Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Foreign policy trim

@Snooganssnoogans: You have been trimming this article subjectively this month, removing events and aspects of his domestic policy. However, you reverted my explained attempt to do the same. I believed I removed trivial aspects of his foreign policy in my edit. Let's break this down

Trump has repeatedly praised nationalist and authoritarian strongmen such as Poland's president Andrzej Duda, China's president Xi Jinping, Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte, Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, King Salman of Saudi Arabia, Italy's prime minister Giuseppe Conte, Brazil's president Jair Bolsonaro and Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban. Trump also praised Poland under the homophobic, anti-immigrant Law and Justice party (PiS) as a defender of Western civilization.

So what? Did he end up supporting these countries in the end? Not necessarily. Trump just complained about funding for Egypt in the recent covid stimulus bill. Trump has not interfered in Hungary or Poland's struggle with the EU over the Rule of Law provisions this year. Trump started a trade war with China! Trump used to strongly criticize Saudi Arabia (see his statements as a candidate).

Trump did not just praise Strongmen, but also democratically elected liberal leaders such as Trudeau and Macron. There is also a plethora of Strongmen Trump did not praise, notably Nicolas Maduro. And what is a strongman anyway? Why is Guisseppe Conte of Italy on the list, he is not a strongman at all!? Why is Boris Johnson not on the list, Trump praised him repeatedly and Boris is sometimes described as "Britain's Trump".

Frequently during his presidency, Trump privately said he wanted America to withdraw from NATO. Top defense and national security officials, such as Jim Mattis and John R. Bolton, reportedly pushed back on withdrawal.

So what, he didn't do it, and didn't say it publicly. This is stuff for Foreign policy of Donald Trump (2015–16).

In September 2019, Trump and Poland's president Andrzej Duda agreed to send 1,000 U.S. troops to Poland.

This one is out of place. In it's position in the article, we are to believe that this is in relation to his praise of the Polish President and support for his domestic "homophobic, anti-immigrant" agenda. However, This article leaves out that this is in the context of Nato troops stationed in Eastern Europe to counter Russia, and that there was already 4000 US troops in Poland before Trump's inauguration.

A January 2019 intelligence community assessment found that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons and North Korea was unlikely to relinquish its nuclear arsenal. Both assessments directly contradicted core tenets of Trump's stated foreign policy. The intelligence community also assessed that Trump's trade policies and unilateralism had damaged traditional alliances and induced foreign partners to seek new relationships. Trump referred to the assessments as "wrong".

This one is just POV outside of context. At this point in the article, the reader has not been explained the details of the withdrawal of the Iran nuclear deal or the details of the negotiations with North Korea. However, they are now told that the "intelligence community" (very unspecific) assessed that Trump is wrong on this subject. Should just be removed but could also have been pushed further down in the section, at the end.

On February 5, 2019, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to rebuke Trump for his decisions to withdraw troops from Syria and Afghanistan. Drafted by majority leader Mitch McConnell, the measure was supported by nearly all Republicans.

This is not Trump's foreign policy. This is a congressional reaction to a previously undiscussed foreign policy move. How many troops were there before? How many troops does Trump want to withdraw? How many will stay? Why are they there? Why does he want to withdraw them? Why are the other Republicans opposed? I feel that the war in Afghanistan indeed needs a full paragraph in this article. However, this sentence says very little about it, and if it should be included, it should be along with that paragraph, and not on its own.

We can agree or disagree about the notability of each of these statements, but please assess them separately, in relation to their position in the article, and keeping in mind that the same statements may exist in other Trump-related articles. Mottezen (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Per all RS and expert assessments, key aspects of Trump's foreign policy (in contrast to other post-Cold War US presidents) are (i) the open admiration of every other authoritarian at the same time that he criticizes democratic allies, and (ii) his opposition to NATO membership. A bipartisan congressional rebuke of the President's foreign policy is clearly notable. I do not have a strong opinion on the other content, but feel it belongs and feel it should be discussed before removal. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

"the open admiration of every other authoritarian at the same time that he criticizes democratic allies"

Multiple things: (1) "open admiration" doesn't equal "foreign policy support", the former merely describes a feeling. (2) There was only one RS source provided that made the links between statements of Trump on six authoritarian figures, the other additions are WP:SYNTH (3) This is not really that different from other US Presidents I could make a list of all the authoritarian figures that were praised and supported by US Presidents in the last 70 years, but let me just say that even back in 2015, the US Provided Military Assistance to 73 Percent of World’s Dictatorships. (4) As I said, he criticizes and praises both authoritarians and democratic leaders alike. Example: Trump had nothing but praise for democratically-elected ally Boris Johnson, but nothing but scorn for Nicolas Maduro.

"his opposition to NATO membership"

For every source stating he covertly opposes NATO as President, I have some where he publicly supports NATO [1] [2]. A major foreign policy goal of Trump is actually to promote NATO by requesting other members to increase their military spending to levels described in the NATO treaty. [3] [4]. If this statement on NATO withdrawal is to be included, it should be balanced by his other public statements and positions where he supports and promotes NATO.

"A bipartisan congressional rebuke of the President's foreign policy is clearly notable"

Ok fine, but it is given due weight in its current form? The article only mentions the Afghan war in passing. Maybe it could be presented better?

"I do not have a strong opinion on the other content, but feel it belongs and feel it should be discussed before removal"

If nobody has anything to say against the removal I will remove them.

Mottezen (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The open admiration of every other authoritarian at the same time that he criticizes democratic allies. This is conjecture and synthesis. Trump has praised and criticised leaders of both democratic and authoritarian governments. His opposition to NATO membership. This is far more nuanced, as he has not taken any steps to withdraw the United States from NATO. A bipartisan congressional rebuke of the President's foreign policy is clearly notable. We should only note when this is significant, as most of the Republican Party supports his actions most of the time. We should also make sure that we are not taking the side of his detractors, even in bipartisan criticism. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

All RS make perfectly clear that a distinct aspect of Trump's foreign policy (as a candidate and as a president) is his praise of authoritarians and criticisms of traditional democratic allies.[5] To claim that he praises and criticizes both in equal fashion, and that all other US presidents did the same is profoundly inaccurate. That revisionist history and muddying of waters is certainly something that you won't find in any RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not aware of any attempts at calculating how much praise he has made for authoritarian governments and how much for democratic governments, but that's very much not the point. He could be praising authoritarian government leaders 10% of the time and it could still be notable. The content about this needs to be assessing his sentiments towards authoritarian governments and their leaders generally, and not simply be a list of people he has praised. A list could just as easily be made of him praising the leaders of democratic governments.

Overall though, his statements about others are not the most notable aspects of Donald Trump's foreign policy by far. Actions taken by the United States government in foreign affairs between 2017 and 2020 are more important than his statements. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I just want to add that the article linked doesn't even state that "his praise of authoritarians and criticisms of traditional democratic allies" is "a distinct aspect of Trump's foreign policy". It just says (in a small section of the article) that this is something he did sometimes, mostly referring to Putin and mentioning Duterte in passing. However, we must also recognize that it is true that Trump also at times criticized authoritarians such Jinping, Al-Assad, Castro, Maduro and gasp Putin. Additionally, Trump produced no public statements on most foreign leaders, whether they are dictators or not. Mottezen (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Summaries and assessments of his foreign policy tend to specifically highlight his highly unusual praise for dictators and antagonism towards traditional democratic allies. By omitting this content, readers are being misinformed about the foreign policy of the Trump administration:

• "Trump over four years unsettled many U.S. allies, in Europe and elsewhere, with an antagonistic approach toward the NATO alliance and trade relations, abandonment of international agreements and warm relationships with authoritarian leaders."[6]
• "Abroad, Trump helped broker deals between close U.S. ally Israel and three Arab states, abandoned international agreements that he portrayed as unfair to the United States, alienated longtime allies and praised authoritarian foreign leaders."[7]
• "Mr. Trump, who has shown little interest in human rights and has an affinity for dictators"[8]
• "no U.S. president has been as free in his admiration of dictators and absolute power as the 45th, historians say."[9]

Your inaccurate personal views that this didn't happen or that praising every other tyrant was a nothingburger is irrelevant as to whether it should be included. We stick to what reliable sources say, in particular expert assessments and summaries of his tenure. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, the sources you linked mention this only in passing, not developing on the subject and giving few examples. Additionally, some journalistic sources managed to make a complete assessment of his foreign policy without mentioning this talking point [10] [11]. I say "talking point" because it is just that, a POV talking point from the 2020 democratic platform. However, actual foreign policy experts take a more nuanced view. According to one author of a book on American foreign policy from a well-reputed book series:

• "We must be careful not to judge Donald Trump's foreign policy by the content of his tweets and his absurdities, it is not just about that"[12]

This article quotes three actual foreign policy experts and deserves a thorough read. WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV combined with the fact that this is not a major part of foreign policy, and that he doesn't systematically praise dictators and condemn allies are reasons enough to exclude this paragraph. Mottezen (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

There are countless sources that make it a centerpiece of their coverage. I linked to summaries and overall assessments of his tenure precisely to show that this is what RS mention in the overall assessments (which is why we should do that in this article). The sources you list are by VOA (which is headed by a Trump crony who is seeking to influence its coverage[13]), a Jacobin op-ed, and three unknown experts without any academic publications of note who are quoted on a French website with a small circulation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, if you object to journalistic sources based on their POV (they all have one, even those you linked), how about we graduate to academic sources? After a quick search, I fond that Ettinger (2019) and Boucher and Thies (2019) do not mention this talking point at all. On the other hand, Siniver and Featherstone (2019) mention Trump's praise of NATO countries who increased their military budget, as part of a point on the President's relationship with NATO. They also mention Trump's praise of North Korea and Saudi Arabia as a consequence of potential business interests in these countries. McIntosh (2020) does mention in passing that "The United States has privileged relationships with autocrats—e.g. Russia, Turkey, the Philippines—over commitments to democratic allies", but goes on to clarify that this aspect is not much of break from previous administrations, a statement echoed by his source on the matter. Overall, the author has a much different take on what makes Trump's foreign policy different from his predecessors. Mottezen (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

For your information, La Croix is France's sixth most distributed daily newspaper, and the article link relevant academic studies or books published by the scholars cited in the article.

There are countless sources that make it a centerpiece of their coverage. I have seen only one, already linked in the article, and I have demonstrated that it isn't enough to make the point made in the contentious paragraph, which is a synthesis. Mottezen (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I would avoid the term strongman as an imprecise. I could only find one book about it by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, which was published this year.[14] While she's a professor of history, the book was not published by the academic press. She refers to Trump as a strongman, which shows how broad the term is. Anyway, the wording implies that praising authoritarian rulers is unusual. In fact, the U.S. under successive Democratic and Republican presidents has put a lot of authoritarian leaders into power and backed them against popular opposition, often repeatedly praising them. TFD (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I am appalled at the language used on this Talk page, and edits suggested by some editors, that are clearly biased and do not even attempt to be neutral. To wit, this statement by an editor named Snooganssnoogans - "All RS make perfectly clear that a distinct aspect of Trump's foreign policy (as a candidate and as a president) is his praise of authoritarians and criticisms of traditional democratic allies.[5] To claim that he praises and criticizes both in equal fashion, and that all other US presidents did the same is profoundly inaccurate. That revisionist history and muddying of waters is certainly something that you won't find in any RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)" How are editors that are so obviously and unapologetically biased allowed to edit Wikipedia? And this guy is prolific in his editing on post-1932 U.S. politics, with a clearly leftist agenda. I know we all have our opinions and biases, but this is beyond the pale. This guy needs to be banned. Vinny Gambino (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Lede

This entire article, in particular the lede, needs to be re-written. Any article on any President should be written accurately, with proper cites, and in particular with neutral language. This entire article, especially the lede, is far from that. All mention of policies and actions during the Trump Presidency are negative, and even those positive actions that are mentioned, such as pulling us out of the Iran nuclear deal and meeting with North Korea, are spun as negative. At the very least the language should be neutral. Why not at least mention that during the Trump administration North Korea was not launching ballistic missiles across Japan? Why not mention that instead of sending planeloads of cash to Iran to help fund their nuclear aspirations, we actually had some measures in place? And why not mention any of the other positive developments during the Trump Administration, such as record low unemployment, record low unemployment among blacks and Hispanics, increased home ownership after home ownership plummeted under the previous two administrations, increasing oil production to make the US the top oil producer in the world - decreasing our reliance on foreign oil and strenthening our position in the world, securing our borders to slow the influx of illegal immigrants, reducing government regulations that hampered business, cutting taxes to boost the economy, stock market performing very well after 8 years of stagnation, placing three justices on the Supreme Court that are committed to upholding the Constitution, and other positives? Or - are all the editors here just totally committed to an article that bashes Trump from beginning to end? Vinny Gambino (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There should also be mention that ISIS was defeated and owns no territory, after it spread across Syria and Iraq essentially unchecked during the previous administration. Vinny Gambino (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

By way of comparison, the lede of the article on Obama's Presidency includes virtually nothing negative, and spins neutral or even negative actions and policies in a decidedly positive manner. For example, there is no mention in that article's lede, or for that matter little to no mention in the article body, of the numerous scandals and failures during the Obama administration, such as Cash for Clunkers, gunwalking, bailing out the UAW/GM, Solyndra, Veteran's Administration scandal, Secret Service scandal, IRS targeting scandal, spying on the Trump campaign, spying on the press, placing Sotomayor on the Supreme court despite her racist and sexist statements, appointing Kagan as solicitor general when she had never previously argued a case then putting her on the Supreme Court, his Secretary of State maintaining classified documents on a private server in her bathroom and destroying evidence and lying to the FBI, attorney general meeting with Bill Clinton on a plane while his wife was being investigated, letting ISIS gain territory basically unchecked, bashing the police in Ferguson and elsewhere prior to the investigation being completed and inciting protestors/rioters, sending planeloads of cash to Iran, stirring up unrest in the George Zimmerman case, Pigford, etc. etc. It is striking, and stunning, that two articles on two different Presidents should be so radically different in their approach and language, when Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral. Vinny Gambino (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear DeCausa - Seriously? You reverted my entire edit because of a typo, where I used "us" rather than "U.S."? Couldn't you have simply fixed the typo instead? Vinny Gambino (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

No, as explained in my edit summary I reverted you because of your all too obvious POV agenda. Your edits make it clear that you’re here for WP:ADVOCACY which is not what Wikipedia is about. The ‘us’ was by the way. And, it wasn’t a typo for U.S. If it were a typo, how do you explain the remainder of that edit “...as well as improved our trade balance with Canada...” Trying to make up an easily disproved explanation, as you have just done, makes you look crass. DeCausa (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"Any article on any President should be written accurately, with proper cites" Citations in the lead section are typically not needed. See the Citations section in the Manual of Style.:

• • "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."
  • Trump is not a particularly complex or controversial subject. He is a relatively obscure politician, whose presidency is a footnote in the history of the United States. Dimadick (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Propose specific changes to the lead, or propose a new lead. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Vinny Gambino (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Turnover in lead

I don't do much current politics editing, but this subject is almost in history, so here is a tentative step. As this article is about administration, I think a sentence in the lead on administration turnover is warranted from as a subject-specific and historic context. (see eg. [15]) How's that sound? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 17 January 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.

---

Farewell Address and Transition of Power

See also: Inauguration of Joe Biden § Trump departure ceremony

Proposed for inclusion, although it may be fitting to split this in two sections. There are matters of significant historical interest pertaining from the time the Senate declared Biden President-elect, to the time that Trump relinquished control of the Executive branch; it is a matter of interest apart from the election dispute and the storming of the capitol, and it deserves own section. The following is only a small part of what should included. Discussing her per revert by @Onetwothreeip: and discretionary limits on the article. This has already been discussed on the Donald Trump talk page @Eatcha: @Thanoscar21:

President Trump delivered his official farewell address the day prior to the inauguration of Joe Biden, and referred to the "inauguration of a new administration", stating that, "We pray for its success at keeping America safe and prosperous." He broke tradition in not attending his successor's inauguration, but in keeping with tradition, Trump left Biden a letter of support in the Resolute desk.. When asked about the letter, Biden stated that it was "generous", but refused to give details.

Thanks for self-reverting. These details are simply too routine and nothing significant. This article is already far too large. The letter might belong in the inauguration article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The statement that these details are "too routine and nothing significant" is an entirely subjective opinion from Onetwothreeip, an opinion not shared by myself, by USA Today or by the rest of the news media who spent alot of time reporting about this. In addition to us, the orderly transition of power is also highly significant to people in non-democratic countries who don't take it for granted.Jaredscribe (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources

I wasn't aware that USA Today had a position on what should be included in this article. I'm fine with this content being somewhere on Wikipedia, it just doesn't belong in this particular article, because there are many more important things. I can also say categorically that the ceremonial transition between one US president to another is only of acute interest in the United States. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip - not necessarily true. Usually, yes, nobody cares - but Trump and his presidency has been such a rollercoaster that people all over the world are taking notice of things American that they normally would not. Whilst not front page news, or a stop-the-presses incident, the fact that Trump is the first Prez to fail to attend an inauguration since Johnson in 1869 (not counting Wilson, which was due to ill-health, rather than petulance,) is both of interest and awareness to a non-American audience

So yes, "acute" is a good qualifier, but nevertheless, non-American sources are picking up on these things, and it follows that the population is as well. I'm British, but thanks to Trump I knew about Johnson and Wilson. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It belongs in. Breathing is also not noted most days, but it is significant if it stops. I think the letter purportedly written by Trump can be cut, however. SPECIFICO talk 12:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Richard Nixon didn't attend Gerald Ford's inauguration, and I believe Jimmy Carter didn't attend Joe Biden's either. Nonetheless, Trump's absence at the inauguration is entirely trivia. This is certainly not considered important in other countries either, as it is not typical for preceding heads of state or government to attend inauguration events. Most of the content is about things that are entirely usual for outgoing presidents, like writing a letter to the successor and making a farewell address, which doesn't belong here. Factoids like Trump not attending the inauguration are likewise irrelevant trivia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

per consensus of myself, SPECIFICO, and Chaheel Riens I'm restoring the section. I think the farewell address is the most historically significant, since it amounts to the closest thing there is to a concession. The signal to his followers to "pray for the success of the Biden administration to keep America safe and prosperous" is domestically significant. The non attendance of inauguration and the note in the desk are each half of a very short sentence. The fact that US presidents DO ATTEND their successor's inaugurations - unlike the practice in most other countries - makes the US an anomaly in world politics when it comes to the transition of power. Thats why this is historically significant and NOT mere trivia. It is a major factor in American leadership and allies faith in American continuity. Thats why other countries do notice the break in tradition. I could provide citations from foreign media too. This is why excerpting the farewell address and referencing the note is relevant.

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

Personnel

This trimming of the article should be restored, as the article is currently far too large. All this information is contained in other articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Nobody has agreed with you on this. I strongly advise you to self-revert your repeated deletion of this longstanding noteworthy content. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Trade citations

I trimmed some citations from the trade subsection here. This was reverted and should be restored. The content is still supported by the remaining sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC) I also note that the length tag has been removed, despite being longstanding on this article, so I will restore that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

False and misleading statements

If we are going to brand Trump a liar, this is not a "Leadership style", it is an ethical issue. Therefore I think we should move this down to the Ethics section. Would anyone have problems with that? JustinTime55 (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it is part of his leadership, management, and political messaging styles. Maybe find a word that conveys that false narratives are a key part of his success. SPECIFICO talk 23:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with JustinTime55, whereas "all politicians lie" and a point can be made that Trump's PR strategy included his unique brand of "denialism" (Fareed Zakaria's point that he won in 2016 bc his base "took him seriously but not literally"), Trump stands out in the category of consistently outright lying in ways that transcend politics as usual and that content should be moved to Ethic section. OgamD218 (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a value judgment -- lying is bad. Let's just be descriptive. Lies are integral to his success. SPECIFICO talk 23:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

His propensity towards lying is exceptional, but idk if its "integral to his success". Though I agree, that would be foundational to placing it in "Leadership Style". OgamD218 (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

User is deleting sourced relevant material, at times replacing it with falsehoods

Aquillion keeps deleting sourced material relevant to the page, At times replacing the deleted material with content that is outright false. In others their edits are uncited-in some instances because they deleted the citation in their haste to remove sources for facts that did not align with their politics. Most often the content simply does not seem to belong/best belong here specifically given the ongoing issue with regards to length. I do agree some of this content does belong on List of false and misleading statements by Donald Trump, however, as with the VA Section, Aquillion removed information actually relevant to the Trump presidency and the Veterans Administration, then made up an additional lie (the real one was always there) and then provided fake or exaggerated information that even if true was irrelevant. In countless instances Aquillion has restored blogs and unreliable sources as citations and used editorials as sources to present opinions as facts, reverting clarifications that this is an opinion or viewpoint of an observer. To be clear, in some instances Aquillion is pushing material that is not stated in any sources and/or is objectively false and needs to be removed. OgamD218 (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&diff=1011240726&oldid=1011239806

To be clear, you made a fairly massive flurry of edits that changed significant parts of the article; I was reverting parts (not all) of your changes for the reasons I specified in my edit summaries. In particular, you repeatedly reworded statements of fact from the sources into "was accused of", which violates both WP:WEASEL and WP:DOUBT (in that you're taking things the sources state as fact and casting doubt on them by reducing them to the allegations or accusations of vague unnamed parties.) Likewise, there's no real WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the VA MISSION act, which was a relatively minor tweak to an existing law - today, it's only covered in the context of the fact that Trump misrepresents what it was, so wedging it in there as if it was a significant part of his presidency doesn't make sense. His lies about it are the only thing that make it noteworthy. --Aquillion (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide specific examples. I do not think Aquillion is replacing material with falsehoods, but I am concerned with the amount of falsehoods in the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

(1)Aquillion deleted content that expanded, cited and contextualized DOJ's record on prosecuting child sex traffickers, now what's left not only lacks accuracy but what of it that is true isn't cited. (2)In many of those instances while it may be true that for articles discussing non-extraordinarily controversial figures, those would be weasel words but given the fact that editorials are still editorials you're supposed to phrase it accordingly-unless you want to actually defend as an objective fact that Trump used his Pardon power "primarily on public figures whose cases" reminded him of himself? Or "Under a banner of "America First", the Trump administration distinguished itself from past administrations with frequent open admiration of authoritarian rulers and rhetorical rejections of key human rights norms"? I won't deny that those are relevant points, they should be phrased as secondary source observations-it's not like i deleted the point being made. (3)"Trump often sought to use the office of the presidency for his own interest. Under his leadership, the Justice Department, which is traditionally independent from the President, became highly partisan and acted in Trump's interest." I'm gonna assume you're not a liar, just someone who didn't even bother to read the "multiple sources" there bc that's not their take away.(4)You seriously replaced the date for when State declared an ongoing genocide with "As Donald Trump lost the election bid against Joe Biden," and you're gonna tell me that's not just being partisan lol? Come on. (5) You don't get to delete a cite(USAToday) on the significance of the MissionAct then say it isn't significant bc a CNN article you don't appear to have read implied otherwise. Trump did not "falsely asserted more than 150 times that he created the Veterans Choice program after others had failed for many decades." Even if he did-doesn't belong here, belongs: List of false and misleading statements by Donald Trump. Also co-sponsoring an overwhelmingly popular bill through 1 chamber doesn't mean McCain&Sanders created the program. Please stop reverting factually accurate edits to flat out falsehoods in the VA section. My edit acknowledged Trump's lie, the truth of the program and.....seeing as it's his Presidency page yes what he actually did. OgamD218 (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't share significant concerns with Aquillion's edits in particular, but I agree with not writing as encyclopaedic fact the motives of Donald Trump as purported by political commentators or analysts, even if these views are widely held or even likely to be accurate. The assessments and characterisations of Donald Trump, even where they are as close to fact as they can be, should still be treated separately to the pure facts of the events that took place. Treating these as fact and without being clear that this is an external assessment implies that this was the expressed intention of Donald Trump and his administration. We can also do a lot more of letting the facts speak for themselves. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Veterans Affairs

I removed some excessive detail here because we can't detail every instance of a president being influenced by somebody on policy issues unless it is particularly notable. My edit was reverted but should be restored, because there is nothing here to suggest this is any more important than Donald Trump or anybody else being influenced by individuals. This content would be more appropriate on articles more specific to the policy area though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

This seems noteworthy to me, and the length accorded to it is proportionate. It also seems inaccurate to describe this as a president just "being influenced by somebody" — the reason this attracted attention and prompted a ProPublica investigation (and then a GAO investigation) is that it is unusual. Neutrality^talk 23:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

If the article is going to cover the administration's actions on veterans affairs (which I think it clearly should), then it should note that VA policy was informally made by a group of patrons at Trump's Fl club. That is highly unusual, says a lot about how the administration functioned more broadly, and most importantly, sheds light on how VA policy was made in this administration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. If any one instance is unduly noted, the remedy should be to summarize the numerous similar events. Not to delete them. SPECIFICO talk 01:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll keep the content but reduce the level of detail then. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus for you to repeat cutting the article content. You repeated much of your edit that was challenged by reversion. Please undo your re-removal. Diffs: initial removal contested in this thread. Your repeat removal of much the same content editors have not agreed to cut. Please don't keep reverting to your preferred versions with active dissent and ongoing talk page discussion prior to consensus. It would be helpful if you would address the concerns of other editors rather than simply reminding us you believe your view is correct.@Awilley: SPECIFICO talk 22:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That is clearly not a repeat. Initially I removed the paragraph, as I felt it was wholly not due in the article. It was reverted by someone else, which is a proper process even if I disagree with the merits. I took on board what others have said in this talk page section (including you!) and made edits to trim the detail of the paragraph, instead of removing it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Nobody said that you repeated all of your edit that was disputed. But several editors did object to your initial cut, and you repeated much of it with no agreement or compromise on talk. That is not moving the discussion forward. I hop you will restore the status quo and seek consensus. SPECIFICO talk 23:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Nobody said that anybody said that I repeated all of my edit that was disputed. I also waited for discussion before my attempted compromise. You are free to give your further input and opinion on the content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Repeat deletions of article text and sources

This page is not as widely followed or edited as it was before January. I note several instances of cuts being re-done after having been reverted with minimal or no discussion or consensus on talk. I have lost track of all the cuts reverts and re-cuts, but I just noticed one and am asking for editor comment: This cut, which I reverted, was then restored without talk page consensus shortly afterward, with the dubious edit summary "per talk". I continue to believe this removal weakened the article by removing important fact and context. Unless others disagree, it should be restored pending any support for the cut. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments also welcome on the several cuts to the Transition section, e.g. this one. @Jaredscribe, Snooganssnoogans, and MelanieN: who may have worked on this or related content in this section. SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

This concerns the section Presidency of Donald Trump#Transition of power and Farewell address which is contested by onetwothreeip. I took it to talk back in January. An informed consensus of three editors backed the proposition to include this section, but I was working on other subject matter and forgot to act on it at the time. Therefore I am now restoring the section per consensus. Stare decisis. Disappointing to see that this highly relevant historical fact (to me and many of my friends, at least) has been missing from the record, right when people were wanting to know about it. I ask the adverse party to refrain from reverting this contribution unless a strong new consensus emerges to replace it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredscribe (talk • contribs)

I oppose that content being added into this article, but I would support it being added elsewhere. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Your dissent has been noted. Thanks for you contribution, but please stand down when I restore this per earlier consensus.Jaredscribe (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I shouldn't have inadvertently removed the same content within a within 24 hours, but there isn't consensus for this. So on the first part, thank you for restoring the content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC) This content actually has nothing to do with the 24 hour rule. The content doesn't have consensus but I can agree to a more narrow version of your content on this article, and moving the full content somewhere else. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I've trimmed it down to its more notable elements. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

There seem to be several edits and reverts mentioned here, and I'm not sure which we are supposed to be discussing. But for my part, I favor retaining the "transition and farewell address" section (I added the missing citation), and I oppose putting in anything about Congress. This article is about the administration; Congress is an entirely separate branch of government. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Multiple citations for Trump maskless

@SPECIFICO: Why did you restore multiple citations for the simple fact that Trump was initially not wearing a mask in public during the coronavirus pandemic? This seems completely pointless to restore them, and we should return to only needing one reference for this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

"Historical rankings" section

I just deleted the “historical rankings” section, for several reasons. First, it is totally out of date, containing only “rankings” from 2018 and 2019. Second, such rankings are considered to be ratings of presidents, not of their administrations. Third and most important, at the Donald Trump page there is an informal consensus[16] not to include anything about his historical ranking until some time has passed for scholarly analysis. Open for discussion, of course. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

This is very much the correct view on this matter. Trump will likely be very difficult to historically assess, and it doesn't belong on this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it is significant that political scientists and the public rank him as the worst president. Even when there has been more time to reflect, the original judgment will still be significant. TFD (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. How many of anything are ranked worst ever right off the bat? If sentiment changes, the article will report that as well. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the removal of this well-referenced, highly relevant scholarly material. When did it become our job to prognosticate about whether current scholarly opinion on a matter will at some future date change? We record the current expert consensus on an issue; if it changes, then so does our article. If the experts dont think its too soon to come to a consensus, its not our role to second guess them. 67.85.103.120 (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed wording for the election section

Right now we have a paragraph under "2020 election campaign" which says that Trump ran and that the media declared Biden the winner on November 7. I would like to add the following paragraph to that section:

Although the press was referring to Biden as the president-elect, Trump refused to concede, and Biden's transition team received no cooperation from the Trump administration until November 23. Even after that date, Trump continued to insist that he had won the election. He filed numerous lawsuits alleging election fraud, tried to persuade state and federal officials to overturn the results, and urged his supporters to rally on his behalf.

Sources

I believe this transition is necessary to connect the election and its results to the Capitol riot. I would like to do a major rewrite of that section later, but first let's decide if there is consensus for an explanatory transition like this. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we also should mention, as the press has widely reported and commented, that Trump's refusal to cooperate in the transition of goverment adversely affected the incoming Administration's preparedness and staffing. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, MelanieN, I would propose adding the following two sentences to Melanie's version (possibly as a new paragraph):

In late December 2020, president-elect Biden and his transition team criticized Trump administration political appointees for hampering the transition and failing to cooperate with the Biden transition team on national security areas, such as the Defense and State departments, as well as on the economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Biden also said that "many of the agencies that are critical to our security have incurred enormous damage" and "have been hollowed out — in personnel, capacity and in morale."

Sources

Neutrality^talk 17:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I agree this is important and it is specifically about Trump's presidency and administration. It should probably go immediately after the "November 23" date, with the attempt to overturn the election in a third paragraph transitioning to the riot. How about this:

Although the press was referring to Biden as the president-elect, Trump refused to concede, and Biden's transition team received no cooperation from the Trump administration until November 23. Trump refused to concede, and the administration did not begin cooperating with president-elect Biden's transition team until November 23. In late December 2020, president-elect Biden and his transition team criticized Trump administration political appointees for hampering the transition and failing to cooperate with the Biden transition team on national security areas, such as the Defense and State departments, as well as on the economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Biden also said that "many of the agencies that are critical to our security have incurred enormous damage" and "have been hollowed out — in personnel, capacity and in morale."

Throughout December and January, Trump continued to insist that he had won the election. He filed numerous lawsuits alleging election fraud, tried to persuade state and federal officials to overturn the results, and urged his supporters to rally on his behalf.

Sources

For those who will say this makes the article "too long", I intend to propose a rewrite of the "riot" and "aftermath" sections with significant cuts. For now, thoughts about adding the above to the article? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Good draft, but two points. First, can we change "the press was referring to Biden as the president-elect" to something else? I don't like "the press was referring to" because it sort of implies that some other body, besides Trump and his party, disputed that he was president-elect. Biden's victory was clear within about two days after the election, and the electoral college vote was December 14. Maybe we just say that, then lead into the transition non-cooperation? Second, should we clarify "tried to persuade state and federal officials to overturn the results" by adding "in states won by Biden"? The efforts to subvert the election focused on six specific states: the Biden-won swing states. Neutrality^talk 18:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree about "the press was referring" and have simplified the sentence. As for pointing out "states won by Biden", I think that would make the sentence too complicated; it should be obvious that he wasn't trying to overturn the election in states he won! -- MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we can simplify this further. Trump initially refused to concede, and the administration did not begin cooperating with president-elect Biden's transition team until November 23.[1][2] The effect on the incoming Biden administration isn't a matter for the Trump administration article, and it is hard to assess the effect that Trump's initial obstinance caused, beyond quoting Joe Biden and others. Likewise, Trump insisting he had won the election and attempting to overturn the apparent result are not matters of the Trump administration, but are matters of the election campaign. I agree that we should refer to Biden as president-elect outright, and not that media outlets were referring to him as this. Overall it is important to remember that this article is (supposed to) be about a presidential administration, not a person or president, so whatever we write about the transition should be about the executive branch's role. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, the effect on the continuity of government and the Trump Administration's willful disruption of public policy and process is the only reason this is significant. We have many reports, not just the opinions of thwarted Biden officials. The suggestion that it's not related to Trump's presidency is insupportable. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

In particular, transition is something that involves two administrations, so it is definitely relevant to this article about the outgoing administration. It was still the "presidency of Donald Trump", this article's title, until January 20. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I like your simplification of the first sentence, and I have inserted it into the draft (except I removed "initially," because his refusal to concede was not "initially"; except for a few forced and grudging recognitions that there would be an incoming new administration, which he did not name, he continues to this day to claim he won). -- MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

To both of you, only the disruption by the administration should be included here. Any disruption by Trump himself or his election campaign should be elsewhere. The effects on the Biden administration don't belong here, but that's not a reason to not include the Trump administration's actions, it's just saying that the post-January effects belong elsewhere if they belong anywhere. We could have an article about the transition where this detail can be captured. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed that our lead contains this sentence: Following his loss in the 2020 presidential election to Biden, Trump refused to concede and initiated an aggressive pursuit to overturn the results, alleging unproven claims of widespread electoral fraud. It is unsourced and there is nothing in the article text to support it, which violates our rules about lead sections. So I am going to add the above draft to the article text, even though we can continue to discuss it here. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I added the above draft to the article. 123ip removed the sentences which said “Throughout December and January, Trump continued to insist that he had won the election. He filed numerous lawsuits alleging election fraud, tried to persuade state and federal officials to overturn the results, and urged his supporters to rally on his behalf.” And they removed Biden’s complaints that the Trump administration was still not cooperating with the transition. In place of all that information, 123ip condensed the two paragraphs into a single sentence reading “As Trump refused to concede and attempted to overturn the election results, the administration did not begin cooperating with president-elect Biden's transition team until November 23”, and deleted everything else. I STRONGLY object to that removal and change. The attempts to overturn the election are key to understanding the Capitol riot. And those attempts did not precede November 23 or stop after November 23, as this change implies; that is misleading. The attempts to overturn the election mostly came during December and January. Also, Biden’s complaints that the Trump people were withholding necessary help with the transition, even after the transition was officially declared, are absolutely part of the “presidency of Donald Trump” and IMO should be restored. 123ip, please note how the discussion here has gone: the draft was contributed to by three people who have added to or improved the draft; none of them has seconded or agreed with your suggestions to cut parts of it. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The context for the Capitol riot should be written in the subsection that relates to the Capitol riot, but should still be minimal as the riot itself is more a matter of Donald Trump himself and his election campaign activities than the Trump administration. Joe Biden's complaints about Trump weren't due in this article either, even to the extent that they are criticisms of the presidency.

I agree that there is an implication that the obstruction ended and cooperation began on November 23, so I have updated the text to reflect that attempts to overturn the election results continued into the next two months. I still strongly disagree with adding non-pertinent information that isn't directly about the Trump administration, or criticism of it by then-president-elect Joe Biden. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

123, you need to stop stepping ahead of talk page consensus and collaboration. In response to Melanie's objection, you've now inserted that Trump's campaign tried to overturn the apparent result of the election. The apparent result? That edit completely disregards the work of other editors on talk, not to mention fact and RS references. Please undo your recent edits against consensus and collaborate in the talk page discussion. Announcing your dissent is only the first step. You need to generate consensus. SPECIFICO talk 06:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Further, your repeated insistence that Trump's actions as president are not germane to his presidency have repeatedly been rejected here. They're also inconsistent with your arguments to the contrary in your cuts to the Donald Trump bio article. SPECIFICO talk 06:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Trump has sought the apparent results of the presidential election to be overturned at virtually every point, despite Joe Biden's victory being otherwise inevitable after at least a few days after the election itself. Trump's actions as president, rather than as a presidential candidate or in a personal capacity, are relevant to his presidency. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Please consider what I said above about not posting here with repetitive assertions that are not responsive to the thread of the conversation. For example, the use of "apparent" suggests that there was doubt in mid-November as to whether Trump lost the election. That suggestion is not supported by any Reliable Source, because it is false. Moreover, you continue to assert but not to justify your theory about excluding actions that you define as personal actions, claiming that they are not part of Trump's presidency. This too is unsupported and you do not give any reasoned basis for this insistence. To give one counterexample, we do not exclude Bill Clinton's personal behavior with Monica Lewinsky from his presidency or the WP article about his presidency. SPECIFICO talk 13:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

123ip, you need to STOP unilaterally inserting your own version into the article while everybody else here is respecting the WP:consensus requirements of Wikipedia and discussing things first. Your recent tweak (with its absurd reference to the “apparent” result of the election) only made things worse. Your opinion about what is and what is not relevant to the “presidency” is just one person’s opinion and so far appears to be at odds with the opinion of other people here. Take one example, Biden’s comments about the continuing lack of cooperation from Trump administration officials, and his description of the “damage” that had been done to several agencies: that material was suggested by SPECIFICO, written by Neutrality, and accepted by me. We all agreed that it is about the Trump administration and the Trump presidency, which is the subject of this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

"Apparent" means it was before the results were officially certified, and I'm surprised anyone would think it implies there is doubt in the result. If there is such confusion then we can use a different word, I don't mind at all. I still remain strongly opposed to some of the other proposed additions. My opposition to including Biden's comments has nothing to do with not pertaining to the administration. Those comments certainly are about the administration, but don't belong in this article as undue. The Lewinsky affair was also part of the Bill Clinton presidency. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Just as Trump's incitement and attempts to nullify the election and obstruction of transition are part of Trump's presidency. Again, your reply was unresponsive. You further ignore several editors pointing out that the obstruction was not Biden's gripe. It was a widely reported, unprecedented, and dangerous fact. SPECIFICO talk 21:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

123: This is getting way too confusing and way too burdensome. Please just restore the consensus text MelanieN added yesterday. Removal of "apparent" doesn't come close to fixing your revert. Please self-revert back to MelanieN's text. SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the wording that 123ip removed, per clear consensus here. Note: 123ip, do NOT tweak or trim or otherwise edit this wording unless you discuss it here first and get consensus. Be sure to read the notice at the top of the page about the special rules that apply to this page. Those rules are why I waited, for 24 hours after your challenge to my edit, before restoring the wording which had been worked out at this page. Those restrictions, limiting us to one "revert" per 24 hours and requiring us to wait for discussion if an edit of our is challenged, are binding on all of us. So, folks, that version is back in the article and is open for tweaking or discussion here at the talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Abraham Accords

The Abraham accords were significant foreign policy achievements for the Trump administration, it seems they should get more than a footnote at the bottom of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viktory02 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Viktory02, the "Israel / Palestine" section contains a paragraph on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu, Oh haha I hadn't noticed. They still might be worthy of being in the heading considering they will have implications far into the future, but my mistake.

Removal of factual, well-sourced information

123ip deleted from the article the historic and well-referenced fact I just added — that Trump was the first president in more than 150 years to fail to attend his successor’s inauguration. 123's edit summary was This isn't technically true, ie Nixon, Kennedy, Harding. Other former presidents have also not attended inaugurations. Trump is in fact the first in more than 150 years to refuse to attend the inauguration of his successor. The successors to Nixon, Kennedy, and Harding did not have an inauguration - just a low-key swearing-in ceremony. Trump’s failure to attend his successor’s inauguration was remarked upon by many, many sources: [17] [18][19] I will wait the required 24 hours before restoring this information, unless someone cares to do it first. -- MelanieN (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I see that User:Neutrality has restored it, in a slightly altered fashion that 123ip will be able to find no fault with. Thank you, Neutrality. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN, 123 apparently did find fault with this text, because I see that Onetwothreeip has now deleted it. This is obviously noteworthy and is part of the story of the end of his term. He is the first president in 152 years to refuse to attend a successor's inauguration due to a political feud. Neutrality^talk 14:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Neutrality: I see that they restored it exactly one minute before the required 24 hours had passed, but I'll let that go. I have restored your version, leaving out "for political reasons" because no president has refused to attend their successor's inauguration for ANY reason for 152 years, and because most Reliable Sources are not making that qualification, and because 123 thought it was "obscure". @Onetwothreeip: you need to STOP making unilateral and controversial edits while ignoring the talk page and the need to obtain consensus here. In this case, your removal of content which two other people support is a violation of consensus and should not be done again without consensus. And you should not tweak or reword it, either, without agreement here. You have done that kind of unilateral editing to controversial material while it is under discussion too many times here, and is becoming disruptive. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It was two different pieces of content that I reverted, and the time was purely coincidental. If it is really so important to both of you that this be said about Donald Trump here, I won't oppose it. I might bring it up for discussion later but I have no interest in engaging in conflicts and will move on. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Please add to the lead, reflecting the general consensus of experts: “Trump is almost universally regarded as the worst president of all time.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.103.120 (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC) https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/is-donald-trump-the-worst-us-president-ever-historians-say-so-20210115-p56u9w.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.103.120 (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed above, see [20]. There is an informal consensus here not to say anything about his historical ranking until some time has passed, to allow perspective and to give scholars time to reach studied conclusions. In any case, that conclusion will go in his biography article, but maybe not here. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Why would a ranking of Trump’s presidency not go in the Trump presidency article? That doesnt make any sense.67.85.103.120 (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Rankings are usually of presidents, not presidencies. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Organization of the election and post-election material

@SPECIFICO, Snooganssnoogans, Jaredscribe, and Onetwothreeip: Following up to the discussion above, let's take a broader look at the content about the election and post-election period. Right now the section "2020 re-election campaign" briefly describes the election and outcome, and then includes as subsections "Storming of the U.S. Capitol" (with a "main article" link), "Aftermath" (meaning aftermath to the riot, including resignations and impeachment), and "Transition" (now trimmed to 2 sentences which say nothing about the actual transition). I think it is questionable whether the latter three actually belong under the "election" section; maybe a separate main section titled "Election aftermath".

More important, we currently say nothing about the actual transition and how it was delayed for months after the election, by Trump refusing to concede and ordering his administration not to work with the incoming Biden team. That is highly significant to this article, which after all is about the presidency (the administration). It was also unique to this presidency. I intend to draft up a "Transition" paragraph or section, and will propose it here later today or tomorrow under a separate heading. In the meantime, let's discuss the organization of the material I described above. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I still think there is too much on the storming here, at least the parts that do not relate directly to Donald Trump's actions and those of the executive branch. I will make another attempt at trimming the detail around the deaths of the event, as this is an article about a presidential administration. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking that the paragraph about reactions to the storming was excessive. Otherwise I think the included detail is necessary. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN and that her for her attention to this. 123, what's needed is not cuts but synthesis. And please bring any suggestions to talk first. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

123, please reinstate the content about casualties that you've just removed with no talk page proposal or consensus. Unless I misunderstand MelanieN's comment, the current consensus is against your removal. SPECIFICO talk 22:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the material removed by 123. I agree with SPECIFICO that it is best to bring such changes here for discussion first. Along that line, what do the rest of you think about my suggestion to delete the final paragraph, the one that quotes some reactions to the invasion and details Trump's loss of Twitter privileges? IMO the reaction quotes and Trump's Twitter privileges are TMI for this Presidency article. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The material I removed was boldly added in this edit. Surely we don't need detail on the non-fatal injuries that were sustained in the event, on an article that is supposed to be about a presidential administration and is already far too large. I agree with removing the paragraph you mention. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I am going to remove the paragraph about "reactions" and about Trump's Twitter account, as excessive detail and not really related to this article's subject. In discussion here, I see one person agreeing with my proposal and no-one opposing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that synthesis was required, not cuts. Thank you MelanieN for leading this effort. Having added the citations and advocated for the inclusion of the section, I'm satisfied with the outcome for Presidency of Donald Trump § Farewell address. I had also advocated for the inclusion of this quotes: Trump re: Biden admin "We pray for his success". The consensus was to pick a different one, in which he condemns "political violence". I think one is enough and the quote chosen is adequate, probably more significant. The "first in 152 years" is an important fact, thanks for finding and including that. Although arguably outside the scope of the article, I thought it was worth noting Biden's response to the desk note, calling it "very generous." Also, Trump apparently said on inauguration day, from the Heli-pad "We'll be back, in some form." Despite these exclusions, I'm satisfied with the result; certainly its better than nothing. I want to record here in talk in case we have to revisit and clarify this in future years - if for example, political drama ensues and questions are raised about what was exactly was said and done.Jaredscribe (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine Distrubution Plan

Dr. Fauci himself said this CNN report was inaccurate. He is generally considered one of the most reliable sources on the issue, vs politicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.15.6 (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

What CNN report? What quote from Fauci? We need a link. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I contest the sentence "The Trump administration left a non-existent plan for vaccine distribution to the Biden administration." First of all, the source precises "sources says" so it is kind of blurry, but foremost this article of PolitiFact concludes by : "Saying there a plan "does not really exist" is beyond saying a plan is lacking. We rate Klain’s claim Mostly False". --Dimitrius99 (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2021

TRUMP WON! 97.113.43.70 (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Username6892 13:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Impeachments

I believe we should add the specific dates of impeachment in the lede - they currently only show the months. Also, the acquittals have no dates at all, not even months. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Correction required?

The lead presently has Following his loss in the 2020 presidential election to Biden, Trump refused to concede and initiated an aggressive pursuit to overturn the results, alleging unproven claims of widespread electoral fraud. This is not quite correct in that Trump had aggressively and falsely complained about election fraud, particularly mail ballots, throughout the campaign. He did not initiate this after the election, but had spent some 8 months prior to the election setting up the issue. Bdushaw (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

True, though the actual refusal to concede and attempt to overturn the results started after the election (obviously, he couldn't overturn something that hadn't yet happened). That is specifically what that part is referring to. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2021

The article says his presidency ended with his loss to Joe Biden. That is false. His presidency ended on January 20th as stated in the constitution. The election was called in favor of Joe Biden by media organizations but not certified until January 7th. His Presidency ended at 12:00PM on January 20th 2601:40A:C300:2FB0:1E8:5C8D:61C2:37C9 (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: "Donald Trump served as the 45th president of the United States from his inauguration on January 20, 2017, until January 20, 2021." That is clear in the article. What ended his presidency was his defeat in the election. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Ending Lead

Looks like a messy op ed full of falsehoods with no sources by User:Reeeeet

Looks like a messy accusation of bias full of nothing with no sources. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Disputed edit in lead section regarding Trump disinformation

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

---

I made the following change to the lead section.

Previous:

Trump made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency.

New:

Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics and likened to the firehose of falsehood propaganda technique.

This was initially proposed by soibangla at Talk:Donald_Trump#firehose_of_falsehood, but I think it is better suited for this article rather than Trump's biography. Spy-cicle reverted this edit, claiming it is undue weight. I think it is due weight given that a majority of reliable sources describe in-detail Trump's propaganda techniques and unprecedented disinformation campaigns. ––FormalDude talk 19:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

As discussed above, the term "firehose of propaganda" appeared in a RAND article and was picked up by a few journalists in opinion pieces. Therefore it is obscure and its inclusion would be undue weight. Ironically, it best describes the actions of RAND's former chairman, Donald Rumsfeld, who used mass media to spread disinformation in order to sway public opinion on an invasion of Iraq. TFD (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Concur with TFD. Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

These objections are well put. I'll withdraw the proposal. ––FormalDude talk 05:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

FYI, there is an AfD for FoF here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Firehose_of_falsehood soibangla (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

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

This article is a spear piece against Donald Trump.

The reason I call this a smear piece is because almost everything in this article paints Trump in a negative light. Even in the lead paragraph, this article seems to go out of it's way to paint Trump in a negative light, instead of in an objective light, like all the other presidents are. 72.81.153.180 (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Are there specific parts of this article which are incorrect? Do you have any actual suggestions for improvement? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

While it could probably be rephrased in a an impartial tone, since Trump is rated poorly as a president, the article will reflect that.

I noticed the sentence, "It was the first presidency since that of Herbert Hoover in which a president was not reelected and his party lost its majorities in both chambers of Congress." When the other presidents (Carter and George H.W. Bush lost, the Dems had a lock on the House of Representatives because of the solid South. Even when Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush won lopsided elections and carried the South, the Dems maintained a majority. So that could go.

TFD (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

? The Solid South was long dead by the time of GHW Bush; heck, he was a prime example of its demise himself, as a successful Texas Republican! --Orange Mike | Talk 12:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it's an example of information added to the article motivated by opposition to the subject. We do not need to confect historical curiosities or minor events as there is plenty of substantive criticism and negative coverage of the subject. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

It is rare to lose the whole shebang during a presidency, hasn't happened in 90 years. This says a lot about his influence and legacy. It should remain. soibangla (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

That's purely subjective, sorry. It doesn't say anything about his influence and legacy that losing a presidential election as an incumbent doesn't, and is certainly not what he is known for. This whole article should be written objectively rather than critically, and it would still reflect poorly on the subject. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Dont assume that which you are trying to prove. SPECIFICO talk 01:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not in the position of having to prove anything. It is up to those making a claim to have the proof. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Dont assume that which you are trying to claim. Its your claim that there's any problem with this article. SPECIFICO talk 06:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

There's definitely a problem with the objectivity of the article, and articles relating to Donald Trump. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty rare to have the whole shebang to begin with. Trump was the first Republican president to hold the whole shebang for his first term since Hoover. TFD (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

If I compare the lead with this Pew Research piece, I think there’s something about the lead which comes across (to me) as more partisan than the Pew piece even though the Pew piece has plenty of negative points about Trump. It’s something about the tone and choice of words. But specifically, in the WP lead, is that he was a one termer and lost the popular vote to Clinton really the most significant thing about the Presidency and needs to be covered in the first paragraph? The Pew piece highlights early on the exceptional nature of the Presidency: reality star with no background in government, the divisiveness etc. It’s worth comparing the two. DeCausa (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

His election loss is no more notable than of Jimmy Carter and HW Bush, so we should treat the three similarly. There is also some similarity to Gerard Ford and Lyndon Johnson, but primarily Carter and Bush. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

To the IP. Trying to make this article appear in a more positive light, would be as easy as trying to make Presidency of Joe Biden appear in a more negative light. Read into that, what you will. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

"is that he was a one termer and lost the popular vote to Clinton really the most significant thing about the Presidency" That he lost the popular vote twice is significant, as it is quite unusual. That he is a one-termer is not particularly unusual. The List of presidents of the United States by time in office includes several one-termers:

• 1) John Quincy Adams
• 2) Martin Van Buren
• 3) James K. Polk
• 4) Franklin Pierce
• 5) James Buchanan
• 6) Rutherford B. Hayes
• 7) Benjamin Harrison
• 8) William Howard Taft
• 9) Herbert Hoover
• 10) Jimmy Carter
• 11) George H. W. Bush
• 12) Donald Trump
• 13) John Adams
• 14) John Tyler
• 15) Andrew Johnson
• 16) Chester A. Arthur
• 17) John F. Kennedy
• 18) Millard Fillmore
• 19) Gerald Ford
• 20) Warren G. Harding
• 21) Zachary Taylor
• 22) James A. Garfield
• 23) William Henry Harrison Dimadick (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  Losing the popular vote twice isn't significant, especially relative to Donald Trump. Winning a presidential election while losing the popular vote, however, is significant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Presidents who died in office are not normally referred to as one term. Also the list excludes presidents who could have run again but chose not to because of unpopularity, such as Lyndon Johnson. Then there's Cleveland, who was a one-term president twice. TFD (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

W. Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Fillmore, A. Johnson, Garfield, Arthur, Harding, Kennedy & Ford didn't serve a full term, btw. GoodDay (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Why should we be discussing presidents who died in office, or presidents who became president upon the death or resignation of their predecessor? Or presidents who chose not to run for re-election? The comparison should be to presidents who won and won once, and then ran again and lost. Like Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Trump's relationship to Russia and Putin

Do we have an article about this subject, or do we cover it in some other article? A new article by a subject matter expert, Fiona Hill, contains plenty of that type of information, and some might be relevant here, even if it's not specifically on the topic of this thread:

• The Kremlin’s Strange Victory. How Putin Exploits American Dysfunction and Fuels American Decline. By Fiona Hill, November/December 2021

If this is also relevant elsewhere, feel free to ping me. -- Valjean (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Valjean, see Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. TFD (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the OP is looking for the broader relationship issues. The places where it’s covered are Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration#Russia and Russia–United States relations#During the Trump administration (January 20, 2017–January 20, 2021). DeCausa (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

To create a neutral article you need more than an opinion piece by Fiona Hill, which fails rs. TFD (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course. I'm not a newbie and would never propose doing such a thing. As for being a RS, it's a very RS for attributed opinion and uncontroversial facts. I just wanted to know if we covered this subject anywhere because we should. It's a subject covered by myriad RS. This is just one of the latest.

Another article that touches on the subject is 2018 Russia–United States summit. -- Valjean (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

There's also Russia–United States relations#During the Trump administration (January 20, 2017–January 20, 2021). I found another article, by Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, that provides a different perspective: "The Relationship Between the USA and Russia in the Trump Era." The big challenge would be to determine due weight for competing opinions. TFD (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Excellent stuff. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Bias?

This article seems to be riddled with bias. It is quite clearly promoting a negative view of trump. It seems like this article needs some big revisions. Stanley Keeler (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

First and second presidencies of Donald Trump

As it is possible Donald Trump may have a second presidency I made a redirect First presidency of Donald Trump that goes to this article. I propose we make a second article Second presidency of Donald Trump about the hypothetical second presidency. If he wins in 2024 then we will move this article to First presidency of Donald Trump and use Second presidency of Donald Trump to talk about the events of that term. MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Nope. See WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Excessive readable prose / condensing

My current objective is to make structure edits by transferring portions of substantial sections into other articles. However, since I didn't explain my edits, they have been reverted. I hastily reinstated my edits because I thought that this was a minor issue disregarding the actual content of the article, and didn't realise that I need to discuss and wait 24 hours before then. I am very sorry for being impatient. I decided to make this talk section, so anyone that reverts my edits can discuss the reasons here. zsteve21 (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This article needs to stand on its own merits. If you cut material that is important to the narrative of this article, that is damaging. It doesn't matter that you paste it in some other article. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

In that case, I will look for and transfer portions that is not important to the narrative. It cannot be assumed that everything in the article is important, especially when the article size is excessive. zsteve21 (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

No, please don't. You should not presume to identify any text that is not part of the narrative in a heavily edited article with many active editors and followers. Please bring any concerns or suggestions to the talk page before removing longstanding article content. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok then, here are my suggestions:

• Transfer the last two paragraphs of 6.12 'Health care' portion about what the admins' actions into 2017 Affordable Care Act replacement proposals
• Condense the 8.1 'Special Counsel's report' portion into main events and brief descriptions of the 2 volumes.
• Consider condensing other substantial sections such as 6.5 Economy, 6.9 Environment, 6.12.3 Covid-19 and 6.14 Immigration

Sorry if I make these seem demanding, but I feel something should be done. zsteve21 (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what Zsteve21's objectives really are. The paragraph above does not make any sense. Is he really making edits "disregarding the actual content of the article" and challenging other editors to revert them? What is a "structure edit"? I really question why they are implementing major changes without regard to continuity and completeness. Maybe they can explain themselves. And why do they feel something should be done. VarmtheHawk (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

A structure edit is making improvements to the layout of the article. The reverts has not been done for one ultimate reason. Sometimes the topic is too big to fit into one article and it would be better if the reader/user got a summary instead of having lots of text to read/scroll through or being forced to use the contents list.

Either way, there is no doubt that this article still have excessive prose and if that is tolerated, then there would have been proposals to change WP:SIZERULE. zsteve21 (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

As you are well aware, there is a discussion ongoing at the Talk Page of WP:AS to change the size rule. I say that because similar disruptive editing was one of the causes of the discussion. I have no idea what the sentence "The reverts has not been done for one ultimate reason." could possibly mean. I know that Wikipedia etiquette requires us to assume that editors are acting in good faith so I'm not going to say anything more. VarmtheHawk (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

By "The reverts has not been done for one ultimate reason", I meant that there were other reasons of reverting my edits, such as unexplained edits and disagreement to where I move content within articles. zsteve21 (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

When no other editors agree with your proposal or concerns, it's best to concentrate on other ways (if any) you might suggest to improve the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Reducing this article's size

This article is currently the second longest on the wiki, with 480,000+ bytes. I am open to ideas for splitting or other methods of size reduction. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe the bigger concern is the excessive amount of one-sided information on the article that may influence polarized opinions or beliefs. I would remove/change those things first. zsteve21 (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Both of these issues have been resolved as discussed above. Why do you continually bring them up, especially splitting which is your primary "speciality"? VarmtheHawk (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Neither of the issues, especially the bias, has been resolved in this article. Also, we are allowed to bring up discussions to split the article or reduce the article size, because this article has at least 400k bytes of readable prose which should be condensed. zsteve21 (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't address the issue of bias other than the comments above which, in essence say: If you think something in the article is biased, then fix it.

As to the issue of splitting, of course any editor can raise such a discussion. But, first of all, your statement about article size is incorrect. And second, you were temporarily blocked from editing last month for persistently doing disruptive edits, particularly in regard to splitting. Your motivation here is therefore hard to understand. Please clarify. VarmtheHawk (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Then either the article has excessive amount of readable prose or references. I am going for articles with the largest wiki markup size which probably indicates too much readable prose, references or statistical data. Perhaps consider requesting a change to the 'Long pages' special page. That's where I go to check for large articles. zsteve21 (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, your logic is escaping me, and your first two sentences make no sense. And you would like someone else to change "Long pages" so that you would no longer care about this article?VarmtheHawk (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting that you should ask for a change to "Long pages" as the is currently a discussion at the Talk Page of WP:AS asking for the suggested guidelines to be changed based on the disruptive editing by you and others on this page. You should perhaps add your comments to the discussion since you appear to support a change. VarmtheHawk (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The charge of "excessive amount of readable prose" is amusing. Would you prefer to have more unreadable prose? Ishboyfay (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please place the following, which adds some much-needed and SCANDALOUSLY OMITTED HISTORICAL CONTEXT to the article, after the 2nd sentence, I propose:

"Trump is widely regarded by historians and other presidential scholars as the worst President of the last 150 years by a significant margin, with no close competitors for this ranking, and as nearly the worst president of all time in multiple studies." 67.85.103.120 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Reading between the lines of your request, you appear to suggest/believe that there was a worse President than Trump? -Roxy the dog. wooF 19:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I do not, but the scholars have him ranked as 42nd (3rd to last) and 41st (4th to last) in the two surveys I cited. Both studies have him ahead of James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson, and the 2nd has him ahead of Franklin Pierce. We can re-word this to make that more clear, certainly. 67.85.103.120 (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Discussing lead edit that was reverted

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.

---

Since my edit to the lead was reverted without explanation, let's discuss it here. Not sure if it's appropriate to post the whole thing here so I won't. I think I made some reasonable edits to make it flow better, be more neutral, remove some less important information, and add information about Covid which was a defining moment in his Presidency. Obviously, the lead is still very long and my edit only made it longer. The rest of the Presidents have 3 or 4 paragraphs in theirs, Trump's had 8 sections after my edit. Clearly, a lot of unique things happened in Trump's presidency and these are unprecedented times, so perhaps it's appropriate for it to be longer than the others. There are a few edits that I made that I think are appropriate regardless of what you all think of the rest of my restructuring: 1. Cleaning up the first paragraph. None of the other Presidents who won the election without winning the popular vote mention that fact in this section. I think, while true, its an unnecessary distinction in our system and is perhaps seeking to diminish his victory. I don't think mentioning his false or misleading statements is necessary in this section either, perhaps moving it to the start of the next section is better. We also don't need to repeat that he claimed fraud in the 2020 election here. Finally, I think the fact his presidency being the first since Hoover to lose the Presidency and congress is not important enough to include here. 2. Adding the word "peacefully" in the bottom section to have it say "On January 6, 2021, during a rally at The Ellipse, Trump urged his supporters to "fight like hell" and to "peacefully" march to the Capitol..." because this makes it clear that at that rally he was not directing them to storm the capitol, he was directing them to protest peacefully. MonsterMash51 (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Your edits are contrary to the weight of mainstream narratives on these points. That's why they were correctly reverted. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

You mean facts were reverted because they don't fit the mainstream narrative? Gotcha. I'm trying to act in good faith here. A lot of what I added related to Covid was taken directly from other articles on Wikipedia. I just thought that it would make sense to include that language in a summary about Trump's presidency to give a full picture about what happened. Do you have any specific disputes to either of the 2 points I laid out above? MonsterMash51 (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I glanced at the edit and do think there are indeed some changes that improve NPOV. But, it's probably best given the contentious nature of the subject and editing on this page to discuss them one by one. That way you're more likely to get response that isn't a one line dismissal.

As far as your rationale for adding "peacefully" on Jan 6, this makes it clear that at that rally he was not directing them to storm the capitol, he was directing them to protest peacefully is your WP:SYNTH. Adding the word "peacefully" does not negate all of the other, more violent and confrontational language the crowd heard. How do you square "fight like hell" with "peacefully"? RS largely agree that Trump stirred up the crowd.[21][22][23][24] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, I'm kinda new to this. For the "peacefully", I should say I'm not trying to negate the other violent language and I'm not trying to remove the "fight like hell" part. I think adding the word peacefully provides the full context to the "march to the capitol" part because the only time he told them to march to the capitol he said to do it peacefully and let their voices be heard. The way it is written now makes it sound like he directly told them to violently storm the capitol, which he did not. I think that the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the congress people to review or overturn the election (rightly or wrongly) through protest, not through overthrowing the capitol. The fact that a subset of the crowd there were stirred up by him and took it to mean that they should break in and stop the voting is important too and should not be taken out. [25] MonsterMash51 (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

"Grab your bear spray, body armour and zip ties and march peacefully up the street"? Like that? There were numerous featured speakers using the language of violent battle at the Ellipse. SPECIFICO talk 18:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that Trump used violent and irresponsible rhetoric at the rally nor am I advocating for removing the "fight like hell" part, and the other featured speakers are irrelevant to this since the charge was that he himself incited an insurrection. The fact that he said "peacefully" in "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" was a key part of his defense in the impeachment trial in which he was acquitted. MonsterMash51 (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the congress people to review or overturn the election (rightly or wrongly) through protest, not through overthrowing the capitol. Our opinions do not belong in Wikipedia. We need to use reliable sources. We do not yet know to what extent the storming was planned by the rally organizers and Trump administration. Investigation will hopefully clarify that which we do not yet know. What we do know is that Trump and Trump allies trying to delegitimize our election throughout 2020 and through the lame duck period directly resulted in what happened.

Again, I think you'll find a lot of resistance to making a change like this to January 6, and would be better able to find consensus with some of the other changes that you made. For instance, the lead currently says that Trump met with Kim three times, but doesn't say why. You added the reason, and I think that is important context. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. January 6 isn't a hill I'm going to die on. That sentence just read as incomplete to me so I tried to correct it. Certainly open to further discussion on that point. I would like to discuss the rest of the changes more especially the first paragraph and the Covid section. I do think the Kim context was important as well. MonsterMash51 (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current Covid mention in the lead? If you want to add a bit, how about referring to the numerous studies that have concluded that his fraudulent and negligent misconduct (see Woodward/Costa book inter alia) led to hundreds of thousands of avoidable American deaths. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

It leaves out facts about Trump's Covid response. It doesn't mention the public-private partnership to ramp up PPE and ventilator production, nor does it mention the stimulus packages, and critically leaves out Operation Warp Speed which fast tracked the vaccines. My edit didn't even include the fact that he shut down travel from China AGAINST the recommendations of Dr. Fauci and others. I think you'll find that his rhetoric prior to March 11th was similar to that of health officials and other politicians (including Democrats) who said we should not panic. Then he shut down the economy in an effort to save lives - they were predicting millions of deaths before he shut down the economy. My edit does not remove any information, the characterization of a slow response, his messaging contradicting health officials on masks and promoting unproven treatments. Again, trying to summarize the full picture. There are plenty of sources that characterize his response as slow, and I'm not taking that out, I'm actually adding a link to the article about the federal government response. Then I'm taking it a step further and adding some key points about his and his administrations actions. MonsterMash51 (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The emergency stimulus legislation was not a Trump initiative. Hard to figure why you would associate it with his biography. I'd be interested to see what sources you think support the proposition that "warp speed" accelerated the development of the vaccines. There's ample sourcing and talk page discussion that documents he denied the threat of Covid and was getting urgent warnings from Azar and others in January -- to no avail. You can review this using the archive search feature on this page. Your suggestions are taking it away from NPOV, which is the step further we are sworn to avoid. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I have no objection with leaving out the stimulus mention for that reason. The lead of U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic mentioned it, which is what led me to add it here. Here is the source I cited in my edit for the Warp Speed info: [26] and here's another that talks about it: [27]. And right, I know there is plenty of established sourcing on his response being slow, which is why I'm not leaving it out. I'm not sure how adding information without using loaded language or characterizing it as good or bad hurts NPOV. I would argue that calling his response slow is an opinion, and a contentious one at that, so it shouldn't be presented as fact. That is why I changed it to say "characterized as slow" instead of "he reacted slowly". We can even say "widely characterized as slow" or "widely condemned as slow" if that would be better. MonsterMash51 (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned the Bob Woodward book Rage above. I suggest you read it. Trump told Woodward that he lied about the severity of the threat. We have RS reporting about Trump ignoring the pleas of his senior officials months before Trump even acknowledged the threat. Please read the talk archives on this matter. I am not going to repeat any more of what you can read there and in RS books and articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 22:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Calling the response "slow" doesn't adequately define it. Last week, a congressional committee released a report that described "deliberate efforts" to undermine the U.S. response to COVID-19 from the beginning. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with that. How about something like this:

"The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting economic recession dominated the final year of his term. His administration’s initial response was widely condemned as slow, Trump's messaging contradicted the recommendations of health officials, and a congressional committee found that his actions deliberately "undermined the U.S. response". After declaring a national emergency on March 11, 2020, his administration worked with the private sector to produce personal protective equipment (PPE) and ventilators, and mobilized the National Guard in the most affected areas. To facilitate and accelerate the development, manufacturing, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics, Trump announced the formation of a public-private partnership named Operation Warp Speed, which resulted in the development of two vaccines (the J&J and Moderna vaccines), as well as the purchase of 100 million doses of the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine." MonsterMash51 (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• No. Read the sources. SPECIFICO talk 01:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear what your bias is here. What I wrote does not contradict your sources, is not false, I have provided sources to back it up, and it provides more information to the reader. My additions are not opinions. These are events that happened that summarize the major actions of Trump and his administration during the pandemic. I'm not leaving out what was already there, I have actually expanded upon the negative aspects. As I said above, I'm trying to act in good faith here to make the article better, and have taken suggestions. So far I have received mostly sarcastic and curt responses from you. MonsterMash51 (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Definitely better to find specifics. I question whether we should say his administration worked with the private sector considering that the NBC News piece above says In an interview with the subcommittee, Birx said when she arrived to the White House in March 2020 — more than a month after the U.S. declared a public health emergency — she learned that federal officials had not yet contacted some of the largest U.S. companies that could supply Covid testing. It seems their efforts to work with private companies were half assed, at best. He did sign off on Operation Warp Speed, but I think that's too wordy. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I think it's fair to say that his administration worked with the private sector after the March 11th declaration specifically, only because it was a significant aspect of the response in March and April and subject of many of the press briefings at the time. I think that the Birx comments are covered by the second sentence mentioning the slow response. Revised OWS sentence: "In May 2020, Trump announced the formation of a public-private partnership named Operation Warp Speed, which facilitated and accelerated the development of two vaccines (the J&J and Moderna vaccines), as well as the purchase of 100 million doses of the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine." MonsterMash51 (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Your changes made numerous controversial changes to the lead, including several that I considered to elevate fringe perspective, undermine reader comprehension and not reduce size. Some I did not have a problem with. The changes should be addressed piece by piece. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. It was a bit bold of me to make so many changes all at once. Let's start with the first section. I think that it should follow the style of the other "Presidency of..." articles and that is what my edit sought to do as I explained above. MonsterMash51 (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Here is another re-write of it. Goals were to get the first section to be in line with the other "Presidency of..." articles, enhance readability and flow, keep the most important information, and to use as neutral language as much as possible. Still probably the longest lead of any President, but I think the first three paragraphs are comparable to the typical President while the rest go into unique and critically important aspects of his presidency that clearly cannot be left out.

Lead Proposal Donald Trump's tenure as the 45th president of the United States began with his inauguration on January 20, 2017, and ended on January 20, 2021. Trump, a Republican originally from New York City, took office following his victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. His presidency ended with his defeat in the 2020 presidential election by Democrat Joe Biden after one term in office.

Trump’s presidency was subject to an unprecedented amount of media coverage and scrutiny due to his controversial style, and as such many of his statements were characterized as false or misleading. Legislatively, he failed in his efforts to fully repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, while succeeding in rescinding the Act’s individual mandate as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The federal deficit and national debt continued to increase under Trump due to spending increases and these tax cuts. Democrats retook control of the House of Representatives in the 2018 elections, which hindered his ability to push through further conservative priorities, however he did sign the Great American Outdoors Act, and criminal justice reform through the First Step Act later in his term. He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Trump's "America First" foreign policy was characterized by protectionism, unilateralism, and nationalism. He enacted tariffs, triggering retaliatory tariffs from China, Canada, Mexico, and the European Union, withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, and signed the USMCA, a successor agreement to NAFTA. He sought to secure the United States’ southern border with Mexico, and curb illegal immigration by implementing a controversial family separation policy for migrants apprehended at the border, and demanded federal funding for a border wall resulting in the longest US government shutdown in history and the declaration of a national emergency to construct a portion of the wall. The administration implemented a travel ban from several Muslim-majority countries; recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; and brokered a series of normalization agreements between Israel and various Arab states. His administration also made a conditional deal with the Taliban to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 2021. Trump met North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un three times in talks seeking to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. In 2018, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear agreement and later escalated tensions in the Persian Gulf by ordering the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani.

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting economic recession dominated the final year of his term. His administration’s initial response was widely condemned as slow, his messaging contradicted the recommendations of health officials, and a congressional committee found that his actions deliberately "undermined the U.S. response". In May 2020, Trump announced the formation of a public-private partnership named Operation Warp Speed, which facilitated and accelerated the development of two vaccines (the J&J and Moderna vaccines), as well as the purchase of 100 million doses of the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) concluded that Russia interfered to favor Trump's candidacy and that while the prevailing evidence "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government," possible obstructions of justice occurred during the course of that investigation, but did not charge Trump with any crime.

Trump attempted to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations into his political rival Joe Biden, triggering his first impeachment by the House of Representatives on December 18, 2019, but he was acquitted by the Senate on February 5, 2020.

Following his loss in the 2020 presidential election to Biden, Trump refused to concede and initiated an extensive campaign to overturn the results, making false claims of widespread electoral fraud. On January 6, 2021, during a rally at The Ellipse, Trump urged his supporters to "fight like hell" and march to the Capitol, where the electoral votes were being counted by Congress in order to formalize Biden's victory. A mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, suspending the count as Vice President Mike Pence and other members of Congress were evacuated. On January 13, the House voted to impeach Trump an unprecedented second time for "incitement of insurrection," but he was later acquitted by the Senate again on February 13, after he had already left office.

MonsterMash51 (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@MonsterMash51: First off, please highlight your additions and strike your removals to the lead so we don't have to bring up the article side by side and compare.

Secondly, this rewrite does not follow WP:DUEWEIGHT at all and is not an improvement. ––FormalDude ^talk 05:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Astonishingly, this user writes regarding mentioning the fact that Trump lost the popular vote: "while true, its an unnecessary distinction in our system and is perhaps seeking to diminish his victory. I don't think mentioning his false or misleading statements is necessary in this section either, perhaps moving it to the start of the next section is better. We also don't need to repeat that he claimed fraud in the 2020 election here. Finally, I think the fact his presidency being the first since Hoover to lose the Presidency and congress is not important enough to include here." So you are purely here to remove anything which can be interpreted in any way negatively about Trump as trying to "diminish" him? Trump is guilty of treason for inciting an attack on the nation's capital to overturn an election he lost by 10 million votes, after he lost the initial election to Clinton by 3 million votes. He is almost universally regarded as the worst president in American history, and is lucky to not be in prison. If you can't perceive why those facts should be relevant in an article about his presidency, please read the article regarding Trump's treasonous attempts to overturn his 2nd lost election. Cheers! 108.30.187.155 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Trump flushed documents down the toilet

I keep hearing about this. Is this allegation mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia? There seems to be little information about his alleged destruction of documents.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It is too early for editors to have much solid basis to evaluate the [{WP:WEIGHT]] if any of recent developments such as these. It can be a huge waste of time to get it into an article before the full circumstances are known and reported by trusted sources. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2022

Donald trumps election was historic in that he is the only person ever elected to the presidency having never previously served in government or military 173.62.26.33 (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead needs to be completely changed or just removed

I've never seen a more biased lead page for a politician, which isn't surprising. Look at Obama's lead for a quick comparison. There is not a SINGLE negative sentence regarding his presidency, despite the fact that his approval mirrored Trumps at multiple points. Meanwhile this lead? Any policy achievement has to be followed by a negative affect from it, with not a single case of this on Obama's lead. Multiple out of context quotes - "Fight like hell" to make him look bad but no "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" from the same speech. Ending it on how historians hate him, zero mention of how over 90% of those historians are ideological leftists. The entire thing is a poorly written, politically and ideologically biased dumpster fire. Neutrality doesn't even factor into it.

This page is a perfect Grade A example of why no one takes wikipedia politician articles seriously. If it doesn't get fixed, it will remain one. --SneedPoster321 (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate criticism. It is false that every policy achievement is "followed by a negative affect." Proof: look at " He signed the Great American Outdoors Act, reversed numerous environmental regulations, and withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change. He signed criminal justice reform through the First Step Act and successfully appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. In economic policy, he partially repealed the Dodd–Frank Act and signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. He enacted tariffs, triggering retaliatory tariffs from China, Canada, Mexico, and the EU. He withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations and signed the USMCA, a successor agreement to NAFTA." with zero negative comments. Rjensen (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"Trump was unsuccessful in his efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) but rescinded the individual mandate and took measures to hinder the ACA's functioning. Trump sought substantial spending cuts to major welfare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. He signed the Great American Outdoors Act, reversed numerous environmental regulations, and withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change. He signed criminal justice reform through the First Step Act and successfully appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. In economic policy, he partially repealed the Dodd–Frank Act and signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. He enacted tariffs, triggering retaliatory tariffs from China, Canada, Mexico, and the EU. He withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations and signed the USMCA, a successor agreement to NAFTA. The federal deficit increased under Trump due to spending increases and tax cuts."

This is the paragraph you're grabbing single lines of, re-examine it carefully. You don't think 'triggering retaliatory tariffs' is negative? Or 'reversed numerous environmental regulations' without pointing out the reasons it was done - because it they burdened the development or use of domestically produced energy resources. Don't be oblivious. SneedPoster321 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV. We reflect what reliable sources say and do not give equal weight to both sides. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"Reliable" sources or cherrypicked sources? Also regardless of what these sources say its the Wikipedia articles responsibility to be neutral which this article most certainly isnt. FishandChipper (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's role is to summarize what the sources say, not to whitewash articles to make the subjects seem positive or mundane. Dimadick (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Which "sources" you use makes a huge difference, and these editors are intentionally choosing sources that paint things in more negative light. I'd rather see Wikipedia take a more balanced stance in its editing practices and in which sources it uses to "fact-check." Fast4lax (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Remember, we seek the best reliable sources for all our articles, but especially high-visibility articles such as this, subject to special scrutiny both external and internal. As a result, you cannot expect to see false balance imposed in places where the sources are clear, just because you are unhappy with the content. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)