Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 125

Archive 120

←

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

→

Archive 130

"until 1987"

None of the sources in the political career section or article state that Trump had been a Democrat from birth to 1987, just that he officially registered as a Republican in 1987. The politifact source doesn't list any political affiliation before 1987. --Steverci (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Steverci. I've removed it, couldn't find a single source that mentioned any party affiliation before 1987. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding deletions of medical journal addition

It goes without saying that Melanie is one of our most knowledgeable editors and as always I value her judgement. But I would like to discuss the delete of my Covig-19 pandemic section addition. By profession and my WP editing I am part of the medical profession, so I do possibly hold a bias on the importance of what the medical profession has to say about this presidency as we watch the deaths and other social consequences of this pandemic rise far above that of most other developed countries. IMO, since we have a section titled COVID-19 pandemic, should we not note what the medical community has to say about Trump's position? When the New England Journal of Medicine, widely believed to be the most prestigious medical journal in the world, speaks out for the first time in their over 200 years of existence, and the article has the signatures of every one of their editors, as happened only three times in their history, should not that be included in a section that has taken so many American lives, including according to their estimate, thousands more than it should have taken if he would have responded appropriately? Gandydancer (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Just so I am sure I am following correctly, this has to do with this revert right? PackMecEng (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this article is a biography of Trump, not an exploration of every political issue connected to Trump. Repeatedly, we feel the need to create a section about issue X because it happened under Trump's watch, and then the issue takes on a life of its own. We simply do not have the space for that kind of approach, and we need less detail about presidency-related content in this article. This should be taken to other articles for consideration, as MelanieN suggested. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a good fit for Presidency of Donald Trump. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't deserve its own section but should be included in the main COVID-19 section. Also, the COVID-19 section is too long. It should begin by saying that Trump's response was widely criticized, then summarize in one or two paragraphs what happened. TFD (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem too long and when I entered this here I felt it certainly was as important as all that other stuff. I think that Scjessey may be right to include it at the Trump presidency article (and shorten this section?). Gandydancer (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I felt it certainly was as important as all that other stuff. Exactly. See slippery slope. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

If this were a routine political endorsement, I would agree it does not belong in the bio article. But this and some of the other recent comments on his fitness for office are reflections on him personally and can be briefly mentioned in this article. SPECIFICO talk 23:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that it's worth considering that thought. The Scientific American, again a first in their almost 200 years of publishing, also put out an editorial condemning Trump and urging a vote for Biden.[1] They are, it seems, making political statements because they realize that there may still be time to turn around the damage done by Trump's anti-science policies but four more years and it may be too late. I returned to the Trump presidential article where I first did not put it because I didn't see where it would fit, but I still could not find a place to put it. I did tuck it somewhere but that article gets only around 300 hits a day and to me that seems almost a disgraceful thing to do considering the gravity of their decision to make political statements. Gandydancer (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Right, that confirms my past claims that material is put in this article because of its high visibility, not because it would belong here otherwise. That's a misuse of the encyclopedia in my view. If this article were being used appropriately, readers would soon enough learn to follow {{Main}} and {{Further}} hatnote links – as they are intended to be used – and your 300 hits would be higher. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. This article must reflect what is biographically significant to Donald Trump, rather than what might be important to the world he inhabits. Obviously there's going to be some overlap, but I would argue this article has many things that shouldn't really be here. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

reflections on him personally - I'd be more receptive to that argument if the people making it were interested in removing some of the content that does not meet that definition. Like most of the Foreign policy section, for starters. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes! In fact, I will make a proposal below. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Mandruss but it is true of many of our articles, not just this one. Everyone is this discussion is pretty well-seasoned to the ways of this place and is well aware of the reasons this tends to happen, which I won't get into right now. But back to the coronavirus problem... Again, I'm going to harp away at this: When our two most prestigious medical/science journals place the blame squarely on Trump for a large part of this hellish situation we find ourselves in, we need to highlight it in our encyclopedia as well, IMO. I fully agree that this article is not the place to get deeply into the virus information and that the section should be cut to only a short mention with a see also note. I'd like to see short mention of the two journals but am aware that others may not agree to that. I'd also like to see the (poorly named) Communication section from the U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic article split out to its own article as I believe that it contains most of the stuff we've got here. Gandydancer (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I not sure that this belongs here. Unsurprisingly, the NYTimes appears to say this Journal is laying ALL the blame on the Trump Administration, and while obstensively they may very well be doing so, the actual editorial published by the NE Journal of Medicine lays the blame at least partly in the hands of some Governors.[2] Also, oddly, I see nothing in the Journal paper examining the fact that while the US was slow in testing and is still slow in providing test results, the US has tested over a third of the population, a stat few other countries can claim and that of course will equate with MORE positives in all liklihood. I also see no examination that the death rate in the US is no worse than in the UK, France, Italy, Belgium and Spain, all first world nations with comparable medical capabilities to the US. Also dispute their reliance on Chinese figures as this has been disputed by many.[3]--MONGO (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that after reading the actual NEJM article, it is blaming leaders in general at the federal and state levels, not even mentioning the President a single time. Frankly, although we list The New York Times as a reliable source in http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, this an example of The New York Times not being a reliable source. The title of The New York Times article "In a First, New England Journal of Medicine Joins Never-Trumpers" is completely misleading. I think the right place to mention this would be in http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_New_England_Journal_of_Medicine or if it can be folded into an existing sentence in the Presidency of Donald Trump article that might also make sense. The Scientific American article endorsing Biden is another story, and I think that deserves to be mentioned in a new sentence here or the Presidency of Donald Trump article. Efcharisto (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@ MONGO I don't agree with any of your assessments but this is not the place to get into an argument about the NYT or the NEJM. Gandydancer (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@MONGO: - this line in the full editorial makes it clear that the main culprit is the federal government, not the governors: But whatever their competence, governors do not have the tools that Washington controls. Instead of using those tools, the federal government has undermined them. starship.paint (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• With apologies to those on this topic, I note that I recently added the endorsements of the NEJM and Scientific American to the "False Statements" section. I did not realize/did not note that the issue was under discussion here; my failing. I thought the endorsements by these reputable institutions provided support for the substantial disinformation and supported the final paragraph of the section regarding the weakening of liberal democracy. I let the community decide what to do about these recent edits; perhaps they were out of line. Bdushaw (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a particularly notable endorsement so it doesn't belong in this article at all. This barely rates as a news article, when there are thousands and thousands of news articles written about Donald Trump. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2020

Please change "In April 2020, USAID extended the PREDICT program for six months.[704][705]" (COVID-19 pandemic > Pandemic response program terminated) to "The program was then extended twice for six months; Pooja Jhunjhunwala, a USAID spokeswoman said — first to finish some analyses, then to help other countries fight Covid-19.".Gg100699 (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Gg100699 (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

References

 Done Mgasparin (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Amy Coney Barrett Appointment

In the lead, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are listed as Trump's appointments to the Supreme Court. Shouldn't we add ACB to the list now as well? NationalInterest16 (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

She hasn't been confirmed, as of the present, so, not yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

When she is, I think we should just say "three" and not name them in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Would there be any reason to just say "three" rather than naming all three? For example, President Obama's three nominations are named. I can't see length being an issue given that this lead isn't unusually long. Wouldn't anyone who is reading the article be interested to know who the justices are? NationalInterest16 (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Not in a biography lead, I think. In other articles, yes. SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not against including all three names in the lead, depending on space. Merrick Garland's nomination is a special case. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

There's no reason to name the justices in the lead. The names are not biographically significant. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

+1. Actually, I'd phrase that as "the names are not necessarily lead-worthy." ―Mandruss ☎ 21:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Although the method of selection, from the Federalist Society farm system of meticulously groomed judges, might be the significant fact about his approach to the many many lifetime appointments he has made. SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Republican-controlled Senate trial

Re: [4]

I am not BRD-reverting because of potential 1RR vio.

The first five words of the nutshell at WP:NPOV: "Articles must not take sides". How does it NOT take a side to refer to the Republican-controlled trial without also referring to the Democrat-controlled impeachment?

If the lead as written is inconsistent with the body (I'm not convinced that it is), then the body should change, not the lead.

It's my understanding that there is wide agreement the lead should refer to both or neither, and that "neither" is preferred for the sake of brevity. A similar edit was reverted without other objection on 1 Sep.[5] ―Mandruss ☎ 05:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss, @Jack Upland: The statement in question is not about the whole impeachment, it is only about the trial where acquittal occurred. It is not "taking a side" at all and was purely factual. Also I wrote "Republican-controlled Senate" not "Republican-controlled trial", the latter phrasing is semantically faulty and alters the statement in a subtle way that helps your objection. I do see your point however and would be fine with "Democratic-controlled" House of Representative being added to the previous sentence as a compromise. In hindsight, I wish I had added that with my first edit.

Regardless of all that, the sentence "The Senate acquitted him of both charges in February 2020.", which might appear innocuous at-first-glance, I believe is not neutral. When reading it, people will assume it was a fair trial and the verdict was fair because being fair is a tacit assumption people make when reading about trials. It is that hidden assumption that turns it from simply a statement into a misleading enthymeme that helps people draw an unstated conclusion that Trump was innocent. THAT is bias. There was nothing normal about this trial although the lead might give readers that impression if they know nothing beforehand. With the sole exception of Romney, deliberation and voting was completely political. The statement, as it currently stands, appears downplay the contentious of the verdict as if saying "nothing more to see here folks" and ties everything up with a nice bow. But the rest of the article down below shows this is not the case and votes were along party lines and contentious and there's more to the story than simply a normal trial. The lead should not give the reader a false summary of the rest of the article. I believe my edit made the article MORE neutral, not less.

I've suggested one possible way to make my edit acceptable to you. I'm open to other rewordings that address my concerns. Or counterarguments. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

people will assume it was a fair trial To imply that it was not a fair trial is to take a side, and I'm fairly certain most Republicans would disagree. unstated conclusion that Trump was innocent To imply that Trump was not innocent is to take a side, and I'm fairly certain most Republicans would disagree. That I would strongly disagree with Republicans on both counts is entirely beside the point. I'm also fairly certain this is the whole point of NPOV's nutshell. I could accept referring to "both" but my preference is "neither" for brevity, as I said – leads are often forced to omit salient points because of very limited space. I will never accept referring to one without the other, not in this wikilife. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you're overthinking it. Your wording is not neutral, and it is unnecessary detail for the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Is the photo op section really necessary?

Is the photo op section really necessary? This article is excessively long, and the photo op was a trivial moment in a presidency filled with similarly shocking events. There are ten sections in the Presidency section, and the photo op is one of them. Is it really notable enough to be worth that much space? Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 23:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

In theory it is not really that significant, but as it has its own article I think you will find it difficult to get consensus to remove. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that it has its own article is a good reason to trim it dramatically and leave the hatnote. Pretty much the same concept as the foreign policy discussion above, but let's not bite off too much at one time. I suggest waiting until that plays out. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The consensus of editors is that this incident was the equivalent of Kristallnacht and the USA is now living under a fascist regime because Trump held a Bible upside down.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

He didn’t hold the Bible upside down, and the incident wouldn’t have been notable if he hadn’t used federal forces to clear peaceful and lawful protesters from the area to get to the church. Of course, with his new steroid-powered superpowers he could have just jumped over the protesters. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: - your judgment in the above comment is way off the mark. The photo op was terrible not because the Bible was upside down, but because peaceful protesters were forcefully cleared for it. starship.paint (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused: was the Bible upside down or not?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC

You really need to take a look at the cites and/or the WP article one of these days (there are pictures and videos, including the three videos in this article). No, it wasn't upside down but there were "reports" on Twitter that it was and then Fox News (repeat: FOX NEWS) reported it and Trump complained about Fox News reporting on it. And whether right side up, upside down, sideways, or flat on his head, it doesn't matter. What's important is how he got there. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm assuming the upside-down bible part wasn't deleted before, as it's nowhere in sight in this article or the main one on the incident, but just a simple google search on it shows it's false, but has been used in some misinformation efforts. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

By walking on his hands?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It does seem strange to have this as its own sub-section as if it as at the same level as "Foreign policy" or "Impeachment". Efcharisto (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree it is incongruous.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It makes sense to me - extremely notable event. Feoffer (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is saying it is not notable, they are saying in comparison to the rest of the lengthy article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• It wasn't a trivial moment. He used federal forces to clear peaceful and lawful protesters from the area for an exercise in vanity. That's what dictators do. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff felt the need to apologize for his involvement. That's not trivial, either. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  Nobody is saying it is solely trivial, they are saying in comparison to the rest of the lengthy article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I would oppose outright deletion, since a fair number of sources describe this as a "legacy-defining" moment for his presidency. For what it's worth, what occurred at Lafayette Square continues to reverberate today (see, in the last few days, this and this). Academics have commented upon this in terms of a rupture in civilian-military relations and risks to the apolitical perception of the military. Those are not unimportant things. I'm fine with demoting the section to not be top-level on par with impeachment etc. (I do agree that is odd). Neutrality^talk 16:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't support removing it, it's definitely notable. I'm gonna move it to the protests subsection, as part of the BRD. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 21:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Those are relatively unimportant things compared to most of the rest of the article's content. One line in a section about protests generally would be enough. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Thanoscar21: The Lafayette Square events and images (thanks, Neutrality for providing the link) don’t belong in the "Protests" section (which only deals with the massive protests after Trump’s election). It isn’t notable because there were protests, it is notable because of what the administration did. That’s what makes the event an outlier in this article, so far. It wasn’t the only authoritarian move by Trump (the pardons, the corruption, dismantling federal regulations, attempting to usurp legislative authority). We could basically stick most of the subsections of "Domestic policies" in a section called "Authoritarian actions" and add the Lafayette Square event to that. For now, I'm moving it into domestic policies where it isn't any more out of place than the pardons of his friends, supporters, and business associates/acquaintances. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

"Trimming", Thanoscar21, really, and hiding it in two separate edits ([6], [7])? The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, later apologized for accompanying Trump on the walk and thereby "creat[ing] the perception of the military involved in domestic politics". The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff apologizing for being duped by his Commander in Chief into being there is trivia to be trimmed while Trump's claim that he is an ally of peaceful protesters is somehow a vital piece of information? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

References

I've put off moving the section until I can revert the "trim" (1RR). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, from my POV, it's a biography about him, not his generals. From your POV, now, I see how it could be whitewashing. Why don't we just make a controversies section and pack a lot of stuff in there? Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 17:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanoscar21 In Trump's case there would be very little left outside that section, and I'm not a fan of controversies sections in general. We usually wind up arguing not just about the content per se, but also about whether it's controversial or not. I moved the item (with the general :) from Protests into the Domestic policies section, after Pardons. Most editors who contributed to this discussion were concerned with its level, so that's no longer a problem. It's three weeks until the election, and I concur with Mandruss to hold off until then. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This certainly doesn't belong under "Protests". I think the problem with this is that you need a lot of words to explain the impact that this had on some people. That's why it's better dealt with by an article. This article could refer to the "Lafayette Square incident" (or something like that) and then link to that article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I consider the six sentences the bare minimum coverage for this top article. The subsection also has a link to the long main article (Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but you're obviously wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Not obvious to me, obviously. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

True. Are you really saying that that day was the most important in Trump's life???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't said that. This article names every single authoritarian strongman he has praised, with Wikilink and a separate cite for every one of them, so mentioning his own authoritarian actions seems perfectly appropriate to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

If it's not the most important day in his life, how can you justify giving it more words than any other day?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Remove / trim to one or two sentences. Although it generated headlines, it's irrelevant fluff in the grand scheme of things, and certainly not one of the top ten subdivisions of his presidency.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• I completely agree with Amakuru. This incident should be reduced to a couple of sentences, and should not have its own subsection. The main article should be linked via a wikilink in the content. Some of the discussion here is way over the top; come on, folks, this was not dictatorship. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverted for "Too much information, and too many citations."

Changing a 2-citation to a 3-citation bundle is hardly WP:OVERCITE as many other pages (Barack Obama's and Mitt Romney's to name a few) have them. WP:OVERCITE is also an essay not a guideline, so that reason seems to be invalid. As for too much information, the article is certainly long, but adding Netanyahu to the list is hardly any difference. The Gallup poll addition is also significant; the Bush reference could be removed for length, but the poll is certainly equally if not more informative than the 2020 Pew poll. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I would be fine with replacing the poll with another poll, but we don't need to include every single other leader Trump has said he likes with its own citation. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I can replace the Pew one with the Gallup one, I guess. The sources I added indicate that Netanyahu and Trump's relationship is significantly closer than that of the other leaders mentioned. To omit him seems rather dishonest, and is only adding 2 words to the already 20,000 or so word count of the article. If he should replace someone, it should at least be with Xi Jinping, since Trump has called him enemy in 2019 (something not he or even Pompeo has called Egypt's Sisi or Turkey's Erdogan), accused Xi of a disinformation attack on the US and Europe, and is currently blaming/trying to punish Beijing for the pandemic. Multiple outlets have also suggested his "friendship" with Xi is linked to his trade deal, it's certainly not as notable as the other entries of strongmen.

I think the rewording of the January Gallup source on his career best approval rating, with the addition of the USA Today source is also significant, as it helps understand why his ratings have been so stable. It can be trimmed of course, but keeping the section as it is now with the implication that 40% of Americans are propaganda-consuming Trump cultists is not very productive, even if it's an understandable idea. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I would not oppose replacing Xi Jinping with Benjamin Netanyahu. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm also planning to change the China section from "on other occasions..." to "Trump has also juxtaposed verbal attacks on China with praise of Xi Jinping, which has been attributed to trade war negotiations with the leader.. After initially praising China for its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, he began a campaign of criticism over its response starting in March." Donkey Hot-day (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Followup: Lafayette Square protester removal

We currently have a whole subsection in the Domestic policy section called "Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op." It includes two paragraphs and three external videos. It’s a level 4 heading which puts it in the same class as large issues like "Economy and trade", "Energy and climate", and "Health care". Per the discussion above all this seems like massive overkill. At the same time, we don’t have anything at all about the racial justice protests that have been such a huge thing this year. Maybe we should create a subsection about the Black Lives Matter protests, and make this Lafayette Square thing into a paragraph in that subsection. We could call the subsection "Social justice protests". Or maybe there is some better place for it. But I do think we should reduce our coverage about this incident and subsume it into a larger topic. Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I've now trimmed and merged the subsection per that discussion. Protests regarding specifically racial justice probably only warrant a couple of lines in this article but are very adequately described in much detail in other articles. As it relates to Donald Trump, this is another issue that has risen and promptly disappeared from significant public interest. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

As discussed before, that merge places the subsection under "Protests", which deals with protests at the time of the election, and outside of the "Presidency" section, which is clearly wrong. It refers to actions he took as President. And that solution has already been rejected in the discussion above. (And why a new discussion?) The Black Lives Matter protests were triggered by the killing of George Floyd by the Minneapolis police — not essentially a federal issue. I think the problem with the Lafayette Square incident is that it can't be summed up simply, without including context and reactions. I think we should drop it entirely as it had no major consequences--Jack Upland (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

not essentially a federal issue - as if being a federal issue would automatically qualify something for this Trump biography. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

No one said it did. It's just the protests weren't generally against the Trump administration. This is no an article about everything that has happened during the Trump presidency.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I forgot which side of that debate you're on. Retracted. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The subsection included protests that happened during Trump's presidency as well as protests before. This issue might warrant moving the Protests subsection, and I was surprised to see that the section was not in "Public profile". Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I tend to think, as MelanieN suggested, that protests should be dealt with in context. I think a section about "Protests" that included any protest against Donald Trump for any reason at any time would be confusing and not very meaningful. The current section could confuse a reader into thinking the Lafayette Square protests were protests against the 2016 election. There is no indication in the text what the protests were about, for that matter there is no indication why Trump went to the church and held up a Bible (right way up).--Jack Upland (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the paragraph to clarify this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I am OK with the current version as updated by Onetwothreeip. It is in the "protests" section, which I think is appropriate, and it includes a mention of the George Floyd protests (which I agree were not primarily about Trump, although they were a major theme of the news in his final year in office, and they did provoke a lot of reaction from him along "law and order" themes). This "protests" section follows immediately AFTER the section "Election to the presidency" and includes protests that followed his election, so this is an appropriate placement IMO. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not OK with it. (MelanieN, there was a discussion less than a week ago, why start a new one? You don't seem to have read the Protests section which is about the protests in 2016 and 2017.) The importance of the event wasn't that there was a protest, it was the government's response to it (and General Milley's later apology). I don't see a consensus to add this event to the Protests section. 16:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) IMO it isn't even important what the reason for the protest was. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Structure

The Manual of Style says, In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order (MOS:BLPCHRONO). I understand this is often honoured in the breach, but I think the structure of this article could be improved. Someone who has no familiarity with Trump's life might have a lot of trouble following what happened. For example:

• "Political career" generally deals with his political career before he became President, but also includes the 2020 campaign and a miscellaneous selection of protests which occurred during his presidency.
• "Business career" includes "Conflicts of interest" which relates to his presidency.
• "Public profile" generally deals with his presidency, but has some other things thrown in, for example under "Popular culture".--Jack Upland (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

There is little point in messing with the structure of the article until maybe 30-40% of it is removed per WP:SS. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

"Messing"? It's already a mess.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Summary style for Foreign policy

I believe the Foreign Policy section needs to be dramatically reduced as part of an overall strategy of sensible reduction. The vast majority of it is "important" in that it is well covered in reliable sources, but almost none of it is biographically significant to Donald Trump when taken in the context of his entire life. We have an excellent article at Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration that includes most, if not all the relevant material already, and we link to it. We do not need to duplicate its content here. The parts that are significant to Trump's presidency are ALSO properly covered in Presidency of Donald Trump. So my proposal, in a nutshell, is this:

• Keep the first paragraph of the section's introduction.
• Delete everything else in the section entirely, taking care to make sure its content is in either Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, Presidency of Donald Trump, or both.

I'm sure you will all agree this is pretty radical, but I would argue it fully embraces what the summary style guideline is trying to achieve, which this rather unwieldy article really needs. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The suggestion makes sense; there have been other recent edits adopting this strategy. Be careful of the citations, of course, that none deleted are used elsewhere. It would be nice to try to retain all the "See Also" links in the revision, perhaps a table or, dare I say it, a list. Might be appropriate to retain a brief discussion of Trump's views on NATO. Bdushaw (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Note that the lead will also likely have to be revised/reduced as well, since it is meant to reflect the content of the article body. Bdushaw (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You're right, and that should reduce paragraph 4 by about 30%. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Okey dokey. I am up to my eyeballs with stuff today and tomorrow, but I might be able to look into it on Sunday. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

To those who are working on cutting the article now -- Are you sure you're not making the same mistake that started the last round of cutting, confusing code lentgth for word count. Are you sure it's the article text and not reference templates that are the bulk of the bit count? I'm concerned about cutting material that relates to Trump the man, his personal style and unique approaches to governance. Those facts are widely noted and relate to his biography much more than a recitation of dates and events, e.g. the wrestling stuff that I was recently removed without apparent objection. Love letters w. Kim, caging dark skinned infants, etc. is noteworthy description of Trump the man, regardless of whether these events also related to US governance and policy. And by the way, the latter is by no means clear. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Multiple sections of this article need to be given a summary treatment. Right now this article reads as if both Trump-lovers and Trump-haters have spent months trying to include every single piece of information in this article which is inappropriate. The reason this article is so long as it stands is because people threw summary style out the window. The parent article should have general summary information, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article - this is not happening here. There is absolutely no reason that section on foreign policy with its own article should have any detail on the policy - it should summarize the foreign policy succinctly without getting into specifics. Another quote: Sometimes editors will add details to a summary section without adding those facts to the more detailed article. To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section - this has happened here so much that it's insane. Everyone wants "their wording" or "their facts" in this article - and others don't challenge them on it enough. I commend any attempt to return the sections of this page to summary style by anyone and encourage new additions to this page to be heavily scrutinized to determine if they are in line with summary style or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Well said. I do not think the problem is necessarily with Trump-lovers and Trump-haters though, but people obsessed with including every little bit of news. Me I do enjoy Wikipedia, but I am aware WikiNews is a separate project. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Well said. With a bit more support, maybe we can get this article fixed by around the time that it doesn't matter much anymore. On the bright side, maybe we'll learn something and avoid making the same mistake with his successor's BLP. Or maybe not. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: "Are you sure you're not making the same mistake that started the last round of cutting, confusing code length for word count." Actually, my motivation has absolutely nothing to do with article length or word count. It is entirely to do with the fact that almost none of the foreign policy section is biographically significant. It is significant to America. It is significant to the world. It is significant according to reliable sources. But it is not significant when trying to summarize Trump's entire life. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This is the point we were trying to make with #Current consensus #37. That failed for two reasons:

• Editors didn't understand what was meant by "summary-level". When that was clarified, too late, the feeling was "That's not what I supported."
• Certain broad areas like foreign policy "have a lasting impact on his [...] long-term presidential legacy", so once that condition was met editors felt they had a green light to include anything they wanted in those areas. That was not the intent of the proposal, either. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to have one paragraph, but I don't think that the existing first paragraph is any good for this purpose. I find it hard to accept that Trump's foreign policy is not at all biographically significant. We need a summary of what he's done. I think the size of the article is due to the fact that it was already large, and then, since he's been president, editors have added as much news as they can. And it's the Trump haters who are mostly to blame. I don't think any Trump lover has had any impact on this article, except for a brief rant on the Talk page. It's editors who think they've found a smoking gun and need to reveal it to the world.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: This is both plain wrong and unnecessarily divisive. It's true of EVERY biography of a particularly notable individual that editors will tend to bloat it. Frankly, assigning blame in the way that you have is a violation of the editing restrictions we have here. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I've got a perfect right to identify what I think is the editing problem here. The Lafayette Square incident is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, the first sentence is not a reasonable characterization of his statements or actions, and its sources are from long before the actions in office that have defined his approach to foreign affairs. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate and support Scjessey's intention - this section can and should be streamlined. But foreign policy is a central part of any presidency (especially because US presidents have much more leeway there than in other policy areas), and Trump's presidency is the most important part of this article. Reducing the section to just one paragraph would mean that this topic area is not given its due weight. Recall also that per WP:SUMMARY, this article needs to be able to stand on its own as a self-contained unit.

One good approach to separating the wheat from the chaff in this section would be to distinguish things that Trump said from things that he actually did, and reduce coverage of the former. To take one example from the "ISIS, Syria, and Turkey" subsection, Trump's offensive comments about the Kurds (e.g. "suggested some of them were worse than ISIS" etc.), while notable, are less important than his decision to actually abandon them as US allies, with lasting geopolitical consequences.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

That is the sort of reasoning that has produced the article's chronic size problem, and its advocates have proven unable to otherwise get the size under control despite years of discussion about it. See #Historical file size and bear in mind that readable prose size – now at 121% of the suggested maximum after a number of days of fairly aggressive trimming – is likely always roughly proportional to file size. There would be no reason to believe this will be different this time around. So we're relaxing conventional thinking in this case and allowing in new ideas. We believe the concept of "standing on its own" can mean whatever one wants it to mean – even now, much is omitted – and we think it can mean stand on its own with far less detail about foreign policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It's unclear to me what "sort of reasoning" this is referring to precisely. I take you at your word that there have been past discussions about this article that you have found difficult and frustrating, but I would appreciate not being blamed for previous debates that I was not part of. Again, I agree that inconsequential details in this section can and should be reduced. And above I already made some concrete suggestions on how to achieve that, which I haven't yet seen a response to.

It also appears that you are conflating process and outcome here. If your point is that incremental reductions risk too much being thwarted by reverts, and prefer to proceed using something like a section-wise TNT, then that's a reasonable discussion to have. But anyone who argues that this article should not be subjected to existing content policies and guidelines like WP:NPOV, WP:SUMMARY etc., or that these should be amended with exceptions like "unless the article is about a sitting US president that is more than 20% above the recommended article size" will need to get consensus for such a policy change first. And yes, promoting the highly unusual (cf. below) view that Donald Trump's impact on US foreign policy was a negligible part of his presidency, by re-weighting this article according to that POV, would violate WP:NPOV. NPOV does not "mean whatever one wants it to mean"; rather, it has always been understood that its requirements on weighting and balance apply on the level of each individual article too. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

If your point is that incremental reductions risk too much being thwarted by reverts - No, my point is that incremental reductions have proven ineffective at keeping the article to a reasonable size, mostly because most of the article's editors are very reactive to daily headlines, turning a biography into a news summary, instead of slowing down, stepping back, and taking a longer view. Every x incremental reduction is followed by 2x new content. This fact is readily apparent in the #Historical file size graph, and it is not going to be substantially changed by further incremental reductions. Your interpretation of PAGs differs from mine, and I've found it unproductive to debate unproveable interpretations. I stand by my position and I expect you will do the same. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I had made a very concrete proposal above on how to substantially reduce this section's size by taking a longer view and addressing WP:NOTNEWS issues. It would be great if you could engage with that proposal instead of nebulously accusing me of a wrong "sort of reasoning".

Every x incremental reduction is followed by 2x new content. This fact is readily apparent ... - Even granting some rhetorical exaggeration, this is plainly wrong. Three months ago, the "Foreign policy" section had around 2430 words, two months ago, it was around 2709 words. One month ago it was down to around 2027 words, following incremental reductions by MrX (which including removing some longstanding content). Contrary to your theory, today the section is still just around 2131 words. I think you need to reexamine your assumptions about process.

Collaborating on Wikipedia is all about interpreting policies and guidelines. If, at some point during such a conversation, one finds oneself unable to formulate good arguments supporting one's own interpretation, that might be a good moment to step back and reconsider whether one is really still in alignment with the respective policies and guidelines. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the article overall, not the foreign policy section alone, as clearly evident in my reference to the graph, which is about the article overall, not the foreign policy section alone. The graph clearly shows that surgical trimming efforts have been ineffective at controlling article size, which is the larger and more important issue here in my view. As you seem less interested in hearing me than in lecturing me, I'll bow out of this subthread now. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware that your graph is about the entire article. (And thank you for making it; it is useful information.) But if one wants to understand the effect of individual interventions (such as Mrx's September 7 trimmings) and make inferential claims (every A is followed by B...), it's more instructive to focus on the corresponding section instead. An approach that has been found to work within one section could then be extended to the entire article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me that, to proceed with minimal disruption, the place to start with the proposed section revision is to first develop and agree on the first 2-3 summary paragraphs, even allowing for some temporary redundancy. With that in place, subsequent sections could be more easily deleted. Such a summary may not be easy - I've been thinking about how we have to boil down/reduce large amounts of text to simple summaries for the lead, essentially synthesizing a lot of material to a single statement. When that happens it, of necessity, looks bad for Trump and gets some blowback. Such reduction is a gray area of Wikipedia policy - one gray area is the selection and organization of material, another area is this one, the reduction of substantial text down to a summary statement; both gray areas are ripe for POV to sneak in, however well intentioned an editor may be. It suggests that the best citations to look for are those that support such broad statements or summaries. For a summary of this section, Trump's stances on NATO, Iran, Climate/Paris Accords, and China stand out as worth a mention, perhaps in the context of his general approach of undoing everything of his predecessor. ...and we're already on the slippery slope... Bdushaw (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

e.g. Trump's Obama obsession drives his foreign policy Bdushaw (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@HaeB: "But foreign policy is a central part of any presidency" So what? This is the article about Trump, not his presidency. Besides, it is domestic policy (stock market, tax cuts, healthcare, civil unrest, COVID) that has dominated this particular presidency, not foreign policy. All we need is one paragraph. We can spend a bit of time crafting that paragraph, but all the rest of it can go. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems you either overlooked or deliberately chose not to quote the rest of the sentence: "But foreign policy is a central part of any presidency (especially because US presidents have much more leeway there than in other policy areas), and Trump's presidency is the most important part of this article."

Your claim that foreign policy was just an insignificant part of Trump's presidency seems to be a highly questionable personal POV. This might be a good moment to recall that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and that we have to avoid a US-centric bias even in articles about US topics. What's more, even US-based sources have frequently emphasized the historic impact of Trump's actions on the United States' standing in the world, and on international order in general. See e.g. this Politico overview from just a few days ago, or [8] ("shattered a 70-year consensus").

Again, I too am in favor of reducing unnecessary detail in this section. But reducing this article's coverage of Trump's foreign policy actions to the same amount of space as his involvement in "All County Building Supply & Maintenance Corp." (i.e. one paragraph) would be a serious NPOV violation.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This proposed reduction goes too far. The biography of a man who is (or was) president needs information about his presidency. I also agree, that in the US President has great power and influence outside the USA, arguably more than inside it. The USA is a federal system, and the states control much of domestic policy. At the same time, the president has to negotiate with Congress in order to get his agenda across. The president cannot just murder a man in Florida, but he or she can despatch a drone to Yemen. Trump's foreign policy saw him stride the international stage, confronting nuclear-armed North Korea, for example. People in the future will want to hear about this, when reading a biography of the man. Reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion we need to accept a big article. If there are technical problems, then cut it in half, as discussed. But cutting foreign policy to one paragraph will satisfy very few people, and I don't think it will last. Any one of us could produce a shorter article, but together we will fail. We should stop trying to do the impossible.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I also think there is an assumption that Trump will lose. Well, maybe. I think many editors here have a Biden hope. But that — probably — won't mean the end of Trump's life. There might be lawsuits. He might produce more books. There will probably be more revelations about his presidency — and they might not all be good! Then we will have a section on his death and then his legacy. Probably. Unless he's like Enoch. So there is no way we can stop the noisy tidal wave of news that flows about the Don. It is an illusion that November will necessarily mark the end of the article. Some editors may wish to bathe in this November Nirvana, but I have to sound a note of warning. It's not over, and it might not be close to being over...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: "But cutting foreign policy to one paragraph..." Have you read WP:SS? By shifting foreign policy entirely to the sub article and leaving only a summary, we are actually giving more room to an important topic without burdening what should be a focused biography. And hopefully, this would be just the first of many such moves. And again, you are equating the importance of foreign policy to the presidency to importance of foreign policy to Donald Trump. The two are not equal. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you might need to read WP:SS more thoroughly yourself, e.g. these parts:

• "Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit" with regard to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This includes WP:PROPORTION, contrary to the "shifting foreign policy entirely to the sub article" logic above.
• "Where an article has lots of subtopics with their own articles, remember that the sections of the parent article need to be appropriately balanced."

you are equating the importance of foreign policy to the presidency to importance of foreign policy to Donald Trump - this seems to be a strawman; Jack Upland's second comment had specifically emphasized the relevance of non-presidency aspects to Trump's biography.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

To inform this discussion with some objective data, I took a quick look at the length of the foreign policy sections in the articles about all US presidents from the last half century:

Article section	Length (ca.)
Richard Nixon#Foreign policy	2728 words
Gerald Ford#Foreign policy	1976 words
Jimmy Carter#Foreign policy	2293 words
George H. W. Bush#Foreign affairs	1588 words
Bill Clinton#Military and foreign affairs	1782 words
George W. Bush#Foreign policy	3326 words
Barack Obama#Foreign policy	3034 words
Donald Trump#Foreign policy (current version)	2030 words
Donald Trump#Foreign policy (Scjessey's proposal)	71 words

(I left out Ronald Reagan for now, as the foreign policy content is spread across several sections in that article, but it's way over 2000 words as well.)

While precedent is of course not policy, this list illustrates that the assumption underlying the proposal, namely that the foreign policy work of US presidents should be regarded as almost entirely irrelevant to their biographies, is an extraordinary claim and needs further evidence before we can base content decisions on it. Furthermore, while it shouldn't be taken as an argument against removing material that is determined to be irrelevant, it's worth being aware that Donald Trump#Foreign policy already has below average size.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think it is reasonable to look at other presidential bios as a guide. (It would be interesting to know how much words they spend on non-presidential life. From my observation, a fair bit.) Based on that the proposed cut seems extremely unreasonable.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

No it is not reasonable to look at other presidents who did not lead high-profile and very controversial lives before becoming president. For example Obama was largely unknown before he ran for president – at 22 years younger than Trump was when he announced. This point has been made over and over at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. There's been a lot of unexpected pushback from my proposal after some initial support. It is clear to me that much of that pushback is coming from editors focused on how the article portrays Trump ("this bad thing he did must stay in!" and "this good thing he did must stay in!"), rather than editors more concerned with the Wikipedia project as a whole. That's disappointing. I think it would best if we put this trimming on the back burner until an election result has been announced. It will be much easier to do it then. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@HaeB, Mandruss, Jack Upland, and Scjessey: We should absolutely action the 71-word proposal with a consensus here, but we can also do this in a WP:TNT way and add content again. If we divide the word count of foreign policy sections for presidents who had two terms in office by two, we would then find the section for Donald Trump to be the largest, and that's with foreign policy not being a defining characteristic of this presidency compared to some others. So for those who are concerned that 71 words is too few but are willing to see that we need to dramatically reduce the size of this article, we can move to 71 words and then come to agreements about what should be included additionally. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what that means.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2020

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. To: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 46th and current president of the United States. =) 2407:7000:8C21:9394:B064:212A:C763:1A40 (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

No. Trump is the 45th president. 44th was Obama, 43rd W. Bush ... so on. Math checks out. Crboyer (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 and the use of "minimized"

The verb "minimize" has two different definitions based on context:

1) reduce (something, especially something unwanted or unpleasant) to the smallest possible amount or degree. 2) represent or estimate at less than the true value or importance.

In the sentence: "Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored..."

The word "minimized" should be replaced with an unambiguous word, such as: "downplayed", "underplayed", or "understated" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperlight (talk • contribs) 18:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a very good point. "Downplayed" is probably the way to go, because the word was used in the Trump/Woodward tapes. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with "downplayed". HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he even used the word himself. [9] O3000 (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

"Downplayed" is still too informal for this article. I propose "disregarded", as it's far more specific. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That's significantly different meaning, being passive. It doesn't speak to his public statements, which are the main point of the phrase. See Synonyms for minimize for other ideas. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, he's been anything but passive. But, we're "rounding the corner" on a day that hit a high in new cases. O3000 (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

"Disregarded" includes both active and passive concerns, but I would propose "actively disregarded" as more specific and neutral if editors believe it is important to highlight active involvement. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC

• Minimize has three definitions. Merriam-Webster's definition #2 is "to underestimate intentionally, // minimizing losses in our own forces while maximizing those of the enemy. I'd suggest "trivialize" or "denied" (less dangerous than flu). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• "Downplayed" sounds okay to me, but I don't think "minimized" is all that unclear in context. "Refused to acknowledge" might be another possible wording if we want something stronger. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• "Support minimized" - all in all, I think "minimized" is clear, given the context. "Refused to acknowledge" or "disregarded" imply he just ignored the issue, whereas he actively "argued the threat was not significant" (using quotes to suggest alternate, lengthy but more precise wording). Recall "it will all be gone by April", etc. Bdushaw (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support downplayed, since we have the man using the word himself. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd support downplayed as well - it seemed at first to be an informal word, but searching just now brings up no indication that this usage is informal. The man himself used it so... Bdushaw (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic response and the deaths of al-Baghdadi and Soleimani

The COVID-19 section for his presidency has no mention of the fact that he cut travel from most of China; it just says that he was "[initially] slow to address the spread of the disease, initially dismissing the imminent threat and ignoring calls for action from government health experts and Secretary Azar." So maybe, after that sentence, add something along the lines of this: However, Trump did restrict travel into the U.S from China in late January, and place many American travelers in quarantine.

References

This way, it adds what he initially did about the pandemic, apart from downplaying it. Also, there is no mention of him killing that a-hole terrorist in the entire ARTICLE; for comparison, there's a mention of Obama killing that other a-hole terrorist in the lede.

So is there going to be any mention of those? The current version of it is clearly biased towards liberals. Sure, he's a controversial figure among pretty much everyone, but he has accomplished good things that should at least be listed. Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

There was such a mention of initial immigration restriction until recently - From the 23 August version of the article: On January 31, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar announced a partial ban on non-Americans traveling to the U.S. from China, effective February 2.[643][644]. Not sure why it was trimmed out. It could be complicated - this is a biography of Trump, not the Trump administration/presidency, there perhaps was skepticism that this restriction would be at all effective, etc. Bdushaw (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but even then, there still isn't a mention of Trump killing al-Baghdadi or Soleimani; at least those be added. --Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Soleimani is mentioned in Donald Trump#Iran. I don't know why al-Baghdadi isn't mentioned in the page, but he indeed isn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's a proposal for him killing al-Baghdadi: Trump led the successful operation that led to the death of the terrorist al-Baghdadi. Hurricanehuron33 18:36, October 19 2020 (UTC)

Considering President Obama's lede has the deaths of bin Laden and the suspected Yemeni operative; there is an argument that al-Baghdadi and Soleimani's killings should also be in the lede for Trump. JLo-Watson (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you mean "ordered the killing of..." not "led the successful..." SPECIFICO talk 13:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes thats better and less biased Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You simply cannot decide what needs to be included and what needs to be excluded from the article based on what happens in an entirely different article. Criteria for inclusion should be based largely on its significance to the subject and the level of coverage in reliable sources. The death of Osama bin Laden was hugely consequential to Obama and his presidency, but the deaths of al-Baghdadi and Soleimani are nowhere near as significant to Trump, because there are other events in Trump's life than have effectively "drowned out" their importance. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but he still got a terrorist killed? It doesn't have to be in the lede, but it really should be in the article! Just because he's not celebrating with a royal ball doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned. Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I've restored a mention of the China travel ban in the opening paragraph of the COVID-19 section and the citation. I can't recall why it was removed - those that object can remove it again, while stating the justification. (And I agree with Scjessey - its rarely a good argument to be comparing with what other articles are doing.) Bdushaw (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

In substantive epidemiological terms, there was nothing resembling a "China travel ban", and the virus entered the US for Europe. The China thing is an empty Trump talking point, pounded by repetition, signifying nothing. NPOV says to omit it, except as deflection and posturing. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It should be removed from the lead. Just because he said it over and over does not make it noteworthy for an overview. Please read this AP article: [10] Per the article: "Dozens of countries took similar steps to control travel from hot spots before or around the same time the U.S. did. ::The U.S. restrictions that took effect Feb. 2 continued to allow travel to the U.S. from China’s Hong Kong and Macao territories over the past five months. The Associated Press reported that more than 8,000 Chinese and foreign nationals based in those territories entered the U.S. in the first three months after the travel restrictions were imposed. Additionally, more than 27,000 Americans returned from mainland China in the first month after the restrictions took effect. U.S. officials lost track of more than 1,600 of them who were supposed to be monitored for virus exposure." Gandydancer (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The China travel ban was never in the lead. I'll remove the China travel ban from the article, per SPECIFICO. I agree the act amounted to very little, as I recall at the time health officials/critics saying that it would have little to no effect as a pandemic mitigation. As regular readers of these Talk pages know, the point is regularly raised, so I look forward to the ongoing complaints... Bdushaw (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Bdushaw. (BTW, I obviously do not contribute much to most of these Trump articles but I do watch most of them and consequently this is neither the first nor the last time I will make mistakes that make me look stupid and such...though it is embarrassing, for sure.) Gandydancer (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Effectively making it look like he did nothing to stop, or even TRY to stop the spread of COVID-19. Might as well close this discussion, since it seems like you just want to make it more biased towards liberals. Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI, there have been no "liberals" spotted in the US since late 2000. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

What I wrote: "Effectively making it look like he did nothing to stop, or even TRY to stop the spread of COVID-19. Might as well close this discussion, since it seems like you just want to make it more biased towards liberals."

What you cared about: "liberals."

Am I the only one who sees this bias? Because that's disappointing if so. I'm trying to keep an neutral point of view here, but you're trying to protect the clear as day bias; really?

First, you removed what Trump did to stop the spread of the virus

Second, you're outright REFUSING to add the fact that he killed a terrorist, a terrorist, into that actual article? I can't be the only one to notice this.

Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the rest of your suggestions were also rebutted. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

In this excessively lengthy article, more often than not the (lack of) importance of facts is balanced against the text required to explain the facts. In the China/travel thing we could include that statement, but NPOV also requires that we also say that, according to available sources, such policies had little impact, were disputed as effective by health experts at the time, and despite that became a major talking point by Trump (etc, etc). So we make a judgement call, more often than not, to leave stuff out. On any given issue, there may be black and there may be white - NPOV suggests we should write that as gray, but sometimes, particularly in articles such as this, the available, reliable sources say that the issue is in fact white. So we must write white. Any editor is able to make a relevant statement, argue for its importance/relevance, and, particularly, give substantive citations to support the statement and its importance. There have been many accusations this article is biased (and equally many rebuttals of those) but such accusations are, more often than not, not accompanied by the relevant, supported facts. Hence the frequent short shrift of such suggestions. Bdushaw (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: mention of Donald J. Trump's company called THC China Development (owned by Trump International Hotels Management, another company that needs a Wikipedia article). Source 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not, unless you demonstrate that this has DUE weight and is in accordance with Consensus #37. Mgasparin (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Consensus 48 question

Regarding current consensus item 48, there was an RFC that confirmed something should be added to the lead and later a discussion regarding the wording which Rosguill recently closed. After which Sdkb updated the wording here to say a specific wording had consensus. The question is does that wording have consensus and thus require a new consensus to change or can it be changed via normal editing? My read of the later closed discussion based on the first sentence of the close, While no single option drew a clear consensus here, is it can be changed through normal editing and does not require a new consensus. This is related to Mandruss's revert of Wikieditor19920 here citing consensus for a specific wording. Thoughts? PackMecEng (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. @Mandruss: reverts my common-sense change noting that the subject was criticized for something and converts those criticisms into statements of fact, while the historical record here has not settled. This is not compliant with POV and precisely the type of wording that should be avoided. I would question if Mandruss was referring to those discussions linked above as consensus, which they are clearly not, or something else entirely. If so, providing that "consensus" would be helpful. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think that in this situation, it's fair game to change through normal editing, but in the event of a dispute, the wording that I closed in favor of should be treated as the status quo ante. So, reverting here should count against Mandruss's daily revert quota, but in the event of a protracted dispute the version they are reverting in favor of should be left up while the dispute is being resolved. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the one thing that we can say is that there was no consensus on wording. That said, we should stick with the less problematic version, not base our decisions on who hit the flagpole first. Clearly there is a consensus among contemporary sources that has been critical of the article subject on COVID-19, but I think it's odd to restate those criticisms as fact while the matter is still ongoing. Frankly, the status quo would probably be leave it out of the lead until we've actually settled on wording. The next RfC should've been to propose specific wording once consensus was established to cover it in the lead, to avoid exactly these kinds of situations, where disagreements are playing themselves out over edits to the article. That can still be an option here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

My close was made taking into account that a parallel discussion found a consensus to include relevant content, which I mentioned and linked in the closing statement. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• I was careful when I added the current consensus item not to explicitly state that a specific wording gained consensus, since that was not in the closes that Rosguill and Awilley made. However, I do read in their closes (and the underlying discussions) consensus on the general gist of the mention. Because of that, I included It should not be significantly altered without prior consensus. when I originally added the consensus item (it was removed by Mandruss as redundant, not out of disagreement). The operative word here is significantly: I would consider it okay to attempt small tweaks without prior discussion, but not more fundamental alterations. Wikieditor19920's modification is in the significant category, in my view, since it switches from stating in Wikipedia's voice that the response was slow to an attributed statement that the response was criticized by others for being slow. Also, I do think that the extraordinary length of the discussions that led to the status quo wording needs to be considered, since per WP:CONLEVEL, widespread discussion about an issue should not be usurped by a much smaller one (a bold edit being a discussion of one). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I would disagree that my changes are "significant." It conveys the same exact sentiment and information, and merely attributes it to a consensus of reliable sources. Attribution does not change the meaning of a sentence. If changes that do not significantly alter the meaning or information conveyed are deemed "significant' and therefore unacceptable in your view, then what's really being said is "there is no consensus for this sentence, but no one's allowed to change it other than moving a comma or period." I don't see how that is consistent with typical views of consensus, but obviously there's more for us to discuss here re: content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Your change removes the endlessly discussed fact,, supported by article text, that he was "slow". Yes it was a significant change. Mandruss has witnessed all the work on this, and did not revert without good reason. SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920's change was a significant change to wording that was obtained after a 5-month discussion and a formal RfC; the argument for the change was an unconvincing "Shorten this". The changed phrasing removed a significant element concerning Trump's contradicting health authorities and introduced "weasel words". Each element of the existing statement is supported by reliable sources and the content of the article. There is consensus in the RfC, the Discussion of this phrasing and elsewhere on this Talk page to avoid "weasel words". The argument is that the matter is not settled and ongoing, but that argument is inconsistent with the text body, which is well-supported by reliable sources. Bdushaw (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking further at the WP:Consensus policy, a relevant passage is this one: Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing. That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. We could try to parse whether or not the closes represent enough of a resolution to count, but I think the more WP:NOTBURO/WP:COMMONSENSE way to go about it is to just acknowledge that, for a sentence that has been this contested/discussed, the best way to propose significant changes is through discussion first. Anyone is welcome to start that discussion in a new thread below (and doing so might help keep this meta-discussion more on topic). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: You are suggesting that the matter was closed. It wasn't. And I have presented my justifications for the change here.

I also did not remove "slow." I changed "slow" to "did not respond quickly enough." Those are synonymous with each other. SPECIFICO, I saw good reason to change it to make the text clearer, and add attribution. Please frame your critiques so as not to frame anything you disagree with as totally meritless.

"Weasel words" are those where no source is provided anywhere in the article. "It has been criticized" or "critics have said" is perfectly appropriate in the lead where attribution is provided in the article body. See MOS:LEAD.

How about we move on from these procedural arguments, because 1) there was clearly no settled consensus on wording, and 2) "status quo" is not policy, WP:ONUS is policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: I agree that we ought to try to move beyond procedural arguments. The path is basically the same regardless: the change was reverted (or will be by someone else if Mandruss's revert is judged invalid), so it will need discussion. The topic for this thread is the procedural question, so if you want to continue pursuing the change, you can do that by opening a new thread in which you lay out your case. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The procedural argument is this: 1) there is no consensus on wording, 2) "status quo" or "my preferred version" is not policy or consensus, and 3) editors are allowed to make changes to the article so long as they continue to discuss them on the talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

So my takeaway from this is the RFC had consensus to include something but specifically declined to state what. Then the second discussion essentially closed no consensus so the status quo was left. Given that the current wording is not considered "clearly established" for the purposes of a 1RR exception per the DS for this page, since the provision consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion is not met. I think the wording in the current consensus section should be updated to reflect that. Also since the wording change was challenged a discussion should be opened to see a path forward on it. PackMecEng (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The list entry rests on two uninvolved closures, and, since its language is in dispute, it's up to the two closers, Awilley and Rosguill, to decide how the list entry should read. (We allow others to write the list entries because the list is a local thing and not widely understood, a closer's job is already very difficult, and that practice has rarely created a problem; otherwise it might make sense for the closers to always write the entries.) This dispute can only be resolved by Awilley and Rosguill, and the opinions of the rest of us are largely irrelevant here, procedurally speaking. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The established text has consensus per WP:CONSENSUS. It doesn't get a 1RR exemption, but that is a less important issue. We can't be imposing on the two Admins to make that overriding content decision, ex post. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: My close (23 August) found a consensus that something about Covid-19 appear in the Lead, but didn't endorse any particular wording. Rosguill's close (1 October) didn't find a clear consensus among the proposed options, but went with "option 3" which had received the most support and had been stable in the article for a month prior to the close AFAICT. Their close ends with, "Further changes to how COVID-19 is mentioned in the lead can be suggested in a future discussion." In my opinion that stops short of requiring us to list a specific wording in the header that can only be changed by another RfC, but then I'm a bit biased that way. I believe our normal editorial processes (bold edits combined with discussion) are a far superior means of tweaking/refining/polishing wording than holding a series of RfCs. ~Awilley (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Awilley: So how would you write the list entry? Alternatively, would you opine that there is not enough consensus here to warrant a list entry? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: You need to stop reverting what is an obvious NPOV problem and suggesting there is conensus where there is none. With contentious criticisms -- those likely to be challenged or disagreed with -- we always provide a brief in-text attribution, one that gives appropriate acknowledgement to the weight of the sources. My edit noted that the subject was "widely criticized for . . ." and the rest of the sentence is left unchanged. Your apparent position that we should simply put this as a bald statement of fact is not consistent with policy, and frankly the repeated efforts to revert this common-sense change is confusing.

The rest of the lead provides the same level of attribution for criticisms, and this is no different. It is possible and indeed necessary to tie an in-text attribution, neutrally, to even widespread and well-established critiques. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

But relatively few editors agree with you, so Mandruss did the right thing. SPECIFICO talk 02:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

There has hardly been any discussion on the merits, and some of them are frivolous, like the suggestion that an WP:INTEXT is "weasel words." See my comment above. We simply do not state charged or contentious criticisms as fact, and frankly, this shouldn't even be in the lead if it's going to be presented in this manner. The COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing. It is obviously an important issue now, but is updating this regularly based on the news cycle really in compliance with the long-view required in MOS:LEAD? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

suggesting there is conensus where there is none. I'm afraid you are missing the point. I'm not suggesting there is consensus, I'm suggesting that

• it's unclear how #48 should read or whether it should even exist.
• only the uninvolved closers can answer that question – not us.

You may well turn out to be correct, and if so #48 will be modified or removed. But #48 stood uncontested for 11 days and it's the best we have until this is resolved. These processes are in place for good reason, even though they are often inconvenient, and none of us gets to invoke NPOV as a process-overriding trump card at this article (despite its title). I'll ping Rosguill again in the hope of moving this along. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The current wording of 48 seems reasonable to me. It seems like that at this point the article would be better served by a discussion around the lead's wording and how to improve it, rather than getting bogged down in procedural concerns that will be made obsolete by both the discussion itself being underway and its eventual resolution. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thanks for the response. It is still not clear to me that you understand how this article has operated for years (since the inception of the consensus list in December 2016). If a consensus list entry specifies exact text, that text cannot be changed without prior consensus. We've even seen that rule applied to the change of a period to a semicolon; prior consensus was required. It seems to me this has worked relatively well overall, as compared to the alternatives which are not without their serious shortcomings, and it also seems to me based on years of observation that most of the article's regulars agree. Ergo, if there is not sufficient consensus for such a strict rule to be applied to the current text, we have to change #48 accordingly. If the consensus is not for exact text, the exact text can and should be removed from #48. Are you unable to work within that framework? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss:, I understand that. My take is that at this point, alternative wording for the lead has been suggested, it has been contested by other editors, and the next thing to do is discuss it. In hindsight, yes, I should have implemented my close as part of the consensus list or at least left clearer guidelines on how to handle it. At this point, however, regular BRD covers what needs to happen next. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Direct answers are hard to come by these days. I'm at a loss to translate the above into what should happen to the consensus list now, so I'm backing away from trying to facilitate a resolution here. Do what you will, my friends. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This is consistent with my view, stated above, that the DS exemption is really not very important. There is clearly established consensus text, so any changes will need to demonstrate new current consensus here on talk. SPECIFICO talk 17:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Note: PackMecEng has slightly modified the current consensus item, from The wording that resulted from extensive discussions is... to There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is.... This shouldn't really change anything in practice, since per BRD, the proposed change still needs to be discussed before it can overturn the status quo. I agree with Rosguill above that we've had plenty enough discussion on procedure at this point; let's please consider this matter resolved and focus on the actual content questions at hand. If this thread continues drawing comments, someone uninvolved should hat it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Sdkb: The consensus list should list consensuses, nothing else. Its purpose is to define and document what requires prior consensus and what can be reverted without counting against 1RR. Therefore the status quo text is not relevant to the list, and I'll remove that soon unless there is some cogent explanation for its existence in the list. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  I have no issue either way. If it is meant to define hard consensus for the purposes of 1RR exemption then so be it. PackMecEng (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: I can understand the rationale you're articulating, but please remember that WP:IAR is policy. The practical effect of removing most of item 48 would be to give license/encouragement to those who feel that their own ideas about what the COVID-19 sentence should be matter so much more than months of discussion that it's not even worth consulting talk before changing it. That's not what we want. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Sdkb: That's a good reason for a BRD revert. Not a good use of a consensus list entry. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Three major work?

In the "Political Career" section, in the "Political activities up to 2015" subsection, there is the sentence

"In 1987, Trump placed full-page advertisements in three major work"

The word "work" should be "newspapers"; this looks like an editing error.

I'd change it myself, but apparently and unsurprisingly there are some restrictions on who can edit this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andylatto (talk • contribs) 16:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- Valjean (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

" Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing." . He closed the US to China very early though, this doesn't read neutrally IMO.† Encyclopædius 16:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

That's what Trump said he did, but that is not what actually happened. He's using China as a crutch, but it turns out most of the spread was from Europe anyway. Even if that were not known at the time, dozens of other nations closed to China first, and it was only a "partial" closure that allowed many people in anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This wording has been extensively discussed and reflects an exhaustive consensus here (it also reflects reality). The claim that Trump "closed the US to China very early" is simply incorrect: 38 countries took action "before or at the same time the U.S. restrictions were put in place" (Washington Post fact checker: Trump’s claim that he imposed the first 'China ban'). The travel restrictions that were put into place were porous and ineffective. (FactCheck.org: "Trump's Snowballing China Travel Claim"; Washington Post: "Trump's 'early' travel 'bans' weren’t early, weren’t bans and didn’t work"). Neutrality^talk 21:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, not "very" early, agreed, but he did do it relatively early at a time when people were calling him xenophobic for doing it. I agree though on Europe being the main issue though. As long as this article is neutral...† Encyclopædius 11:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

"Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing." This sentence is in the 3rd paragraph of the article (the intro) and it's the only thing in the introduction that even mentions the coronavirus. The entire sentence is negative in nature. I'm not gonna say that it's not accurate, it may be, but it's giving undue weight (under WP:NPOV) to liberal leaning sources. How about we delete it and come up with something that is proportionate to what actually happened. Discuss some of the objective policies that happened through the government that involved the virus like the CARES Act, travel bans, etc. Lets do that instead of spilling out opinions from liberal leaning sources. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, NPOV means neutrally reporting on what the sources say, not trying to create a centrist narrative. Most sources, liberal or otherwise, acknowledge that Trump was slow to act on the virus. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

If we only mention stuff like "he reacted slowly" and the other negative things it is undue weight. We should be more concerned with talking about objective things not opinions. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The current lead sentence seems to me to provide the most important information on Trump's COVID response. The numbers back it up objectively. We could discuss adding the CARES Act or travel restrictions, or whatever else, unless it's been hashed to death already. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Both of those were hashed to death already in the archives. Neutrality^talk 21:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean they've been hashed to death? Trump signed cares act and ordered the travels, he did those things, no way around it. There's nothing to hash. We need to mention what actually he did and not spill out opinions from op-ed sources. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

From Consensus Item #48: link 1, link 2 The links archive a 5-month long discussion of an appropriate sentence for the lead and the exact wording and an RfC on the wording (which followed a similar, but inconclusive earlier Discussion). NPOV is never as simple as it may seem with Trump issues, e.g., the China travel ban. It was disputed at the time as effective, then show to be ineffective, though it became one of Trump's talking points. The issues all have nuances, knock-on effects, lack of effects, etc etc - a key pressure has been the need to reduce the text of this overly-long article (including the lead), such that honest, NPOV text becomes overly long on such simple things as Trump's China travel ban. Much discussed, with consensus to omit it from the lead. Other factors are to limit material to Trump himself in this biography, so much of the Presidential stuff is left to the article on that topic. (This article mentions Trump's signing the CARES act, though not in the lead.) Objecting to your characterization of the citations as "op-ed sources". Bdushaw (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2020

Could someone please change

Trump adopted his ghostwriter's phrase "truthful hyperbole" to describe his public speaking style.

to

Trump adopted his ghostwriter's phrase "truthful hyperbole" to describe his public speaking style.
This seems more accurate to me, since ghostwriter does not necessarily mean Tony Schwartz, but his (Trump's) ghostwriter does. User44654 (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done per WP:EASTEREGG. I reworded the sentence altogether to avoid that link because I think "his ghostwriter's" is a bad blue link too. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

User:User44654 - realized I forgot to ping when I completed this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Biographical significance

I reverted two edits that added content to the article on the basis they were not biographically significant enough to warrant inclusion. They have been talked up by the White House as consequential, but that is not the prevailing view in a preponderance of reliable sources. An argument could be made for one or two of the images, but I think there would need to be considerable discussion on the proposed content. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That level of detail about foreign policy belongs in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, probably not in Presidency of Donald Trump, definitely not here.

I see two images in that. This one would be the only image showing him wearing a mask, so it could stay. Another signing ceremony, not so much. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Dan De Luce, National security and global affairs reporter, NBC News: "The groundbreaking agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates has delivered a political lifeline to Israel's embattled prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and represents President Donald Trump's first genuine foreign policy success..."

Shmuel Rosner, senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute: "Whatever one might think about Trump’s other actions and overall personality, the president deserves to be seriously considered for a Nobel Peace Prize. And if not him, it should go to his adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner. They deserve it for achieving a breakthrough that eluded all of Trump’s predecessors, something no president before him has done: He successfully pushed for two back-to-back peace treaties between Israel and a pair of Arab nations — the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain — signed at the White House on Tuesday."

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

What's your point? Because you didn't actually make one there at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

My point is that Donald Trump's first genuine foreign policy success is biographically significant enough to be included. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Not really, no. These are trivial when compared to the foreign policy successes (or failures) of other presidents. Moreover, they basically have no impact on Trump's life except to maybe get another (proposed) Jewish settlement named after him. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Trivial? Are you joking? Joe Biden: "Today, Israel and the United Arab Emirates have taken a historic step to bridge the deep divides of the Middle East. The UAE’s offer to publicly recognize the State of Israel is a welcome, brave, and badly-needed act of statesmanship."

John Kerry: "The UAE, @MohamedBinZayed, and Amb. Al Otaiba deserve credit for their historic initiative to normalize relations with Israel in return for Israel foregoing annexation. This is a welcome step that builds on years of work to advance regional peace. For now, it saves the Trump Admin from the blunder of promoting West Bank annexation, and leaves open prospects for a final Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement based on a two state solution, realizing the ultimate vision of a lasting peace between Israel and all its neighbors."

David Ignatius, Associate Editor and Foreign Affairs columnist for The Washington Post: "Trump is right. The Israel-UAE agreement is a huge achievement…For once, Trump didn’t need to manufacture any superlatives."

The Jerusalem Post: "An overwhelming majority of both chambers of Congress have introduced resolutions in support of the Abraham Accords, which normalize ties between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain...Ninety-one senators co-sponsored a Senate version of the resolution, which congratulates the governments and people of Israel, the UAE and Bahrain on reaching historic agreements...A similar measure was introduced in the House by Eliot Engel (D-New York), Michael McCaul (R-Texas), Max Rose (D-New York) and Lee Zeldin (R-New York). This resolution, sponsored by 372 representatives, voices support for the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and the two Gulf states and calls on other Arab and Muslim countries to establish full relations with Israel."

Foreign Policy: "It’s a genuine historic accomplishment that’s unambiguously good for the United States. It will bolster Israel’s security and wellbeing, a longstanding vital interest of the United States. It will contribute to peace and stability in the broader Middle East, not only by indefinitely forestalling a potentially destabilizing unilateral assertion of Israeli sovereignty over parts of the West Bank, but by giving the UAE and other modernizing Gulf states full access to the region’s dominant military and intelligence power, and to its most technologically advanced economy. It will worry, isolate, and enhance deterrence against Iran, the United States’ most dangerous regional adversary. And it reaffirms Washington’s still-unrivaled ability to serve as a force for good in alleviating some of the world’s most intractable conflicts. ... The agreement will rightly garner virtually unanimous support across the U.S. political spectrum. As Joe Biden, the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, indicated in his response to the announcement, the effort to advance peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors has been a top priority for administrations of both parties going back decades."

BBC News: "Israel and the Gulf state of Bahrain have reached a landmark deal to fully normalise their relations, US President Donald Trump has announced. "The second Arab country to make peace with Israel in 30 days," he tweeted. For decades, most Arab states have boycotted Israel, insisting they would only establish ties after the Palestinian dispute was settled. But last month the United Arab Emirates (UAE) agreed to normalise its relationship with Israel. There had been much speculation that Bahrain might follow suit. Mr Trump, who presented his Middle East peace plan in January aimed at resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict, helped broker both accords. Bahrain is only the fourth Arab country in the Middle East - after the UAE, Egypt and Jordan - to recognise Israel since its founding in 1948."

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Still trivial. Don't get me wrong, this is a success, but it's small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Time: "This is a significant win for Team Trump, and it deserves to be acknowledged as such. The fundamental structure of Middle East geopolitics is changing, and in ways that would have been unthinkable just a couple decades ago."

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 09:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 November 2020

i need to fix teh grammar 86.16.255.40 (talk) 18:32, 2 November 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. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Emoluments Clause

Multiple pending lawsuits allege that Trump is violating the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids presidents from taking money from foreign governments. These lawsuits commenced in 2017. I don't know if they should still be called "pending". There is a whole paragraph on this under "Conflicts of Interest". I would think, given the ballooning size of the article and the fact that this clause has never been tested in court before, we should wait until there is an actual decision. Let's remember there's a Legal affairs of Donald Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland, Some of them may still be pending.. I'm going to look into it. I know some were thrown out, others are still on appeal. (Which is not the same as pending.) May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 13:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The Emoluments Clause cases (at least 2 of them) are still pending: Trump v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Trump v. State of Maryland and the District of Columbia. I would oppose deletion of the Emoluments Clause/conflicts of interest material since it is quite historically significant (the level of conflicts of interests are unprecedented in U.S. history (cite, cite) and presidential emoluments issues had never been litigated before Trump (cite). Neutrality^talk 22:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, for the purpose of current article text, the long and wide discussion of apparent self-enrichment -- or conflicts that could give that appearance -- is DUE and currently more significant than the pending litigation. SPECIFICO talk 22:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

None of you have given a reason for the inclusion of this paragraph in this bloated article. Launching a lawsuit is relatively easy, and I don't think lawsuits themselves are significant if they don't make any headway. Simply because no one's done this before isn't significant unless the lawsuit is successful.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I've addressed this immediately above, Jack. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Not in any coherent way. Do you think the pending litigation should be removed?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Jack: (1) Two federal appeals courts allowing the cases to proceed, as they have done (cite, cite), is the definition of "significant headway." It's basically the paragon example of a noteworthy pending suit: precedent-setting, significant implications, high-profile and a subject of academic and journalistic interest. (2) If you're still uncertain about the "reason for the inclusion of this paragraph," I'll make it clear: (1) This is biographically and historically significant and (2) has achieved sustained, in-depth multi-layered coverage throughout Trump's presidency (both in the mainstream press and in academia; a search of Google Scholar for articles since 2015 that mention "emoluments clause" /20 "trump" yields 370+ results). In light of (1) and (2), the modest space allocated to the content in the article (a few sentences) is due weight, and necessary for a complete treatment of the subject. Neutrality^talk 03:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that is at all convincing. No suit is "precedent-setting" until a decision is made. This is crystal ball gazing. Sure, there's plenty of speculation on this issue, but until there's a decision, this is fluff. In fact, it is just another case of information that is in the article because it is adverse to Trump, rather than being important in a neutral sense. At the very least it should be updated.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

There have already been multiple published, precedent-setting decisions in multiple appeals courts in the cases, and as the litigation continues there will be more. If your argument is that we should not even mention the case until there is a final judgment and every appeal has been exhausted, I don't believe that's supported by any policy. We're governed by the scope of coverage in RS, not the stage of a lawsuit. In any case, these cases seem legally and historically significant whether Trump wins, loses, or partially wins/partially loses. Neutrality^talk 13:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This was an issue that was talked about in the media four years ago. I think that the current weight is close to nil. If it is mentioned, it should be included to elaborate on accusations of foreign influence. Although suits have been filed, that does not show that there is an credibility to them. The plaintiffs have not proved for example that Trump received any emoluments within the meaning of the U.S. constitution. TFD (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Well said.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Whether Trump has or has not is irrelevant, the question is how due it is based on the reporting from the sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Until there is a court ruling saying that Trump has violated the clause, this is crystal ball gazing. And, yes, news outlets love to do that. There are a plethora of sources about everything Trump has done or is accused of doing. But that's not enough in this hugely bloated article. Why do people keep using that argument?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Why do people keep using that argument? - Um...maybe because that's the policy-based argument? If there is any policy support for news outlets love to do that I would like to see it. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably this one. PackMecEng (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the humorous link to that humorous essay. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Try WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONUS. I don't think you are saying that every sourced statement about Trump belongs on this page...--Jack Upland (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

To mention the controversy is not to presume an outcome, so CRYSTAL does not apply. ONUS says that (1) not all verifiable information need be included, and (2) the consensus burden is on the includers, but says nothing about the merits of the arguments on either side; it's about process, not content. As for NOTNEWS, see WEIGHT. If there is sufficient news coverage, inclusion is warranted per WEIGHT and virtually all other arguments are irrelevant. On that question I have no opinion, but I know that discussion should be limited to that question. That's all I'm saying. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a cracked crystal ball because the only reason to mention these cases here is that Trump could lose, a precedent could be set, impeachment could be triggered etc. At this stage, it remains speculative, and the speculation is rather dated.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• I have removed "multiple" from the sentence quoted above. There is no evidence that there are currently multiple pending lawsuits. I'm not sure that "multiple" was ever the best word, but based on the above discussion two have been identified as still pending: Trump v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Trump v. State of Maryland and the District of Columbia. Blumenthal v. Trump was denied in October.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, those three are the only lawsuits listed at List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump as concerning the Emoluments Clause.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That Trump is the target of multiple (more than one, Jack) lawsuits for violation of the Emoluments Clause is remarkable, given that no previous president has been in this position; however, unless there are consequences from these lawsuits it is difficult to see how these are going to be biographically significant enough to be in this article. Coverage in Business career of Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump would probably be more appropriate, so I would be in favor of seeing that content shifted out of this article per WP:SS. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

In terms of a "lack of consequences to Trump" - you could arguably say the same thing about his impeachment. Neutrality^talk 16:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Neutrality: The impeachment itself was a consequence. That stain on Trump's presidency cannot be cleaned off. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

At least with impeachment there was a decision, even if you don't like the decision. These cases may never go anywhere...--Jack Upland (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I wondered if someone was going to argue about the meaning of "multiple". I think in a non-technical context like this one, "multiple" generally means "numerous" or "many". That's what the Oxford Dictionary indicates. I don't know if American English is different.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"Pending lawsuits" is fine with me because the use of the plural ("lawsuits" rather than "lawsuit") already implies more than one, so "multiple" is rather redundant. As said above, I would strongly oppose an effort to remove this biographically significant information from the article. Neutrality^talk 21:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey, as well as having their own articles, CREW v. Trump, D.C. and Maryland v. Trump, and Blumenthal v. Trump are already detailed in Presidency of Donald Trump and are mentioned in Efforts to impeach Donald Trump, List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump, Foreign Emoluments Clause, and Donald Trump and golf. I think we have enough coverage.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. As I said above, I think it should be cut out. Neutrality's claim of "biographical significance" does not hold water for me, because these violations have not been consequential to Trump. They probably will be, but that's down the road and not part of this conversation. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• We also say, Previous presidents in the modern era either divested their holdings or put them in blind trusts. What did medieval US presidents do? Without any definition of what the modern era means it's impossible to assess how abnormal Trump is.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Apparently this was started by Carter (or perhaps Johnson, though he didn't abide by it). But Obama didn't follow suit, so I think this statement is questionable.[11] --Jack Upland (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• It's also not exactly true to say Trump is the first president to be sued about this. Obama was sued in Jones v. Obama, 2010 WL 11509096, 3 (D. C.D.Cal. 2010) for accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. Also, Nixon's claims of ownership over his papers and tapes were rejected on the grounds they were emoluments. See [12][13][14].--Jack Upland (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Red herrings. You know full well that Trump's violation is on a completely different scale. Money is pouring into his businesses by foreigners eager to curry favor. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• I am just pointing out the statements made in the text (and in this discussion) aren't exactly accurate. I have no knowledge of what you are talking about.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Wait: given that opinion is split, I think we should revisit this, after the election, and after the lawsuits are heard by the US Supreme Court in December.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• For future reference, Trump critic, Professor Laurence Tribe, has commented on these cases in the event of a Trump defeat: “There’s no longer any remedy that could be issued,” Tribe says. “It’s unfortunate but likely that the emoluments cases will be dismissed.”[15]--Jack Upland (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Regarding copy-editing of this section:
  • Trump is not the first President to be sued over this clause (see above). Blumenthal v Trump shared the same fate as Jones v Trump, being dismissed for lack of standing, so legal history has not exactly been made so far. Many sources make the point that there is a lack of judicial interpretation of this clause.
  • There are two emoluments clauses, not one.
  • We should not be citing the Guardian to say what NBC said. The text suggests that the quotation is what NBC said. We should not be quoting the Guardian here at all — see MOS:QUOTE. This should be paraphrased.
  • Noting that Saudi Arabia etc have used Trump properties is a distraction. The point of this sentence is to show that the issue is not just hypothetical. Saying that representatives of the Saudi government have used a Trump hotel is trivial. Of course, foreigners use Trump hotels, that's the point of them! Many countries have been accused of human rights abuses and corruption — including the USA! This is not what the clause is about.
  • SPECIFICO's edit summary, "Standing version was clearer and better indicated significance", brings up another problem: neutrality. As this indicates, this paragraph was written to emphasise the significance of these three cases (one of which has already been dismissed). This includes puffing up the paragraph with irrelevant and inaccurate information (see above). Apart from one snide remark, there is no indication of Trump's side of the case. It gives the humble reader a very biased view of the lawsuits and their chances of success. Really should Wikipedia go into the election with such a non-neutral paragraph?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The statement (which I have amended) that Trump mocked the clause as "phony" is a little bit phony itself. The source doesn't exactly say that. Trump apparently said You people with this phony Emoluments Clause. However, his lawyers said that he meant that the allegations were phony. Maybe it's best to use comments that are unambiguous.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  Let's not elevate self-serving after-the-fact clean-up by WP:MANDY attorneys and accolytes. Note the placement of the adjective "phony" directly beofore "emoluments". Trump is a native English speaker. That's what he said. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  I've reverted two aspects aspect of Jack's recent edit: (1) the watering down of Trump's "phony" statement about the Emoluments Clause, and (2) the deletion of text noting that some of the foreign governments that have spent money at Trump's businesses during Trump's presidency have been accused of corruption and human rights abuses. With respect to point (1), the after-the-fact statement by a DOJ lawyer is not really relevant here - what's really relevant is what Trump actually said (that the Emoluments Clause is "phony"). With respect to point (2), the fact that some of the foreign governments that used Trump's businesses during Trump's president were authoritarian or human rights violators may not be relevant to the legal analysis of the Emoluments Clause, but it's certainly relevant to the long-running, continuing political controversies over Trump's conflicts of interests, and it's a point that many sources stress.

Re the point that "Trump is not the first President to be sued over this clause": Technically, sure. But these Emoluments Clause suits are the first-ever meaningful Emoluments Clause litigation. Congressional Research Service report (2020): "Recent litigation involving President Trump has raised a number of legal issues concerning formerly obscure constitutional provisions ... Until recently, there had been no substantial litigation concerning the Emoluments Clauses. However, since 2016, a number of private parties, state attorneys general, and Members of Congress have filed lawsuits against President Trump, alleging that his retention of certain business and financial interests during his presidency—and his failure to seek congressional approval of interests relating to foreign governments—violate the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses." Neutrality^talk 21:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

"Phony emoluments clause" actually makes no sense. Trump was speaking off the cuff and is known as a sloppy speaker. To accuse his lawyers of perjury is not neutral, and not credible because their explanation makes sense. But if you really feel it needs to be there, fine. But that's no reason to leave out his direct response to the legal action. I've added it back in. On the other point, Saudi Arabia is a close US ally, so it's unsurprising that it uses Trump's hotels etc. Is the hotel in Dubai supposed to have a sign saying, "No Arabs"??? Regarding the uniqueness of the litigation, I think the new wording looks good. However, this litigation has so far only "raised" issues; it hasn't resolved them. It is also good to mention both clauses in the article, to avoid confusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Jack: Appreciate that we agree on most of issues, but I will point out: (1) you should not have "added back in" Trump's "response to the legal action," both because of the 1RR in effect on this page and because it is obvious that he is opposing it from context and the material already present. (2) The fact that Trump's statement "makes no sense" is not relevant; sometimes Trump makes statements that don't make sense; it's not our job to impose an artificial logic on them. (3) Nobody is "accusing his lawyers of perjury" because (a) the DOJ are not "his lawyers," (b) the statements of lawyers in legal briefs filed in court are not sworn statements, so perjury would be impossible; and (c) the DOJ has no idea what Trump meant by his statement; they have no special insight on his mental state. Neutrality^talk 23:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that edit would breach 1RR. I don't think it is obvious at all. The article gives no indication that Trump has been battling these multitudinous cases for four years. As far as an ordinary reader knows, these cases have just sprung up and Trump has only responded by calling the clause phony. You are splitting hairs about the lawyers. You are saying that the lawyers are misleading the judge, and that you know what Trump meant better than the lawyers do. That's artificial and it's not logical. You seem to be eager to add in red herrings about nefarious Muslims, but determined to exclude anything from Trump's side.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph under discussion is about the lawsuits. As you say, human rights abuses and corruption in foreign countries is not relevant to the legal issue. As you say, the clause is obscure. What the Guardian journalist is trying to do is make the case more relevant to the average reader. The Guardian cites four governments as being accused of corruption and human rights abuses. Three of these are the governments of Muslim countries. For some reason, China and Russia are not mentioned. The list of 22 countries reported by NBC includes countries such as Britain, Ireland, Germany, France, and Italy. In fact, the governments involved are widespread, and, as NBC says, this is not a comprehensive list. However, the current sentence in the article implies that the comment made by the Guardian journalist is one of the findings made by NBC's investigation. The point of including the information found by NBC is that it shows that the issue is not hypothetical (which was fairly obvious anyway). Incorporating the Guardian comment just misleads readers. It is irrelevant to the lawsuit and does not reflect NBC's research.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2020

change the sub-header 4.3, "Election to the presidency", to "2016 presidential election" in order to remove ambiguity surrounding the two elections he has partaken in. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks for the suggestion. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020

Former president 142.116.179.254 (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done He is still president until January 20, 2021. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Probably. In reality a number of things could happen. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (2)

Donald trump is now former president 786nab687 (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

He still holds office.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (3)

I want to change the "current president" to "former president". Please don't do it before me. I want to be the first one to do it. Ethyl Alcoholic (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

He is the current president. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Until January 20th. By the way - stop vandalizing the page to sow doubt over whether Biden won. "According to whom?" is not a citation. You're an adult - act like it and edit responsibly. Biden is the president-elect - it's over. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I have not vandalised. Please stay civil even if you do not like the election results. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding "according to whom?" as a citation under Biden as the President-Elect isn't vandalism to you? Alright then. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (3)

Get rid of the "succeeded by" because the election is not official yet. Only media projected his win, not the legal votes. Still yet to have recounts in several states and legal court issues from voter fraud. Again, neither Trump nor Biden is official yet for 2020. 73.236.247.32 (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Improper use of the edit request facility, and duplicates discussion already active on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Someone gotta change the “current president” as joe biden won

Hmmmm Nonono12345678901234567890 (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden officially becomes President on January 20. Trump is still current president.Crboyer (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (5)

Former 45th president of the united states 2A02:A456:6297:1:D07F:DCA9:8595:F396 (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done He is still president. Mgasparin (talk) 10:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (5)

Former 45th president of the united states 2A02:A456:6297:1:816E:30E8:852C:D8CB (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done He is president until January 20. Mgasparin (talk) 10:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Are we doing this again?

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

---

I understand that we have a lot of presumptive bots trying to fog the results of this election, but Biden needs to be listed as Trump's successor. We did it for Obama, we need to do it for Trump. Biden won. Also, I need to propose that the paragraph in the main section about "media outlets projecting Trump's loss" be changed immediately. The media didn't declare Biden the winner, the electoral college did - as did the voters. It's simple math and the way that certain mods on this site have attempted to fill this article with misinformation is transparent, to put it lightly. Your job is to depict information ACCURATELY - and there's literally no need for so much ambiguity. The election isn't undecided. Trump lost - so why exactly are some of you working to undermine that fact..? Just curious. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above; we don't need a separate thread for this. This isn't being muddied by "bots" or people trying to undermine the result. — Czello 22:19, 8 November 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.

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020

Under election 2020 -

In losing the public vote Donald Trump became the first American President to lose 2 popular votes. Quazal (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Also false (Benjamin Harrison). power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Describing Trump as conspiracy theorist in lede?

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

---

The President's promotion of conspiracy theories has been central to his public image and political appeal from the beginning of his forays into GOP politics (in 2011 he was all about Birtherism). Now, Trump is ending his presidency with conspiracy theories about how the election was stolen from him. In his time in office, he has promoted numerous other conspiracy theories (e.g. that Bin Laden is not dead and that Obama Admin killed a body double). Therefore, I think that it is important to describe Trump as a conspiracy theorist in the lede and mention some of the conspiracies he has promoted (birther, election fraud, etc). I request the input of others, do you agree with me that a mention of Trump-as-conspiracy theorist belongs in the lede? Why or why not? CozyandDozy (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• No, no, and no. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  Absolutely not. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not everyone who espouses views that could be characterized as "conspiracies" should be labeled a "conspiracy theorist" in the lede of a Wikipedia article. Maybe with some time and distance, reliable sources will record things differently that may point in that direction. But for now, by our own standards and policies, it is not justified. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Duplicate of #Challenging the presdential election legitimacy and results and declare of victory prior to seal of votes, above. I've been trying to close and I'm weary of the edit conflicts with editors commenting in the duplicate discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Yes, the descriptor conspiracy theorist has extensive support both in the article and RS, and there is wide agreement that it is a defining feature of Trump as a public figure (including his entire presidency from start to finish), so it should definitely be included in a new first sentence. Ideally, we should have a first sentence that looked like e.g. "Donald Trump is an American far-right politician, conspiracy theorist and reality TV host, who served as the 45th President ..." or something like that. --Tataral (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Of course not. The current wording is especially suspect. "Politician and conspiracy theorist" gives far too much weight to his peddling of conspiracies as opposed to his career as a businessman/TV personality/author. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - @CozyandDozy: we have done this in other biographies where such labels were firmly supported by the weight of RS references. Can you provide sourcing, preferably outside the daily news media? SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose -- the term "conspiracy theorist" is almost always used in a pejorative manner nowadays, would be a nightmare watching news headlines like "Wikipedia's official article for Trump describes him as a conspiracy theorist", and since we have a whole separate article about this topic, it's as unnecessary as much as it will be a cause of gratuitous and bad-faith discourse down the line. Very bad idea in all sorts of ways. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 18:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Not now but this is a good discussion to have, and shouldn't be dismissed so eagerly. Many reliable sources have turned around since mid-October and are bluntly describing him as a conspiracy theorist as a core element of his personality, but that's what we have WP:RECENTISM for. Most reliable sources that have discussed this over the span of his presidency have usually shied away from that descriptor, describing him more neutrally as a "promoter of conspiracy theories" or something like that. It's too soon, now, to have this in the article's first sentence, pretty much per Nohomersryan, but the next few months might change this perception substantially. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  I think I agree with this. We should wait until tensions cool a bit before deciding whether conspiracy theorist is core enough to the President's persona to include it in the lede. I think it is but there is no harm in waiting. CozyandDozy (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Here are a few sources for discussion, anyway:

  • Fichera, Angelo; Spencer, Saranac Hale (October 20, 2020). "Trump's Long History With Conspiracy Theories". FactCheck.org. Annenberg Public Policy Center. Trump's responses spoke to what is a yearslong pattern of Trump directly espousing or leaning into conspiracy theories, often those that smear his political opponents or critics.
  • Dale, Daniel (September 2, 2020). "Fact check: A guide to 9 conspiracy theories Trump is currently pushing". CNN Politics. President Donald Trump has been a conspiracy theorist for years.
  • Mahdawi, Arwa (October 3, 2020). "The most unhinged Trump conspiracy theory comes from – who else? – QAnon followers". The Guardian.
  • Zeballos-Roig, Joseph; Haltiwanger, John; Kranz, Michal (October 9, 2019). "24 outlandish conspiracy theories Donald Trump has floated over the years". Business Insider. Archived from the original on September 29, 2020. Throughout his presidency, on the campaign trail, and even in the years prior, Trump has floated theories fueled by the conspiratorial-minded corners of supermarket tabloids and the darkest corners of the internet.
  • Lynskey, Dorian (October 16, 2020). "From 9/11 to Donald Trump: how conspiracy theories are corroding democracy". GQ Britain. Donald Trump [...] is a former birther who now improvises his own half-baked theories [...] his campaign message is effectively a conspiracy theory.

  -- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm removing "RfC" from the section heading. This was not formatted as an RfC, and in any case we are supposed to discuss at the talk page before going to a formal RfC. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. He's definitely not a conspiracy theorist. That title could suitably refer to someone like Alex Jones. Trump doesn't spend all day thinking about conspiracies. He's an opportunist, taking whatever conspiracies that benefit him to attack his opponents. It's not certain even he himself believes the theories he promotes. 2601:647:4C02:9B10:5541:4D7:F1A3:1177 (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment (I already opposed above, but without comment) We might be able to describe him as a conspiracy theorist in the article, and in fact we do have a one-paragraph section about conspiracy theories in the text. That could be expanded. But it is certainly not worthy of inclusion in the lead when it is such a trivial aspect of his personality and such a minor part of the article. The lead is supposed to summarize the MAJOR points made in the article. This is a very minor point in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons stated by the above IP and Fuzheado. Mgasparin (talk) 09:17, 8 November 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.

Edit request

Please add {{Current person}} Naleksuh (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Note for others: [16][17] I don't understand the reasoning behind the OP's reversion. The message box above states: "Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus." This is obviously not (yet) supported by consensus, and if the OP thinks it's uncontroversial they don't know that tagging the top of a highly visible article for any purpose is almost always controversial. This should not be an open edit request. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I reversed it per WP:BADNAC. "Consensus" for templates like current person almost never happens, it is simply added as it would be with any other tag. Naleksuh (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Article tags are often disputed, and disputed tags require consensus. There is nothing special about edits that add tags. If, hypothetically, an admin came along and added your tag per this edit request, it would not be immune to a challenge by reversion, and that challenge could only be done by another edit request. That's not how edit requests are intended to be used. Feel free to open a normal discussion using "New section" at the top of this page, but this is a misuse of the edit request facility. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: BTW and FYI, edit requests are not discussions (by definition) and "answering" an edit request is not a closure. Therefore BADNAC did not apply here. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I've marked this as answered per the concerns above. I also think that, since this article is sysop-protected and not changing frequently, the template is probably not needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (4)

In the Donald Trump Wikipedia article, I would like you to add

to the templates. 260128207E80F5E5DAC0468A970A (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done this is a change that can be made at Template:Unsuccessful major party pres candidates, but is not appropriate until the result is certified (rather than simply known). — Bilorv (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (3)

In the last paragraph in the lead statement, instead of In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, major news organizations have projected that Trump lost his bid for re-election., I think it would be better to say In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, major news organizations have projected that Trump was defeated by former vice president Joe Biden. or In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, major news organizations have projected that Trump lost his bid for re-election to former vice president Joe Biden.. Interstellarity (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. "Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus." At this article, very little besides grammar, spelling, and punctuation fixes is uncontroversial. "Uncontroversial" means no reasonable editor would oppose, so discussion is unnecessary. As we've been discussing related content virtually non-stop since the election was called, discussion is clearly necessary for any such content. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Need to mention President-Elect

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

---

Not mentioning at all that major networks have called the election in favor of Biden is a disservice to public discourse. Regardless of whether or not the Electoral college actually ends up electing Biden President, the fact that every major network has called the election is newsworthy and requires mentioning on this page at this point in time. Therefore, I urge a passage about this be included in the leed due to its huge implications, as well as in the body of the text. Please discuss here. Supertowel (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we are clearly going to include Biden as his elected successor (i.e. president-elect). We included Trump in Obama's article as president-elect the day after the 2016 election[18]. The claim that Biden isn't the president-elect is by now a far-right, fringe conspiracy theory. --Tataral (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Redundant with previous section. Please review existing discussions before starting a new one. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the networks called the election is now in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 7 November 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.

Infobox regarding succession

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.

---

Why does the infobox not say that Joe Biden will succeed him as president? He IS the president-elect after all. cookie monster (2020) 755 03:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

There are several discussions about this above, such as #"Succeeded by" field. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! That's all I needed to know :D cookie monster (2020) 755 03:21, 9 November 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.

Protected edit request on 9 November 2020

he is not longer the current president 92.219.137.94 (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done – Trump will remain president until the president-elect assumes office, that's how the US constitution works. As an aside, I suggest you read our information page on edit requests if you'd like to submit another in the future, as requests need to be specific and uncontroversial. Jr8825 • Talk 09:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Please fix this article.

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

---

This article has been vandalized to make it look like Donald Trump won the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. Although Trump will be still be President until January 20th, 2021, he is still the outgoing President who will eventually be succeeded by Joe Biden. Omitting these facts from this article spreads misinformation and panders to Trump’s false claims that the election was stolen from him. Ascarboro97 (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

See wp:npa, accusations of vandalism must be valid. As to the rest. Donny is still (legally) president. And no we do not say he won, rather the opposite.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 9 November 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.

I am not denying Trump is currently President. I simply saying that the front page of this article should include the fact that Trump is bound to be succeeded by Biden, as Obama’s article said he was going to be succeeded by Trump after the 2016 election. Ascarboro97 (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to participate in the existing discussion(s), but kindly read my close statement and stop commenting in this thread. While I'm not the talk page sheriff around these parts, I strongly advise other editors not to engage this user in this thread, for obvious reasons. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Page is protected and only administrators can edit it

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.

---

Why? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Persistent (and predictable) disruption. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I should have read the Talk page before posting. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:22, 9 November 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.

Protected edit request on 9 November 2020 (2)

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

---

It does not say "Succeeded by Joe Biden (elect)" Sulayman Ali (talk) 16:47, 9 November 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. Not until January EvergreenFir (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

There is an open discussion about this at #"Succeeded by" field, above. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:11, 9 November 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.

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (2)

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

---

This is probably WP: OR, but because Trump got at max 261 votes, I think we should add that his term ended(er, will end)on January 21, 2021(at 17:00 UTC to be exact!) HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Improper use of the edit request facility, and duplicates discussion already active on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

[[#ref_{{{1}}}|^]] @Mandruss: it’s on full protection, would prefer to hear from an admin. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss is correct that consensus should be achieved before posting an edit request, except uncontroversial changes (typofixes, etc.) GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

And there is existing discussion about this, as I said previously. Feel free to participate there. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: where? Please respond quickly before I go to bed. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I beat you to bed. Actually, you may have a new discussion here depending on where you propose to add this. Lead prose? Infobox? Body prose? You could add a more specific proposal as a new subsection in #Proposals for addition to this full-protected article. Or you could wait until things have quieted down and returned to something approaching normalcy. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Newly discovered in the guidance for {{Infobox officeholder}} (my emphasis): "The infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor, or the end date of the term, until the transition actually takes place." FYI. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Mandruss. That should settle the question as far as the infobox is concerned. GorillaWarfare has removed it from the infobox, so we just have to decline requests to add it. BTW it was edit warring over that very point that caused her to reinstate the full protection. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: That should settle the question - I agree. Others disagree. See #Survey: "Succeeded by" field. FTR, I removed it pending consensus, not GW, and the EW ensued. GW just agreed with me. I like GW. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You lost count. You were the first person to remove it, but it was immediately re-added and re-removed several times. GW was the third person to remove it, and she did it after locking the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 9 November 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.

Proposed edit to EFN note B

I feel that it would be beneficial to note that President-elect Joe Biden would be the oldest President to be inaugurated on EFN note b.

Proposed edit: He became the oldest first-term U.S. president <-efn|Ronald Reagan was older upon his second-term inauguration. When inaugurated, Joe Biden would be the oldest first-term President at age 77-> and the first without prior military or government service. Paul Webb (PaulWebbtheTechExpert) (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Why? What has this to do with Donny?Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

TO ALL EDITORS: Edit requests are not substitutes for the "New section" link at the top of this page, and it's unhelpful to treat an edit request as the start of a discussion. Edit requests are not discussions by definition, rather they are requests for edits that do not require discussion. See WP:Edit requests for more information. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Upon further inspection this edit is likely not relevant enough for inclusion. For this reason, I withdraw my proposal. Paul Webb (PaulWebbtheTechExpert) (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

Trump went to the University of Pennsylvania. He did not go to the Wharton School. The Wharton School is the graduate school of Business. Trump went to UPenn for undergraduate school. 23.28.130.43 (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: False Zingarese talk · contribs 01:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Zingarese talk · contribs 01:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020 (2)

President Trumps signature is inaccurate - has changed since beginning of presidency. Should be updated to match historical data (executive orders, letters, etc) - https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/trump-signature-16x-9_colorcorrected.jpeg?quality=75&strip=all&w=900&h=900&crop=1 YOU CAN FIND UPDATE IMAGE HERE. Thank you, BRAM BramTheAmerican (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2020 (2)

TheCatch21AndTheChaseFan (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I want to change the time in office and what president is he succeding

 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. Goose^(Talk!) 03:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2020

I request that the page of Donald Trump be revised. It is quite obviously biased and ridden with subjective language and information. For example his response to COVID was “slow.” This is subjective. It goes on with just false information such as him promoting “false information” about medicinal therapies that were proposed by medical professionals. It is directly opposing its own argument or statement in the former sentence that says that he “ignored or contradicted” medical professionals advising him. It goes on to contradict by saying that he then promoted therapies in response. He had to have been listening to a medical professional about those therapies. I propose that you change this language to say “ he has been criticized for his response to the pandemic some reporting that his response was “slow” “ and “trump has promoted therapies under advisement of his chosen medical advisors prior to the release of the trialed therapy.” I didn’t even finish reading because the article is so obviously ridden with bias and false information that the editor arrogantly got from another biased source and posted on here as factual information. This page is proof that Wikipedia is participating in the echo chamber of false, biased, or taken-out-of-context information instead of reporting facts. Opinions are not facts. Please use “evidence-based practice.” No one comes to Wikipedia to read your opinion. Please use objective information and facts. I also noticed that the three countries that signed a peace treaty in the Middle East and the withdraw of the troops in the Middle East is conveniently left out. That is a great and historical accomplishment and should be in the main paragraph. I usually donate. I won’t be donating unless this is rectified.

It is dangerous to introduce your opinion as a fact. It is dangerous to take information out of context. This kind of thing where you present your opinion as a fact and conveniently leave out information that you don’t like is what happens in communist countries. This is the United States of America. This is not acceptable here. We the people deserve to know facts and derive our own opinion. Please make changes to use objective information and use research that is fact checked by other resources before reporting. Please take out information that you got from biased sources in the media. There are videos of almost everything now. Look up the FULL video and find what he actually said and post that in quotes. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was a non biased information source, not a magazine or newspaper reporting things they saw on the cable news.

I do not agree with this man, but the bias and false information presented above is dangerous. We will never be a nation that burns books and teaches false information because that is the practice of a communist nation. Thank you for your time.50.27.27.29 (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC) 50.27.27.29 (talk) 01:26, 11 November 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. Please also note that edit requests are meant only for implementing very minor changes (typo fixes, for example) or changes for which you have already established consensus. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I might suggest you read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias to gain more knowledge on Wikipedia's processes and policies. Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2020 (3)

Trump “reacted slowly to Covid-19” is an absolute falsity and obviously and opinion rather than fact. Must be changed.

Trump “was defeated” in the election is also a falsity as the election is not over, and the electoral college has not proposed a president-elect. 2600:1012:B04B:B2D7:B503:EA3A:E1E0:A2FF (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done You will need to gain consensus for this, which is unlikely as these are well sourced items. O3000 (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 election

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

---

The 2020 election is a major event and should be mentioned in this article, even if its outcome is not yet known.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. It's an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and that applies especially in a biography. Wait at least until a significant majority of RS say the outcome is known; then, if said outcome is a Biden win, the article can attempt to summarize the protracted legal battles – without detail about every filing, motion, and ruling. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Is that an observation or a rule? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

An observation. There is nothing in that policy that covers this as far as I know.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the last place anyone should look for information about the current election. There is no central tendency to the narratives in media or expert commmentary, and we haven't even heard from Alan Dershowitz yet! SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt to have a sentence or two, summarizing the current state of the election, in the "2020 presidential campaign" section. ValarianB (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you brave enough to propose something? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the lead and there is a section about the 2020 election. We will report the outcome when it is confirmed, which will be December 14th at the latest. TFD (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the lead because I put it there.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

For consideration to add to the article lede:

Following his defeat in the 2020 United States presidential election, Trump became the first United States President to serve a single term since the defeat of George H.W. Bush in the 1992 United States presidential election. He was succeeded by President-elect Joe Biden.

-Red marquis (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that is not the way. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

No, purely trivia. Trump, Bush and Carter were all very different people with very different presidencies and very different reasons for losing to very different opponents in very different climates. All it would really convey or reflect is the author's intent, not define the subject. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe biden won election 786nab687 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Says who? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden has won this election. It is completely irresponsible to not make this clear in the article.67.168.92.239 (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

This entire page is biased against Trump and full of lies just like the Fake news on main media networks. The 2020 presidential election has not been finalized by the electoral colleges and the media has no right to spread such complete misinformation! Every president before Trump has had the right to recounts of Legal votes but everyone acts as if he cant. Do research on previous elections, things like fraudulent voting and recounts have always been talked about issues in nearly every single election but now that there is a president with Balls and a High enough IQ to use his rights, the left wants to rush Sleepy-joe in before the Fact that Donald Trump won on Nov 3rd and the Democrats fruads come out in court. Donald Trump has been the greatest president ever to hold office. Youwish14 (talk) 03:58, 13 November 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.

Presidency (2017–2021)

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

---

This title seems to be in violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Yes, he's expected to leave office in 2021, but this gives the impression that it has already happened, and a lot can happen between now and 20 January 2021. I think it should say present until he actually leaves office. Adam9007 (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I would agree.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

2021 is still better than present in my view. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I favor "present". -- MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to "present' as that seems to be the consensus here. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with "present" as well. Even ignoring the projected loss, there's always the possibility he resigns or dies before the end of 2020. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if he lost the electoral college vote, there's still the possibility of a resignation or death before 2021. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 20:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I assume the he will have to accept his loss to Joe Biden and move on. And you all should make a minor edit that mentions that Trump is now a former 45th president of the US the day he leaves office. Billwang370 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Now taking guesses as to the number of seconds between Biden's "So help me God" and the edit to add "former". Closest guess wins a MAGA cap, slightly used. My guess: 2. Somebody will have the edit done in advance, with their mouse pointer sitting on the Publish changes button. The time of the completion of the oath of office, plus two seconds, will be forever recorded in this article's edit history. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:00, 9 November 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.

Link in the COVID-19 section of the intro

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

---

I understand there are strict rules around changing anything about the Coronavirus paragraph in the introduction. I don't want to change the wording at all but think it would be more suitable given the American focus of the info to include a link 'Covid-19 in the United States' rather than the general 'Covid-19 pandemic' article. Llewee (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I know there are MOS:EGG concerns, but I think it's the more useful link for readers, and that's the more important thing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. COVID-19 in the United States is more relevant, and more useful to the readers. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 20:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Makes sense. Bdushaw (talk) 11:39, 10 November 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.