Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

view · edit Frequently asked questions This page is biased towards/against Trump because it mentions/doesn't mention X. Why won't you fix it? Having a mainstream media, although academic works are also sometimes used. For further information, please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias .

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration Business career of Donald Trump Social media use by Donald Trump Trump–Ukraine scandal Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump ... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Business B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Donald Trump B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American / Political parties B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance). United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0 Television B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other talk page banners

Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 18, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed July 15, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed August 31, 2019 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 29, 2020 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former good article nominee Template:Vital article This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 125 times. The weeks in which this happened: June 14 to 20, 2015 June 28 to July 4, 2015 July 19 to 25, 2015 July 26 to August 1, 2015 August 2 to 8, 2015 August 9 to 15, 2015 August 16 to 22, 2015 August 23 to 29, 2015 August 30 to September 5, 2015 September 6 to 12, 2015 September 13 to 19, 2015 September 20 to 26, 2015 September 27 to October 3, 2015 December 6 to 12, 2015 December 13 to 19, 2015 January 3 to 9, 2016 January 10 to 16, 2016 January 17 to 23, 2016 January 24 to 30, 2016 January 31 to February 6, 2016 February 7 to 13, 2016 February 14 to 20, 2016 February 21 to 27, 2016 February 28 to March 5, 2016 March 6 to 12, 2016 March 13 to 19, 2016 March 20 to 26, 2016 March 27 to April 2, 2016 April 3 to 9, 2016 April 10 to 16, 2016 April 17 to 23, 2016 April 24 to 30, 2016 May 1 to 7, 2016 May 8 to 14, 2016 May 15 to 21, 2016 May 22 to 28, 2016 May 29 to June 4, 2016 June 5 to 11, 2016 June 12 to 18, 2016 July 3 to 9, 2016 July 10 to 16, 2016 July 17 to 23, 2016 July 24 to 30, 2016 July 31 to August 6, 2016 August 21 to 27, 2016 August 28 to September 3, 2016 September 4 to 10, 2016 September 11 to 17, 2016 September 18 to 24, 2016 September 25 to October 1, 2016 October 2 to 8, 2016 October 9 to 15, 2016 October 16 to 22, 2016 October 23 to 29, 2016 October 30 to November 5, 2016 November 6 to 12, 2016 November 13 to 19, 2016 November 20 to 26, 2016 November 27 to December 3, 2016 December 4 to 10, 2016 December 11 to 17, 2016 December 18 to 24, 2016 January 1 to 7, 2017 January 8 to 14, 2017 January 15 to 21, 2017 January 22 to 28, 2017 January 29 to February 4, 2017 February 5 to 11, 2017 February 12 to 18, 2017 February 19 to 25, 2017 February 26 to March 4, 2017 March 5 to 11, 2017 March 12 to 18, 2017 March 19 to 25, 2017 March 26 to April 1, 2017 April 2 to 8, 2017 April 23 to 29, 2017 May 14 to 20, 2017 May 21 to 27, 2017 May 28 to June 3, 2017 June 11 to 17, 2017 June 25 to July 1, 2017 October 8 to 14, 2017 October 22 to 28, 2017 November 26 to December 2, 2017 January 14 to 20, 2018 June 10 to 16, 2018 September 30 to October 6, 2018 October 28 to November 3, 2018 November 4 to 10, 2018 November 11 to 17, 2018 November 18 to 24, 2018 November 25 to December 1, 2018 December 9 to 15, 2018 September 22 to 28, 2019 December 15 to 21, 2019 January 5 to 11, 2020 February 23 to 29, 2020 March 1 to 7, 2020 April 12 to 18, 2020 May 31 to June 6, 2020 June 7 to 13, 2020 June 14 to 20, 2020 June 21 to 27, 2020 June 28 to July 4, 2020 August 9 to 15, 2020 August 16 to 22, 2020 August 23 to 29, 2020 September 27 to October 3, 2020 October 4 to 10, 2020 October 11 to 17, 2020 October 18 to 24, 2020 October 25 to 31, 2020 November 1 to 7, 2020 November 8 to 14, 2020 November 15 to 21, 2020 November 22 to 28, 2020 November 29 to December 5, 2020 December 6 to 12, 2020 December 13 to 19, 2020 January 3 to 9, 2021 January 10 to 16, 2021 January 17 to 23, 2021 January 24 to 30, 2021 January 31 to February 6, 2021 Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. Section sizes Section size for Donald Trump (95 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 11,366 11,366 Personal life 20 22,359 Early life 5,420 5,420 Family 2,216 2,216 Religion 2,907 2,907 Health habits 1,928 1,928 Wealth 9,868 9,868 Business career 120 35,956 Real estate 1,789 13,378 Manhattan developments 5,334 5,334 Atlantic City casinos 4,137 4,137 Clubs 2,118 2,118 Licensing of the Trump brand 1,706 1,706 Side ventures 7,104 10,328 Trump University 3,224 3,224 Foundation 5,663 5,663 Legal affairs and bankruptcies 4,761 4,761 Media career 58 6,708 Books 1,098 1,098 Film and television 5,552 5,552 Political career 2,280 29,261 Presidential campaigns (2000–2016) 3,384 26,981 2016 presidential campaign 8,207 23,597 Campaign rhetoric and political positions 6,575 6,575 Financial disclosures 3,457 3,457 Election to the presidency 5,358 5,358 Presidency (2017–2021) 125 210,972 Early actions 2,216 2,216 Conflicts of interest 2,892 2,892 Domestic policy 24 21,217 Economy 4,014 4,014 Climate change, environment, and energy 3,966 3,966 Deregulation 3,601 3,601 Health care 4,090 4,090 Social issues 5,522 5,522 Pardons and commutations 2,611 2,611 Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op 3,131 3,131 Immigration 5,043 23,498 Travel ban 5,245 5,245 Family separation at border 6,599 6,599 Trump wall and government shutdown 6,611 6,611 Foreign policy 3,271 38,035 Trade 2,565 2,565 Russia 4,854 4,854 China 5,150 5,150 North Korea 5,678 5,678 Afghanistan 3,095 3,095 Israel 2,664 2,664 Saudi Arabia 2,221 2,221 Syria 3,944 3,944 Iran 4,593 4,593 Personnel 8,875 8,875 Judiciary 4,717 4,717 COVID-19 pandemic 309 33,890 Initial response 8,231 8,231 White House Coronavirus Task Force 6,059 6,059 World Health Organization 2,678 2,678 Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures 8,226 8,226 Political pressure on health agencies 2,680 2,680 Outbreak at the White House 3,363 3,363 Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign 2,344 2,344 Investigations 4,167 31,400 Hush money payments 5,276 5,276 Russian election interference 6,479 6,479 FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations 2,450 2,450 Mueller investigation 13,028 13,028 First impeachment 6,791 10,513 Impeachment trial in the Senate 3,722 3,722 2020 presidential campaign 4,915 4,915 2020 presidential election 3,552 22,937 False claims of voting fraud, attempt to prevent presidential transition 9,356 9,356 Concern about a possible coup attempt or military action 2,614 2,614 January 6 Capitol attack 4,028 4,028 Second impeachment 3,387 3,387 Post-presidency (2021–present) 8,411 36,014 Investigations, criminal charges, civil lawsuits 2,580 21,451 FBI investigations 5,956 5,956 Criminal referral by the House January 6 Committee 683 683 Federal and state criminal cases 6,997 6,997 Civil lawsuits against Trump 5,235 5,235 2024 presidential campaign 6,152 6,152 Public image 58 53,271 Scholarly assessment and public approval surveys 6,255 6,255 False or misleading statements 9,177 9,177 Promotion of conspiracy theories 4,207 4,207 Incitement of violence 3,081 3,081 Social media 5,452 5,452 Relationship with the press 5,988 5,988 Racial views 13,898 13,898 Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct 4,479 4,479 Popular culture 676 676 Notes 136 136 References 33 1,192 Works cited 1,159 1,159 External links 4,827 4,827 Total 412,062 412,062 Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Wikipedia". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Wikipedia page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Wikipedia, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times . Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Wikipedia is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Wikipedia pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Wikipedia pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Wikipedia editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge. Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Wikipedia". The Daily Dot. Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge. Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Wikipedia vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today. Griffin, Andrew (23 November 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Wikipedia edit". The Independent. Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Wikipedia page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek. Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Wikipedia war has kicked off again". The Inquirer. Brandom, Russell (December 3, 2018). "Wikipedia engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge. Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Wikipedia Entry Is a War Zone". Slate. Alex Pasternack (7 March 2020). "How Wikipedia's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company. Retrieved 9 March 2020. Brian Flood (21 May 2020). "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News. Retrieved 22 May 2020. Dan Evon (11 November 2020). "Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump's Wikipedia Page?". Snopes. Retrieved 19 November 2020.

Section sizes Section size for Donald Trump (95 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 11,366 11,366 Personal life 20 22,359 Early life 5,420 5,420 Family 2,216 2,216 Religion 2,907 2,907 Health habits 1,928 1,928 Wealth 9,868 9,868 Business career 120 35,956 Real estate 1,789 13,378 Manhattan developments 5,334 5,334 Atlantic City casinos 4,137 4,137 Clubs 2,118 2,118 Licensing of the Trump brand 1,706 1,706 Side ventures 7,104 10,328 Trump University 3,224 3,224 Foundation 5,663 5,663 Legal affairs and bankruptcies 4,761 4,761 Media career 58 6,708 Books 1,098 1,098 Film and television 5,552 5,552 Political career 2,280 29,261 Presidential campaigns (2000–2016) 3,384 26,981 2016 presidential campaign 8,207 23,597 Campaign rhetoric and political positions 6,575 6,575 Financial disclosures 3,457 3,457 Election to the presidency 5,358 5,358 Presidency (2017–2021) 125 210,972 Early actions 2,216 2,216 Conflicts of interest 2,892 2,892 Domestic policy 24 21,217 Economy 4,014 4,014 Climate change, environment, and energy 3,966 3,966 Deregulation 3,601 3,601 Health care 4,090 4,090 Social issues 5,522 5,522 Pardons and commutations 2,611 2,611 Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op 3,131 3,131 Immigration 5,043 23,498 Travel ban 5,245 5,245 Family separation at border 6,599 6,599 Trump wall and government shutdown 6,611 6,611 Foreign policy 3,271 38,035 Trade 2,565 2,565 Russia 4,854 4,854 China 5,150 5,150 North Korea 5,678 5,678 Afghanistan 3,095 3,095 Israel 2,664 2,664 Saudi Arabia 2,221 2,221 Syria 3,944 3,944 Iran 4,593 4,593 Personnel 8,875 8,875 Judiciary 4,717 4,717 COVID-19 pandemic 309 33,890 Initial response 8,231 8,231 White House Coronavirus Task Force 6,059 6,059 World Health Organization 2,678 2,678 Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures 8,226 8,226 Political pressure on health agencies 2,680 2,680 Outbreak at the White House 3,363 3,363 Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign 2,344 2,344 Investigations 4,167 31,400 Hush money payments 5,276 5,276 Russian election interference 6,479 6,479 FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations 2,450 2,450 Mueller investigation 13,028 13,028 First impeachment 6,791 10,513 Impeachment trial in the Senate 3,722 3,722 2020 presidential campaign 4,915 4,915 2020 presidential election 3,552 22,937 False claims of voting fraud, attempt to prevent presidential transition 9,356 9,356 Concern about a possible coup attempt or military action 2,614 2,614 January 6 Capitol attack 4,028 4,028 Second impeachment 3,387 3,387 Post-presidency (2021–present) 8,411 36,014 Investigations, criminal charges, civil lawsuits 2,580 21,451 FBI investigations 5,956 5,956 Criminal referral by the House January 6 Committee 683 683 Federal and state criminal cases 6,997 6,997 Civil lawsuits against Trump 5,235 5,235 2024 presidential campaign 6,152 6,152 Public image 58 53,271 Scholarly assessment and public approval surveys 6,255 6,255 False or misleading statements 9,177 9,177 Promotion of conspiracy theories 4,207 4,207 Incitement of violence 3,081 3,081 Social media 5,452 5,452 Relationship with the press 5,988 5,988 Racial views 13,898 13,898 Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct 4,479 4,479 Popular culture 676 676 Notes 136 136 References 33 1,192 Works cited 1,159 1,159 External links 4,827 4,827 Total 412,062 412,062

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

In 2017, Trump signed the

buying Russian weapons.^[4][5][6]

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

I objected to this addition, too, when you first proposed it two weeks ago in U.S.—Russian relations, Igor Danchenko. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment appears to be false. Perhaps I missed something? Bob K31416 (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was phrased a little differently but linked to the same piece of legislation: In 2017, Trump signed the legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The connection to Trump is that he didn't like the bill and submitted a signing statement against the bill he signed. I object to the sentence proposed by Tobby72 because it's clear that he did not sign the bill willingly. It was either that or his veto would be overridden (it passed the House 419-3 and the Senate 98-2). It would need lots of additional context and belongs on the Presidency of Donald Trump article, not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(response to Tobby72) Trump & Biden both imposed travel bans on some African countries. Do we/should we includes those? or place them in their administration articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is this in response to? Seems to refer to COVID19-related travel restrictions. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All such details, are best kept in the administration articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: wrote: ":All such details, are best kept in the administration articles." What do you think about this content?: Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7. (Trump also wanted to include India, South Korea and Australia [1]), and The Trump administration "water[ed] down the toughest penalties the U.S. had imposed on Russian entities" after its 2014 annexation of Crimea (In 2020, the Trump administration imposed new sanctions[2]). Should we includes those? or place them in their administration articles. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The

Trump administration article. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

"Trump supported the potential return of Russia to the G7". The word "potential" seems redundant there. --Khajidha (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What this appears to be as an attempt to

synthesise] a purported instance of Trump being "tough on Russia" to counterbalance the claims in other sources that he was soft. ValarianB (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not synthesis but your remark that sources claim Trump was soft on Russia is synthesis, unless you can find in the given sources where they explicitly say that. Bob K31416 (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob K31416, 37 Times Trump Was Soft On Russia, CNN – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry picking. We would find a lot of examples when he was "tough" on Russia ([3],[4],[5]), a lot of examples when he was "soft" on Russia, a lot of examples when he was "tough" (or "soft") on China, and also a lot of examples when Bill Clinton ([6],[7]), Barack Obama ([8],[9]) or Joe Biden ([10],[11]) were "tough" (and "soft") on Russia, Iran or China. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're the one cherrypicking. Consensus of RS is that Trump was soft on Russia, and I provided an "overview" source for it documenting 37 specific examples. This relates to sanctions placed by Obama and Trump not giving a waiver because of appearances, this says he "gently criticized" Russia in a speech as Trump sought to ease the nerves of U.S. allies after failing in May to endorse the principle of collective defense enshrined in Article Five of the NATO treaty, and here he says "Russia is not helping us at all with North Korea" but does nothing. That's "tough"? That's whining. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Any denial of cherrypicking that begins "We would find a lot of examples..." isn't likely to make it across the finish line. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump: “We urge Russia to cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere and its support for hostile regimes including Syria and Iran... Do you think this is a "gentle" criticism of Russia? Muboshgu: "Consensus of RS is that Trump was soft on Russia..." In my opinion, most of the mainstream media is biased against Trump. A May 2017 study from

Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy of Trump's first 100 days in office found that 93% of CNN & NBC coverage of President Trump during the period was negative. The survey also found 91% of CBS coverage was negative and that 87% of The New York Times coverage was negative during Trump's first 100 days.[12],[13]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

A cherry! Does that sound like Trump's voice to you? What's the link to the context? SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump says U.S. is committed to NATO defense, knocks Russia over Ukraine, Reuters, July 6, 2017. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bush (43), Obama, Trump, Biden. I've given up on any of those bios ever being truly NPOV. You want changes made? go the RFC route. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, most of the mainstream media is biased against Trump. What can I do other than throw up my hands at a comment like that? The mainstream media is what it is, they're the only one we have. If you argue that the referees are biased, you're left with delegitimizing the whole game. And they've been negative to Biden too. Not the same way of course, because they're different people. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's material that isn't anti-Trump in main stream media reliable sources and is meeting severe resistance against being put in this Wikipedia article and is being suppressed. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What? The sources that Tobby72 cherrypicked? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RS news media, if that is what you reference, is (in the aggregate) not pro- or anti- Trump. It's our NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 03:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News media endorsements in the 2020 United States presidential election pretty clearly shows which ones aren't even feigning impartiality. Trying to adhere to NPOV in relaying these media's opinions of subjects they openly oppose is one thing, and wise. But pretending the pro-Biden, pro-Clinton or pro-Anyone-But-Trump political news publishers themselves are neutral is a second, more foolish thing to do. No question there are many. But anti-Trump mainstream media isn't the only kind we have; it's just treated favourably by those most invested in maintaining this anti-Trump article. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And no, that's not a knock on you. Just a friendly nod to your colleague. Maybe a general wave at everyone in that virtual smoky backroom, all good fun, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't think the comment was in poor taste, I think it was honest and transparent, hence the friendly nod. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We all have our biases. Hopefully we check them at the door before editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If "we" means editors who dislike Trump and belittle the reliable mainstream sources which don't agree he's soft on, gay for or otherwise subservient to Russia/Putin, it's too late to hope. I know who "they" are, and so do a lot of outside observers. They've written entire categories of articles based on and in furtherance of that disputed opinion, not just most of their least favourite politician's bio; we whose biases are apolitical or pro-Trump have long used those talk pages to explain this conflict of interest to the same seven or so regulars, and made no progress. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

we whose biases are apolitical or pro-Trump need to take a look at the FAQ at the top of this talk page, stop whining, and make specific proposals for improvement of the article "based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a previous comment, Tobby72 presented an article from Reuters, Trump says U.S. is committed to NATO defense, knocks Russia over Ukraine. Is there anything in that article that you think should be put in this Wikipedia article? Bob K31416 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes, per consensus, item 2. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus that makes no sense. Put me down for "New York, New York, United States". --Khajidha (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The proposer of the October 2018 discussion pointed out that When the average person (including most New Yorkers) hear New York City, they think of Manhattan. Queens is not a neighborhood, it is by far the largest borough in land area and the second in population (2.4 million).

Jamaica Estates is the upper-middle class neighborhood in Queens where Trump grew up. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Calling Queens "a neighborhood" belies a rather stark misunderstanding of the NYC borough system. They are the equivalent of a county. ValarianB (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And we don't normally list county of birth. --Khajidha (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and "we don't normally" is not synonymous with "we never". NYC boroughs are more uniquely-identifying, culturally and historically, than a regular state county is. So in this instance, we have chosen to list it in this subject's biography. ValarianB (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His family's NY roots across the river has been cited as a defining insecurity of Trump, who boldly moved into the mainstream of the city by initiating projects and seeking public attention in Manhattan. Queens is significant and should be noted in the infobox. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is better handled as text. None of that is conveyed by the presence or absence of Queens in the infobox. --Khajidha (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the text and should be reflected and conveyed in the infobox summary. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"New York City, New York, US" would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to the factors others have raised. This is not a vote. SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hate seeing "New York City, New York". That's so vague. Each borough is like a city unto itself. According to the 2020 census, Brooklyn and Queens each have more people than every U.S. city aside from Los Angeles and Chicago. Each of the five boroughs aside from Staten Island would be in the top 10 for population if considered separately. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New York City is sufficiently well known that most people have heard of the five boroughs. In popular culture, Archie Bunker and Frank Costanza lived in Queen's. More people have heard of Queen's than Scranton, Pennsylvania, or most of the other municipalities where modern U.S. presidents were born. TFD (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EXACTLY. Prince Akeem didn't go to NYC to find a bride in Coming to America, he went to Queens. There's No Sleep till Brooklyn. We also have The King of Staten Island, currently dating out of his league. I feel very strongly about listing "Borough, New York" for NYC, I should probably start an RfC on this somehwere. I've added this table showing what the top 10 cities of the U.S. by population would look like if we separated the five boroughs. Four out of the five are in the top ten, and Staten Island, at 495,747, fits in between Atlanta and Omaha. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"My eyes are getting weary, my back is getting tight, sitting here in traffic on the

King of Queens. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Not too late to join this discussion. I'm thinking about what next steps might be, after updating this infobox to Queens. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Infobox has been saying "Queens, New York City" for at least two years, "U.S." was added in February 2021 after this exchange between two editors who decided to ignore the consensus formed in this discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Queens County is a county. SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: But Queens County is Queens, which is a borough. Queens County isn't some separate district making Queens it's own city. It's all part of New York City itself. Trillfendi (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are not policy, editors can and do decide to make exceptions when warranted. The boroughs of NYC have unique identities apart from each other, and apart from being a part of New York City itself. People who know the area know this well. Following the discussion above, the matter is essentially decided, so, start an RfC if you really wish but honestly it is a silly hill to die upon. Zaathras (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaathras: I'm in Queens right now. I live up the road. 😐 You're preaching to the fucking choir. Trillfendi (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: I've no objections to using the "city" & excluding the boroughs & counties. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has edited

WP:NYCPLACE, saying Neighborhoods within New York City are identified by the standard "Neighborhood, Borough" when not at the base name, where "Borough" is one of the five boroughs: Brooklyn, the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens or Staten Island. I support that change and will say so on its talk page if needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Muboshgu: The biggest problem with is people elongate it so ridiculously long that it clogs up what is supposed to be the most simple information. It goes from New York City to the borough purists changing it to Soundview, Bronx, New York City, New York, United States. It's stupid. (By the way, that would be Sonia Sotomayor.) Trillfendi (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Northern_America_and_the_Caribbean has been saying Neighborhoods in New York City use Neighborhood, Borough, where "borough" is one of the five boroughs: Brooklyn, the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens or Staten Island" at least as far back as November 2017 (I didn’t go back any further). when not at the base name — whatever that means — was added in August 2020. Trillfendi, the infobox does not say "Jamaica, Queens, New York City, New York, United States", so what are you so upset about? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since what I'm saying is being misconstrued, just forget I said anything. Trillfendi (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trillfendi, gender never crossed my mind. Why do you assume that I knew or assumed to know yours? I apologize for misconstruing what you said but your phrasing sounded agitated ("so divorced from accuracy that it's actually shocking that this conversation has taken place and there has been no voice of reason down here", "preaching to the effing choir", "ridiculously long", "borough purists", "stupid"). Tempers on this page tend to flare when discussing Trump's greatness/awfulness but usually not when discussing stuff like last name of first wife or city versus borough in the infobox. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Trillfendi, I don't see that anywhere on her page, and I would object to that. For her infobox, it should be The Bronx, New York, and the body can include Soundview. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented initially above, his insecurity about being "bridge and tunnel" from Queens was central to his early career and his brash promotion of his public profile for the first 20 years of his career. That's why the article mentions this and that's why it goes in the infobox. We don't belabor the origins of other outer borough natives when it is incidental to their notablilty and public demeanor. SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I like New York, New York, which is just about as good a choice and reason as anybody else's. [14] Bob K31416 (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Trillfendi (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Start spreading the news...". GoodDay (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Restore Trump spoke at length, both during the campaign and during his presdidency about how he would negotiate a tougher deal than the Accord. This was a feature of his personal profile over the course of at least 5 years. The content should be restored alongside the additional text that replaced it. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• He didn't/couldn't follow through on many campaign promises. What makes this one special? The accord was bad but Trump's withdrawal, egged on by Netanyahu, made things much worse (Ha'Aretz, Atlantic). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The withdrawal is in the lead, but we never mention its outcome, that it made things much worse soibangla (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Strongly agree with the reasoning above. Cpotisch (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep out Trump ignored numerous campaign promises, how in the world is this one significant? He didn't get Middle East peace, renegotiate numerous trade deals, build a wall along the entire border etc. so how is this broken promise notable? Bill Williams 08:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What text do you suggest to reflect your "Trump ignored numerous campaign promises"? SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep out Covered by Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency.... InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely you don't mean to suggest that a false statement of fact is the same as a failure to fulfil a commitment or a negligent boast? It's not "covered" by something completely different. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, if you say you'll do something, then don't, that statement is proven false. If people took it to signal a step in the untaken direction, it was misleading. And don't call me Shelley! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That was not responsive to the question I asked directly above, which identified the equivocation in your preceding post, an equivication that nullifies your argument. SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. In other words, yes, I mean to suggest that a false statement of fact is the same as a failure to fulfil a commitment (if expressly stated) or a negligent boast. Happy? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is far less about a false or misleading statement than it is about a major foreign policy failure. soibangla (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not major. Iran had already formally disregarded the agreement nobody was practically enforcing anyway, and continued to enrich uranium peacefully under Obama. The exact same speculative alarmism about a potential nuclear attack simply didn't change after Trump falsely claimed he'd better deal with the supposed ongoing threat, misleading those who take campaign promises seriously. Killing Soleimani, now that was a major international failure. Declaring the IRGC an FTO was also a legit boner. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I, alone, can fix it" he said at his inaugural. Fix DPRK? Nope. Fix China? Nope. Fix Iran? Nope. Those are the Big Three of his foreign policy. We note the outcomes of DPRK and China in the lead and we should note the Iran outcome as well. soibangla (talk)

Those are your Big Three. A Syrian, Mexican or Dane might think other global intelligence failures were bigger. A Nigerian, Afghan or Venezuelan, same thing. Anyway, major or not, he didn't "fix" whatever "it" was supposed to be, especially "alone". Since the sentence on his lying doesn't limit itself to big or small untruths, I still feel it can include any Big Three (and every Bottom 50). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• You also removed the cited Gallup findings from the body.

• Is it unreasonable to include that Gallup sentence in the lead, just before the findings of scholars and historians, and in order to support the body content?

• Is it untrue Trump "made no progress in constraining Iran's nuclear ambitions," as cited in the body and in the lead of
  Iran deal
  , and which is actually a generous characterization?

• Is it untrue he "initiated a trade war with China?"

• Is it untrue the trade war was "widely characterized as a failure" as cited in the body, and with ten solid citations in the lead of China–United States trade war? soibangla (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I reckon somebody else restored your edits. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  To answer you points:

  Did not intend to remove that from the body

  Yes, it's

  WP:UNDUE

  , the lead is already too lengthy

  Not untrue, but the lead is already too long as it is, sentence about each agreement adjustment under Trump (for example we could his withdrawal from the Paris agreement was critized by climate activists and climate scientists, but we do not have space on his personal biography space)

  The wording was better before.

  I refer to my previous points before about the lead already being too long.

  Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 01:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Lead too long does not make content UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 03:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

National polls are irrelevant, since the national popular vote doesn't always win you the presidency. Ya gotta win the popular vote on a state-by-state basis. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue your point is irrelevant because we're not talking about how elections are won, but rather the national sentiment. soibangla (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose what you're proposing, as it's (IMHO) irrelevant info. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made up my mind yet, still weighing lead being too long versus noteworthyness. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is not particularly long. Anyway as to noteworthiness, polls are widely reported and discussed in RS -- especially notable national tracking polls, so I don't think it's up to WP editors to say they are insignificant. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The guy's been out of office nearly a whole year. Wouldn't it be best to concentrate on the current president, concerning opinion polls? GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how Biden enters into this. A better question is why this Gallup content wasn't included months ago. soibangla (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a number of sources other than Gallup reporting on itself (Fortune, CNN, New York Magazine, The Wrap, Vox, 538). I just don't know how leadworthy one poll among many is—see 538, for example. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gallup pioneered modern polling in the 1930s. They've been asking the presidential approval question since 1938, encompassing thirteen previous presidents. This is why it stands out. Its combination with findings of scholars/historians makes it even more notable. soibangla (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Trump's Gallup polling is unique among fourteen modern presidents. soibangla (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is lots of respected polling that finds his unpopularity was largely due to personal traits and behaviors rather than his politcal views and the actions of his administration. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• But. There is already a firm consensus, notwithstanding a single editor's concern. SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Slatersteven clearly doubled the concern, Jack Upland plausibly tripled it and GoodDay...was there. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Replace 'but' with a period/full stop. Sorta clunky, but the meaning is not changed. Pretty soon another editor will come along and do the reverse. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 06:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I like it. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyone dislike it? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dislike. SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dislike. And the unremarkability of such routine diplomatic outcomes? *cough* soibangla (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that cough was meant to mean something deeper, it didn't to me. I count three dislikes, though, loud and clear. Thanks for your prompt replies, and get well soon! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

JJARichardson, FormalDude, he did & continues to do so but it's not mentioned in the body. Also seems to be a relatively minor part of the continuing lies about him having won the election. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, surprised it's not mentioned in the body. Should've checked that first, my bad. ––FormalDude ^talk 23:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see very much coverage of his statements from the time after his presidency. From what I can find, he more often repeats the claims of election fraud and stolen election rather than praising the insurrectionists. There are also various statements praising extremist candidates relating to 2021 and 2022 elections. SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Then as now, there really wasn't any important context to the former president's words. He stated (inartfully, as he usually does) that Israel's influence on Congress has waned over the years. Honestly, so what? Zaathras (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This can't be further from just a mere "inartful" statement. We can't possibly ignore that the former president has made Isarel a corner stone in his foreign policy during his term in office. In this regard there were profound actions that he took with significant political, religious and historical consequences, all while congress and senate were debating his impeachment. For example:-

1. Recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
2. Recognizing the Golan Heights as part of Israel
3. Withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear deal
4. Assassinating the Iranian General Soleimani
5. Reversing course on the legality of Israeli settlements in the west bank
6. Cutting ties/funding with the Palestinian authority and closing consulate in Jerusalem
7. Withdrawing from UNRWA and UNESCO
8. Adding Israel as a country of birth on American passports for those born in Jerusalem reversing supreme court ruling of Zivotofsky v Kerry

and many others. 47.187.39.94 (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to propose specific article text that reflects the narrative of mainstream

reliable sources. Otherwise, talk page discussion is not going to lead to any such changes to the article. SPECIFICO talk 22:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Any neutral attempt to document the former President's pro-Israeli moves will appear misleadingly one sided. No surprise there, that's because they were one sided. Recognizing that I have left out many pro-Israeli steps out from the following suggested text, I hope this can be an invitation to other writers to expand on this topic. I humbly ask if we can append the following under the foreign policy/Israel:- "Trump supported many of the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[1] Under Trump, the U.S. recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel^[2] and Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights,^[3] and it abandoned a long-held U.S. position that Israeli settlements in the West Bank break international law ^[4] leading to international condemnation including from the United Nations General Assembly, the European Union and the Arab League.^[5][6]. According to a Pew Research Center survey Donald Trump enjoyed more popularity in Israel than almost anywhere else in the world. ^[7]. His administration has stopped funding to UNRWA which supports Palestinian refugees, withdrew from UNESCO out of concerns over anti Israeli bias ^[8][9], abolished the Consulate General of the United States, Jerusalem which served Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza ^[10], cut funding to the Palestinians ^[11], altered passport ruling for Jerusalem births ^[12], assassinated Iranian General Qasem Soleimani with the help of Israelis ^[13], abandoned Iran's Nuclear Deal, a move hailed by Israeli president then Benjamin Netanyahu as historic and courageous ^[14]. In an interview with Ari Hoffman Donald Trump said "Well, you know the biggest change I've seen in Congress is Israel literally owned Congress – you understand that, 10 years ago, 15 years ago – and it was so powerful, it was so powerful, and today it's almost the opposite. Israel had such power – and rightfully – over Congress, and now it doesn't. It's incredible, actually."^[15]. MYS1979 (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Our current text on Israel: Trump supported many of the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Under Trump, the U.S. recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, leading to international condemnation including from the United Nations General Assembly, the European Union and the Arab League. Breaking the proposed new material down into manageable pieces:

1. and it abandoned a long-held U.S. position that Israeli settlements in the West Bank break international law
2. According to a Pew Research Center survey Donald Trump enjoyed more popularity in Israel than almost anywhere else in the world.
3. His administration has stopped funding to UNRWA which supports Palestinian refugees, withdrew from UNESCO out of concerns over anti Israeli bias, abolished the Consulate General of the United States, Jerusalem which served Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, cut funding to the Palestinians, altered passport ruling for Jerusalem births,
4. assassinated Iranian General Qasem Soleimani with the help of Israelis,
5. abandoned Iran's Nuclear Deal, a move hailed by Israeli president then Benjamin Netanyahu as historic and courageous.
6. In an interview with Ari Hoffman Donald Trump said "Well, you know the biggest change I've seen in Congress is Israel literally owned Congress – you understand that, 10 years ago, 15 years ago – and it was so powerful, it was so powerful, and today it's almost the opposite. Israel had such power – and rightfully – over Congress, and now it doesn't. It's incredible, actually."

The easy ones: oppose item 2—the world-wide ratings mentioned in Approval ratings suffice; oppose items 4 and 5—Soleimani assassination and withdrawal from JPCOA are mentioned in Iran; oppose item 6, echoing an anti-semitic conspiracy theory on local Seattle conservative podcast—I think Racial views covers that. Item 1—maybe but in a different location. The "international condemnation" sources only mention the annexation of the Golan Heights. Item 3: Have to read up on some of that, think about the rest. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• We can't talk about the former presidents actions towards Israel as if we are talking about any president and any other country. Can you remember the last time he didn't mention Israel in his speeches? I can't. The pro Israel steps he took while he was in the office needs to be neutrally documented in his biography for historical purposes. Even if you are a pro Trump Wikipedia writer - we all got our biases don't we - we should let the history judge if they were right or wrong. To say let's not talk about Suleimani's assassination or withdrawal from JPCOA under Israel foreign policy because they are mentioned under Iran overlooks the Israeli factor in these events. Where is that mentioned in the president's biography? We can't act as if Israel is Luxemburg in these events. And no the racial views don't cover him stating "Israel literally controlled our congress and rightfully so". This is an extraordinary and repeated more than once statement by the former president about a foreign country. I personally find that offensive and anti-Semitic but it offers an explanation for his one sided policies towards Israel while he was under impeachment. My recommendation is to add to the points mentioned above and not to reduce them. for example we can add the following

1. Stop the usage of the term occupied Palestinian territories to describe Gaza and the West bank
2. Stop the funding to Palestinian hospitals in East Jerusalem
3. Closing PLO offices in Washington DC
4. Pressuring Palestinians to accept the one sided peace plan that his son in law orchestrated.
5. Pressuring Arab countries to normalize relationships with Israel in return of favors (for example recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over Sahara dessert, Taking off Sudan from the countries sponsor of terrorism, and promising UAE to get F35)
6. Incorporating west bank settlements and the Golan heights in the American Israeli scientific cooperation agreement
7. considering BDS as anti-Semitic
8. keeping forces in Syria based on the request from Israel which saw withdrawal plans as a betrayal.

MYS1979 (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

So, a lot of people promise things during elections and do not deliver, in fact they all do. This should be about the things that make Trump stand out.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He repeatedly and loudly promised he'd do these things for years and appeared at rallies with banners declaring "promises made, promises kept." These were centerpiece promises. We need to mention their outcomes. soibangla (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, they all do, and never do. This is about him, not his presidency, so this should be abouhis legacy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates declare what they favor and will try to do. Trump's campaign was noteworthy for his promises to do things that are outside a president's sole command. It was an effective campaign stance because he conveyed to many voters the impression that he would deliver these promised actions that other candidates and officeholders failed to delivevr only because they were lazy, corrupt, or indiffereint to the interests of the citizenry. I think a summary statement of the many key campaign promise failures is appropriate -- but a summary that covers the scope and importance would be helpful, rather than a mere list. SPECIFICO talk 16:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said this may be OK in an article about his presidency, this is not it. Also, we would need to show that RS found this exceptional.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this is more a personal characteristic of his, making boastful promises that sound convincing despite being fundamentally ridiculous. SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then (as long as we can find RS that say this is a defining characteristic) lets say that "he has been characterized as an inveterate liar who makes promises he can't (and had no intention) of keeping", or words to that effect. Lets make it about him, and not his presidency.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other candidates make promises, too, that they can't or won't keep (see PolitiFact's stats of Obama and Trump's campaign promises) but they don't keep mentioning them or claim that they have kept them. Trump made a few signature promises during the campaign that he kept harping on during the presidency with its continuing rallys: build the wall, repeal and replace Obamacare with something mucho better, bring back manufacturing, the infrastructure plan that never materialized despite several "infrastructure weeks" which became a running joke. Specifico, do you have a suggestion for a summary? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So he didn't keep all his promises. Nothing unusual for US presidents & politicians overall. GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, his record is highly unusual. For starters you can do an internet search on "Trump campaign promises" and a raft of top quality sources will be listed. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biden's not exactly off to a great start either. But, I guess we can blame that all on Joe 'the DINO' Manchin. GoodDay (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia content depends on

reliable sourcing. To include what you want would require reliable independent sourcing that tells us two things - That your claim about the low unemployment rate is true (It seems unlikely to this non-American - Lowest EVER?), and that this low unemployment rate was the result of action taken by Donald Trump. So, do you have such sources? HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Well we would need RS saying it was him personally who caused it, for a start. Otherwise (again) this would be best in an article about his presidancy.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recorded history? See for yourself (not all of recorded history, just going back to 1948): https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls, select "Civilian unemployment", click "Retrieve Data", click "More formatting options", change output options to 1948-2021 and select "include graphs" and "include annual averages", click "Retrieve data". Nice chart, eh? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Here's the result in a graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE, and the graph and table for 2001–2021: https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spacetime, your charts are about total unemployment. The claim raised at this discussion had to do with Black and Latino unemployment. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that—should have included my reasoning. I looked for statistics breaking down the totals into the subsets prior to 2001 but haven't found any. The table for 2001–2021 shows how the unemployment rates rise and fall along with the total. Stands to reason that that was the case in earlier years, too. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC) I mean this U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics chart and table of unemployment rates from 2001–2021 for the subsets Hispanic/Latino, Black/African American, White, Asian, men 20 years and over, women 20 years and over, 16–19 years old. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Click each subset until all of them are shown in the graph to see how they all rise and fall at the same time. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was typical of the Trump talking points that took on a life of their own and go from fabrication to fact merely through repetition. Perhaps this could be included as an example in the context of a well-sourced section about his style of communication? SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=KmSq soibangla (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To MelanieN's point, I have seen no RS that attribute any such decline to Trump. Moreover, per my comment above, I have not seen any RS that say the economic welfare of these groups has improved during Trump's time in office, so a single statistic out of context is not viewed by RS as supporting the implication Trump apparently hoped to establish with this talking point. SPECIFICO talk 18:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no evidence that Trump magically made these things happen, so it should certainly not be in the lead or ever attributed to Trump's actions, but it might belong in the article as it does in Obama's, with simple statements of the numbers.

The unemployment rate rose in 2009, reaching a peak in October at 10.0 percent and averaging 10.0 percent in the fourth quarter. Following a decrease to 9.7 percent in the first quarter of 2010, the unemployment rate fell to 9.6 percent in the second quarter, where it remained for the rest of the year.[267] Between February and December 2010, employment rose by 0.8 percent, which was less than the average of 1.9 percent experienced during comparable periods in the past four employment recoveries.[268] By November 2012, the unemployment rate fell to 7.7 percent,[269] decreasing to 6.7 percent in the last month of 2013.[270] During 2014, the unemployment rate continued to decline, falling to 6.3 percent in the first quarter.[271] GDP growth returned in the third quarter of 2009, expanding at a rate of 1.6 percent, followed by a 5.0 percent increase in the fourth quarter.[272] Growth continued in 2010, posting an increase of 3.7 percent in the first quarter, with lesser gains throughout the rest of the year.[272] In July 2010, the Federal Reserve noted that economic activity continued to increase, but its pace had slowed, and chairman Ben Bernanke said the economic outlook was "unusually uncertain".[273] Overall, the economy expanded at a rate of 2.9 percent in 2010.[274]

This does not credit Obama with the growth, but states the basic facts on the situation. Bill Williams 19:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article is already massive, why add sentences about him giving testimony that did not affect his life or the lives of any of his associates? How did this testimony change anything? Bill Williams 22:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yea it's just not significant. Hasn't proven to be impactful or a considerably important aspect of his post-presidential life. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I posted it in Legal affairs of Donald Trump instead. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

I didn't see this before reverting, and I regret not leaving time for a self-reversion. That said, I agree with Tartan357. Firefangledfeathers 04:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else reverting is equally welcome :) ― 

Talk 04:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Seems reasonable. You might try to make an edit for one of those items and see what happens. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, Bob, you recall we've very recently discussed those points and decided against giving undue weight to them in our NPOV narrative. SPECIFICO talk!

I believe the lead is long enough. Let's maintain its stability, after so many disputes & changes, over the months. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am unsure what is causing this issue, but it is likely due to the excessive level of citations harming the rendering performance. We might want to parts off of the article to avoid this problem

MaitreyaVaruna, I think this happened once before, and I believe it was due to too many templates on the page, in part due to all of the instances of {{cite web}}. There are over 850 citations on this page! We had trimmed them down IIRC but they may have ballooned back up. We need to delete every unnecessary source in this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The boxes at the bottom of the article are alright. It's just that (as already mentioned) there's an overload of citations in this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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