Loading AI tools
This is an archive of past discussions about Donald Trump. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 130 | ← | Archive 132 | Archive 133 | Archive 134 | Archive 135 | Archive 136 | → | Archive 140 |
Remove "dangerously" from paragraph involving COVID-19 on false statements subsection. The term is bombastic serves no purpose except to appeal to emotion, falls under WP:NEWSSTYLE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of viewand
Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. As I said, we summarize - we do not quote exactly - and even when sources say it was "dangerous" we do not have to include that, because that is endorsing that point of view. So yes, it is what Wikipedia editors do - we do not parrot the wording of sources, we write an encyclopedia article based on information included but without (as much as possible) the inherent bias/point of view that the news articles/other RS take. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I have seen people on this talk page repeatedly make allegations that this article is biased against Donald Trump. Many editors then proudly cite Wikipedia's policy of using verifiable sources - which have undoubtedly been anti-Trump (and for good reason, I might add!) - as well as a sub-article called "Talk:Donald_Trump/Response_to_claims_of_bias". But at the time of this writing, the last paragraph of the lead section states "The Senate voted 57–43 to convict, which was short of the required two-thirds majority and thereby acquitted Trump of the charge of inciting insurrection in the January 6, 2021 attack". Even as a European strongly anti-Trump person myself, it doesn't take a lot of brain to realize that writing "short of the required two-thirds majority" is a HUGE bias. Trump was acquitted - neutral and point-of-fact, even if I personally disagree strongly with the acquittal myself. Stating what would need to happen FOR conviction AFTER acquittal heads into blatantly point-of-view-territory and DOES give credence to anybody calling this article biased. In a court of law, a person is automatically assumed to be innocent, and evidence - as well as a jury - would cause a guilty verdict. This wording has the opposite effect; it seems as though Wikipedia has already deemed Trump guilty and is trying to describe how close to conviction the trial came. I have not checked who added that wording, but the most active editors here may point out that they didn't write that (or maybe they did, I haven't checked the log), Even so, you should all be made aware now that any future arguments on this talk page about bias against Trump on Wikipedia can use this exact type of circumstance to point out where many Wikipedia editors' loyalties on politics lie - not with point-of-fact or verifiable sources (which have very much described Trump's acquittal and the high chances of that happening even WAY before acquittal), but with whoever adds the information. If that's not supposed to be the case, then add even higher levels of protection for super-controversial subjects, to make only editors fluent in Wikipedia's policies add information and precisely to avoid this kind of biased incident. Thank you for hearing me out. 84.202.84.209 (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Trump was aquitted with a 57–43 vote by the Senate to convict. (A two-thirds majority is required to convict.)Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
In the section titled "COVID-19 pandemic", under the subsection entitled "World Health Organization", the sentence is included - "In May and April, Trump accused the WHO of "severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus" and alleged without evidence that the organization was under Chinese control and had enabled the Chinese government's concealment of the origins of the pandemic."
I believe that this sentence should be changed to simply say - "In May and April, Trump accused the WHO of "severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus" and claimed that the organization was under Chinese control and had enabled the Chinese government's concealment of the origins of the pandemic."
Saying that Trump "alleged without evidence" the supposed Chinese control over the WHO is intellectually dishonest, as it is discounting what may be perceived as legitimate evidence, and contradicts this article's requirement for neutrality on the topic. As Trump's statement is a matter of complex opinion that can be logically argued both for and against, the wording in this article should be more neutral and not try to prove either side correct, but simply state the facts about what Trump said, without the unnecessary addition of accusing Trump of making the allegation without evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:6000:AD80:B81F:9A00:D4C1:7F96 (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
References
(@Berchanhimez: I moved your edits from my Talk page to this one. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC) )
You may have inadvertently reverted edits made to improve the grammar/flow of that part of the article in this edit. Please consider reverting to the content present immediately prior to your edit there, instead of readding content that was edited out, or alternatively, please post on the talk page why you think your version is better. If you do not discuss your reversion on the talk page of the article, I intend to, after waiting another 24 hours from now, readd the changes made by myself and Koala Butternut in these edits. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
There were actually five edits involved in deleting the mention of the five deaths from the lead. The first one changed the gerund clause to an adjective subordinate clause. The second one spun the deaths off into a separate sentence and called the riot an "event." The third one changed "event" back to "riot." The fourth one deleted "riot", and the fifth one deleted the sentence, calling it "trivial in nature, also is very short." My edit is based on the body of the article and on the sources. The NYT has a graphic description of the "medical emergency" that killed Boyland. She was crushed/trampled in the tunnel on the west side of the Capitol where rioters were trying to break through the police line. It’s the same "event" where Officer Boylan was crushed in the door. Greeson had a history of high blood pressure, and in the midst of the excitement, suffered a heart attack
, according to his wife. He was was standing in a throng of fellow Trump loyalists on the west side of the Capitol
, according to the NYT. The sources don’t mention where exactly Philips was located when he had the stroke, but DC police mentioned him as one of the four who died in and around the Capitol
. It isn’t our place to speculate whether Philips and Greeson would also have had the medical emergencies resulting in their deaths at another place and time. Per the sources, they were on Capitol grounds during the storming of the Capitol, not an ideal time and place for professional medical assistance. So, yeah, "resulting in five deaths" seems justified and WP:DUE for the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards not including this. If it is going to be added it shouldn't be as stubby sentence that interrupts the flow. I'm not sure why mentioning the death count is significant for the lead itself, the lead is supposed to be very brief. Does 5 people dying have a lot to do with Trump himself? I would say not really, probably WP:UNDUE, at least for the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
There were five deaths involved in the events, but this is not useful information here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The point of mentioning the five deaths is an implicit statement that the event was violent, irrespective of how people died. It wasn't just a "benign" riot, but it was so violent that several people died. The article does not yet mention that some 140 police officers were injured, some quite seriously. Bdushaw (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
There were only 4 deaths "at storming of the Capitol". Sicknick died the following day(https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/loss-uscp-colleague-brian-d-sicknick) from a stroke and even texted his brother after the fact saying he was fine(https://www.propublica.org/article/officer-brian-sicknick-capitol). Xcerptshow (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
passed away due to injuries received ... was injured while physically engaging with protesters(Capitol Police press release),
died Thursday of injuries he sustained while trying to protect the Capitol from a mob of violent rioters ... the family got word that Brian Sicknick had a blood clot and had had a stroke(Pro Publica). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Can it possibly be that the word "impeach" doesn't appear until 535 words into this article's intro? The poorly composed first paragraph informs the reader that Trump was both an "American media personality" and a "television personality" (!), but not that he bears the distinction of being the only U.S. president impeached twice (and all in just one term). That lame graf has many problems, but at the very least it should read "... from 2017 to 2021, during which he became the only U.S. president to be impeached twice." I don't plan to do it, or get active on this article, but this shortcoming is so glaring that it had to be brought to the attention of WPers active on the article. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I could see something being mentioned in the lead, just not sure what. SPECIFICO inserted it as part of the second sentence here with the wording , during which time he was twice impeached for violations of his oath of office
Not a fan of the placement or wording. PackMecEng (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I placed the 2 impeachments in the opening paragraph here. The edit was reverted. Please indicate support or opposition to the insertion below.
The far-right is a small minority of Trump supporters and it is WP:UNDUE to give an entire subsection about them. Also the racial views section does justice to the reason this subsection exist, kind of redundant in an already long article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE is being cited for removal, but WP:UNDUE is based on views that have been published by reliable sources on
a topic, and not based on whether the far-right are just a small minority of Trump supporters. starship.paint (exalt) 13:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
This is the paragraph:
Some view the nature and frequency of Trump's falsehoods as having profound and corrosive consequences on democracy.[801] James Pfiffner, professor of policy and government at George Mason University, wrote in 2019 that Trump lies differently from previous presidents, because he offers "egregious false statements that are demonstrably contrary to well-known facts"; these lies are the "most important" of all Trump lies. By calling facts into question, people will be unable to properly evaluate their government, with beliefs or policy irrationally settled by "political power"; this erodes liberal democracy, wrote Pfiffner.[802]
Firstly, this paragraph is pure POV and biased. Also the bulk of it focuses on one professors opinion, which is giving WP:UNDUE to this one mans opinion. His opinion is not notable enough to warrant an entire paragraph on Donald Trump's Wikipedia article. We also need to find way's to shorten this long article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Some view the nature and frequency of Trump's falsehoods as having negative effects on democracy.[801] James Pfiffner, professor of policy and government at George Mason University, wrote that Trump lies differently from previous presidents, because he offers "egregious false statements that are demonstrably contrary to well-known facts"; by calling facts into question, people will be unable to properly evaluate their government, thus eroding liberal democracy.[802]
The section should stay. Those that remember the extensive discussion about it, will remember there was a consensus for it and that the statement had widespread RS to support it. RE "removal/weak of a citation" - Per an earlier comment, some people here have been vigorously removing citations...giving credence to my suspicion that first there is removal of citations, then there is removal of text as unsupported. Pretty bad form, intentional or otherwise. Bdushaw (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The section should be removed because Pfiffner is not knowledgeable on the subject matter. If he even had a basic grasp of presidential lies then he would know that they all lie in a big way. His statement isnt based in fact, but rather opinion. Also, "egregious false statements" that are "contrary to well-known facts" is just a colorful way to simply say "lie". Xcerptshow (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
All presidents lie.He goes on to point out that other presidents have told lies
from legitimate lies concerning national security, to trivial misstatements, to shading the truth, to avoiding embarrassment, to serious lies of policy deception. starship.paint (exalt) 14:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia’s NOR principle, No Original Research, this article is deeply biased. If you say that it isn’t, you’re saying that other articles are biased the other way. This is the problem with Wikipedia; if a Republican viewpoint is biased, a Democratic viewpoint should be biased. But according to the article, Republican viewpoints are biased while Democratic viewpoints are fine. For example: Donald Trump is racist. If you take that and look at the fact that many people disagree with this, a much more neutral point of view is “Critics believe” Donald Trump is racist, or “Some people believe” Donald Trump is racist, or “It is debated whether” Donald Trump is racist.
But no. Donald Trump is racist. No argument, no debate. Do you see my point here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermit7 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: I beg to differ with your edit summary. no good reason to remove
: For one thing, brothers Fred Jr. and Robert are dead, so that sentence would need some reworking. feels redundant
: If it's redundant to mention the older sister and the niece in the infobox because of the Family of Donald Trump page, why are the names of the siblings important enough to list in the Early life section? They are all mentioned on the Family page, too. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: I largely reverted this edit of yours to the judiciary section. We've had most of this material in here for quite some time, and I feel it's important to explain, briefly, the key battles involving the Gorsuch/Kavanaugh/Barrett nominations. All three were atypically high-profile and intensely significant, even for Supreme Court nominations: Gorsuch because of Garland and the nuclear option, Kavanaugh for the Blasey Ford allegation, and Barrett because the nomination was on the eve of the election. I feel that's worth the short space allotted to it. This is one of the Trump legacies that will reverberate for a long time. Neutralitytalk 00:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I think SPECIFICO is right here. The additional information is unnecessary, and I think cuts to stuff like this will help make the article more readable. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
123, please self-revert your undo of Neutrality's revert. He raised his objection on talk and we should now discuss, not edit-war. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Restored revision 1007777128 by Jontel (talk): The reduction in size of the Judiciary section was constructive and beneficial, and these historical assessments are too contentious and early. The version I restored was before the historical assessments were added. If you wish to raise concerns about my edit summaries, please provide evidence for your claims on my user talk page.
I have restored the material to the article while we discuss it here (the same material that Neutrality restored). The removal has been challenged, and long term content should not be removed without consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Under "Storming of the US Capitol" section. The sentence "Thousands of those supporters then stormed the Capitol around 1 pm" is inaccurate. According to USA Today [1] and multiple other sources including Wikipedia [2] , the storming of the Capitol was initiated before and at a minimum started while the speech was going on.
They also picked out quotes characterizing the speech as violent and selectively left out the "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." portion which is deceptive. [3] "Five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died in the riot." It also claims the cop died "in the riot." even in the citation it says that he died at a hospital.(cited on page) What it fails to mention is he died at 2130 the following night. [4] The citation is from a NYT article. The NYT has made retractions due to inaccurately reporting on Sicknick. Xcerptshow (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
References
I have started a discussion at ] regarding whether the events of January 2021 should be considered a coup in the United States. Your comments are appreciated. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
he is not the president anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.33.27 (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
May someone please edit Donald_Trump#Post-presidency to include the following sentence: Trump accepted an invitation to speak at CPAC for 2021. BigCheese76 (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Interstellarity replaced "refused to concede defeat" with "refused to concede defeat until January 7". No source was cited in the body supporting this change. It's my impression that, although Biden's inaguration did proceed, and Trump did depart for Mar-a-Lago, he never formally conceded. I reverted the edit. Interstellarity, do you have a source indicating that he did concede on January 7? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 23:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20.– Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
These are attacks by Democrats willing to do anything to stop the almost 75 million people (the most votes, by far, ever gotten by a sitting president) who voted for me in the election—an election which many people, and experts, feel that I won. I agree!He left DC, but he hasn't conceded. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
This would be more consistent with nearly every other article on someone born in the USA and with other presidents. However, the U.S. should not be linked to the United States, per guidelines. This would change consensus 2. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
No they’re not. The content should be restored.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1006872704&oldid=1006867643
soibangla (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Well OK then. soibangla (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)January 6th was a disgrace. American citizens attacked their own government. They used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of democratic business they did not like. Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President. They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth—because he was angry he’d lost an election. Former President Trump’s actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty. The House accused the former President of, quote, ‘incitement.’ That is a specific term from the criminal law. Let me put that to the side for one moment and reiterate something I said weeks ago: There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day.
Tataral Iamreallygoodatcheckers soibangla I think we're all approaching the same page here, so I'll suggest a compromise edit which I don't think is WP:UNDUE:
References
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(help){{cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(help)References
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(help)Included in the latter groupnow refers to the Senators who voted that the trial was constitutional, and McConnell wasn't one of them. The date the Democrats asked McConnell to schedule the emergency session is important because that would have given the Senate enough time to hold the trial before Trump's term ended. Trump's end of term doesn't need to be mentioned, it's in the infobox, and the vote on the constitutionality also seems redundant to me—if it had gone the other way, there wouldn't have been a trial. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2021 (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.
"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality, businessman, and politician who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." That sums him up very nicely, as it doesn't split hairs or make it sound like he is no longer a businessman. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 18:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Donald Trump entry is insufficient as it is missing a section on “Distinctions.” Trump had many political accolades and distinctions (Nobel Peace Prize nominations, as an example). This same “Distinctions” section is found in President Joe Biden’s entry, and as a matter of principle needs to be present in Donald Trump’s entry. 2600:1700:E1E0:FC10:DA4:C4CB:58A4:61F6 (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The paragraph where it talks about Trump's foreign policy and response to Covid-19 should be split into two. It should also mention the how Trump helped establish diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab states. Prins van Oranje (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
It seems further discussion is necessary about the separation of the domestic/foreign paragraphs into two paragraphs. They are naturally two separate discussions with a natural break "In foreign policy..." Joining them does not reduce the number of paragraphs, it just makes for two paragraphs badly written. Let's make it easier on the readers and avoid large blocks of text. Bdushaw (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I Oppose separating the two paragraphs. It has been like this for as long as I can remember. Seek consensus for this change. JLo-Watson (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Given the incredible size of the article, I trimmed the North Korea subsection (a subsection of foreign policy) of some extraneous detail, which are also found in other articles, in this edit. It was reverted and should be restored. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump’s diplomatic endeavors did not result in an elimination of the North Korean nuclear arsenal — contrary to his initial assertions, Pyongyang has continued to develop its weapons programSource makes the connection. starship.paint (exalt) 09:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually I think the trimming is fine (assuming that WP:V has been followed because I haven’t checked). starship.paint (exalt) 08:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read. Do not use provocative language. Instead, offer information gently. Use consistent vocabulary in parts that are technical and difficult. To work out which parts of the sentence are going to be difficult for the reader, try to put yourself in the position of a reader hitherto uninformed on the subject.Trump's own words cannot be taken as accurately assessing anything. If we want to say he sought to use personal diplomacy, let's just say that instead of implying it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we have enough support to restore the trimming, but I don't want to do that myself this soon, so can someone else do so? The discussion can still continue. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I have made an alternative cut, which substantially reduces size but, I think, retains the meaningful information. What do others think? MelanieN, any views? Neutralitytalk 18:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Why does trimming the North Korean section attract so much attention as opposed to the rest of the "Foreign policy" section???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
It's clear that this has overwhelming consensus now. Could someone please implement? Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Awilley: what can be done here? There is clearly an overwhelming consensus here and the attempts to hinder its implementation are getting disruptive. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Not only did the clear majority of participants supporting trimming the previous version, they explicitly supported how I trimmed the subsection. This is not about the sentence "North Korea continued to build up...", this is about purely my edit that I linked to at the start of this talk page section. Whether or not others agree that your proposal is better than the previous version is a completely separate matter, and also completely unsupported given the very minor attention it has received. The "numerous editors" objecting are only yourself and Specifico, against the views of many more talk page participants.
I have no issue with any RfC on any alternative proposal you wish to raise, but that can only happen after the version supported by the vast majority of participants in this talk page section is implemented. Otherwise, it would very blatantly be an attempt to delay the implementation of this consensus, which has already been needlessly delayed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
There is near unanimous consensus for 123's proposed trim. We do not need an RFC. I will implement the trim later if no one beats me to it.I would be grateful if you could do so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
There is possibly some confusion on what the consensus here is actually a consensus for. The following editors have seemingly expressed support for not only trimming the subsection generally, but for the way that I trimmed it as well. @Jack Upland, Starship.paint, The Four Deuces, JFG, Levivich, Felix558, and Berchanhimez: Sorry if you have already made your views clear, but if you do support the version I proposed (when I started this talk page section) as an improvement on the pre-existing North Korea paragraphs, could you please say so here? I feel that we need clarity to bring the issue to some kind of conclusion. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
To overturn longstanding consensus text, you'd need to demonstrate -- not merely assert -- new consensus.This has been extensively demonstrated in this talk page discussion. As far as I am aware, you do not hold any veto over the consensus process, and it is possible that a consensus may be found even if you don't personally agree with it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: As far as I can see, the large majority of editors who participated in this discussion are supporting your trimmed version of the North Korea subsection, therefore I also think formal RFC and this "Consensus check" are not needed. I see a clear consensus to trim and implement your version. Felix558 (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
North Korea continued to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.and that's the version several editors agreed to, if I'm not mistaken. At what point did the sentence go AWOL? My second edit deleted the "love letter" clause which several editors objected to, if I'm not mistaken. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I have requested this be closed by an uninvolved party. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise.
This has no encyclopedic value and shouldn't be included in the article. Something about his interest in golf can be included. If we want to discuss his exercise then it would be better to start over. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is akin to a battery, with a limited amount of energy which is depleted by exercise.) starship.paint (exalt) I oppose removal as I disagree that this has no encyclopaedic value. It helps us understand Trump the man better. It also explains his obesity. We used to have more on his lifestyle. That was removed by Onetwothreeip.
Trump abstains from alcohol. He says he has never smoked tobacco or cannabis. He likes fast food. He has said he prefers three to four hours of sleep per night.Rephrase the second quote because it isn't Trump's exact words. starship.paint (exalt) 14:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Obesity is not caused by lack of exercise.- Excuse me?! The World Health Organization, the American CDC, the British National Health Service, and the Harvard School of Public Health would disagree. Trump's White House doctor said: "I think a reasonable goal over the next year or so would be [for Trump] to lose 10 to 15 pounds," Jackson said. "We talked about diet and exercise a lot. He is more enthusiastic about the diet part than the exercise part but we're going to do both." Clearly exercise is a factor affecting weight, as is diet, that's from Trump's own doctor. We are not stating that exercise is the only factor, but certainly it is something to keep in mind. starship.paint (exalt) 03:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise.and oppose removal of
He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course.I see nothing wrong with mentioning his exercise habits, that's part of his health. However, the sentence about the body being a battery has no value. Firstly, it doesn't say anything about Trump's health, which is what this is about. Secondly, this comment was almost certainly a joke. I highly doubt Trump actually believes that. The only reason it's there now is to make Trump look stupid, which violates NPOV. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
He even tried to argue that he does exercise by walking around.- now that’s absolute bullshit from Trump. He also argued that he exercised by giving an hour long speech. Reliable sources have reported his battery theory, and that’s what we go with. It’s not speculation. We’re not obliged to stop him from making himself look idiotic. WP:NPOV doesn’t mean that. starship.paint (exalt) 02:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
He has a very sarcastic sense of humoror so he said. Yeah, let’s blame the media for misunderstanding his—uh—sense of humor, whether it’s too much testing increasing the number of covid cases or asking Dr. Birx whether there is
a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it’d be interesting to check that.Trump wasn’t talking to the press when he admonished his employee that he would die young because (battery). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
the weirdest (and one of the littlest-known) beliefs that the President carries: his battery theory of life energy(CNN); #10 of Trump’s 10 most absurd claims
Why it makes the list: Because it sounds like a theory people had 100 years ago, before modern medicine and science.(WaPo);
a notion that puts Trump in the company of thinkers ranging from antiquity to the early 19th century(Snopes), plus a number of sources just quoting that remarkable opinion. The main arguments for removal are trivia, unencyclopedic, not useful, why was it included—no explanation why the editors consider the info to be trivial etc. It wasn't a joke told to a friend, as Checkers believes; Trump told an employee (O'Donnell) who was training for an Ironman that he would die young because the body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only depleted (I'll look up the pages in O'Donnell and Kranish/Fisher later). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2021 (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.
Donald J Trump was apart of the Republican Party until the end of his term. At which point he became a apart of the patriot party. I just want to make sure the Wikipedia is up to date and not having incorrect information. Sources https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2021/02/16/the-american-patriot-party-s-co-chair-says-he-s-in-it-for-the-long-haul https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/politics/amp/A-new-MAGA-Patriot-Party-launched-from-a-San-15900021.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbiters (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 March 2021 (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.
In the lead, the article says that Trump made false claims of fraud. I would like to know what makes those claims false? Many average citizens believe that there was fraud in the election while some believe there was no evidence of fraud in the election. Should it say that Trump made claims of fraud rather than Trump made false claims of fraud? Interstellarity (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I refer you all to WP:RECENTISM and WP:10YT
This article is just far too long and far too extensive.
LordParsifal (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I removed some content about a letter that Donald Trump's doctor wrote publicly endorsing his health, here, but was reverted. This isn't reliable information about his health and isn't important biographical information about the article's subject. Potentially belongs somewhere else, but certainly not here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
a summary regarding incomplete, false, and misleading health information- no objection to such a summary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@Pipsally: Re . The sentence leaves a reader who doesn't know why Sessions recused himself (it isn't mentioned anywhere in the article) wondering what it's all about. Also, bemoanings and beliefs - just seems too trivial for this top bio. I'm still considering removing the entire paragraph because the section is about the Mueller investigation; Trump's denials, intentions that came to nothing, beliefs, and bemoanings weren't part of it, just the usual Trump background noise to everything. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
talk about how many people hate him and why he shouldnt hsve been president any way Eehdbf (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done The controversy surrounding Trump is covered extensively. — Czello 20:29, 7 March 2021 (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.
Why is this not a good article?
This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I woul like to add a few things 194.223.61.176 (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2021 (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.
So are these four choices what we're down to at this point?
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and businessman who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and real estate developer who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and real estate developer who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American television and media personality, businessman, real estate developer, and politician who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American television and media personality, businessman, real estate developer, and politician who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.Added SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics, he was a television and media personality.(Added by PyroFloe (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC))
If so, what's everyone ranked preferences? Mine are C, D, A, B. (If not, what options would folks add? Or remove?) Levivich harass/hound 19:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Update: I'd support with or without "the" in front of "45th". Levivich harass/hound 19:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Options E and F added by {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Options G and H (the only difference between them is served as/was) added by Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Someone running for office isn't a politician? An elected official isn't a politician? How does that work?) and per Trump himself when it suited him (same WaPo source). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality who served as 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics he was a businessman and real estate developer.Might work as a good compromise? Hazelforest (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
he divested himself of his business intrestsNo, he didn't. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
With things as they are, I'm afraid it would be seen as biased to use "was" for Trump when the modern presidents all use "served as" except Nixon, who many people think was not a good president.I agree, a subtle POV push, or something which could be reasonably construed as such, in the opening sentence of the lead is unacceptable. As this semantic difference is otherwise meaningless, we should probably aim to be consistent with other recent presidents and use "served as". How good or bad Trump was as a president is irrelevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Content must be written from a neutral point of view. I agree that a bias would be obvious in this article if "was" stays in the first sentence, since we are using "served as" for practically all other former officials. Also, as Levivich said, we can not use "was" in the first sentence since he will always be the 45th president. Felix558 (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
A ranking of 12 recent presidents from Dwight Eisenhower to Donald Trump(). And where did I make a
distinction ... between "politics" and "military administration"or even mention military administration, for that matter? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Modern history is the period after the Middle Ages.That depends on the context. In Japan, "early modern" (近世) refers to the period after 1600, and immediately follows, yes, the "middle ages" (中世), but indeed the word that most closely approximates "modern" in a Japanese historiographical context, 現代, refers to the period after 1945; but in secondary school in Ireland I'm pretty sure I was taught that "modern" meant either post-Enlightenment or post-Industrial Revolution, and while "early modern" in European history can refer to the Renaissance (i.e., "modern" can mean "after the Middle Ages"), this is something I definitely did not learn in school, and had to read specialist historical works after graduating university. Given that the US didn't exist during the European Middle Ages, it doesn't make sense to use that definition of "modern" when describing the history of the United States presidency, as George Washington would then be a "modern" president.
And where did I make a distinction ... between "politics" and "military administration" or even mention military administration, for that matter?You said that Eisenhower had not been a politician nor "run for or hold any political office" before running for president. Moreover, this isn't really the main issue -- Eisenhower is long dead, his life, pre-POTUS career, and presidential administration have been discussed in numerous historical books and articles, and we can use those to determine how to write that article, while Trump has only not been a former president for about a week and we are stuck either working his political career, such as it was, into the description that our article on him has used since c2004.
Comment The options so far are missing the point. The issue is the combination of past tense with the number of president. Both "was 45th" and "served as 45th" are incorrect, since they use the past tense with the number. Jimmy Carter IS the 39th president. So those making the case that "was" implies Trump was dead are correct. I also am of the opinion that "served", irrespective of who, is a POV term - people "serve" in the military, whereas Presidents are pursuing their own political agenda (they are serving their own agenda if you will). I am not sure how to write it, but something like "Donald was president from XXXX to XXXX. He was a ..., before becoming the 45th president" would be formally correct. He was not "the 45th president from XXXX to XXXX", because he still is the 45th president (impeachment prior to ending his term is another story...). In short I suggest a different structure entirely, and avoid "served as", irrespective that Carter and Clinton articles use that phrasing. A curious conundrum, to be sure. Bdushaw (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
served as the 39th president of the United States. "Barack Obama was the 44th president" gets thousands of hits on Google News, while "Barack Obama is the 44th president" gets only six that don't date to the time when he was actually the sitting president; the latter is ungrammatical unless, say, we are talking about numbered placement in a specific visible list. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
he is permanently the 45th president of the United StatesThis statement is ungrammatical. Describing a former president (whether they are alive or dead is irrelevant) as "is the Xth president" is wrong, unless we are talking about their placement on a specific, visible list, which the opening sentence of this biographical article definitely is not. No other article on a US president, living or dead, seems to disagree with this assessment. What's more, there does not seem to have been any confusion over this matter four years ago when Obama left office. Why are multiple editors making it an issue this time? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
he will always be the 45th president of the United States, and as such, saying "was" implies that he is no longer living? You're right - every other article on a living former president uses "served as" - why can't this one? Also made a minor edit to your indent per MOS:LISTGAP Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality(which is standard English usage, not unique to Wikipedia at all); subsequent subordinate/relative clauses use the verb tense that makes the most grammatical sense. Saying he "is" the 44th president is equivalent to rewriting the opening paragraph of the article body to say
At age 13, he is enrolled in the New York Military Academyor even editing further down the article to say
While Trump is credited as co-author, the entire book was ghostwritten by Tony Schwartz. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Donald Trump served as the 45th president of the United States (2017–21)." Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
In these last few days, other former US presidents bios, have just had their intros changed from "served as.." to "was". GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
X is/was an American Y who served as the Zth president of the United States, while McKinley, Taft, Harding, Truman and Nixon all had their current (admittedly awkward) wording before last November. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
These are my thoughts preceding my official !vote above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
(And lead of User:Kolya Butternut/Public image of Donald Trump)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics, he was a media personality famous for his image as a real estate tycoon.
"F" doesn't work because he is still a businessman. "A" deemphasizes his presidency. A + F states that he is still a businessman, used to be a media personality, and includes what he was famous for before being president. His fame and brand are essential to his biography. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics he was a media personality.Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Listed at WP:ANRFC on February 10, 2021. Mgasparin (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I've put together an excel sheet tallying !votes using a ranked choice voting method. I've decided it would be best for me to not close the discussion, but I would be happy to share my work by email. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.