Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Changes being reverted

Why are all of my changes being reverted without full review? Many of the changes I made were to restructure the page to look like other presidential pages. This one stands out as being written completely differently.

I added a line about Operation Warp Speed to this page. There's one small link to it (and CARES) on the entirety of the page, and it's not even part of the actual text or as a response to COVID. Seems odd for this to be left out.

I also added a "social issues" section, just like it is done for other presidents to house all of these specific events. No other presidential page is set up in a way to have a list of random events in the table of contents.

To say that the response to COVID-19 was slow is an intentional mischaracterization by the author of this page. Operation Warp Speed was proposed a month after the first case in the United States, and there was a viable vaccine in under a year, which was also unprecedented. Early actions to restrict travel are also not being represented here, and I added citation for this.

Also, why does it say Trump "promoted" Space Force? As president, he has "authorized" it. This seems like intentional messaging to make it seem like it is less of an achievement. Where is this verbiage used for any other president?

There are also titles that make this page seem elementary compared to other pages, saying "Guns" vs "Gun policy" or "Space" vs "Space policy." Is there a reason for this? By saying "gun," readers are left with a presumptuous understanding unless they truly take the time to read more and do their own research, which this page leaves much to be desired there in terms of balance.

The same can be said for the sub-header, "Twitter". Are we implying that Trump only used Twitter or was only kicked off of Twitter? This would be equivalent to writing "Pen" and the following up with all of the thing written by the president. "Use of social media" was a much more appropriate sub-header. Fast4lax (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the page history before returning it to the version before your edsum free series of edits, so that we could discuss all the changes. I am afraid that the explanation you have provided above just doesn't cut the mustard. Just to comment on your first sentence above, what does "full review" mean? I fully reviewed your unexplained changes and found them unnacceptable as a whole. It seems other editors did the same thing.

I note that Operation Warp Speed has its own article, and is linked per WP:PAG (policy), so I cannot see your issue there, for instance. Regarding your comparisons to other Presidents, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

You should also note the warnings at the top of this page regarding editing behaviour, and remember that our behaviour as editors is under particular scrutiny. Regards Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 22:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Operation Warp Speed is not explained at all in the context of this page. Why leave out the context and solely add it as a footnote? Why are users unallowed to add this in, even if "other stuff exists." Why can't "more stuff exist" if it's true? Why can't a restructure be good for the page even if "other stuff exists?" If we went with your logic, we wouldn't be driving cars because horses exist.

And if this article was reviewed in full, then the consistency of the Oxford comma on the page would at the very least been accepted. But clearly, this group does not care for attempts for balance or consistency. (And if I'm told that we can't control if people use the Oxford comma or not because other things exists, then the entire Wikipedia editing system is a contradiction because my Oxford comma was deleted and because I have been asked by other editors to change the style of my edits to the Wikipedia standard, meaning there are standards. It's not just some random system where "things exist". And for templated articles about presidents, there should be consistency and a standard.) Fast4lax (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

"and there was a viable vaccine in under a year, which was also unprecedented." Are there sources which address this supposed unprecedented success for Trump? Per the article on COVID-19 vaccination in the United States, vaccination started on December 14, 2020. Only two vaccines had been authorized before the end of the year: the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. Dimadick (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you asking a question or answering your own question with an already verified source on Wikipedia?

Here's a source for you... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03626-1 Fast4lax (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I restored some of the less controversial edits from Fast4lax’s series of edits. Not looking to override the need for consensus, so let me know if any are objectionable and I’ll self-revert. F4l, it would really help others to evaluate your work if you used edit summaries. Waterwangledweathers (talk to FFF) 15:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for being a reasonable human being, @Waterwangledweathers. I'd also note a fix needed in the bracket next to: "National Defense Authorization Act" under the "Space" sub-header. Fast4lax (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Fast4lax, you have encountered a common, and usually justified, response to large changes, involving many elements, that are made without previous consensus for each element. Such editing is nearly always a bad idea, and it is easiest to mass delete the whole mess. Now you should discuss each element in its own section here. I suspect that several of your ideas might be accepted. Try it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I proposed that there be a section called "Social issues". This would allow for the "See also" directly under Domestic policy to be added under its own section since not all domestic policies are "social policies". Under the "Social issues" section, we'd house the sub-sections of: George Flyoyd, LGBT, reproductive rights, C'ville rally (in alphabetical order based on current titles). All of these are already seen as sub-sections of the page, and it would make more sense to condense and centralize these. Fast4lax (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If somebody says they agree with adding the three civil rights headers under "Social issues" but why reproductive rights? I would ask then, why is "Abortion" listed under "Social issues" under Joe Biden's page, despite the fact that "other things exist"? If anything, under a conservative president, they would likely classify their policies in this area as being a "social issue", while a liberal president would be more likely to classify this as a "health care issue". And the fact that there is even a discrepancy between the two ideologies, proves further that it more appropriately falls under "social issue". Fast4lax (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is wikipedia so blatantly wrong

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why does wikipedia silence conservative voices. Why does it paint conservative leaders in a bad picture why is it that they never write so harshly about Democrats. 139.138.81.170 (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia does not silence conservative voices. We try to keep lies outta here, though. Hope that helps. soibangla (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC) Dear IP, I agree with Soibangla, and for your enjoyment here is one republican voice making an AWESOME comment. If more conservatives took this republican's advice, they would get more coverage here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC) I like that, so basically correct. (Explanation after the fact - the statement is a no nonsense one that cannot be honestly misinterpreted.) - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC) References This is not a good place to discuss this issue. All we can discuss here is this article. If you have any specific complaints about this article, please feel free to tell us. TFD (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC) Please consider reading partisan Wikipedia pages as parody. Think of it as a tongue in cheek 'The Onion' article lambasting stereotypical leftish-partisan views. Only by observing the carefully crafted irony can you appreciate the masterwork of partisan Wikipedia. The authors don't necessarily believe their quotations. They are merely feeding off from the group think, like a snowball inevitably gaining mass as it uncontrollably rolls downhill. The more extreme and partisan, the better! 'Wrong', 'right' or messy issues like the nature of objective truth have no place here. There are only two criteria. Is it suitable to partisan bias and is it from an approved media source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.20.36 (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Contested edits 19 June

FormalDude has contested the following series of edits: 1 2. These edits seem rather benign in reducing the high level of detail and unnecessary citations in this large article, which can be found in better detail in the subarticles. Does anybody else object to them? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't even look at the edits because I don't need to. This articles "readable prose" is a whopping 4x the size at which WP:SIZESPLIT recommends splitting articles into more than one.

60kb .... where most articles should be split the guideline says

100kb .... where virtually every article should be split

263kb ... this article

In my view, major sub-articlization is necesssary for this piece to really be useful OTOH, I'm not interested enough to work on it myself.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

In theory, this article is split into many sub-articles, and some detail remains here of what would be further explained in those sub-articles. Clearly, this article needs to be reduced in its level of detail, as there is too much detail here. The proposed edits are one small step in that direction. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

If the world made sense, there would be little original text here, and instead the subsections would consist of imported summary sections from the subarticles, via templates for transclusion and/or excerpts. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I take it you would support the proposed edits, but support much more. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll refer you to my only comment on these specific edits above. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The first edit removes a pretty significant record, and doesn't shorten the article much. The second edit also barely shortens the article, and combines two unrelated sections into one. ––FormalDude talk 10:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The 1932 record is not accurate, as the Democrats won both houses of Congress and the presidency in 1992. Deployment of federal forces in 2020 and the photo opportunity at St. John's Episcopal Church are obviously related, which is why they are both subsections of the George Floyd protests subsection. Are these the only objections? Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The 1932 record is accurate. The GOP did not have a majority in either the House or Senate before the 1992 election, and it therefore can't have "lost its majorities". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The Republican Party didn't have a majority in the House before the 2020 elections either, so by the same measure could not have "lost its majorities". If we limit it only to times when the incumbent party held all three houses, that greatly reduces the opportunities for a then-current president to break the record. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Why are you arguing this? You think you know better than the Washington Post? The sentence says "It was the first presidency" to be defeated and lose both chambers, meaning in 2016, GOP had the house, senate, and presidency, and by 2020 had lost them all. ––FormalDude talk 09:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

There are better comparisons that can be made than to Herbert Hoover, such as to George HW Bush. Trump wasn't president in 2016 and only a few presidents have had the presidency, House and Senate to lose to begin with. This article is also about the presidency, not the Congress, so the Washington Post comparison is awkward here anyway. I don't think you will be convinced though, so is that your only objection to the edits, other than potentially the subsection merging? Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh my god, you knew what I meant–he was elected in 2016, inaugurated in 2017. I like how you come up with new reasoning for not including it every time someone corrects you. ––FormalDude talk 11:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not that you were wrong, I am simply saying that the 2016 elections are outside the scope of this article except as background. Is that your only objection to the edits though? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the 2016 elections, I'm talking about the 115th Congress that was in place for the first two years of Trump's presidency. ––FormalDude talk 23:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

123, it strikes me as either clueless or disingenuous to claim that these edits are furthering an objective of shortening the article when in each case they change the meaning away from NPOV per sources and toward a misleading narrative regarding Trump's conduct in office. Any further such edits should be proposed on the article talk page to obviate the well-founded reverts and ensuing meta-discussions. SPECIFICO talk 14:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I reject that the edits change the meaning of sources in any way and you are free to discuss how you think they do as nobody else has done. Because most of the reporting about the Trump presidency was negative, most content reductions would reduce the detail of negative reporting. This is inevitable when reducing the level of detail without a point of view by the editor. These details can still be found in the relevant sub-articles, where it is more appropriate for the topics to be discussed in greater detail. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Your comment affirms my point. SPECIFICO talk 11:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

There are a number of editors who act as provocateurs and whose only objective is to split articles. They will coordinate attacks on an article, using a variety of arguments. When one doesn't work, they'll move on to the next. You can see some of this misinformation provided in the thread above that is spouted with little understanding of the policy. They have been disciplined, sometimes temporarily losing their editing privileges. They are also known to just split an article using the "bold" edit feature. This happened recently on the article "List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1-4999" which was split against the consensus view. They will also place the "Too long" banner on the article's page with no discussion, as appears to be the case here. Article structure and content should be decided by the editors who know the subject, not ones who are just trying to mess things up. VarmtheHawk (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Notice, I said the cuts moved away from NPOV and OP replied as if my were concern that the cuts made the article less "negative" -- whatever that means. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

That seems to be your concern, and I would also be concerned if I thought that was happening. I don't think you've looked at the edits. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

As the prevailing concern with edits mentioned in this talk page discussion relates to the comparison with Herbert Hoover, I will restore the edits except to keep the original comparison in place. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's any consensus here for either of your edits to be restored. ––FormalDude talk 02:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

There is only one specific objection to the edits, unless you would also like the objection against section merging to be counted. We can reinstate the edits except for those parts that are objected. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

You will be reverted if you restore any portion of your edits without consensus. ––FormalDude talk 20:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The 'Special Counsel's report' section is too big.

The 'Special Counsel's report' section is the largest section, with 27,729 bytes, which is nearly half of the recommended readable prose for each article, so therefore it must be further condensed. Too much information can intentionally or unintentionally overwhelm and confuse the reader, especially when it comes to politics. I am not really sure how to condense it though, so I am asking for any ideas or work done to further condense the section. zsteve21 (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is not too big. It is significant and important. Andrevan@ 14:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You can start by listing 5 or 6 facts you think are overly detailed or needlessly presented and emphasized for this article page. Otherwise, the same editors that wrote the long text are likely to respond that they believe it's all necessary. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You could say all of the other sections are significant and important, but somehow is not as large as this section. Here are some of my ideas:

• The first two paragraphs does not discuss about or mention the Mueller Report and should go somewhere else.
• It's more suitable for paragraphs about Volume I and II to go into its main article. and replace this with the report's conclusion, if there isn't any in the section.

So yeah, I've identified four paragraphs that I believe is not suitable in this substantial summary. What do you think? zsteve21 (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Disagree. It should be in this article, as it was very relevant and covered in many RS in the context of Trump's presidency. Andrevan@ 13:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article size says articles over 100 kB "Almost certainly should be divided." the current article size is 496 kB.[1] A lot of space can be saved by using a summary rather than narrative style. For example,

Two days later, Barr sent Congress a four-page letter, describing what he said were the special counsel's principal conclusions in the Mueller Report. Barr added that since the special counsel "did not draw a conclusion" on obstruction, this "leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime". Barr continued: "Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

could be summarized as:

"Barr wrote to Congress that there was insufficient information in the report to establish an obstruction of justice offense by the president."

The reader doesn't lose important information by not knowing how long Barr's letter was or any of the other details and direct quotes.

TFD (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Substantially different meaning, unfortunately. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It's unhelpful to say the meanings are substantially different without explaining what the difference is and tacking on unfortunately is sarcastic. Let's just discuss the issue without creating a battleground. TFD (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

No sarcasm. Just pointing out the tradeoff . Barr's statement was seen as disingenuous. Short version makes it sound routine. SPECIFICO talk 12:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

If Barr's statement was seen as disingenuous, then add a sentence saying, "Barr's statement was seen as disingenuous." The current wording does not say or even imply it. TFD (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

A constructive suggestion. I don't have sources at my fingertips, but anyone should feel free to do that. SPECIFICO talk 14:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

One Two. SPECIFICO talk 14:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

That's really good, because it's a legal opinion given by a judge in a final and binding decision to release at least part of the memo. So if you can find the right wording, we could use this to drastically shorten the paragraph. It's stronger than saying "seen as" and avoids any perception of bias or implicit OR. TFD (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of summarisation that editors of this article should engage in. The details that would be omitted from this summarised version are much better placed in the articles directly relevant to the topic, such as Mueller Report and perhaps William Barr. The meaning of the proposed summarised wording is certainly not substantially different. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

"certainly" is not a valid rationale. SPECIFICO talk 12:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

We need to balance our viewpoints.

This article is very unbalanced, the opening already emphasizes Trump's failures, and take a look at how Joe Biden's article starts with a positive tone and quickly lists his accomplishments. There is substantial evidence to support Trump's claims and it did not occur to me that Fox News is regarded as unacceptable but other Democratic-biased views such as CNN or MSNBC are regarded as acceptable citations as according to the Reliable Source master list. However, I want to make changes but I worry I will get attacked by other editors who do not share my political views (I of course have no intentions of praising Trump or asserting my political views on any article. I am an independent but Wikipedia needs to try and be fair with the Republicans and stop providing bias to the Democrats). Where can I start? Thank you in advance. IncrediNick (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You can start by checking your political views at the door, then consider whether you are still interested in editing here. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I would also suggest reading the article false equivalence. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The policy (WP:WEIGHT) requires that we present opinions based on the degree of their acceptance in reliable sources. Trump rates lower than Biden in presidential ratings. While it would not surprise me if that view was reversed, it would still leave Trump near the bottom. TFD (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I will try to avoid the attack mode here, as IncrediNick may be a well-meaning editor. :

• • To list accomplishments of Trump (assuming that there are any), you would need reliable sources to support changes to the article's text. Whether sources believe that Biden is a wonderworker or mediocre is irrelevant to this article.
  • Fox News acts more like a propaganda machine than a news channel. The Fox News controversies are quite long, and include malicious photo manipulations and video footage manipulation. They are untrustworthy as a source. CNN controversies are also long, but they often have little to do with propaganda. For example, CNN defended the rapists in the Steubenville High School rape case, while ignoring the victim in its coverage. MSNBC controversies revolve around its biases, not direct propaganda. For example, anti-Israel coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and misleading reports about killings by the Israeli police. Dimadick (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Capital punishment section

The capital punishment section says: "During Trump's term (in 2020 and in January 2021), the federal government executed thirteen people in 2020 and January 2021; the first executions since 2002. In this time period, Trump oversaw more federal executions than any president in the preceding 120 years." I propose to change it to "Under Trump's presidency, between July 2020 and January 2021, the federal government executed thirteen people, the first since 2002." As currently written, the paragraph unnecessarily repeats the time frame and fails to indicate when in 2020 executions resumed. I would suggest removing the last sentence too. I have read the part of the AP article that references it, and I find it confusing. The federal government under Franklin Delano Roosevelt executed 16 people. Maybe the article is referring to a time frame of six months? Regardless, our statement that Trump oversaw more than any president in the preceding 120 years is factually incorrect. Bsherr (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This section needs to include explanation about why this happened. There's no mention that these executions were only made possible under the 1994 Biden Crime Law, which Bill Clinton signed after the laws allowing for a federal death penalty had been ruled unconstitutional. TFD (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a partisan talking poiint, like Hillary's emails. Why would this not also apply to the Clinton, Bush, and Obama and Biden presidencies? See WP:COATRACK for details. SPECIFICO talk 13:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The executions were scheduled after the DC Court of Appeals vacated a 2017 lower court injunction, after the death penalty protocol had been in litigation for about a decade, and The Four Deuces's point about the statutory authority for the death penalty is accurate. So exactly what is the supposed bias? But none of these matters are in my proposed changes, so what is the problem with the changes I did make? --Bsherr (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

McConnell blocking Obama judicial nominations

In this revert the article text has been restored to a version that does not reflect the substance of the cited NPR source. In that source, McConnell boasts to Sean Hannity that he has set the stage for confirmations of Trump-appointed judges by thwarting Obama's nominations. The now-reverted text also makes clear why the low percentage of confirmations under Obama was significant and that it was not incidental. The revert should be undone and the NPOV, well cited text should be restored. The edit summary of the revert claimed that McConnell did not say that his blocking Obama's nominations was intentional, but in fact the source states it and then quotes McConnell's acknowledgement of his strategy. SPECIFICO talk 00:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The relevant text of the article reads, "When Hannity wondered why President Obama left so many vacancies, McConnell said: 'I'll tell you why. I was in charge of what we did the last two years of the Obama administration.'" You summarize this quote as "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said that he had purposely held seats vacant under Obama...". The assertion that McConnell said it was "purposeful" is inaccurate. McConnell's quote only speaks to causation, not intent. The reference says others have asserted that it was his intent. As it stands, it transgresses BLP. --Bsherr (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Assuming that my explanation has been accepted, I have restored the original language in the article. --Bsherr (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I think your point about intent is a good one, but I otherwise support SPECIFICO's version. What about something like

During the last two years of the Obama administration, the newly Republican-controlled U.S. Senate confirmed only 28.6 percent of the president's judicial nominees, for the lowest percentage in decades. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell—who said he was the cause of the low confirmation percentage—then prioritized confirming Trump's judicial appointees, doing so rapidly.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

There's no basis to "assume" you have consensus for your edit when literally nobody had agreed with you. Please self-revert. SPECIFICO talk 20:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

First Step Act

I would like to change the sentence "Trump's proposed 2020 budget underfunded the new law; the law was intended to receive $75 million annually for five years, but Trump's budget proposed only $14 million." to "The law authorized appropriations to it of $75 million annually for five years, but Trump's 2020 budget proposed appropriating only $14 million." and also to change the citation to use the correct name of the author of the reference.

1. I would like to eliminate the dependent clause to make the sentence more concise.
2. The reference does not mention an intention to appropriate $75 million. Rather, the law was authorized at $75 million. Authorizations and appropriations are separate processes, and while authorizations reflect a guideline for the funding necessary to fully implement a program, appropriations reflect a balancing of priorities emerging out of the budgeting process. This supposed intention is therefore unsourced.
3. I would like to remove the passive voice in "was intended", but that requires answering the question of "was intended by whom?", which again is unsourced.
4. "Underfunded" is incorrect. A presidential proposed budget is just that, a proposal, so if that language is retained, it should read "would have underfunded", but it would be clearer and more concise to just give the figures, as my proposed sentence does, without editorializing it.
5. Willfully failing to correct a citation that erroneously names the wrong author is plagiarism.

SPECIFICO reverted the change explaining that it did not reflect a neutral point of view. I ask that someone please identify what part of the change is alleged to be biased so I may address it without unnecessarily holding up the other fixes. Bsherr (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Please do not personalize your content discussions here. The edits you made lost the sense of the text and the significance of Trump's policy actions, hence my revert to the standing content of the article. SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific about what sense and significance of Trump's policy actions was lost? Can you propose a way to address the problems I have identified while retaining what you think needs to be retained? And what do you mean by personalize? --Bsherr (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I've explained my view, and it is up to you to generate consensus if you wish to change the standing text that has been in the article without any dissent. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I would like to try to generate consensus, obviously. Do you have an issue with this change? "The law authorized an appropriation of $75 million annually for five years, but Trump's 2020 presidential budget proposal would have underfunded it, proposing to appropriate only $14 million." --Bsherr (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Bsherr's proposed text is more concise and a better representation of the source. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Have you read the cited source? It is all about bipartisan surprise and concert that the administration did not budget the mandated funding level. That is not conveyed by the proposed revision to the standing text. SPECIFICO talk 03:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. A clear improvement. The revert lacks any valid reasoning and the edit should be reinstated. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The assertion that NPOV and V per cited source are not valid reasoning is...

...not valid reasoning. SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you not capable of identifying the precise words or absence of words that you assert cause a bias issue? --Bsherr (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Do not post personal disparagement on the article talk page. Do that on my user talk page. If you will review my edit summaries you will see that, among other things, you removed the word "chaos", which was prominently used in the cited source to describe the scene at US airports after Trump's invalid action. Please also note that when the meaning of article text is changed away from the NPOV standing version and Verified representation of RS, that should be noted in the edit summary, not hidden in what's described as relocating or reformatting article content. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't disparaging you, I was just asking whether it was possible. It may not be, since there is no discussion of chaos at airports in the criminal justice section of this article. So, again, can you identify the precise words or absence of words that you assert cause a bias issue in this section of this article? --Bsherr (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Generalized references to random policies rarely help identifying the specific things you take issue with. Much more persuasive to point to the specific issues. Several editors don't seem to be buying your argument. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

wp:onus is on you. SPECIFICO talk 01:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

For this there is now clear consensus. You're the only one who has spoken against it. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like to offer a revised sentence to incorporate this additional change also reverted by SPECIFICO.

"The law authorized an appropriation of $75 million annually for five years; although Trump's 2020 budget proposed appropriating only $14 million, the law was fully funded."

References

In reverting this change, SPECIFICO asks what this information has to do with the Trump administration, so I will address that. Firstly, in stating how much Trump's budget proposed to fund the law, it is relevant to also state how much the law was actually appropriated. Secondly, the appropriations law that fully funded the First Step Act was also signed by Trump (indicative of his acceptance of the budgetary compromise, though I don't think that is significant enough to make explicit). Again, I submit that the proposed change is conveyed in an impartial tone and, although the cited sources are nonprofit organizations with, as I assess it, a bias towards advocacy of reform, the facts for which they are cited are verifiable in the primary sources, and that the change is therefore consistent with WP:NPOV. --Bsherr (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The Congress, not the President, makes budgetary appropriations. The significant fact is that Trump proposed a shortfall. Your text really leaves it unclear what the connection is between the final appropriation and Trump's attempt to short the program. The fact that he signed a veto-proof spending bill is irrelevant. The president signs all sorts of veto-proof legislation he does not like. Moreover, in the context of the entire appropriation for the year, this program was a near-insignificant fraction of total spending. I've tweaked the text a bit to clarify the process. There was no meaningful consensus for this, but I hope the current text addresses both our concerns. SPECIFICO talk 00:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

How many times do we have to go through this with you? You violated the DS in force at this page. Please self revert before you are blocked or topic banned again. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO you are probably afoul of the DS. You've made at least 8 reverts in the last 4 days, and this article is under a DS that requires a 24 hour waiting period between reversions of the same content. You've reverted the content we are discussing here several times now in that time period. Please self revert your latest revert and get consensus here before making further changes. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to revert the change so we can discuss it further. I have concerns with each of the two parts of this edit. First is the addition of the clause, "The shortfall in Trump's budget led to concern among advocates of the new program". Two issues with this. (1) It erodes WP:NPOV in this article to give mention to concerns about the proposal without giving similar mention to support for the proposal. Before this change, the article discussed neither, it just presented the fact of the amount of funding in the proposed budget. (2) The clause is so vague as to be encyclopedically insignificant. It doesn't say which groups, or what their concerns are, and therefore gives the reader no more information than can already be inferred from the neutral facts. Particularly in today's politics, it is true of most instances of "the president proposed" that there will also be "people opposed the president's proposal". If, for every sentence in this article stating something Trump did, there also had to be a sentence stating that people opposed it, this wouldn't be in summary form anymore. The question is whether this fact is important to the Trump presidency or not. If we think it is, we should be specific. If it's not, then we can leave it to an article about the actual program. Now the second part is the claim that Congress was solely responsible for the appropriations act. It wasn't. The act is a public law, which means it was adopted by Congress and signed by the president. If the president had vetoed it and Congress overrode the veto, then perhaps the statement could be taken as true, but that's not the case with this law. SPECIFICO's contentions above that a veto would have been overridden, that Trump signed it because of that, etc., are not stated or referenced in the article. Yes, the text deliberately omits how things got from budget proposal to law because, for a summary, I think it is sufficient to do so when considering how much coverage of this one topic is justified by its relative importance to the article. --Bsherr (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Bsherr, thanks for the specific explanation. Trying to respond to your two concerns, as follows:

As to (1) - The cited source emphasizes the concerns of justice reform and First Step supporters. The source was written before the passage of the appropriations bill and the topic of the source is the surprising shortfall in Trump's budget and the concern that it aroused. That is why it is significant to include in the article text.. I believe my wording was a deadpan summary of the article's extensive description of the nature and scope of that concern. Neither the cited source, nor any other source that I have seen, reports that there were analysts who praised or supported the proposed violation of the recently-passed statute's budgetary structure. We present two sides in proportion to their weight reported in RS references. If you have any such references praising Trump's shortfall, please make a specific suggestion along with links to such sources. I think you may have misunderstood my point about the insignificance of his having signed the appropriations bill. My point was related to the second issue you raised, so I will address it in (2) below.

As to (2) - I did not propose to include in the article text that the appropriations bill was veto-proof, so your concern about unsourced or undue content is unfounded. I'm not sure of your level of familiarity with the US appropriations process. Funding is the responsibility of the Congress, initiated in the House of Representatives. The text you have proposed gives the impression that Trump reversed his position and decided to fully fund the program. As I said in my edit summary, this was bundled with all the other expenditures for the year. The amount of the First Step funding was on the order of one one-thousandth of one-percent. The juxtaposition of text you propose gives the impression that this was a signiificant factor in Trump's having signed the appropriations bill, which is not stated in any source, cited or otherwise.

As to the significance of this matter to the article as a whole, I would be OK with removing this funding bit entirely. The passage of the First Step Act itself was significant and was something that Trump eventually approved explicitly, even if grudgingly and ambiguously, But the subsequent bit about an unenforceable shortfall in his budget -- a shortfall that was destined to be ignored given the statutory requirement -- that part does not IMO rise to the level of significance that requires its inclusion in this article.

Finally, since this discussion was and is ongoing -- witness our mutual inability to fully address one anothers' concerns in our most recent article changes -- I think you should revet the text to the status quo ante before either of our two recent attempts, while we continue to work on this. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2022

Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic Trump cut CDC staff in China. Part of the purpose of this staff was to contain diseases like Covid-19 & help China manage them.

One citation of many: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-cdc-exclusiv/exclusive-u-s-slashed-cdc-staff-inside-china-prior-to-coronavirus-outbreak-idUSKBN21C3N5 2600:1700:3900:2B50:D35:4AEF:1021:3812 (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The article already says:

Two months prior to the outbreak in Wuhan China, the Trump Administration had cut nearly $200 million in funding to Chinese research scientists studying animal coronaviruses. Throughout his presidency he also proposed budget cuts to global health.

We could add to the first sentence, "and cut CDC staff working in China." I don't know how much detail should be given, so hope other editors provide their views.

Incidentally, you should only use the edit request template if there is no response to an edit request, since the template alerts editors who are not following this article.

TFD (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Typo in "Russia and related investigations: special counsel's report"

As written, there's a line that says "false or inclomeple testimony". It should clearly be "false or incomplete testimony". I don't have enough account history to edit myself though. Roppyrom (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for letting us know. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Subsequent mentions

SPECIFICO, per MOS:SURNAME, subsequent mentions of the names of individuals should consist of the surname only. Do you not agree that's what the MOS requires? Bsherr (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I stated my reason for reinstating Hillary Clinton's full name in my edit summary. It's not a matter of MOS and mentions are often separated by so much text that the full name bears repeating. SPECIFICO talk 23:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain why the MOS does not apply to this? --Bsherr (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I've explained my view, and it is up to you to generate consensus if you wish to change the standing text that has been standing in the article without dissent. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You haven't explained your view. You said it's not a matter of the MOS, but you haven't said why or cited to any Wikipedia guideline. This article isn't your personal dictatorship. Your contentions about the style of the article have to conform to the MOS.--Bsherr (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Please review my comments and edit summaries. They have to do with NPOV, which I believe is undermined by various of your edits. If your view has merit, you will be able to convince many other editors to reverse the longstanding article text and accept your edits. SPECIFICO talk 02:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain what following MOS:SURNAME has to do with WP:NPOV? I don't understand. --Bsherr (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It has long been understood that MOS:SURNAME has to be supplemented with the common-sense practice of using full names when you're discussing more than one subject with the same last name, but I see that this is not explicity spelled out there; so I just added the following text: When more than one person of the same surname is being discussed in an article, then both given and surname may be used to avoid ambiguity; i.e., a discussion of the activities of members of a single family may require full name use (not given-name) for clarity's sake. Otherwise, for example, it would be impossible to discuss Tory leadership positions in the Welsh Senedd which have had something like three or four members and candidates in this century named Davies, none of them related to each other, and some of them standing against each other or succeeding each other. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Blatant Bias

There is a great amount of bias at the beginning of the article. The first several paragraphs focus almost exclusively on the negative aspects of the presidency, and makes claims that would be disputed by many. For example, the opening paragraphs states that Trump made many false or misleading claims. Presumably, this is primarily in reference to the claims of a stolen election in 2020. However, this is a widely disputed event, and not one that can be used to characterize the validity of a president’s claims over 4 years in the White House. Also, the opening articles seem to focus on how Trump was fiscally irresponsible, even though other presidents such as Barack Obama added $8.6 Trillion to the national debt. The articles describing a presidency should make both positive and negative claims, rather than blanket statements made in a biased, partisan style. 2600:1004:B06C:E3DA:565:E255:E1A2:B1A4 (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a Horrible Article

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are very few citations relative to the number of claims. Also, it is not good practice to begin an article by listing criticisms from a biased tone, the criticisms should appear in their own section at the bottom of the document, not in the summary at the top. A list of negative claims about a person should not be included in their encyclopedia article unless you are going to make a section called Criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerist (talk • contribs) 13:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC) There are 876 sources, some of which are used multiple times... Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC) Aerist , you've been here long enough to know better than to make such a nonsensical comment. While some articles can be found with criticism sections, that practice is strongly discouraged by our policies and guidelines. Criticism is best incorporated where it logically fits. The lead documents the body of the article, including criticisms. Our NPOV policy requires we do that. We tell the good and the bad. We do not write glowing hagiographies here, and it is natural that reliable sources have documented Trump's penchant for shooting himself in the foot and the other myriad negative aspects of Trump's personality, lying, and actions, and experts who rate presidents have determined he is one of the worst presidents in history. We do not whitewash such matters. Go write a blog if you want to paint a false glowing image of St. Donald. Don't try to do it here or even suggest it on talk pages. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC) Agree with Valjean, Donald's presidency is widely regarded by historians as one of the worst in history. There's some debate on if he is at the very bottom of the list or 3rd from the bottom. Andre🚐 16:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC) I think the article is in many cases euphemistic and should be even more negative. My god, this is a president who plotted to have fake electors restore him to power after losing an election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wise and Beautiful Editor (talk • contribs) 16:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Democrats in 2016, petitioned electors to overturn Trump's election. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC) False equivalence says what? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC) Not a false equivalence. BTW, WBE is a sock. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC) I know WBE was blocked as a sock. I also know that there's no equivalence between Democratic voters emailing electors to request that they be faithless electors and organizing a campaign to present false slates of electors to Congress backed up by mob violence. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC) I haven't claimed that H. Clinton voters were violent on Jan 6, 2017. Also House Democrats did attempt to disqualify electoral votes for GW Bush in Jan 2001 (Florida) & Jan 2005 (Ohio), as well Trump in Jan 2017. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC) FWIW, nobody won the popular vote in 2016, as nobody got over 50%. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC) I don't think anybody suggested that anybody had. Time to close this section off. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC) I'm sorry, but you claim it is not a good idea to start with "listing criticisms from a biased tone". May I ask, can you copy and paste an example over here? Wikipedia writes articles based on the information provided by reliable sources so we're simply writing down what the sources tell us and if you disagree, then the problem isn't the article or the editors, it's the sources. Blaming Wikipedia for "criticisms from a biased tone" is equivalent to blaming Google for an incorrect answer when in reality, Google got the information from a website. LostKlaus (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This article is in need of a serious rewrite.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Most of the sources in this article should be questioned as time has proven that they had been incredibly biased in their reporting and to that end while I am sure I will be roundly pilloried for the statement I would suggest that before someone challenge the statement that they take the time out to read this article: [2]https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php108.46.171.68 (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC) I have this article on my watchlist. Regardless of the truth value of the CJR report or whether it's true that every source in this article, all 876 of them, are horribly biased and Trump actually had a widely praised and successful presidency, it doesn't matter. Wikipedia will never make a change to an article based on a drive-by comment which alleges bias and provides absolutely nothing about the article or its sources that would be constructive. Andre🚐 03:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2023

In the Supreme Court Nominations section, can you fix the month for Kavanaugh senate vote? The vote was in October on the 6th, not in August. Can you please fix what I said? Please. 2601:40A:8400:5A40:570:CC21:412:96C7 (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow.

WP:NOTAFORUM. Make a specific suggestion for change or click on another article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wow. What uneducated and biased person wrote this article. It is comical. 136.32.182.119 (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC) As Wikipedia is open to anyone to edit, to date 1,056 people "wrote this article". So it's hard to answer your question. DeCausa (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC) Mostly everyone (including the co-founder of Wikipedia) is well aware that this site leans HEAVILY to the left. Sure, anyone can edit the pages, but the admins that determine which edits are "legit" always side with the left-leaning editor when it comes to edit wars. Every political article also has some sort of backhanded way to follow a neutral point. For instance, the insistence to point out that Trump lost the popular vote by millions even though its completely irrelevant to the administration's control which this article is supposed to be about. Furthermore, left leaning articles on individuals are routinely scrubbed when criticism is added, especially as a separate "Criticism" part of the article (see Joe Biden's wiki and history). This article in particular though is so blatantly biased that its hard to tell whether the admins are siding with the left-leaning editors as usual, or whether right-leaning TROLLS are intentionally exaggerating the level of bias so that the average reader will question the neutrality of the site. DatooflessDentist (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC) What you need to do is mention specific content that you think should be changed, and propose specific new language referenced to reliable sources. Otherwise, you are just blowing off steam and wasting people's time. Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. Cullen328 (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

CARES Act and Operation Warp Speed

I was wondering If consensus has been reached on whether or not there should be mention of the CARES Act and Operation Warp Speed within the current Wikipedia page. Given that they both make up the bulk of the Trump Administrations Action regarding the Covid-19 Pandemic I believe it should have some mention. I had previously discussed this on the talk section of the Donald Trump Wikipedia article but consensus was not reached. I have provided additional citations that I believe verify notability. LosPajaros (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised it isn't in the article already. If anything Operation Warp Speed should be in the lede. It was one of the most important achievements of the administration. Catboy69 (talk) 6 November 2023 3:31 PM UTC — Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Would something like this added to the discussion work?

"Following a dramatic economic downturn as a result of the Covid-19 Pandemic, federal intervention in providing Governmental aid was heavily lobbied for resulting in the initial signing of a $8 Billion aid package relating to vaccine research and outbreak prevention among states in March 8th 2020 and a secondary $192 Billion aid package addressing sick leave for workers, expanding unemployment benefits and increased testing resources. A subsequent $2.2 Trillion aid package was later proposed and signed into law March 27th 2020 titled the CARES Act which provided forgivable loans for small buisnesses, increased unemployment benefits, a temporary child tax credit and further aid towards state and local governments in addressing the pandemic. The CARES Act emerged as the largest economic stimulus bill in American history with limited opposition against it; passing unanimously in the Senate and 419-6 in the House. An additional $900 Billion would be further dedicated to the pandemic in the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act that was signed into law December 27th 2020 despite initial opposition by Trump following criticism of the individual stimulus payments as too low and of the bill as having wasteful spending.

This is just in reference to the CARES Act and the additional spending bills associated with the pandemic. Obviously open to further discussion on Operation Warp Speed alongside making both neutral and adding additional citations. LosPajaros (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

RFC over at Donald Trump

There's currently an ongoing RFC at Talk:Donald Trump over whether or not to include mention of the Abraham Accords in that article. Any page watchers here, feel free to participate in the discussion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Trump losses

Is there a list of every loss that Trump has had, legal, financial, political, etc.? William Robards (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)