic is unprecedented in modern times, Scjessey. Preventing "100,000 dead Americans" was beyond the abilities of the head of this country. Successes and failures vary by country around the globe but no head of state performed in any way other than "par for the course". This pandemic is unprecedented in modern times. "Preparation" for for the pandemic eclipses the time that Trump has been in office, falling within the auspices of previous presidents and statesmen. But you want to concoct wording for the lede of this article tying "100,000 dead Americans" to Trump? If so, I oppose that. Bus stop (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    • The Cuban missile crisis was unprecedented as well. Poof!
    • The article text describes specific actions and lapses that affected the course of the disease in the USA. That's what should be reflected in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  7. Oppose For now as ongoing. I would rather wait until the section in the article is more finished and pared down. Then see if it is fit for the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  8. Oppose – Still an ongoing story, and not specific to USA or Trump. Pandemic data from various countries shows similar outcomes regardless of specific measures taken. Can't single out Trump's responses from any other world leaders', unless we fall into the usual partisanship. — JFG talk 05:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  9. Oppose – Not specific Trump or any world leader for that matter. Not a result of any actions of Trump. Any praise or criticism of federal response is relative and an opinion and this article in general is already plagued with far too much opinion and misinformation as it is. — OnePercent talk 04:48, 09 May 2020 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Not Lede-worthy in this BIO article. An event in his life that he actually has very little control over. It seems that most of the 'support' crowd above want to slant the article with their opinions of Trump, and not discuss what is best for a bio article. One wonders how many mentions – and where they may be – are in the then president's article regarding the last, huge, and arguably equal, pandemic to reach the US back in 1918-1919? That would have been during the Woodrow Wilson presidency. Regards, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 14:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    Think you mean the American Flu, first observed in Kansas, so likely originated in the US rather than "reached". Don't see any evidence in that article that Woodrow Wilson had anything significant to do with it, it gets a brief mention in his bio but no indication he had the prominence of Trump in making matters worse; if you've got good sources you could improve these articles. (Later misnamed the Spanish flu, who says fake news is new?) . . . dave souza, talk 14:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  11. Oppose – COVID19 is not an issue singular to the current President. Also not enough time has passed in order to objectively determine the full scope of its effects relative to the rest of the world or even within the United States. This is meant to be a reference for verifiable facts, not a publishing board for the latest sensationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlas industry (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Wording proposals

  1. Trump was President during the coronavirus pandemic. pbp 00:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the way things are going the coronavirus may become the defining issue regarding his presidency 2600:1702:2340:9470:D130:91C3:39C5:9A14 (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support no brainer. Biggest crisis of the presidency so how in the world are you NOT going to mention it? Volunteer Marek 03:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
For the record, you guys are putting these !votes in the wrong section. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the proposed wording: would be a good start. Can be refined later as things progress. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Am I a joke to you? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek and K.e.coffman: - just for clarity's sake, can you also provide your vote in the section above? Thanks. starship.paint (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. That's like saying that FDR was president during the Great Depression and then leaving it at that. Also, past tense is premature. There is a good chance that another president will take over before the pandemic is over. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This says nothing. "Macron was president during the coronavirus pandemic." So what? This line of thought did not gather support in the recently-closed RfC (as proposal 2 there). — JFG talk 06:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Such a non-helpful, non-informative sentence should not be in the Lede. Regards, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 13:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
trump is president during the covid-19 virus not was..who is Macron ? he`s not president of the US..what does that have to do with anything ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:5495:F7A9:2143:A90B (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

The key points are that Trump failed to act on the early warnings from his administration's national intelligence and health officials, concentrating instead on the potential harm to stock market indices if he took bold action against the virus. We now have the Columbia University study that quantifies the results of his having neglected the dire threat. The study estimated that had social distancing been implemented even a single week earlier, 36,000 lives would have been saved. [62] [63]

A poll is only effective when there is a small number of alternatives. With, e.g. 10 choices, you'll have 2 !votes for each of them. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Going down the road of including speculation as to whether a decreased death toll would've been seen if action was taken earlier is a bad route powered by hindsight and ultimately WP:UNDUE. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, plus, it's up to the states to apply the rules, not the Federal government, as the NPR article even points out, it took several more days after Trump declared an emergency for the states to start implementing social distancing rules. To pin this all on Trump is pure falsehood and spin. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
"The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic on March 11 — an act that had been widely anticipated. Two days later, President Trump declared a national emergency in the U.S. But it took even longer for dozens of U.S. states to order social distancing and shut down business as usual." That's from the NPR article. I wonder if SPECIFICO is going to ask for Cuomo's lead to include coronavirus considering that most of the US dead is from NY and Cuomo is responsible for not closing down NY on time, or the fact that Pelosi told everyone to come down to Chinatown and enjoy shopping, etc. After all, we don't want to be biased in Wikipedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
The references to Chinese-American festivals and neighborhoods in connection with the importation of disease physically located in China 6000 miles away is a xenophobic deflection. I realize that you are not the one who originated this hateful and irrelevant nonsense, but please don't repeat it here. SPECIFICO talk 17:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Calling it 'xenophobic deflection' is malicious bias. The virus came from China. Chinese people traveled all over the world for an important holiday. 6000 miles is covered in one day of flying. They brought the virus with them. To think otherwise is to say somehow Chinese people traveling were somehow immune to the virus. It's a no-brainer.[ [User:disciple4lif | disciple4lif] ] Disciple4lif (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)disciple4lif
Unfortunately, DNA evidence has established that the virus was brought to American shores from Europe. What source tells you infected native Chinese travel around the world to San Francisco to eat Americanized Chop suey or dim sum and march with a dragon in the little Chinatown section of San Francisco? Source please. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Don't bring Pelosi or Cuomo into this. They're not the ones trying to pack churches in the middle of a pandemic. Pelosi went to Chinatown in February to try to stop anti-Asian racism caused by COVID-19. And you want to blame Cuomo for governing the state with JFK? This is Trump's page, stick with discussing Trump, the guy who sets the example by refusing to wear a mask (except in that one photo that most people didn't see). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
This article is not about Cuomo or Pelosi. Selecting the one sentence in the article that is not critical of the Trump administration's response is cherry-picking. BTW, Trump's repeated tweeted claims about Pelosi's February 24 visit to Chinatown were factchecked and found to be false. Besides, What was Trump doing in February and early March? Golfing, tweeting, and entertaining tightly packed crowds at campaign events in Colorado Springs, Feb 20; Las Vegas, Feb 21; North Charleston, S.C., Feb 28; Charlotte, N.C., March 2 (quote: I think it's very safe). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually the US was fairly timely in reaction to events. The U.S. was early with travel restrictions. The health screening started 17 January per CDC, and further restrictions including a China ban on 31 January. And it is States that control Stay-at-home, as re-emphasised by recent fussing about undoing stay-at-home. Also, this SPECULATION number seems a bit implausible - that between a third and half would not die. Three strikes against this one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
What is this "ban" of which you speak? Think you may be referring to what the source describes as action to "bar entry by most foreign nationals who had recently visited China and put some American travelers under a quarantine", thus ensuring a rush of travel from China to the U.S. by other Americans who were liable to bring the virus with them. . . . dave souza, talk 19:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
If social distancing had begun 2 weeks earlier, the study estimates one million cases and 54,000 deaths would have been prevented. In fact, social distancing was widely adopted in the wake of Trump's early March prime time oval office televised address to the nation, in which he made clear that he was not prepared to take decisive action. Reports tell us that the this aroused heightened public concern, especially in the most threatened locations, and that voluntary distancing and closure of businesses quickly followed Trump's disavowal of decisive Federal action. SPECIFICO talk 15:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
User:SPECIFICO That’s off the thread topic, because it’s just not a candidate for lead in this article. This just isn’t something President Trump controlled, is not BLP (his life choice or major event to him), plus that is SPECULATION, plus low WEIGHT, plus not a major part of the article so per WP:LEAD it doesn’t belong in lead. And the U.S was fairly timely so it’s rather unrealistic fantasy. Six strikes against it, not something for this thread. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Obama didn't control Bin Laden, but he killed him. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Less than ten words? Zero due to no candidate? Seems like a nothing. Just a sidenote that the length of any proposal seems should be nothing or little as DUE from article content seems little or nothing. A ‘Trump was President during’ (such as “addressed the 2019 Covid-19 pandemic”) is about the length justified, but that doesn’t seem like much. And that section of content seems just fragmented collection of separate tiny POV whinges so there’s not a big item obvious as candidate for lead coming from content. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari: Don’t know about Xi, but it should definitely be mentioned in BoJo’s article. That’s a problem over there, not sure why we should also make it over here. Volunteer Marek 07:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. It is just not something that requires mention in the lede of a political leaders life story, unless it defines them, it clearly doesn't in this or any other political leaders bio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel nothing there either or here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jair_Bolsonaro. Looking, reading all the other political leaders bios there is already a lot of very different style of content in this bios lede, no idea why but I don't support it and I don't support adding more of the same stuff also, as I have said before, there are plenty of places where it would be worthy of reporting but the lede of his bio is not one of them.Govindaharihari (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Govindaharihari: - the pages of other current world leaders might not be updated yet. In contrast we can look at historical U.S. presidents for a change. Some people in high places feel that this crisis is worse on the U.S. than the attack on Pearl Harbour or the 9/11 attack. Thus I looked at FDR and George W. Bush's BLP articles, well, the attacks are mentioned. starship.paint (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi there Star. I don't seem to get these ping things but I do sometimes check back. I see, yes other stuff exists I see. I still feel that it does not belong in this lede, that is just my interpretaion of wp:lede for a bio , what a bio lede should include. There are many more interested editors in this so I am sure a good consensus will arise here, regards. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Regards indeed, Govindaharihari. I hope you get this ping, at least. starship.paint (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The above "survey" is already a ridiculous mess, so I'm just going to restate what I said in the last discussion. I continue to think this is an appropriate text:

After initially downplaying the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, Trump created a task force to tackle the threat, began giving daily briefings on the American response, and signed the CARES Act rescue package.

It accurately summarizes in neutral language what the body of the article says. That's all it needs to do. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey is on the right track: if anything gets mentioned in the lead, it should be a brief summary of any factual actions that Trump took in response to the crisis. No speculation on what he could have/should have done instead. I'd suggest moving this to the "wording proposals" section above. — JFG talk 06:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
That is a straw man. Please review the article text. SPECIFICO talk 06:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm opposed to any inclusion of the coronavirus in Trump's lead as of now, but this proposed one is currently my preferred one if one is to be chosen in the following months. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • comment Because Trump ignored the advice from medical experts on the Coronavirus Task Force and Trump "began to undercut" the advice coming from the Task Force, [64] I would strike "to tackle the threat" and strike "on the American response" so it would read, "After initially downplaying the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, Trump created a task force and began giving daily briefings, and signed the CARES Act rescue package."
And maybe we could add, "Talk of cutting down Trump's daily briefings heated up after Trump suggested injecting disinfectant as a potential virus treatment."[65] -- or, maybe that part doesn't belong in the lead. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Opposed to that as too much, and for now think having nothing is best. It’s an ongoing item, only ‘big’ for about 10 weeks, so maybe TOOSOON and in a couple more months will be time to try this one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Nothing is not good enough..people are dying and you want to repress that ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:9A2:CFFD:AFB1:63A4 (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support this option, although "2020 coronavirus pandemic" should of course be changed to "COVID-19 pandemic" to mirror the pandemic page. I'm also not sure how necessary it is to mention the briefings, and I'd prefer that the CARES Act be described as an "economic stimulus package" rather than a "rescue package", which isn't as clear. So that leaves us with this:

    After initially downplaying the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump created a task force to tackle the threat and signed the CARES Act economic stimulus package.

{{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:28, 4 July 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.
  • @S Marshall: I believe this was a discussion, not an RfC. (As a courtesy link for anyone who wants it, discussion at ANRFC was here.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Mafia Ties

Is there a section in the article about trump`s ties to organized crime ? As a real estate developer in New York City it is naïve to believe there is no connection..it is common knowledge in the city you can`t pour a yard of concrete without a payoff..perhaps more to the point as Rodney Dangerfield so elegantly put it in Back to School with regard to long-term costs such as garbage 'Municipal solid waste ' removal .."I got news for you, it aint run by the Boy Scouts " 2600:1702:2340:9470:1444:DE4:6A2D:E1A5 (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources backing this up? "common knowledge in the city" is not enough to add something to Wikipedia. Denvercoder9 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Contact Sammy the Bull and get back to us: Gravano said in 1998, "I literally controlled Manhattan, literally. You want concrete poured in Manhattan? That was me. Tishman, Donald Trump, all these guys—they couldn't build a building without me." soibangla (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_119&oldid=1131527922"