Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 120

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 115 ← Archive 118 Archive 119 Archive 120 Archive 121 Archive 122 → Archive 125

Dispersion of protesters/Church Photo-op

This discussion has been open for more than a month and an editor has requested closing at
WP:RFCLOSE
.

First, I think this would be better to rerun as a formal RfC with a neutrally-worded proposition statement. This was exceptionally difficult to follow. Numerous questions were posed in this discussion, however, the main one appears to be whether the "church photo opp incident" (presently the whole of the section titled "Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op") should be included as content in this article and that's the only item I'll address in this closing.

By raw headcount, there were 9 !votes to Exclude, 10 to Include, 4 to Include but Shorten, and 2 to Include but move to the

WP:NOTAVOTE
, excluded these !votes from further consideration.

The substance of the Exclude arguments were that this is

WP:10YT
.

There is neither a clear consensus to include, nor a clear consensus to exclude. If, however, we assume that those supporting include would also support the "include but shorten position" versus supporting no alternate outcome or the "exclude" option, then a consensus emerges, that consensus encapsulated by Muboshgu's !vote that "it can get a sentence or two here".

By my reading, therefore, there is a consensus for a sentence or two on the "church photo opp incident" (presently the whole of the section titled "Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op") to be included in this article. (Obviously, simply removing periods from the prior content to create a giant block of one or two run-on sentences, or other manipulation, would not be in GF.) Also, because of the complexity and difficulty of this discussion, I don't think it would be unreasonable to rerun it in the very near future presented as a more formally constructed RfC. Chetsford (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

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

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/uspp/6_2_20_statement_from_acting_chief_monahan.htm The article mentions that "On June 1, 2020, Trump ordered police to tear-gas protesters near the White House so that he could walk to St. John's Episcopal Church, where he posed and waved a Bible at television cameras."

According to this official government source: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/uspp/6_2_20_statement_from_acting_chief_monahan.htm this is blatantly false. Could someone with permissions edit this to remove the false info. According to The United States Park Police, no tear gas was used only "smoke canisters and pepper balls." Also based on this official government source it doesn't appear that Trump ordered them to do so and the dispersion of the protesters had nothing to do with the church visit, the crowd was only dispersed because "At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids. The protestors also climbed onto a historic building at the north end of Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. Intelligence had revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found caches of glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles hidden along the street."

For the sake of being impartial as Wikipedia is supposed to be, any talk about whether Trump ordered the police actions and any suggestion that the protesters were tear gassed should be clarified as conjecture/speculation. Also, IMO the wording of " he posed and waved a Bible at television cameras" should be changed to simply "he posed with a Bible" in order to maintain an impartial connotation.

Also for the sake of impartiality perhaps later in the paragraph Rubio and Walker's defense of the photo op detailed here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/06/02/walker-rubio-among-few-republicans-to-defend-trump-over-church-photo-op/#481ab4027f04 should be mentioned to give two examples of a positive reaction to go along with the two examples of negative reaction already in the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brboyle (talk • contribs) 08:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

What's blatantly false is your official government source: historic building at the north end of Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. According to the rector of the building: Just after 10 p.m. on Sunday, someone set a fire in the basement of the parish hall, which firefighters quickly extinguished, The Washington Post reported. The fire was contained to a nursery room, although there was smoke and water damage to other areas of the basement, according to the Rev. Rob Fisher, the church's rector. "We’re very happy to report that the rest of the church and parish house is untouched except for some exterior graffiti, which the city's graffiti team has already covered up". You also should have read your own Forbes source past the first paragraph because in the next one they say that police used tear gas. That would make me double-check everything else Monahan claims. We use reliable secondary sources, not possibly self-serving primary ones. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, it wasn't just the NPS. There were several other agencies with bodies on the ground, apparently at the behest of Bill Barr. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the whole section. As a main biography of the subject, this particular article doesn't need a two-paragraph section about an

incident-of-the-day, no matter how shocking to some. — JFG talk
15:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Not a good move. I've reinstated it. Regardless of how it is trimmed, expanded, relocated, or rewritten, there is no doubt that it is a noteworthy, well-sourced topic that will endure in this article. Denial and erasure doesn't help us get to the best format for article text on this topic. Among other things, you could start by proposing a different location within the article or further discussion of the use of military force on domestic civilians, or the swift condemnations by diverse notable individuals. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
This edit deleted the section on Trump having lawful demonstrators driven from Lafayette Park and surrounding streets for a photo op in front of St. John's Episcopal Church. Edit summary: This article doesn't need a two-paragraph section about an incident-of-the-day, no matter how shocking to some. (Don't count me among the shocked, I was expecting something like this.) @JFG: you support the expansion of the section on primary, secondary, tertiary fencing, steel posts, etc., and this is where you draw the line? Federal law enforcement (secret service, national guard, the freaking park service) attacking Americans lawfully demonstrating in front of the WH so bunker boy Trump can safely wander across the street for a five-minute photo op? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I am firmly in agreement with JFG on this one. This is a clear violation of
WP:WEIGHT necessary to have a significant impact on Trump's life. -- Scjessey (talk
) 15:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Can you give me an example of the kind of information on recent developments that is sometimes deemed appropriate if this event doesn't qualify? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Um, "incident of the day"? SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@
WP:NOTNEWS. -- Scjessey (talk
) 16:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
You can't violate not news unless this article becomes a newspaper consisting of "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities" ← Of course, we commonly and extensively include such routine content anyway when it involves sports or entertainment, so why you or anyone else would decide that NOTNEWS should be expanded to include widely reported, non-routine material of obvious societal importance is totally beyond my comprehension. - MrX 🖋 12:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@
WP:CRYSTAL. Trump has weathered countless controversies like this in the past, things that would end any other presidency. -- Scjessey (talk
) 12:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough Scjessey. There is no way to know for sure if this will have lasting significance, but I predict that the images of park police using shields to shove protesters out of the way while the protesters are being pelted with pepperballs amid smoke will have the same enduring values as images from 1968, and perhaps even 1933. A year from now and five years from now, we can review the article content from more of historical perspective and make adjustments as necessary. - MrX 🖋 13:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree with JFG and Scjessey. The point that keeps getting made over and over is that Trump's presidency is an endless stream of noteworthy, well-sourced topic[s] that will endure in this article, at an average rate of roughly one per week. We already have far too much of this, and its existence doesn't justify even more. Almost all of it violates the spirit of #Current consensus #37. I implore editors to stop reacting to today's headlines in this article merely because of its high visibility, and to start taking most of that stuff to the Presidency article and other sub-articles for consideration. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
While it’s very obviously due to for the Presidency article (I don’t think any reasonable person can deny that), I do have some consternation whether it’s due here. It certainly passes the
WP:10YT, as this will be talked about for years to come. There’s no doubt about that, given the coverage this has already evoked. However, I do agree with some of the editors here that this is not “overly” due, as of yet, for the top level biography. As in, it doesn’t need extensive coverage. I think we can certainly devote a few lines to this, though, as it’s obviously historic. But we don’t need paragraphs of content. Piping links will likely be adequate if a reader wants to know more about it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk
) 17:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
This will be edited, perhaps shortened, placed in context with reaction such as the unprecedented rebuke from Trump's Secretary of Defense. But how can we say that this is less significant to the narrative of who Trump is and what he's done that the trivia about World Wrestling, the details of some real estate, casino, or other transactions, or similar events that affected Trump and his counterprties and few others. Moreover, arguments such as Mandruss' that are about otherstuff and not about the specifics of this event as described by RS are non-starters and shouldn't be put in play to distract us with off-topic dialogue. I agree with A.A. that this is not a NOTNEWS editorial issue, so arguments based on that knee-jerk reaction will need to go deeper, based on the sources. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude. Agree with JFG, seems just a story-du-jour, not BLP significant nor 10YT. Also agree with OP that the content seemed dubious on facts ... the photo op seems a show of support due to the church arson, and I’ve seen press saying the orders came from Barr not Trump. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
While I know “story-du-jour” is a favoured phrase of yours, I’m a bit surprised that you don’t recognize this passes 10YT, as it has for the few other presidents who did similar things. Universally. And we can’t speculate on where ‘orders‘ came from (Trump is capable of making his own determinations). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, this isn’t a vote. “Exclude” isn’t necessary. We’re just discussing.Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:RECENTISM plopping in a breaking news item. Now it is past my usual desire that there should be a 48-hour holding period so WEIGHT and more info can arrive, and it’s obvious this is not a BLP life-altering item. I’m curious what specifics you were thinking of by “the few other presidents who did similar things. Universally.”, but not much. Really, this never belonged in his personal Religion section. And it doesn’t belong as a whole subsection of Presidency, equal to all the Immigration, or all the Foreign policy. Cheers Markbassett (talk
) 23:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I can provide a list of presidents who militarized police to subvert protests, or used the military to do so, but I think it’s immaterial. I’m primarily thinking of Nixon’s administration. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Freddie Grey. I continue to think this just has not been shown as material suitable for the BLP, emotional OR and speculation notwithstanding. Cheers Markbassett (talk
) 19:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
“Mmm”? Like I said, there are several examples. But this practice has died off for a reason. Mark, look. I live in Ohio. My parents witnessed the
2001 Cincinnati Riots triggered by the shooting of an unarmed black teenager. Since then, I’ve lived in four other places where either unarmed black people were shot, or police brutalized protestors. And not much happened. Never have I seen a politician hold up a bible outside a place damaged in the aftermath. Let alone disperse and injure peaceful protestors to do so. If you can’t realize how historic this is, it only means you’re lacking imagination. Search “Trump” in any search engine, and you’ll see a barrage of reliable sources talking about this, and how it’s relevant to his presidency. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk
) 22:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Symmachus Auxiliarus I am content with your expressed doubts, as I do not see you have a grasp on realities or ability to provide factual specifics here, particularly in context of this article. There seems a lot of imagined items being asserted “passes 10YT, as it has for the few other presidents who did similar things. Universally.” Or (Trump) “disperse and injure”. This kind of TALK isn’t usable for article edits. Search a bit more for yourself on where the orders came from and why... there’s just too much storyline fantasy here, lots unclear and confused, not enough fact or article edit discussion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
On July 24, 2018 before a group of U.S. Veterans of Foreign War, Trump said, "What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening." Orwellian? Yes[1]. The absurd notion that Trump has a government website denying Trump used tear gas against Americans protesting the government just so Trump could walk across the street for a photo-op at a church is Orwellian, a lie, propaganda. And the lie starts with Trump's government website falsely claiming that "pepper balls" are not tear gas, but according to the Washington Post [2] the C.D.C. says it is tear gas. I don't know why Trump wants to deny what we saw with our own eyes, but, in the future, if Trump does not want the media to expose his violence against Americans exercising their 1st Amendment right, then he should stop being so violent against Americans. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I know this isn't a vote, but I feel this should be included in Trump's bio because I feel this is who Trump is and who he is belongs in both his bio page and in the Presidency of Donald Trump page. Let me explain what I mean, Trump is an Authoritarian[3] [4]. Not a Republican, but an Authoritarian. So, just as the "Russia's annexation of Crimea and military intervention in Eastern Ukraine" and Putin using Russian police to attack Russian protesters is within Vladimir Putin's bio page, Trump attacking American protesters with tear gas just to so he can get a photo-op at a church should be in Trump's bio. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


Your feelings are irrelevant here. I don’t disagree on at least a few of those points. But you need to act dispassionately, and be neutral, when editing. Your comment is a lot of polemic. Call me an idealist, but I genuinely try to be neutral and consider all perspectives. Offer your improvements for the article one at a time, and provide sources, as you have prior. But the ones here aren’t sufficient to rewrite a whole section of a biography. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Symmachus Auxiliarus - your right, my feelings are not relevant here, and that's why I sourced the RS article regarding 'Trump is an Authoritarian' to explain why I support keeping SPECIFICO's edit. I apologize if I my comment above didn't make that clear. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I apologize if I was a bit harsh. It wasn’t clear. I know you’re just trying to improve the article. I was only saying the extra commentary wasn’t helpful. And the “vote” comment was directed at Mark, as he used a comment standard in !voting, even though we were just all engaging in a discussion. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words.  I should have been more clear in my two comments.  My first comment was addressing my "non-support" of the editor's proposition, who began this new section, that we exclude truth based off of Trump's most recent fib, untruth[5], 'it wasn't tear-gas' even though WaPo confirms it was, in fact, tear gas & we saw the tear gas with our own eyes. My second comment was to "support" SPECIFICO's edit. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you undo your repeat removal. You are kind of on borrowed time here, and edit-warring against the consensus on this talk page -- especially after the text has been moved and edited to address constructive comments -- is not a good look. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Markbassett: Time to self-revert your removal: [9][10] SPECIFICO talk
User:SPECIFICO the move was a *reason* to delete it, and not seeing any meaning to ‘borrowed time’. If it’s so big then tomorrow or next week it will still be growing - come back then. It doesn’t seem really factually straight or BLP material, and it certainly is UNDUE prominence to put it at the same level of *all* immigration, etcetera. Other than fantasies and reinterpretation framings, there’s just very little to the whole event. Hyperbolic diatribes (here or outside) just have nothing to offer. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
If you are calling Gen. Mattis' statement a "hyperbolic diatribe" -- that is kind of a preposterous characterization. Maybe give it a second reading. SPECIFICO talk 01:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Trudeau! Business as usual. Just a day's headline? [11] SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
That is the octuplets version of a pregnant pause. - MrX 🖋 14:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Include I can't think of anything brilliant to say. This latest episode of the absolute insanity that has become part of our everyday lives leaves me just totally dumbstruck. The NYT called it something that's going to go down as a memorable event in Trump's presidency and I firmly believe it. Even non-Christians know that the Bible is considered a Holy Book and to use it as a prop to show his special connection to God is just about the most bizarre thing imaginable, especially when it is very well-known that he's never read it and wouldn't believe a word of it if he did. Gandydancer (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude: The federal government was not responsible for the death of George Floyd. I see no evidence that Trump is the main focus of the protests. I don't believe the photo op at the church will be remembered in 10 years time, and I find the claims about historians writing about this fanciful. Is there any basis for these far-fetched claims? If it develops into something bigger, then, sure, include it. But at the moment it seems like a passing news story.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
We are not really talking about the federal government or George Floyd, are we? We are talking about Trump's personal actions with respect to the latter. All news stories pass, but this one has evoked stunning reactions from the current and previous Trump-appointed SecDefs, which in itself makes it highly noteworthy. The huge amount of coverage across the world easily means that it meets
WP:DUEWEIGHT according to our policy which looks at proportionate coverage with respect to other content in an article. The bible waving is not the main event. The main event is that Trump, through the US AG (Note: not Trump's personal AG), used unjustified force to clear a path so that Trump could signal his evangelical base right after he proclaimed that he would use the U.S. military to quash protests against the government, in violation of the 1st and 10th amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Causing protesters to be assaulted in the streets, threatening to use the military against Americans, waving a bible in a photo-op in a very Christ-unlike manner, and retreating to a bunker like a bitch are familiar images from a very dark and not so distant past. I assure you, this is far more important than golf courses, wrestling, reality TV, recognizing Jerusalem, and Trump's comically failed attempts to contain North Korea. Don't take my word for it. Just listen to what the civilized world is saying as reflected in reliable sources. - MrX 🖋
11:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Well said MrX - very well said. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Very well said indeed (and the "swan song" comment below). BTW, while the Bible waving may not be the main thing right now I believe that that photo of Trump waving that Bible will become a historical image because it so well illustrates the picture of what it looked like when our democracy, which was built on the very idea of a separation of church and state, failed. Think about how one may look at a photograph of the ayatollah waving a Quran while the government troops savagely attack their own people and what that means. It has made a lot of people glad to be from America. And now the same thing happened right here and there it is documented in that photo. Maybe I am just being starry-eyed but I believe that Wikipedia, through documenting what is happening here and around the world, is helping us to preserve our freedom. (sorry for the soap boxing which I know I should not be doing...) Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Gandydancer - Excellent points! BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Gandydancer In Foreign Policy [12] retired Marine Corps 4-star General John Allen wrote, "One wonders, did Esper and Barr know that hundreds of peaceful U.S. citizens had been attacked by riot police just minutes before, their civil rights massively violated just to set the stage for their picture? Did it occur to them that in posing with the president and the Bible he held in front of a church, ostensibly calling down the authority of God on this cause, they were violating the spirit of one of the most important strictures in America, the separation of church and state? And if federal troops are indeed dispatched into the states to take action against American civilians, where does the Bible and the Christian God figure into the president’s deployment order? The framers of the Constitution intended the separation for a reason, and the commander in chief just trampled it." BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
MrX, can you please stop this "North Korea policy was a failure" argument. Wikipedia does not include or exclude content based on whether it is a success or failure. Please stop it.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Jack Upland, your Korea remark raises an overriding issue which perhaps needs to be stated more starkly. Trump's North Korea policy, like many of his initiatives, was not a policy at all. It was a charade. It's been a constant battle to avoid article text here that reads like the script of Administration talking points and deflections. In the case of North Korea, RS tell us that Trump surrendered any chance of slowing or preventing Kim's development of deliverable nuclear weapons. That is the significant point, and it is not clearly articulated in the article. Trump's twitter posts, plane rides, hand shakes, Korean lunches etc. are not the central facts. Jack Upland, why don't you propose some article text on Korea that adequately conveys Trump's surrender to what the US intelligence and military establishment considered the most dangerous threat facing the US. That would be helpful, as would similar NPOV improvements to text on other governmental matters. SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Jack, I wrote "comically failed attempts to contain North Korea", not "The North Korea policy". Trump was not operating from a policy as far as anyone can tell—not even cowboy diplomacy. I also didn't claim that the containment failure was a reason for relegating the material. - MrX 🖋 01:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
MrX, you wrote this is far more important than... Trump's comically failed attempts to contain North Korea. That is a clear illustration of how much this incident is being blown out of proportion.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Include It`s relevant...the way the way things are going it will probably be his swansong 2600:1702:2340:9470:69E9:6D24:2624:228B (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Title change: George Floyd's killing and the officers initially not getting charged was the trigger for the protests, but Trump's photo op wasn't about Floyd. As Bishop Bunne said, he didn't mention Floyd at all (or the fire-damaged church, for that matter). The cited sources say that he was furious about the administration "looking weak" and wanted to take control of the streets, resulting in Barr personally ordering the attack. Also, can someone explain to me why the main article has a "deletion" tag which leads to an AfD page for a page that doesn't exist? It looks as though the article for deletion was merged into the photo-op article. Does that automatically extend the deletion process to the article it was merged into? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Dave souza: Do you have a source for this currently unsourced edit? I vaguely remember someone (bishop, rector?) mentioning that the fire started in the nursery but the cited sources don't mention it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
One of the current sources is Reuters, "Outside St. John’s, people distributed water bottles and squirts of hand sanitizer amid the coronavirus pandemic as the rector, Father Rob Fisher, watched the protest. Fisher said that a fire set the previous night in the church’s nursery did little damage before being extinguished by firefighters." Other sources have noted these church people were moved away by the 'tear gas' or police push. USA Today gives some more details – “As we know many of you have already heard, there was a small fire in the parish house basement,” Fisher wrote in a letter to parishioners. “Thankfully, it appears to have been contained to the nursery — though, as you might imagine there is smoke and water damage to other areas of the basement.” in "A look at damage inside historic St. John's Church, which burned during protests". Today. Retrieved 2020-06-02. . . dave souza, talk 12:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Baker, Peter; Haberman, Maggie; Rogers, Katie; Kanno-Youngs, Zolan; Benner, Katie; Willis, Haley; Triebert, Christiaan; Botti, David (2020-06-02). "How Trump's Idea for a Photo Op Led to Havoc in a Park". The New York Times. Retrieved 2020-06-03.
  • Support inclusion - we got religious leaders and former military officers up in arms over this, which is not common at all. Furthermore, this incident totally features Trump himself. There's no shirking away from this. starship.paint (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Better in the Presidency of article if anywhere.--MONGO (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Include I think it likely to pass the
    Wikipedia:10YT and be an important enough event for his bio. I mean the dude violently clear out protestors to hold up a bible across the street from the WH. Seems an important enough single event to be here.Casprings (talk
    ) 15:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Space4. If this were merely about Trump's reaction to the killing, it would not be a significant fact in his 70+ year life story. As I said recently about the Korea show, we need to be careful not to adopt false narratives promulgated by interested parties (Trump administration and reelection figures) when we describe his actions. Just as the Korean lunch and handshakes with Kim were not about disarmament, these latest actions are not about police misconduct - or at least not Mineeapolis police. SPECIFICO talk 22:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion I’ve stated my reasons in the above section. I can’t imagine how people would try to obfuscate this or downplay its significance. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Include This particular incident raises the level of absurdity regarding him to new heights..not even getting into separation of state and church and the constitutional issues..what does he think he was proving ? This was an insanely incoherent incident and my guess is he`ll probably top it soon..it doesn`t matter whether you include or not..eventually there will be no choice..it`s obvious 2600:1702:2340:9470:7103:703D:723F:1DC8 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
    Struck double vote by IP user. — JFG talk 22:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • IncludeThis one will probably end up in the history books so it doesn`t matter what we say here..trump holding a bible in front of political protesters 2600:1702:2340:9470:CCDD:9ABF:9B30:9D06 (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    Struck triple vote by IP user. — JFG talk 22:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – Two weeks later, I stand by my initial assessment: As a main biography of the subject, this particular article doesn't need a two-paragraph section about an
    incident-of-the-day, no matter how shocking to some. Which other "egad" moment is top of the news now? — JFG talk
    22:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude as part of this article - probably better for the "Presidency of" article. I have to agree with JFG. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 12:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I came here to close this, but decided I probably wasn't the best person. My thoughts are that it seems there is a rough consensus to include the information in some form. Those who support inclusion point to the exceptional response from James Mattis, our article
    Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church, and its keep result at AFD as examples to argue that while daily outrages are not new, this outrage is an important aspect in Trump's biography. The opposition largely argue that this is no more important than the other daily outrages, and it would be undue to discuss it at length. This is a compelling reason not to have an entire section or multiple paragraphs, but weighed against the arguments of those in favor of inclusion, it doesn't seem sufficient to justify complete exclusion of the information. — Wug·a·po·des
    ​ 01:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment — I agree with JFG. This story has already dropped out of the news.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude - no lasting encyclopedic value...yesterday's whine. Atsme Talk 📧 00:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Include. The extraordinary level of media coverage passes even the very high bar for DUE at this page. I see the normal cluster of editors here whose views about DUE just happen to line up precisely with what's favorable to Trump — it's pointless to try to tell them to stop, but they need to stop. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Editor ZiplineWhy has changed the title to "Killing of George Floyd" twice now ([14], [15]), both times without the courtesy of explaining their reasons in the edit summary or discussing in the lengthy discussion above. In two edits after the first change ([16], [17]), the editor stated that the section should be expanded to include Trump's condemnation of Floyd's passing, and more information. The editor also added a sentence to the lead [[18]) which has since been deleted. I have reverted to last version prior to the change. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Iconic photo

@Starship.paint: The iconic photo isn't one of those the White House published, it's the one of Trump holding the Bible aloft like a foam finger. It's the image you see when you go to the C-SPAN footage, and from 00:36 to 00:51 when the video is playing. I looked at C-SPAN's Copyright & Licensing and it seems to me that—since the event was in the public domain and its use would not enhance the value of an organization or entity—a still image of 00:37, for example would be permissible. @MrX: You were/are involved in at least a couple of deletion discussions on Wikimedia. What do you think? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I agree that the screen cap from the C-SPAN video is the iconic image and that it can be used, but it should be uploaded to Wikipedia not Commons, and we can't crop out the C-SPAN logo. The White House photo is a not a free equivalent, because it's not equivalent. "Public domain" refers to the copyright status, not the venue. - MrX 🖋 11:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: - can you prove that this particular shot was iconic - e.g. have media organizations used this particular shot? starship.paint (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
A basic Google image search of "Trump holding bible" suggests the image is notable, although I don't know whether "iconic" is a valid label at this point. "Like a foam finger" made me laugh out loud. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I used the word iconic because that's what your edit summary called the other photo. I can't recall having seen or heard the word used for any of the photos from the outing. There are quite a few others (Trump pawing Bible, Trump looking at Bible—uh—pensively) but the one used most often on TV and as the only one or the first one in print is the one from those 15 looong seconds of Trump the Crusader defending the honor of Bible defiantly held aloft. The NY Times has the best photo IMO (Trump and lamppost framing church marquee sign) but unfortunately we can't use it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Forgot the sources (there are more): NY Times,[19], [20], [21]), [22], [23], [24], [25] Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I've uploaded the image. MrX: Could you take a look and let me know if you see something that might be a reason for deletion? The resolution is lower than the official WH photo but no worse than other pictures in the article (Trump examining the border wall, for example). You can see it in this diff. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@
WP:NFCCP spaces, since every criteria must be met. - MrX 🖋
19:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
External videos
video icon President Trump walks across Lafayette Park to St. John's Church on YouTube (C-SPAN) (7:46)
In place of any photo, consider an external video box like this one, which would be more informative. It would also appear more neutral, since it doesn't cherry-pick images. We've done things like this for years in current-event articles, with no copyright objections that I'm aware of. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll have to figure out how. Took me quite a while to do the rationale for the image; I thought I had filled out everything but I seem to have overlooked a few items. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
In the current event articles, we always prefer raw, uncut video to edited, despite the former being longer. The rationale is that any editing can reflect bias, even unconscious bias. We let the reader (viewer) look at any or all of the video (nobody is forced to view the whole thing, and most internet users these days know how to skip around in a video) and make their own interpretations and judgments. Certainly that concept applies even more when you effectively "edit the video" down to a single frame. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: - good work finding the sources using the picture. They have substantively bolstered your case. starship.paint (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I didn't actually pick the image, RS did that. All I did was find a version of it we can use on WP (keeping my fingers crossed). I get the rationale for preferring raw, uncut video. But—there's raw footage, and then there's raw footage of an elaborately staged propaganda production. The White House used footage of the walk for a 30-second Twitter video, underlaid with bombastic music. The Washington Post pasted a "This is propaganda" label on it and showed law enforcement driving protesters from Lafayette Square on a split screen. I've come to the conclusion that raw footage of an elaborately staged propaganda production (even without the music) is still propaganda, and that Wikipedia shouldn't link to it (WP:NOTPROMOTION). The plot: "Get to da choppa." The Expendables move out, Ivanka in black suit, black face mask, carrying a large white bag at 0:16–0:18 in the video. "Where's my prop, Ivanka?" Ivanka walks from left to center in background with white tote at 4:46, hands Bible to Trump at 4:47, exits screen to the left at 4:51. Trump holds Bible aloft from 5:21 to 5:36, glowers into camera ("from my cold, dead hands"), then has his Mussolini moment on the way back to the White House, reviewing the Metropolitan Guard. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
elaborately staged propaganda production is POV on its face. I don't think it's for us as Wikipedia editors to decide what's propaganda. I happen to agree with you personally, but I check my beliefs at the door. I didn't actually pick the image, RS did that. I understand. But you're choosing it over an alternative that RS also picked, so you can't pass the buck to RS. It would be an entirely different situation if the raw video weren't available. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
How about "clumsily staged propaganda production"? Better? Actually I would say media event instead of propaganda production, because the Americans do not have propaganda. That is more a European and Asian thing. SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
You're word-quibbling and missing the point entirely. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Well what is your point. The thread was about a photo but then you went to how you prefer them uncut, etc. which I didn't really understand. Anyway, please don't confuse Space4's talk page comment w. article content. I think it's clear that what Space4 and I tried to describe in various wordings is what RS tell us about the event. SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
what RS tell us about the event Same song, verse 2,236, and again we see the weakness of this system. Editors can always claim that RS says this or that, and that's never provable or disprovable because nobody can assimilate the entire body of RS on any topic, let alone prove what they've assimilated. Confirmation bias. Which sources – which tiny subset of RS – have you personally read regarding this issue?
This business is largely a numbers contest between editors of different POVs, under the guise of policy-based decision-making. I've cast my effectively-democratic vote and submitted my off-topic but highly relevant meta-rant, and I'll move on now. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll move on now Praise the Lord! Please don't disparage your well-read and open-minded colleagues here. It hurts our feelings and makes us sad. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I’m mostly noting how much of this is fantasised parody, kind of disreputable and not a credible or serious effort. Tsk. Markbassett (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Put it in..waving a bible in front of a bunch of pissed off students was a pretty stupid thing to do..not that it would ever happen but he could have come out and said something..anything would have been more effective than that..the worse part of all this is even his supporters know he`s crazy...It doesn`t matter what people say here..this photo op is another escalation of his lunacy and it will probably get worse..might as well put it in while it`s still relevant 2600:1702:2340:9470:7103:703D:723F:1DC8 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • That was quick - image was deleted by a bot because an editor put it up for discussion stating that he didn’t see any difference between it and the WH picture and another editor voted "delete," erroneously claiming that it fails NFCC 1. (How is it even possible that a bot gets to close discussions? Maybe I should have added "Keep" to even the score?) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tweet visual element

For a while, we've had Trump's tweets embedded via {{

MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE may be a pertinent guideline. {{u|Sdkb}} talk
19:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I really liked your addition of a caption and I added {{
talk
) 20:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
It doesn’t seem helpful - Sorry, but it doesn’t seem related to the items in section text so does not have
WP:UNDUE prominence given to a specific tweet of no great note sand it overwhelms the section. Cheers Markbassett (talk
) 00:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I just realized that my edit summary was unclear. "NPOV" didn't refer to the removal of the tweet, it referred to began tagging Trump's more egregious misstatements which is kind of WP op-ed - I don't see that in the sources. The big story is the big shift in how Twitter deals with the president (NYT cite), and Twitter followed up the fact-checking warning with the ones about glorifying violence. The RS cites all contain the tweet plus more context than we can provide in a caption and in a short encyclopedia entry, and IMO the tweet did overwhelm the section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
As the author of "more egregious", I comment on the question of why Twitter began tagging Trump's tweets. The previous and present text struggle with the questions of why Twitter began such tagging and how it decides to tag or not. My phrasing attempted to indicate why, the new phrasing resorts to weasel wording, perhaps raising more questions in a reader's mind - "some tweets"...chosen at random? why some not others? why now? etc. To back up, having reviewed the cited sources again, the issue was brought to a head by two incidents: (1) Trump's recent horrible tweets regarding the death of Klausutis, and (2) the sensitive issue of Twitter's response to Russian use of its services to interfere with the 2016 election. The first made it imperative for Twitter to do something, the second made Twitter hypersensitive about election interference, and here was Trump doing the same. As one reference discusses, the change in policy was two years in the making...brought to a head by these recent egregious tweets. There is perhaps an opportunity for indicating specifically how this came about in the article. More broadly, I reiterate my earlier opinions that the Tweeting topic is underrepresented in the article; Trump seems to tweet 50-100 times a day (ironically using Twitter and hyperbole to criticize Twitter). (I am a veteran of a hot-topic political article...and won't get too involved!) Bdushaw (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
The tags are portrayed as new Twitter rules then, not about President Trump or targeted to him as “tagging Trump” portrays. Just that a tweet of his got tagged was reported, ok, and I see also complaints reported for they didn’t tag him on Gugino NYT. The introduction of more tags seems wrapped around lots of things, and so does the mechanism or success of what is/isn’t tagged and whether it actually was corrupt partisan action NYPost NBC, This looks more like something for the Twitter article than for the Trump BLP, where President Trump among others Fox The Hill are just noted as instances, and the controversy is a Twitter one. The credibility (or not) of statements is already addressed elsewhere, tied to fact-checkers... that already seems a bit UNDUE and an image saying ‘we mean tweets too’ seems redundant to the text. Markbassett (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair use photo for popular culture section?

At Donald Trump in popular culture#Television, I notice that we used File:Three Donalds.jpg under fair use. Would it be acceptable to do the same thing here for the popular culture section? (the section currently has no visual element) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 09:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't belong there. (And how did this still escape the notice of the Fair Use Police?). It's a still from an SNL show Trump hosted in 2015, and celebrities hosting the show get paid. It's related to Media career, I'd think, but it wouldn't serve to illustrate anything in there right now. Maybe 2016 campaign, if that mentioned the billions of free publicity Trump got. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Bias against Republicans on Wikipedia

I don't even know why, there's so much bias against republicans on an online encyclopedia, encylopedia's are supposed to be objective, but since the far-left editors on this website have made it a shithole, from the smearing of Fox News host Tucker Carlson, well known African American Conservative Candance Owens, Conservative pundit Mark Levin, by an editor named Snooganssnoogans. My question is how would you like, if I dug up homophobic tweets by MSNBC host Joy Reid, and added to her page, because those exist, and she actually said those things on Twitter, it was widely reported by Fox News, and caused a lot of problems for Joy Reid, or the money problems of the founders of the Lincoln Project and their connections to the Russian Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JET08021 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

JET08021, see Joy Reid#Controversial blog posts. It's already documented. I see no sources about the Lincoln Project and Russia. There are many about Trump's ties to Russia, though. We are neutral. Your desire to push a right-wing point of view is noted. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Can a brief sentence of six words be added to the lead?

My aim on Wikipedia articles is to always edit in a neutral way. I have no strong feelings of either liking or disliking Donald Trump.

In the third paragraph of the lead section at the end of the sentence: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist", I would like to add the following short sentence: Trump has denied accusations of racism.

These six words wouldn't make the lead section much longer, but in my view would aid neutrality, as per

WP:CRIT
.

Two citations for "Trump has denied accusations of racism."[1][2]

Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Donald Trump denies being a racist after 'shithole' row". BBC News. January 15, 2018.
  2. ^ "Trump denies new accusations of racism after Elijah Cummings attack". BBC News. July 29, 2019.
No. Trump's racially charged and racist comments are notable, but his denial of them is not. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I disagree 2600:1702:2340:9470:ACBA:5CDD:5E2:89D3 (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
If Trump said "Yes, I am a racist", THAT would be notable. But I have never heard of anyone agreeing with allegations of racism mada against them. Not notable. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • confused face icon Just curious...I quoted BLP policy, which prevails in this instance, and you oppose the inclusion by wikilinking to an essay in support of your oppose. Please explain how you perceive that to be a legitimate counter to BLP policy. Atsme Talk 📧 17:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • BLP doesn't mandate that we include obvious, non-noteworthy responses to characterizations. As HiLo48 wrote, "I have never heard of anyone agreeing with allegations of racism made against them." The excerpt you quoted also refers to responses re "allegations or incidents" and gives as an example an alleged affair. It does not entitle every living person to include a response to each and every characterization made by the outside world about their public, well-reported statements and deeds. Let alone in the lead section of an article. Neutralitytalk 18:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • There is no ambiguity about inclusion in BLP policy - denial(s) should also be reported - should is defined as obligation, a duty - the policy does not say "may be reported" or "could be reported". To not include it is noncompliant with policy. Atsme Talk 📧 00:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
True in the body. Could you show me where this is required in the lead? I may have missed it. O3000 (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
MOS:LEADBIO - When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. His denial is absolutely relevant and we do not suppress a denial of a controversy per my statement above. Atsme Talk 📧
00:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you should debate on that TP to add language to your liking. I don't see it. He denies everything. Perhaps we could add something to the end of the lead that says that. OK, that was snarky. But, it's on point. O3000 (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per
    WP:BLPPUBLIC
    . Welp, it *is* the policy... Though I’d be happy for the dignity of the article to not have either in lead at all, it does seem big enough in article and remarkable enough to be there, so policy says have both.
WP:LEAD material, the policy definitely is to include the denial. A vague denial line is same prominence in article as the vague mention, so both get same prominence. Both in lead seems best choice. Cheers Markbassett (talk
) 18:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
See
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Claims of a double standard are not sufficient to require information you like to be included in the article's lede. Evan (talk|contribs
) 06:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
No, important policies like BLPPUBLIC need to be applied consistently.--
Rusf10 (talk
) 17:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

republican nomination

Closing. This has become just a discussion, unrelated to article content. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why is trump running unopposed for the republican nomination ? Why isn`t in the article ? 107.217.84.95 (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Because he wasn't unopposed at first, and now he has enough delegates to be the "presumptive nominee". -- MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
My point is this is unusual..what is different about this election ? He is obviously unpopular even within his own party and yet he`s already sewn up the nomination..it reeks of political corruption and no one even liberals seem to have batted an eye about it..why isn`t in the article ? If he`s the presumptive nominee than why are they having a convention..particularly during a pandemic? 107.217.84.95 (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention "unopposed" because it's not at all unusual for an incumbent president to have no primary opposition, or only token opposition. It's taken for granted that the incumbent will run for a second term without opposition from within his own party; there is no "corruption" about it. See, for example, 1984 Republican Party presidential primaries or Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign. I have taken the trouble to reply, but this conversation is really off topic for the article talk page which is supposed to be about what goes in the article, so let's drop it now, can we? -- MelanieN (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
He is popular among Republican voters. Gallup says 91% approval in their latest number for Jun 8-30. 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries did have a former governor. Current top politicians rarely run against an incumbent when they don't have a chance. 2020 is not unusual here. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Why is there supposed to be a convention ? 107.217.84.95 (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Orange skin

Consensus against addition in this article, a possible but not guaranteed alternative suggested is Donald Trump in popular culture. starship.paint (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

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

I was interested to see whether the President's famed orange hue was mentioned anywhere in the article: but it wasn't, not once. Now, I understand that Wikipedia is of course supposed to look at this from a neutral perspective, but characteristics of Trump such as his orange face - as well as his strange, blonde hair and even the red ties that he's fond of wearing - I feel should be at least referenced. The fact of the matter is that, whether or not Trump's face really is "orange", he is universally known for this feature, even among his supporters. Go up to a ten-year-old child and make a reference to the "orange man", and there's a chance they'll know who you're talking about. Obviously it's not particularly important to his presidency or his accomplishments, but maybe could be included in the "public profile" section? A "public image" section would be ideal. Does anyone agree with me that some kind of reference to this should be included at all? --121.99.126.230 (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

If you believe this is noteworthy, please provide several mainstream
Reliable Sources that give an overview you believe should be reflected in the article. SPECIFICO talk
13:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
What about the following:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-is-donald-trumps-skin-orange-2016-10?r=US&IR=T

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-photograph-tan-lines-orange-face-white-house-a9324791.html

According to the Independent: "The president’s curious complexion has long been a subject of intense scrutiny, chiefly among critics and comedians, with Mr Trump previously blaming his heightened facial luminosity on the glare of energy efficient lightbulbs – which he then threatened to ban." --121.99.126.230 (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

There is, perhaps, a substantive issue to be developed here, which is DT's general appearance - hair, skin color, use of makeup, etc. Often remarked upon by comedians cite#0 Vanity Fair. There was also the time DT sued Bill Maher over the issue, when he challeged DT to prove he was not half orangutan cite#1 The Guardian, cite#2 Reuters, cite#3 CNN. This article is about DT, so a discussion of DTs obviously carefully crafted appearance is valid. Meanwhile, the lawsuit is indicative of the character of the man. Also with relevance to his health. Bdushaw (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Also cite#4 CNBC the tanline incident, dismissed by DT as fake news.Bdushaw (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
He probably has high blood pressure 2600:1702:2340:9470:ED5A:2464:B671:13B7 (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
If anything this belongs in Donald Trump in popular culture. There is already a whole section dedicated to his hair, so you could probably easily make one about his skin tone. These things are not encyclopedic enough to put on the main Trump article unless there are reliable sources proving he uses wigs or spray tan. Most things in the Health and lifestyle section are backed by Trump's own physicians, not comedians. --Steverci (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The source of his skin tone is already known; it's a particular brand of orange-tone makeup.[28] [29] But it doesn't belong in the article IMO. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll second that per consensus #37. Mgasparin (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Thirded. Mentioning Trump's makeup should really be beneath us. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Scjessey, Fourtheded. Not the kind of detail we need to fixate on, at least in the main article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 17:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@May His Shadow Fall Upon You: Perhaps we can add Trump to List of famous people with atrocious spray tans? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Scjessey, I can't believe I clicked on that May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 18:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

Change: this was only publicly reported later in January 2019 

   to:  this was not reported publicly until January 2019 69.127.210.231 (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 Done.
ed. put'r there
 04:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Citing Wealth-X as source (note a)

Was it discussed whether this is a reliable source or not? The original page is 404, and the archived page sounds like it was written by the Donald J. Trump Foundation (and "John Barron" in elementary school: "Kind of Interests, Passion and Hobbies: Beverages. Description: Trump loves Coca-Cola. He has a red button on the Resolute Desk and when pressed a butler brings him a coke."). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Not RS. In fact some of it appears to be "sourced" from this article. Also, pressing the butler is rude. SPECIFICO talk 13:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
The
WP:USEBYOTHERS includes CNBC, Vox, Barrons, Business Insider, Khaleej Times, South China Morning Post, The New York Times, Fortune, and this book by a university professor. Cool about the butler though. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk
) 16:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Good work there. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Worried about bias

Hello! I am new to Wikipedia, and I am a little worried on how Wikipedia is viewed by each side of the political spectrum. Wikipedia seems to face more accusations about liberal bias than conservative. I notice the Donald Trump, Gamergate, and Pizzagate articles all seem to be biased. It calls Gamergate an "harassment campaign", despite being a clear opinion, and Pizzagate "debunked" despite several people holding the opinion that it is not debunked. These articles all contain clearly biased news sources. I feel we should make Wikipedia more right-wing friendly so Wikipedia doesn't seem so biased. Wikipedia should be a place where literally anyone can get information and not have a politically-motivated agenda shoved in their face. I'm a neither left nor right leaning individual who is into politics. I want to get points from each side, not just one. I am worried Wikipedia consists of mostly liberal editors. I would like a more centrist Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be for everyone. Like, how do you think a person who supports either Donald Trump, Gamergate, or Pizzagate would feel in reading these articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchellindahouse (talk • contribs) 01:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"I feel we should make Wikipedia more right-wing friendly so Wikipedia doesn't seem so biased." This is completely antithetical to the goals of the project and the idea is based on a flawed analysis of bias, rather than facts. Wikipedia seeks
false balance based on perception. -- Scjessey (talk
) 14:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:BOLD edit on that, and be prepared to TALK about it here as it may well get reverted. Cheers Markbassett (talk
) 22:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed; Wikipedia is heavily biased in favor of conservative viewpoints. My god, its like an episode of the Rush Limbaugh show in here. No one would know reading this article that Trump is universally considered the most disastrous American president of all time by all relevant experts, and is the most unpopular US president (by the people) in history, with no real competition for the dishonor. 100.37.199.188 (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

N.B: an editor has above, in all seriousness, without a hint of irony, asked : “How do you think a reader supporting Pizzagate would feel when reading this article?” Q.E.D.

I submit this as exhibit A for the prosecution’s case: A psychotic level of false balance has destroyed this place, where all viewpoints, no matter how insane or ludicrous, must be honored as equally true, so no one’s feelings are hurt when one matter of factly reports the proven fact that pizzagate was nothing but fabricated bullshit, an odious canard and laughably obvious myth spoonfed to credulous, gullible conservatives who have proven they will believe anything, no matter how dumb. (One might as well ask: “how do you think people who support the myth that Jews murder and drink the blood of children will feel when reading the article that says they don’t? Their feelings must be protected.”) This is an encylopedia, not a place where all viewpoints are equally true and require pandering to, lest we hurt the feelings of the wrong.

Too many articles, especially this one, have been destroyed in a frankly pathetic attempt to save delicate conservatives from offense at having their “beliefs” disproved. Bring facts, and cease talking about your feelings. 100.37.199.188 (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by notorious, self-avowed, disruptive sock. — JFG talk 06:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mitchellindahouse: This is not the place for general discussions about Wikipedia bias. You can discuss individual articles at those articles, or you can have a more general discussion at one of the Village Pump pages, probably Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). As for any claims of liberal bias in this article, please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, which has the overwhelming support of this article's editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Not a forum please

Discuss the content, not other editors. That means both of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs) 23:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I had to hat a forum like post above and could have done another 1. Can participants here please stick to discussing how to improve the article, rather than making biased observations about the subject and different people related to the same. Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Your hatting was inappropriate. I was responding to a question about my rationale that the material could go in the Bill Barr article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Except you added your biased crap analysis of the AG, and added stuff about your mental state which wasn't needed. --Malerooster (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)ps, just own it for once Scjessey, geesh.--Malerooster (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Right, so you hatted it because you disagree with it and you don't like me, rather than a legitimate reason. Got it. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
No. You don't get to spew your opinion and violate BLP on talk pages under the guise of responding to a discussion. Got it? --Malerooster (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I did not violate
WP:BLP. Verified facts aren't violations. This is clearly some sort of personal problem you have. Nevertheless, I've edited it to make you happy. -- Scjessey (talk
) 17:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
No, you are not making me happy. Your saying the AG "does whatever he is told to do" is not a verified fact, it is yours and maybe others opinion, but is not needed here. --Malerooster (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Malerooster I thought you were not to make personal attacks ? I`ve been blocked for less 107.217.84.95 (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Trump calls for cancellation of elections, dictatorial power

Useless sock thread — JFG talk 06:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request:

“In the final days of his disastrous first term, Trump called for the cancellation of democratic elections, installing himself as the supreme and unquestioned leader of the American post-democratic state. Many have called this affair “Trump’s

Reichstag Fire moment.” [1] [2]https://theintercept.com/2020/06/04/is-this-trumps-reichstag-fire-moment/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:b802:c211:e9a2:7fdb:e817:a93d (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.199.188 (talk • contribs
)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53597975
  2. ^ https://theintercept.com/2020/06/04/is-this-trumps-reichstag-fire-moment/
  • No. Drmies (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Godwin lives. O3000 (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Kingshowman. - MrX 🖋 14:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
But seriously: "Trump Floats Whether to ‘Delay the Election,’ Something He Cannot Legally Do - Trailing badly in the polls, the president baselessly suggested the November election would be “the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT” in history." - MrX 🖋 14:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
It`s definitely notable 107.217.84.95 (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Trump tweets lots of stupid shit. This tweet is no more or less notable than any other he fires off with minimal thought. Since there is nothing that he can do about the election occurring on November 3, there is nothing for us to do about the tweet either. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1988 possible VP

In Don Meacham’s biography on George H. W. Bush titled Destiny & Power, on page 326, it says “He wanted to keep his options open. (Though not totally open: The New York developer Donald Trump mentioned his availability as a vice presidential candidate to Lee Atwater. Bush thought the overture “strange and unbelievable.”) That should probably go into the section titled Political Career when it talks about politics before 2015. LegioV (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable...chronologically it seems appropriate107.217.84.95 (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
One other thing and this is mostly unrelated..how is it that trump is apparently running unopposed for the republican nomination..I have never gotten that since all this crap started..I am not young..I never once remember an election cycle where even a popular incumbent didn`t have to put up a fight of some kind..why the issue of convention location if it`s a done deal ? That being said if they`re trying to spread the virus it will probably work 107.217.84.95 (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Way too minute a bit of trivia for his biography, which this article is. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Intro change re: Conspiracy theories

Does anyone have an objection to this change- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=968692487&oldid=968614739.Hoponpop69 (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"as well as" should be simply "and". SPECIFICO talk 14:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
#Current consensus #35. I think it's undue for this lead. The "False statements" section says nothing about promotion of conspiracy theories, probably because they aren't exactly the same thing. The remainder of the article mentions only two examples of promotion of conspiracy theories, birtherism and "Ukraine, rather than Russia, interfered in the 2016 election". That's hardly enough to justify the related lead creep (let's spend one-fourth as much time looking for things to remove from the lead as for things to add to it). But I like the addition of "as untrue", a small price for a bit of clarity. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I would disagree with "hardly enough", as those were two monumental and historic conspiracy theories that are key to Trump's legacy. Also the distinction between rallies and c.t's is exactly why mention of the latter adds meaning for our readers. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
A couple of comments:
The article currently mentions two conspiracy theories (or maybe two and a half if you count Trump's claim that the accusations of sexual misconduct were a conspiracy against him [30]): the "birther" conspiracy theory ([31]) and that Ukraine rather than Russia interfered in the 2016 election ([32]). I know there are others (including quite a few he made before the 2016 presidential campaign (climate change hoax, vaccines causing autism, asbestos hoax promoted by "the mob," etc.) but the article doesn't mention them.

That's because they have their own article- List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump.Hoponpop69 (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Does the lead sentence following the one you propose to change support the conspiracy theories as well? The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. The "birther" theory was debunked by PolitiFact and Snopes, Ukraine by FactCheck, so maybe.
Count me as undecided. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone object to adding the phrase "as untrue"?Hoponpop69 (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the majority of them mentioned in the linked page (List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump) have been debunked by factcheckers. To the second point about it being unprecedented-

  • LA Times- "Conspiracy theories have been a part of U.S. politics since the country was formed. But today they have enveloped American politics... What makes today’s storm of allegations different -- and impossible to ignore -- is the role of the president in formulating and promoting them."[33]
  • CNN- "In any other political universe, it would have been inconceivable that candidates espousing [conspiracy theories] would rise to the top of the Republican field in their respective states. But Trump has ushered conversations that used to occur in the dark recesses of the internet out from the shadows."[34]
  • Another CNN article- "[T]he President is giving the imprimatur of the Oval Office to someone who suggests that Trump's past political rivals, the Clintons, could be behind Epstein's fate. As normalized as he's made this kind of insanity, we must all again confront the fact that the President of the United States is fomenting hate, and division, and disinformation."[35]
  • The Atlantic- '“We’ve never had a president who trades in conspiracy theories, who prefers lies instead of fact,” Douglas Brinkley, a history professor at Rice University and a presidential historian, told me."'[36]Hoponpop69 (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I oppose putting it in the lead. It hasn't become nearly as widely reported a characteristic as the falsehoods, which are now virtually part of his image and his character. The falsehoods belong in the lead; not the conspiracy theories. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@
WP:NOTNEWS SPECIFICO talk
17:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest changing the subsection "False statements" to "False statements and conspiracy theories", say. A paragraph describing the conspiracies and their nature could then be included in that subsection. (I am still in favor of breaking out "false statements" in the lead as its own paragraph. But haven't the energy to battle for it...) I am also in favor of a new main section to cover these issues - a main characteristic of Trump and his presidency. Social media-False statements-Conspiracies-Undermining the press etc. It is in Public profile now??? Yesterday the thought went through my head that y'all are pretty good at burying the lead... Bdushaw (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I have no objection to having his promotion of conspiracy theories in the text of the article. I just don't think it belongs in the lead, which was the proposal here. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Subsection

To all those opposed of having it in the intro, where should it be linked in the article then? Should it have its own section? Certainly it's notable enough to be mentioned somewhere if it has it's own page.Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the Public profile section does not have a subsection about Trump's extensive proclivity for conspiracy theorizing, shown in List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. I believe at least a brief paragraph is warranted. soibangla (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree 107.217.84.95 (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that if not the intro, the "Public profile" section is the best place. This could be done either by changing the "False statements" subsection to "False statements and conspiracy theories" or by having a separate "Conspiracy theories promoted" subsection.Hoponpop69 (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

(Ah!... great minds think alike... :) ) "False statements and conspiracy theories", just so. A separate subsection for conspiracy theories would require an assessment as to their number, nature and importance; I don't know enough about them to comment. Bdushaw (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Forcibly" kissing and groping women

The article appears to contradict itself, when it says:

In October 2016, two days before the second presidential debate, a 2005 "hot mic" recording surfaced in which Trump was heard bragging about forcibly kissing and groping women, saying "when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything ... grab 'em by the pussy."

It says "forcibly" but then immediately quotes Trump as saying "they let you do it". What do you think "they let you" means? 82.31.123.56 (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative word or wording to propose as a replacement for "forcibly"? SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Some possible alternatives: aggressively, impudently, audaciously, presumptuously. --Steverci (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Since this is not an edit request as described at WP:Edit requests, I'm converting it to a normal discussion. Edit requests are to be used only for minor uncontroversial changes, and they require specific "change X to Y" language. For anything else, use the "New section" link at the top of each article talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
That's the interpretation in the news media. You would need to provide sources that challenge it. I appreciate that you may have a different interpretation but per
no original research we can't consider it. TFD (talk
) 14:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I know the RS uses "forcibly" in referring to a lot of Trump's behavior toward women. It's not clear to me that they use it in this specific context; if not, perhaps some rewording is warranted. I don't see any support for the word in the source cited for that sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Nonconsensual, uninvited, .... -- Valjean (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
The OP's point is that all of those words are inconsistent with "they let you do it". The fact is that some women would let that happen because he was a star (Monica "serviced" Bill only partly because of his charming personality, I strongly suspect). That's not to say they particularly enjoyed it, but he didn't say they did. While most folks would call it inappropriate behavior (in my opinion), that's a moral value judgment and it's not the same as "forcibly". Again, we need RS to associate any of those words with the "grab 'em" statement. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Clinton`s not president... " They let you do it " is a lie 107.217.84.95 (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I understand. The context indicates that "they let you do it" means "they let you get away with it", IOW "they let you do" things they would not allow non-stars to do. Many of those women don't openly object and report it, and some enjoy the attention. Many may not really like it, but it's "not worth the trouble" to make a scene. Only strongly moral women will object in that awkward situation, and Trump doesn't seem to hang around with them very much.
We know that Trump's point is not entirely true, as there are myriad women who have actually objected and reported his unwanted sexual assaults.
Big stars often "get away with" behavior that "lesser" (IOW normal) people would never get away with (they would be jailed and ruined), and Trump is verbalizing that fact. Great wealth and power generally include opportunities for unhindered debauchery and violations of social norms to those so inclined, as it gives not only opportunities denied to the public, but also the means to squash and cover-up any objections or accusations. -- Valjean (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Most women would object to it...it`s the nature of abuse particularly sexual abuse to be confused and unable to openly object other than being repulsed by the act remove themselves from her assailant and in one form or another say something..anything..which is an objection 107.217.84.95 (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Just because they don't say "stop" doesn't mean it isn't rape. It is still rape if they are afraid to say anything because of your power and celebrity. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I went bold and changed the sentence to bragging about kissing and groping women without their consent. He's forcing himself on them and bragging about them not hitting him on the snout because he's a star but I don't see justification for "forcibly" in the source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
minimizing the contact is height of sexism..that it`s somehow the victim's fault 107.217.84.95 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
That's an improvement, provided "without their consent" is read as "without their prior consent". ―Mandruss ☎ 22:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Then why not just change it to "without prior consent" and avoid the ambiguity? 82.31.123.56 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Who gives "prior consent" to being forcibly kissed and groped? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
no one 107.217.84.95 (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
"Forcibly" was removed as not supported in the context of Trump's boast. There is no suggestion of physical force and we should not get into debates about things like power imbalance. We're not talking about child abuse. Anyway, we are all straying too far from the concept of conformance with sources and much of this is improper discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Just contemplating what prior consent would look or sound like in a situation like this (self-proclaimed star blindsiding total strangers): "Hello, me big star. May I kiss and grope you?" "Me so flattered, go ahead." Trump was bragging about inappropriate behavior, and then Bush suggested Zucker hug him, and when she did Trump made this smacking sound (at 2:06). Yuck and double yuck but "forcibly" for this incident is neither in the cited source nor any others that I have found. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
If someone "let you" do something, then they have sometimes given implied consent but not express (or affirmative) consent. It's tricky, because whether or not there was implied consent depends on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. But to be on the safe side, I'd propose changing it to something like "bragging about kissing and groping women without their expressed consent". Rreagan007 (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
No, as reported and discussed in mainstream commentary, "lets you" means that there are no adverse consequences, i.e. she didn't call the cops. That's what it's all about. SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Could we see some links to that? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Why did you bring up child abuse ? 107.217.84.95 (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Because, given the way this discussion was going, I fully expected someone to say, "Yes, no physical force but Trump was more powerful so the women didn't feel they had the power to say no." That's called "power imbalance", and it's a concept that often applies in child sex abuse cases in which there was no physical force. So I pointed out that this is not that. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Please do not presume to speak for the women. Many victims do feel that way. SPECIFICO talk 15:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
If you have solid sources that discuss power imbalance in connection to Trump's "grab 'em" boast (the topic of this thread), I'm all ears. Otherwise, editors need to stick to sources and save the rest for their user talk pages or off-wiki fora. This is not an open discussion about sexism issues. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it was pointless for you to introduce new age sociology jargon like "power imbalance" into this issue. If you had some reason for doing so, it would need clarification, because it seemed kind of out of the blue.
The sources do support "forcibly" per most of the comments above yours. I think the longstanding text is fine. "Let you do it" means he gets away with it because they do not press their cases. The meaning has been quite clear for a long time. SPECIFICO talk
Per the RS he was insulting, lewd, crude, vulgar, disparaging women - you know, foolish things, locker room banter, according to Trump. Forcibly was used by RS in connection with other accusations but not this one. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Just to put it in terms easier to understand for the typical American male. What if he abruptly walked up to you and reached in your vest and grabbed your credit cards? What if he reached in your attaché case and grabbed your stocks and bonds? Without prior consent. That feels like forcibly? That's what the reporting conveyed, IMO. "they let you do it" implies the opposite, otherwise it would not be worth the boast. SPECIFICO talk 18:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Had to think about this for a while. It's not an apt comparison. The equivalent would be Trump bragging about being able to walk up to a woman, steal items out of her purse or attaché case, and her letting him. He did brag that he wouldn't lose any voters (52% of men, but only 39% of women voted for Trump in 2016) if he shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Not really sure if I can add anything of value...but a more apt comparison seems to me to be the Harvey Weinstein scandal. There are all manner of stories of quite disgusting behavior, but a lot of it was not "forcing" and a lot of it was "letting him do it". The general unstated dynamic was that if women did not comply it would be bad for their careers. Weinstein was charged with only a few actual crimes, with the bulk of retribution for his abuse of power coming from the community - ostracized, kicked out, etc. There are few citations that get into explicitly stating what is wrong with this power dynamic (the Lewinsky incident was a little different, since she was infatuated with Clinton at the time, I believe). Trump had similar power with respect to the models/contestants, but unlike Weinstein he has paid no community price for the behavior. Hard to document, but to frame the article discussion to the effect that there could have been nothing wrong, that the behavior wrt to the women could have been innocuous, is wrong. It is not unlike the "lie" problem - to call a statement a lie implies an interpretation of intent (though it be obvious...); to call Trump's behavior "abuse" is similarly an interpretation (though it be obvious...). To be able to make an explicit description of the event as an abuse, one would need citations quoting one of the models or contestants complaining about the incident and how they felt abused, etc. There would be retributions for such statements; have any of the "victims" come forward? It is a fact, however, that this incident occurred within the broad revolution against behavior like this, particularly sparked by the Weinstein scandal (IMO); perhaps worth a mention? Emily's List New Yorker Bdushaw (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Incidentally, the lead presently includes a statement to the effect that some of Trump's statements are racist. Some of them are also sexist, as has been documented; not sure why racist gets the special call out. Bdushaw (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Citations: BBC News CNN NBC News/Associated Press Slate Cosmopolitan Bdushaw (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
There's a section on "Racial views," i.e., the "comments and actions that have been characterized both within the U.S. and abroad as racially charged or racist," but there isn't one on sexist comments and actions, i.e., Trump's "history of attacking women by mocking their bodily functions, demeaning their looks or comparing them to animals" (NYT). I don't know if RS have mentioned it recently. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Mary Trump`s book does 107.217.84.95 (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2020

Trump is not 6 foot 3. He is 6 feet tall. Look at any picture of him standing next to Obama who is 6 foot 1. 2600:8804:8003:CC00:AC15:6EDD:7F8A:228F (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Reliable source references are also required. - MrX 🖋 18:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 Not done There isn't anything in the article about Trump's height being 6 foot 3 or 6 feet; the article doesn't even mention the height of Donald Trump. Let's stop talking about this; if anyone wants to include the height of Donald Trump, you may do so, but make sure to add a reference/citation to your source. Thank you. Friend505 19:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Moving the link for Trump's presidency

No objections - thus enacted. starship.paint (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Hi there! Currently, the 'Donald Trump' page links to 'Presidency of Donald Trump' in the lead section in the words of 'current president'. Based on my own interpretation of the text as a European, however, this doesn't seem to fit. When reading the article, I would assume 'current president' would take me to an article about the powers of a general incumbent occupant of the White House. But that's actually the 'President of the United States' article. Therefore, I want to suggest the following:

- Moving the link to 'Presidency of Donald Trump' page from 'current president' to 'his presidency' in the 'During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban...' paragraph

- Moving the link to 'President of the United States' page from 'U.S. president' (in the 'He became the oldest first-term U.S. president' space) up to 'president of the United States' in the opening sentence.

It seems to me like a more natural order; giving readers a link to the general U.S. presidency first, and linking to Trump's presidency specifically in the very words of 'his presidency'. Does that make sense to anybody else? Have a great day! :) 2001:4645:E9BB:0:15C6:CBB8:2D86:2EDF (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Per
the policy's third revision.

―Mandruss ☎
16:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The text under "Proposed" is indeed how I meant it. Thank you for providing that helpful visual aid! And oh goodness, I was unaware there had been that much discussion about it. While I personally disagree with the current standing, I am far too much of an outsider to start changing consensus. Wouldn't even know how to start. So in light of that, I'll leave it to the experts and just let this thought of mine be represented in the talk page history. Thank you for answering! 88.95.35.64 (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I am far too much of an outsider to start changing consensus. Wouldn't even know how to start. You just did. It is not a bad proposal. I'm inclined to support it, but I'll wait for other comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support for this sensible proposal per
    WP:ASTONISH. -- Scjessey (talk
    ) 23:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. If I recall correctly, one of the main arguments for
    MOS:EGG argument more persuasive, and the worst possible place for an egg is in the first sentence of a highly visible article. The link to the Presidency article can wait until paragraph 4, and readers who don't make it even that far are unlikely to need that link. ―Mandruss ☎
    01:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
    You recall correctly (first). It was followed by an (aborted?) (RFC). This change brings us almost full circle - I didn't bother looking up the removal of the Wiki link brackets around "his presidency" in the third paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
    On a different day I might be heard saying this horse is sufficiently flogged (at least for a long while), and I won't argue with anybody who does. I think this one is different for me because (1) I think the status quo is really bad, more so than I realized before, and (2) the OP was refreshingly nice about it. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
    Quite so. Another thing that I was struck by was that the OP was not from the United States and so the link decision made even less sense. I live in the US now, but I am from the UK and some of the US-centric approaches to things like this have often baffled me. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Did we just find a lede proposal that we can all agree on? :P May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    LOL. Have we ever all agreed on something? I don't remember that. But a consensus is possible. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    Interesting indeed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - the office itself should be linked before tenure in the office per
    MOS:UL Steverci (talk
    ) 19:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I also have quite a few procedural objections to everything that's happened here. I object to Barkeep's close of the
WP:FORUMSHOPPING RfC that was opened less than two weeks after the initial discussion without even linking to that prior discussion/the current consensus item. I object to Mandruss's "representation" of this proposal, which hides how far down the lead the link has been moved. And I object to Starship.paint needlessly cutting off this discussion with an archive box before it got automatically archived. In aggregate, these things make the consensus here less solid than it might seem. {{u|Sdkb}} talk
17:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Red Links

 – Not the purpose of this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Another brilliant prank!

Trump Claims Election Delay Tweet Was Ploy to Distract Media! (

Steven G. Calabresi had been "frankly appalled" by Trump's announcement of the delay, and wrote "this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president's immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate". No doubt he'll now appreciate the gotcha, and realise that the original tweet was merely a diversion from unpleasant statistics, while reinforcing Trump's Law 'n Order electoral appeal. So many pranks, hard to tell if this will have a lasting impact. . . dave souza, talk
13:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Total 4D chess move there. - MrX 🖋 16:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2020

In the 5th paragraph from the top, change 'After Trump solicited' to 'after Trump was accused of soliciting'. He was acquitted by the Senate, so he is legally innocent. No matter what either side says, he was acquitted. Therefore, even if Congress was wrong to acquit, he shouldn't be charged in a journalistic article. 47.176.83.58 (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The Senate did not convict on "abuse of power". That does not mean that he did not solicit the foreign leader, for which there are many sources. This is not a contradiction. O3000 (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Also, congressional impeachment is not a legal proceeding. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Please see the first paragraph at WP:Edit requests, which includes: "consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial". Edit requests are for minor, uncontroversial changes; everything else should use the "New section" link at the top of this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead 2nd paragraph

In various suggested changes to the lead, sentences have been often proposed that are really too long, for having too much detail in them. The first two sentences of the 2nd paragraph of the lead seem to me to be too long for this reason. I suggest the following revision: "Trump is a native of New York City, and studied economics at the Wharton School. He assumed the family real-estate business in 1971, renamed it The Trump Organization, and expanded its operations into Manhattan." These sentences do not have the usual Cassandra warning about changing them. Bdushaw (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Born in New York.."educated" at Wharton is enough [1] 107.217.84.95 (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mary Trump : Too Much and Never Enough pgs 43-44 47 49-50 52-53 56 58 63-64 71-72 74-75 95-97 132
By word count, 74% of the current lead is devoted to Trump's campaign and presidency. Increasing that percentage should not be a goal. If you want to trim lead, trim the presidency part. (I'm not sure what the Cassandra reference means, but the hidden comments are for helpful information purposes, not "warnings". Those editors who pay attention to them are saved the time and effort of changing the related content without prior consensus, only to have their changes immediately reversed. And the comments point to the relevant items at #Current consensus, which in turn point to the related discussions.) ―Mandruss ☎ 00:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
(Cassandra (metaphor)...A "Cassandra warning" is one that predicts woe and pain in whatever events or situation under consideration. Here meaning that the hidden comments predict woe and pain in the event of careless or POV editing. "woe and pain" speaking poetically.) Bdushaw (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
one that predicts woe and pain in whatever events or situation under consideration No, that's not what Cassandra means. Cassandra is a character from mythology who was cursed with the ability to make accurate predictions that no-one would believe. Hence the Cassandra (metaphor): Cassandra warnings are warning that are true but are disbelieved or dismissed by everyone - following which the warnings come true. An example might be a scientist who warned, last January, that the Coronavirus was going to be a massive problem for the United States. At the time, they were not believed; they were Cassandras. As for These sentences do not have the usual Cassandra warning about changing them, I have no idea how a hidden do-not-change message in a Wikipedia article could be considered a Cassandra warning. And now, back to your regularly scheduled program of discussing article content. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
(I stand corrected. No one ever listens to me.) Bdushaw (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_120&oldid=974484704"