Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 121

Archive 115

←

Archive 119

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

→

Archive 125

Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op

[Original heading: Question] What is the current situation regarding St John?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

He's still dead, AFAIK. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Precisely my point, Citizen Mandruss.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out that only a month ago, editors were asserting that the St John's Church incident would be remembered in 10 years time. Now everyone seems to have forgotten its existence. Yet the article still has an excessively long section on this...--Jack Upland (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: - federal lawsuit [1]. starship.paint (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You mean the Lafayette Square clash/operation/forcible removal of non-violent protesters exercising their First Amendment rights? It's very much not forgotten, and the section may get longer still. The clash is under investigation by Congress and the inspectors general of the Interior Department and Justice Department and the subject of civil lawsuits (WaPo). But there's also a pandemic ravaging the country, unidentifiable federal forces in Portland and apparently on the way to Kansas City, Mo., and Chicago. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes..all that is true 107.217.84.95 (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That lawsuit etc isn't mentioned in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

So the section is both too long and not long enough? Renaming this Talk section since you have already started to remove content from the article section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Too long and not long enough" — which is normal for trivial incidents. In order to explain the significance of this we need to go into inordinate detail. Therefore it's best to leave it out. If the lawsuit was important it should be mentioned, but lawsuits in the US of A are a dime a dozen, so it shouldn't be mentioned and isn't important.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I just restored the status quo ante these edits (edit summaries in parentheses): ("small" fire isn’t neutral), (Trivial), (Restore narratives of the weight of RS accounts per NPOV), (Far too trivial for this already too large article). How is "small" not neutral when the church's rector and bishop said it was a small fire in the basement? How is the sentence more trivial than, for example, the photo of Stormy Daniels or the cover page of the Mueller report or Trump's His 2019 coronary CT calcium scan score? Maybe we should run an RfC on this, per these closing remarks to a previous discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The status quo is to not have the content there. You have helpfully provided examples of other content which is too trivial for this article. The content may not be too trivial for Wikipedia overall, but certainly too trivial for this particular article, given how much is currently contained here. Not everything that is reported by multiple sources is due in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not trivial to include the minimum text that reflects mainstream RS explanation of the significance of the event. Clearly "small" does not bloat the article, but at any rate that's an empty argument as it does not relate to the specific text in question. It would deny any addition of text. Furthermore, when a removal of RS text has been challenged, please do not knee-jerk reinsert it without engaging on the talk page. Consensus appears to be against your repeat removal. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

“Small” fire is neutral. That’s what reliable sources say [2] [3] [4] [5]. It's also what the D.C. police / D.C. fire department said [6] [7]. starship.paint (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Small" is not neutral in this context. It's an attempt to the fire. The size of the fire is irrelevant. Small fires have a tendency to become big fires if they are not put out. No arsonist is giving leniency because he says he only lit a "small fire".--Jack Upland (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"Small" is what all the sources say. Having "fire" without this qualification would be original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Leaving out an adjective is "original research". I've heard it all!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: Your edit copied parts of the first paragraph of the NBC article. Taken out of the context of the article, whose first six paragraphs paraphrased Trump’s speech and also quoted him verbatim, the sentence is saying in Wiki voice that the death of George Floyd sparked riots. Adding half of a verbatim quote from three paragraphs further down is too close to WP:SYNTH for comfort.

Your edit: "In a Rose Garden speech on June 1, 2020, Trump announced he would deploy the U.S. military to stop the riots sparked by the death of George Floyd, "If the city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the life and property of their residents."

NBC: As sirens wailed and flash-bang grenades popped across the street, President Donald Trump announced from the Rose Garden that he would use the U.S. military to stop the riots across the country that have been sparked by the death of George Floyd. "I am mobilizing all available federal resources, civilian and military, to stop the rioting and looting, to end the destruction and arson and to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans, including your Second Amendment rights," Trump said in the extraordinary address, which was delivered as police fired smoke devices outside to push protesters back from the White House. "We are ending the riots and lawlessness that has spread throughout our country. We will end it now," Trump said. Trump said that governors should deploy the National Guard in great numbers so that they "dominate the streets." "If a city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them," Trump said, referring to himself as "your president of law and order and an ally of all peaceful protesters." He said he was already dispatching "thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel and law enforcement officers" to Washington to stop the violence that has been a feature of the protests here.

The article uses the word "riot" six times, three times when paraphrasing or directly quoting Trump, once when quoting WH deputy press secretary Deere, and twice when mentioning the LA riots in 1992 (Rodney King). The RS does not use the term to describe the George Floyd protests. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Space4Time3Continuum2x ??? Clearly it’s attributed and clearly was said “rioters”, not “protestors”. Also ??? clearly I increased it from a partial quote to quoting the full sentence.

The line is attribution of what President “Trump announced”, as shown in NBC quotations. My “to stop the riots sparked by the death of George Floyd” was for “to stop the riots across the country that have been sparked by the death of George Floyd”. The RS also noted and put in subtitle that President Trump referred to himself as "an ally of all peaceful protesters." The announcement is against rioters and looters distinguished from peaceful protestors. It would be a false attribution or falsified quote, and a misportrayal of RS to alter the word. I will make it more clear by giving it enquoted. If you want to use the claim it is to stop protestors, that needs attribution to who says that’s the intent. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your argument(s). Your sentence quoted NBC paraphrasing Trump, followed by a verbatim Trump quote from the same NBC cite. That's confusing. CBS News began its report on the speech with this sentence: President Trump said Monday he would deploy the military against protesters if local officials cannot stop violence that has erupted in some areas. No sparks, no riots. Your edit also deleted the Wiki link to mass protests and civil unrest which IMO is important. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Space4Time3Continuum2x Clearly the NBC article attributed something as what President Trump said the forces were for -- and it was 'riots' and 'rioters and looters'. NBC also prominently (in subtitle and text) said Trump declared himself himself "an ally of all peaceful protesters". So for an article line attributing to Trump -- the wording should be 'riots'. It would be a false attribution or falsified quote, and a misportrayal of RS, to attribute 'stop protestors' to Trump. If a mention of 'to stop protestors' is made, it would need attribution to whoever said that was the intent, or to be said without any (false) attribution to Trump. And I think it would be obvious that attributing to rioters should wikilink to the riots and not to the protests. To wikilink protests as riots would also be wrong - the protests are not riots. Feel free to make the 'Trump announced' attribution to 'riots' or to remove the 'Trump announced' attribution, or other flavor of getting it factly accurate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, try 2 got reverted ... in lack of anything feedback I tried a second time with different edit but the wikilink was disliked, so will try it without wikilink. Just keep it simple. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You pretty much plagiarized NBC’s first sentence. Your edit: Trump announced that he would deploy the U.S. military to stop the riots across the country that have been sparked by the death of George Floyd. NBC: Trump announced [] that he would use the U.S. military to stop the riots across the country that have been sparked by the death of George Floyd. If you want to quote a cite paraphrasing Trump, you have to give them credit for the quote. But in this case, why did you replace the original NYT cite with the NBC one? Seems to me that you cherry-picked a source that would enable you to argue that it was Factually what the RS said, of fact Trump said "riots". I replaced NBC with the original NYT cite, added TIME for good measure, and used neutral wording to reflect what the RS reported. While I found mention of "sparking/flaring protests" prior to June 1, "riots" was Trump and his surrogates/supporters' spin up to that point. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Space4Time3Continuum2x President Trump said it was to stop rioters and looters, as said there and quoted there and in other RS. Any line attributing something to him needs to convey that, feel free to say “rioting” in another way and whether or not to include other items like ‘ally to peaceful protestors’. Again, it would be a false attribution or falsified quote and a misportrayal of RS to portray him as saying the military is to stop “protestors”. If you want to use the claim it is to stop protestors, that needs attribution to who says that’s the intent. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

p.s. NBC was just the first hit in the Google results. In general, the stories seemed to cover his announcement as (1) to stop rioting and looting if city or state refuses to, and (2) declared himself an ally to peaceful protestors. Then (3) discussions on the Insurrection Act. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think we should have an RfC on this because clearly there are diametrically opposed views. I would suggest three options: 1. current section; 2. one sentence under 2020 campaign; 3. nothing.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  One sentence under 2020 campaign, @Jack Upland:? Are you acknowledging that the photo op was election campaigning instead of a presidential activity? starship.paint (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not Trump's press secretary. I just think the campaign seems the best place to put it.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Trump doesn't distinguish between election campaigning and presidential activity (in no particular order: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Splitting Covid-19

It looks pretty clear now that we will need to split off this section and create an article like Donald Trump and the Covid-19 pandemic which can go into much further detail and absorb content from other large articles, but with one or two paragraphs in this article to remain. It may be a matter of contention which paragraphs remain in the article, so does anybody have any proposals that could gain some consensus here? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Nooo, another Trump spin-off article? The section needs to be trimmed. Appears to be somewhat repetitious, and we some of the sources are outdated. Haven't had the time yet to take an in-depth look. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Also, the title reminds me just a tad of Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It always bugged me that the film wasn't called Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Hatting. NOTFORUM. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Maga — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 18:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC) No, Donald Trump is the lead singer of a garage band called "The COVID-19 Pandemic". Their latest video went viral. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes..it needs to be spun off..it is extremely relevant and it will grow..the Covid-19 virus and the recession will likely be his legacy..why would there not be an article on it ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:6D85:7514:AA02:ACDF (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Because we don't have articles based on what likely we be his legacy. We follow the reliable sources and use to them write articles in compliance with the policies of Wikipedia. If you think it will grow then make a draft. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The section is already the size of a small article, and could clearly be much larger if it was its own article. This isn't because of his legacy, this is because it's a very significant topic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

There is COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and there are more specific articles within. So far, Donald Trump has been the only US President supervising this pandemic. At this point, it's completely redundant. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I said most likely..either way it is an extremely relevant topic..will obviously become more so..it is not redundant..there are a lot of very misinformed people in america as well in denial regarding the virus..I`m guessing a lot of them have no idea the significance of trump`s relationship to COVID-19 2600:1702:2340:9470:6D85:7514:AA02:ACDF (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

That is the other large article I was mainly referring to, where content from there can be moved elsewhere. There is far too much content about the federal executive's response to the pandemic and Donald Trump himself. This amount of content is a topic itself, and merits its own article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, give him a bit more time to screw it up further. Meanwhile, we don’t WP:CRYSTALBALL O3000 (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with predicting the future. We already have enough content written here in this article and on others to comprehensively cover the topic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Four observations: (1) The article (pandemic section) needs to have discussion of how his poor pandemic response/lack of leadership is affecting his polls and reelection prospects; it seems Americans are noting the dangers. There are already quality references to this effect, and the effects on the November election results will be substantial (no crystal ball needed). (2) Any break out article will also have to be coordinated with the existing article Presidency of Donald Trump (that article is showing signs of being too long as well) and COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. (3) There are likely many such topics that now deserve their own articles. It may make sense to make a comprehensive review of this article, "Presidency of Donald Trump", etc. and coordinate a set of sensible topic articles. I suppose that's "Policies" in the upper right hand Template. (4) When a section of an article is used to create a new article (a natural process), a brief summary is still required in the original article. That will require agreement among editors as to the main points and their wording; could be tough.Bdushaw (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

These are exactly the four points I wish to highlight, and very well said. I would just say that we shouldn't exaggerate or go into excessive detail the assessments of his response to the pandemic and its effects on public opinion, as this should be information better explained in the new article. I would be very grateful if an editor could propose what content would remain in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

All should remain. SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

As a matter of process, in another "break away" article I worked on (Neutron->Discovery of the neutron), we started and developed the new article, then rewrote the old section of the original article as a greatly condensed version of the new article (with a "Main Article" link, of course). So, if the consensus is for a new article, then one could start it by "copy-paste" from the pandemic section, reorganize and develop the new article (a major effort), finally rewrite the section in this original article as a brief summary of the new article, hitting all the main points. Bdushaw (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like the way to go. We would need to start a draft article like Draft:Trump administration response to the COVID-19 pandemic or Draft:COVID-19 pandemic and the Trump administration. This would also absorb content from COVID-19 pandemic in the United States which is focused very much on Donald Trump and his administration for an article broadly about the pandemic in the United States, more than for other country articles, and Presidency of Donald Trump. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hummm...worth discussing the title and approach. Your original notion was Draft:Donald Trump and the Covid-19 pandemic which would be a different article than one as expansive as an article on the administration's response. I won't be involved and have no substantive opinion, but the more focused article has an appeal. A variety of sides to the issue come to mind, e.g., do we seek an article paired with this biographical Trump article, or one paired with general government pandemic response? Bdushaw (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not settled on the title either, and the exact scope is always hard to define. I don't think this article can be about all of the government responses to the pandemic, even only the federal government, as much of that is not to do with Trump. However, we clearly can't just make an article that discusses him personally or biographically during the pandemic. The content on the Donald Trump article is really just about how the federal executive branch has responded to the pandemic, with some of Trump's unusual behaviour included as well. It's the same for the other articles about the United States and COVID-19, whenever Donald Trump is mentioned. Very willing to canvass alternative article titles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, in for a penny, in for a pound...another comment. Having thought about the issue, I am in favor of your original instinct Draft:Donald Trump and the Covid-19 pandemic. There is this article today in the Washington Post today, for example, on how Florida is in trouble because its governor followed Trump, and ignored his own experts. Its all Trump. I've not voted, but I am in favor of a break-away article. I note that the present discussion bears on the above endless discussions on whether covid-19 should be mentioned in the lead (I think so - Trump's mismanagement of the problem is a huge problem for the country, costing thousands of lives; people the world over follow the president and what he says; Trump's mismanagement/misinformation/politicizing the issue/etc is THE issue for the world in 2020). OK pound paid. Bdushaw (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a very tenuous link, which should be on the Florida article. This is getting too critical and opinionated of the subject. It can be justified in the lead simply as being the most significant event in the last four years. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is opinion; there are an endless number of citations to support this narrative, eg. Time. I do have opinions, to be sure, but as has been pointed out, that does not mean that what gets written is opinion. Part of the process of developing a new article as is under discussion is assembling/processing a large amount of information and distilling that to a succinct, encyclopedic summary. A gray area in Wikipedia standards is the selection of material and its organization can be subjective. I read and watch the news, I see Trump's news conferences, etc. I believe what I described matches what I've learned (and could be supported by citations). It is not by chance that the southern red states have the serious covid problems at the moment. Anyways, I won't be involved with writing the article. (For the record, my reluctance to get too involved is that I spent endless time on Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy back in the day, and don't want to repeat the experience!) Bdushaw (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

This is absolutely not necessary per WP:CONTENTFORK, since U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic already exists. I've redirected the term there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That seems fair and in accordance with policy. The task is therefore to work through this article and that one to reconcile the two and use the federal response article, or perhaps a Trump section of that article, as the Main. Much of the material in this article could likely be condensed through that process. Bdushaw (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose splitting off the COVID-19 section, per WP:DUEWIGHT. - MrX 🖋 12:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Trim, don’t FORK. I don’t see a need for it, and seems to me a danger of it being a WP:POVFORK or WP:ATTACK page. There are already articles on the topic, and a bio should be pointing to a larger topic article in order to inform what the topic is and give context of what non-Trump things were. The section here seems overly long with trivia/offtopic but that seems true of many sections and here seems just another spot needing trimming. There’s only two screens worth anyway, so it just doesn’t need a FORK from here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

With the "discovery" of the two articles U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic and Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic I believe the original suggestion and the above discussions are moot. I am in favor of closing this Section. In an ideal world the Covid section of this article would be coordinated/synced with those articles. Bdushaw (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the above: U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic and Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic are enough. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Deployment of federal officers to Portland and other places

Should we have something in the article about the recent, controversial use of federal officers against protesters, most notably in Portland? There is a mention that he said he would do that in the "photo op" section. Maybe we need to expand/refocus that section, so that instead of three two paragraphs about that one incident, it becomes a more general section about the use of federal officers against protesters. Information could be taken from George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon and other places. Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I've been thinking about this for the past week or so. If we put it in that section, the name of the section should obviously be changed. - MrX 🖋 14:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

A weak argument could be made for it being more appropriate for William Barr. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Except that Trump announced it, and has repeatedly praised the initiative and said he would expand it. Is it even Barr who is directing it? The officers reportedly come from DHS. But in any case, through his own words, Trump owns it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Very weak. The alternative facts have been debunked thoroughly. Trump owns it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The only reason I mentioned it is that technically I believe the responsibility lies with Bill Barr. He could prevent this from happening, but he has become such a weakened Attorney General he basically does whatever he is told to do. Honestly, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. Trump has deployed unidentified shock troops to stoke protests and give him a bogeyman to run against. People are being seized from the streets in unmarked vehicles and renditioned to who the hell knows where. How do you even go about processing something like this, let alone trying to provide rational coverage in this BLP? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Huh? It being appropriate here (or on the Trump Presidency page) doesn't exclude it being appropriate on Barr's page (haven't looked at that one in a long time but I will this weekend). A recent op-ed (I forget by whom) said that Trump was looking for a Roy Cohn and instead found his John Mitchell in Barr. Partners in crime, but Trump is the Godfather. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• There are only two paragraphs, and "that one incident" is still under investigation and not forgotten ([15], [16]). Who knows, maybe it was the Ft. Sumter of the Trump administration war on civil rights. The general use of federal officers against protesters is a developing story. Let's see where that's headed first before starting to weigh importance. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• I had been wondering if there was an article on the subject. Here is is: 2020 deployment of federal forces in the United States. That could be our source. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Not necessary in this BLP.--MONGO (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree this is worth some article text. I think we need to follow the RS narratives that are increasingly connecting the dots between various instances of Trump's attempts to project authoritarian para-military control -- border antics, ICE round-ups, etc. The imitation of third world and authoritarian "strong man" dictators is a persistent theme, amply backed by quotes of Trump's own words reported in RS. It's this personal proclivity that is worthy of emphasis in this biography article, while the related policy and legal aspects and/or consequences are more suitable for the articles that focus on the governance of his administration. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Dots connected in these:
Trump is using federal agents as his 'goon squad', says Ice's ex-acting head | US news | The Guardian
'These are his people': inside the elite border patrol unit Trump sent to Portland | US news | The Guardian
less relevant, but also worrying, . dave souza, talk 16:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose in this article. Appropriate in an accounting of his presidency (or a sub-sub-article), but undue in this one-page accounting of his entire life. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please respond to my analysis to the contrary, above. Much of Trump's daily public appearances, statements, and actions are unrelated to governance but are instead projections of a personal counterfactual narrative as to who and what he aspires to be. That is biography worthy and not governance worthy. It's the same problem as saying he has a "strict" immigration policy when he actually has been impotent and ignored the long-established bipartisan consensus as to the underlying problem that e.g G.W. Bush knew needed to be addressed. Instead, Trump has choosen to pursue a harsh and inhumane victimization of asylum-seekers and US resident aliens, for political purposes and likely reflecting personal xenophobic and racially-biased views of the world. SPECIFICOtalk 17:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I no longer regularly post on the Trump talk pages but I keep them all on my watch list. This issue is something that really jumped out at me as I watched the news coverage of this expansion of federal power, especially as election day draws nearer. I appreciate Melanie's bringing it up and Spec's comments. Hopefully we will cover it as a new development to the Trump presidency. Gandydancer (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree 107.217.84.95 (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I liked Mandruss's suggestion that the presidency article would be a better place for this. I have added a section to Presidency of Donald Trump#Response to 2020 protests. If something is to be included here, it could be condensed from that. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Do you feel I am mistaken in my reasoning above as to why this is biographically significant? The sources I read (similar to those cited by @Dave souza: describe these actions as being motivated and deployed solely for personal and political purposes of Trump and not as governance or policy-based actions. An encyclopedia should not promote Trump's tenuous or false narrative that these are urgent and legally valid civic interverntions by the federal government. SPECIFICO talk 00:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, re: An encyclopedia should not promote Trump's tenuous or false narrative An encyclopedia's goal should not be to "promote" any viewpoint, but to reflect what sources say. I think that is what we are currently doing. The material I added to the Presidency article does not "promote" any narrative. It does cite the justification for the action offered by DHS, as well as (in more detail because it is more extensive and has received more coverage) the criticisms and lawsuits against the policy. It does not cite anyone's opinion about Trump's motivations for his actions. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

My view is that any notable actions of the Trump presidency should be covered in Presidency of Donald Trump before being considered for coverage in this BLP, and this action in Portland would certainly qualify. Then we can consider a summary here in the appropriate weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

According to RS narratives, commentary, and analysis of the deployments: They are so idiosyncratic and so far outside both legal basis, constructive governmental purpose, and historical precedent, that they are at least as much about the man as about the president. I realized, reading MelanieN's reply to me above that I unduly complicated the issue by using "motivated", and we all agree with her point that we as editors must not impute motivations. But RS do that in the context she describes as extensive criticisms and lawsuits. So I do think that Trump's 2020 behavior, which has become increasingly an expression of his personality, does in many cases deserve coverage of RS narratives in this bio article. SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You are probably right; nevertheless, I think it is good practice to get it right in the presidency article before summarizing it here. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

One remarkable development is that in several recent instances, e.g. the Supreme Court ruling on DACA among others, Trump could have been successful in delivering a policy victory to his base. But instead, through incompetence or indifference, the Administration did not parse the issues and legal constraints that would have needed to be addressed. There may have been advisers who tried to get him to do things in a more effective way, or he may have relied on advisers who were so ill-informed or inexperienced that they did not even understand what was required. He could have had a stricter immigration policy, but instead he just had a harsh policy, most of which was effective only as TV and internet showmanship but failed to implement his stated desire to curtail runaway immigration. The Covid response follows a similar pattern. He has chosen these paths, and they define who he is and his biography. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Mandruss it belongs more to the Presidency article, but I don't expect that. Seems like the precedent has put lots of other junk here which belongs there, and/or trivial items put here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

How are these deployments trivial ? 107.217.84.95 (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The deployments belong more to the Presidency article. The trivia is part of the general precedent which seems lots of Presidency stuff winds up here, as well as trivial items. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Right now I think it is better suited for the Presidency article as well at the moment. If it gets to be something defining and overshadowing his presidency then I could see something here. Just at the moment I do not think it meets that criteria. PackMecEng (talk)

Summary of Trump's business career

To summarize Trump's business career in an NPOV fashion I added "Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies." This was changed to "Trump has has many legal affairs." Aside from the typo, I believe the latter is devoid of substance, and would prefer the version that is based on the body of the article. (The word "had" in my version should be "have"). - MrX 🖋 16:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I have corrected the typo. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The previous wording was clearer and should be reinstated, with the helpful addition of the piped link. "legal affairs" sounds like more bedroom nonsense. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with MrX. It's a throwaway sentence and should be thrown away. My immediate reaction was: "Uh, as opposed to illegal affairs?" (I would reject a claim that the wikilink provides clarification, as I reject the notion that a purpose of wikilinks is to clarify the meaning of prose. Wikilinks provide supplemental reading, but they should not be essential to understanding the words.) ―Mandruss ☎ 20:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Has anyone claimed such a notion? SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

During my editing career? Yes. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Diffs or it didn't happen! SPECIFICO talk 20:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Start here 107.217.84.95 (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

References

"Trump has has many legal affairs." - absolutely not, too vague. starship.paint (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

What about "Trump has had many affairs that have been subject to legal action"???--Jack Upland (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Bzweebl removed it completely. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The text prior to Emir's edit should be restored. SPECIFICO talk 13:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed and done. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

MrX's suggested change of "had" to "have" is a separate issue and remains undone. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Shorter seems better. I prefer “Trump has had many legal affairs.” The numeric line seems elevating a single line of the section that is of no particular note, rather than summarising the section or naming any particularly prominent bit. It also seems unclear that most of these are lawsuits *from* Trump et al, so “brought or defended” rather than “had been involved” would be clearer for showing that. Overall though, I think lead shouldn’t go into much detail or extracted lines, so a short abstract line seems better. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

USMCA in Lead

Is there an existing consensus for why the negotiation and ratification of the USMCA is not mentioned in the lead? Unless I’m mistaken, that trade agreement came pretty much entirely from the Trump administration and it seems like a notable enough achievement to be mentioned in the lead. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Basil the Bat Lord There’s no consensus per se. It was discussed, see here in archive 109, and briefly mentioned here] in archive 114. It does seem odd to have some other items in lead and not this, not that it’s much of a BLP topic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Undue detail for the lead of this biography, which already places too much emphasis on his presidency. The main article for the presidency is Presidency of Donald Trump, which is not to say I would necessarily support this in that lead, either. That discussion should take place at that talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean, are the leads of biographical articles about Presidents not supposed to contain mention of important achievements of their Presidency? I thought that was expected of these kinds of articles. Or are you saying the USMCA isn't a big enough achievement to warrant being mentioned? Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on the president and one size will not fit all. Trump had a long, very public, and controversial life before he ever considered running for president, and this lead should reflect that fact in its proportions of information devoted to both (at least something well short of the current 74% devoted to presidency). While many U.S. presidents were well known before becoming president, it was at least related to their service in elected office; Trump is an unusual animal in that regard. Few people had heard of Obama before he ran for president, so it makes sense for that lead to be dominated by his campaign and presidency. In any case, how does it make sense to include a detail like this in this article's lead before it's included in the Presidency article's lead? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Move this page to "Donald J. Trump"?

Hi, guys,
Do you think we need to move the page "Donald Trump" to "Donald J. Trump"? I think it is better to be specific. However, I cannot perform this action as the page is protected from persistent vandalism. Admin rights are needed to perform the action. Thank you. Friend505 (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

See Current Consensus point #12 at the top: The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. Bdushaw (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Link for lead section

Would anyone be opposed to linking Trump family to "his family's" in "He took charge of his family's real-estate business in 1971,..."? --Steverci (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm opposed. "Trump family" is an article "about the ancestral history of the Trump family as a whole" (and a few unrelated Trumps), according to the page. As for "Family of Donald Trump," the article about Trump's immediate family, that would also be misplaced. The real estate company was his father Fred's, E(lizabeth) Trump having died in 1966. "Took charge" - needs to be revisited, that's still the World according to Trump, title or no title. There were some - uh - "wealth transferrals" (see dubious tax schemes) but Fred Trump was still in charge until he descended into dementia. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Well that's certainly not reflected in the article, because ~80% of the weight is about Trump, his father and his grandfather, who were both also noteworthy businessmen. But that's probably another topic to discuss. After looking over "Family of Donald Trump", I think this would be a better choice. How is it misplaced? His parents and grandparents both have sections. --Steverci (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Family of Donald Trump would in fact be more appropriate in that context. But we already link it twice in the article for readers who want to learn more about Trump's family. Both links are relatively easy to find when you want them, one in the "Relatives" field of the infobox and the other as the {{Main}} hatnote in the "Family" section. That leaves us with the question of how likely it is that a reader will want to learn more about Trump's family immediately upon encountering that sentence. How important is the target article as supplemental information to that particular sentence about Trump taking over the business? Not very important, in my view. In my opinion a third link to the same article is not warranted. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking if the subject came from a notable family, it should be linked. Especially if we don't have to do any rewriting to find a place for it. George W. Bush, John F. Kennedy, and Franklin D. Roosevelt all have a link to their families in their lead. It also depends on how important that family is to the subject's notability. Trump coming from a family that was already worth over a hundred million dollars is important to the early and business (and probably political too) parts of his life. --Steverci (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

Add to campaign section:

Trump was ridiculed in the media for supposedly making fun of a handicapped reporter Serge Kovaleski, but Trump has also been seen mocking many other people the exact same way long before this "incident". Most video compilations proving this are taken down on a daily basis in order to keep this narrative going, but you can find, for now, him mocking Sen. Ted Cruz, an Army General, and another senator the exact same way. All can be seen in this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzKThPaPBcU - at 1:25:10. Same as the media did when he was quoted as saying "All Mexicans Are Criminals" what was really said was "Their not sending their best people folks". Mexico does not have any security that stops people from leaving Mexico and coming into the US. So Trump was referencing the criminal element to that fact. The United States has arrested many Mexican citizens for robberies, rape, rape allegations, murder, and other violent crimes. Those people will be deported back to Mexico just to come back and cross the border illegally again. Mexico is not stopping this from happening, that's what his point was. Trump has had nobody ever call him a racist up until he announced his candidacy under the Republican party. In fact most black Americans in entertainment, politics and business loved Trump up until that day. 64.30.93.20 (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)