Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 154

Archive 150

←

Archive 152

Archive 153

Archive 154

Archive 155

Archive 156

→

Archive 160

Reverted edit

SPECIFICO, you reverted my edit. I would like to justify my position.

In January 2016, Trump retweeted a racist Twitter acount. He did, didn't he. I don't see why we care.

Trump not immediately disavowing comments from David Duke is a big deal. Much, much different than retweeting some random racist Twitter account. He didn't even retweet a racist statement. It was some useless Photoshopped randomness about voting. Is the retweeting of the racist Twitter account in any way notable?

Sentences like this contribute to the massive bloat this article is experiencing. It's trivial and, as I said, of little import to the man himself. He reposted a meme. The sources don't even tie Trump and the retweet to racism, it's just lacklustre criticism that seems to be aimed at Trump's tweets in general. There is no connection made between Trump and racism. This sentence doesn't even belong in the section it's placed in, if it belongs at all. I really don't see why you reverted my edit. Cessaune [talk] 08:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I hav e some sympathy with this, we do not need every stupid thing he has done. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

or yours. Tds Chestershaba2 (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Or my what? Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

"or every stupid thing you have done" is the implication, followed by "Tds", "Trump Derangement Syndrome". From their brief editing history, that user needs a WP:NOTHERE block. Zaathras (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ironic, as I have supported removing this negative comment about Trump. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Delete. It lacks substance and is far too "in the weeds", when there's a shit-ton of insightful "bird's eye view" scholarly material can be used on Trump's Twitter presence. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Trump_Twitter_and_the_American_Democracy/f1juDwAAQBAJ may be a good start. DFlhb (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

In the grand scheme of things, given all the actions that he's taken as a businessman, television personality and President of the United States (and given how huge the article is) a detail like this seems like such small potatoes that it can't be anything but WP:MINORASPECT. It might have a place on Social media use by Donald Trump though even that article already seems like it has some coatrack-y aspects. We also have an entire section already detailing criticism regarding racist comments, and another section detailing his Twitter usage. The one retweet isn't important enough to belong in this article, and certainly does not belong in the section Campaign rhetoric and political positions. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

What RS tell us is that his courting and encouragement and fear of offending ... racists ... is because they are politically valuable to him. That's why it appears in that section. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

If this is the justification for inclusion, then we shouldn't be including it per WP:OR. It doesn't say any of this in the sources. Cessaune [talk] 03:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, you shouldn't be justifying it with sources that aren't directly present as an inline citation next to the text. Any potential sources that agree with your above statement must be moved near the text in order to actually count. This assumes that there are actual sources that say this elsewhere in the article, but I'm too lazy to look for them, and, luckily, the ONUS is on you, SPECIFICO, to attribute this statement, not me. I really don't understand your argument for inclusion, and why you don't simply focus your efforts on improving the entire section, instead of keeping this random snippet of text. Your argument pertaining to rewriting is pretty sound. Cessaune [talk] 03:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The account wasn’t your ordinary racist dog-whistling account, it was an antisemitic Nazi account, complete with a pro-Hitler documentary, according to CNN. (First wife Ivana told Vanity Fair in 1990 that "Trump kept a book of Hitler's collected speeches, 'My New Order,' … in a cabinet by his bed." Trump said he thought it was 'Mein Kampf' but the man who gave him the book, Marty Davis of Paramount, told Vanity Fair that it was 'My New Order.' It looks as though Trump had as much use for it as he had for the Bible, reading-wise.) But saying that he retweeted a racist account in January 2016 makes it appear as though it was an isolated incident. He retweeted racist accounts numerous times, and the usual excuse was that he didn’t know what kind of an account it was. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and as I have commented on other such instances that reflect Trump's views and broader behavior, the alternative would be to make use of the increasingly abundant tertiary sources to substitute article text along the lines of "trump repeatedly courted the approval of his political base by means of veiled approvals, false equivalencies, and repetition of the narratives of neo-nazis, racist vigilantes, and white supremacists." OP, I would support a more explicit general statement rather than a key example, but the removal of this widely noted example is otherwise not justified per NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

What you're saying is true but as the text stands, it doesn't belong in the article. All the points you make are grounds for a rewrite of the sentence, but not reversion of the edit. A singular account of Trump retweeting a nonracist image from a racist Twitter account isn't notable. Maybe it is when taken into account with everything else, but it isn't. Cessaune [talk] 18:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't remove half the tires from my car and then lend it to a friend, telling them they can drive on 2 tires until somebody else comes along to replace the ones that I removed. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to present sources, and as long as no one presents sources, the text shouldn't stand, given the fact that you haven't actually provided any arguments for its unaltered inclusion. It's like if I were to remove faulty tires from a car, and you put them back, telling me that there's a tire pump and a can of Fix-A-Flat at your grandma's house in Yekaterinburg... okay? Go get it, then? I agree with everything you're saying, but so far it isn't supported by sources, and, as I said, the ONUS is on you, not me, to provide them.

Secondly, no one is going to miss the sentence. The ony people who care are us editors. It's so trivial of a change that the vast majority won't notice, or even scroll down far enough to reach it. Rewriting your example, it's like lending my car to a friend with a dent on the driver's side door. They don't care. They're just happy I lent them the car. A dent might even be generous. I dropped chicken and some french fries on the seat three years ago, maybe. Cessaune [talk] 03:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not assign chores to your fellow volunteers. You removed longstanding content so in this case the ONUS is on you for this accurate summary of the section content and sourcing. This discussion section provides ample explanation, including the inadvisability of pitching inaccurate edit summaries when removing longstanding article text. SPECIFICO talk 03:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

What? I'm not assigning any chores. I'm simply stating that since you're saying things like trump repeatedly courted the approval of his political base by means of veiled approvals, false equivalencies, and repetition of the narratives of neo-nazis, racist vigilantes, and white supremacists, What RS tell us is that his courting and encouragement and fear of offending ... racists ... is because they are politically valuable to him, and widely noted example without any sourcing, and then using as a justification for your argument, no matter how valid your statements are, they fall under the definition of OR until you provide sources.

Second, inaccurate edit summary? I said This feels trivial and of little import to the man himself. It was my opinion, which I have backed with reasoning. How can it be inaccurate? Maybe the 'of little import', but I read the sources and decided, based solely on my own personal opinion, that this specific issue as it is presented in the text is trivial. Disagree if you want, but how can my characterization be inaccurate, especially given the fact that you have not provided any sources to explain why said inaccurates are inaccurate?

Third, the fact that the content is longstanding has literally no bearing on this discussion. Length is only important on WP in the context of too soon. If anything, as we distance ourselves from Trump's presidency, statements that he made in the past can be seen in a new, better light, and trivials that seemed important back then can be removed now. Are you arguing that since I removed longstanding content, I have to try and prove my own edit wrong by actively seeking out sources that contradict my own statements? If I'm characterizing your statement—in this case the ONUS is on you for this accurate summary of the section content and sourcing—wrong, please let me know. Sure, I guess, in an ideal world, I probably should've done that. Cessaune [talk] 04:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it would help those supporting inclusion a lot if you found RS that says Trump repeatedly retweeted racist accounts. Then we could have a sentence saying he did it a lot rather than once in 2016. Otherwise, it's hard to try and justify the inclusion of one tweet of a President infamous for tweeting off-the-wall things frequently. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 21:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That's right, but for the record: Let's not equate "off the wall" with racism, promotion of cattle wormer, etc. We shouldn't call them off-the-wall, haha, as if they are harmless eccentricities. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I suspect Trump tends to merely blurt out what he believes his core supporters want to hear. Using that as a basis, should determine whether or not, or which utterances, should be included in his BLP. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you please state that in terms of V, RS, NPOV, and DUE? SPECIFICO talk 22:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

4-2 in favor of deletion, if we count Space4t's comment as advocation for inclusion. Is this enough to delete? Cessaune [talk] 04:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m not opposed to removing the sentence. I think mentioning that one retweet detracts from the general statement of the paragraph that Trump promoted far-right ideas and did not reject David Duke’s support during the 2016 campaign. A media analysis company analyzed his retweets during the last week of January 2016 and found that Donald Trump mostly retweets white supremacists saying nice things about him, i.e., 62% of the people he retweeted that week followed multiple White Supremacist accounts. As we say with the first sentence of our paragraph: Trump helped bring far-right fringe ideas, beliefs, and organizations into the mainstream. We also mention racist appeals, tweeted and otherwise publicized before and during the campaign and the presidency, in Racial views. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete — The sentence is clearly misleading because it implies that Trump retweeted a racist item from the account, whereas the item he retweeted was a manipulated image of Jeb Bush that was not racist. From the Time source, "Trump retweeted an image the account posted featuring the face of Jeb Bush manipulated onto the body of a gruff looking man with holding a sign that reads “Vote Trump” outside of the Trump Tower in New York." From the CNN source, "The tweet Trump actually reposted from the user, however, was a photoshopped image of the GOP front-runner’s opponent Jeb Bush, depicting him as a disheveled beggar outside Trump Tower." Bob K31416 (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Time for an RFC I think, we need fresh eyes. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Why? Nine participants in more than a week, six supporting removal, one (Checkers) unclear but not supporting the sentence as is, one (GoodDay) unclear, one opposed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Or ask for a formal close by an uninvolved edd so no on can claim the close was biased. Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

If it is removed, we need to provide a tertiary summary of his 70+ racist tweets in the campaign, e.g as discussed in this RS or [this one. Bob, since you have removed the text perhaps you will craft the replacememnt summary? SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

We have 13 uses of the word "racist". But maybe we can add a like like "And has retweeted racist tweets". Personally, I think mentioning racist 13 times is enough to demonstrate he was (and is) a racist. In fact (if anything) we need to use the word less, and rely on our reader's ability to understand that "and he is a racist" means the same as "he is a racist who has said many racist things and posted many racist tweets". It looks all too needy and desperate "DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH OF A RACIST HE IS, HE IS 14 TIMES A RACIST!". Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

From WP:SNOW,

The snowball clause is one way that editors are encouraged to exercise common sense and avoid pointy, bureaucratic behavior. The snowball clause states:

"If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process."

The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions.

The bottom line is that misleading anti-Trump statements die hard here. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

And here I take issue, they may be many things, but they are not misleading, and I can't support removal on those grounds. He did retweet it, there is no question of that, and it was racist (whitegenocide, OK maybe Trump did not know or notice, so, it's still a racist meme). Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You should have stopped at your delete post. The sentence is neither misleading nor an anti-Trump statement. He did retweet a racist account. He didn't care who sent the tweet; he retweeted it if it praised him, contained news/opinions favorable to him or unfavorable to people he disliked, or if he wanted to respond to insults. He once retweeted a Mussolini quote from a satirical account ("It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep"), and then said, "what difference does it make whether it’s Mussolini or somebody else? It’s certainly a very interesting quote." Interesting? Baa. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cessaune: I reckon it's up to you. If you want more input on this, an RFC is the way to go. Otherwise, I'd say there's no consensus for undoing the revert-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a really bad model. We do not pull an RfC every time we fail to gain consensus to change longstanding text. There's been no constructive alternative text proposed that might satisfy all the views expressed here. RfC is a last resort, not business as usual in a minor content discussion. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think that there is weak consensus for deletion; I'm not going to start an RfC. Neither should anyone. Cessaune [talk] 12:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's the sentence in question (In January 2016, Trump retweeted...), along with the preceding sentence and following sentence:

Trump helped bring far-right fringe ideas, beliefs, and organizations into the mainstream. In January 2016, Trump retweeted a racist Twitter account. Trump was slow to disavow an endorsement from David Duke after he was questioned about it during a CNN interview on February 28, 2016.

When I got this excerpt from the article and looked at the sources, I was surprised that it was such a mess of misrepresentation. For example, the source for the first sentence is about news media and far-right news media, not far-right organizations like the KKK, headed by David Duke. Bob K31416 (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
So far in this discussion, the article and its sources, there is no link that shows the image that was retweeted. Here it is [1]. So what we have is a non-racist quote and picture that were retweeted from a racist account, whereas a reader would presume from this article's description of the retweet that the items were racist, "Trump retweeted a racist Twitter account." Bob K31416 (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect please don't impugn the average Wikipedia article reader's abilities with your own misinterpretation of the matter. "Trump retweeted a racist Twitter account" vs. something like "Trump retweeted a racist tweet" are easily discernible. However, if we really did want to show that then-President Trump retweeted actual racist content, well that exists too. Donald Trump's 'Star of David' Tweet About Hillary Clinton Posted Weeks Earlier on Racist Feed. So what direction would you like to go here? Leave it as-is and admit the current text is fine, or should we go with how you're currently interpreting the text and concretely show that then-President Trump literally tweeted racist content? ValarianB (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

"Trump retweeted a racist Twitter account" and "Trump retweeted a racist tweet" are, yes, easily discernible, but, then again, are they? It definitely implies that Trump retweeted something questionable, especially with its location next to the David Duke stuff. It's not unreasonable to assume a reader might just think that Trump retweeted something racist. Cessaune [talk] 12:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Lafayette Square photo-op

(You again, Checkers? I reverted.) It had everything to do with Trump. He ordered Milley to accompany him on what turned out to be a photo-op from the Autocrat’s Handbook, bunker boy showing strength, affecting the Pentagon's response to the January 6 insurrection. William M. Arkin, Newsweek: "At the Pentagon, procedures were put in place to ensure that soldiers—or any Guard formation—would not be used in case of civil disturbance unless the responsible federal civilian agency, mostly the FBI or Secret Service, made a formal request." OIG report, page 18 The events leading up to the 2020 presidential election are important to the January 6, 2021 fact pattern we reviewed because witnesses told us that previous events influenced the DoD response to RFAs pertaining to civil disturbances before and on January 6, 2021. Page 19: Mayor Bowser ordered a 7:00 p.m. curfew for Washington, D.C., on June 1, 2020. During the early evening, Federal law enforcement officers cleared Lafayette Square of protesters before the President spoke at the nearby St. John’s Episcopal Church. … One media outlet, Politico, reported, "The optics of the past 72 hours are putting people inside the halls of the Pentagon on edge as images of U.S. troops on the streets of the nation’s capital dominate airwaves across the globe." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Incomplete page 18 citation, added date of insurrection. Page numbering refers to the PDF counter, not the page numbers of the OIG report. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It's important and needs to go in the article, and yes, it has everything to do with Trump. It's also kinda interesting. Cessaune [talk] 13:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

In the Trump bio the summarization of Lafayette Square, and all other aspects of his presidency, the text should be pinpointed to Trump's actions and the immediate reaction to those actions. Mark Milley's apology is important and 100% deserves to be mentioned at Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church and at Mark Milley, but when we're trying to make a concise summary in a big bio about a dude with a lot to talk about, an apology from someone besides Trump shouldn't make the cut. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 16:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The actions and statements of Trump in this incident are one of a handful of defining moments that reveal his personal stance and agenda. Like the Charlottesville march and the Putin/Helsinki. The statement by Milley, still in command of the institutions Trump sought to subvert, was an extraordinary and unprecedented action that gives definitive context to who and what Trump is about. NPOV is about framing the facts for our readers. This is one of the clearest examples of NPOV framing anywhere on Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Arson at a church across the street from the WH prompted Trump to go and express soliditary with the victims, and show he wasn’t cowering in a bunker. The protestors were cleared for other reasons. I’m with Checkers on this one, unless this is the official worldwide anti-Trump graffiti board. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That is an absurd and view, unsupported by the weight of mainstream narratives and directly opposed by the statement of the pastor of the church. Also, per prior discussion on this page, it is not NPOV or well-verified to call the flames "arson". SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Per George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C., “Before the curfew went into place multiple arsons occurred including attacks at St. Johns Episcopal Church in Lafayette Square and at the AFL CIO office building.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

WP is not a source. That claim is also irrelevant to the issue under discussion in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, and ”prior discussion on this page” is not an RS either. In any event, what does General Milley apologizing tell us about Trump? I don’t think it says anything. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I recant my previous opinion. Remove the sentence. I agreed in ignorance.

He ordered Milley to accompany him on what turned out to be a photo-op from the Autocrat’s Handbook, bunker boy showing strength, affecting the Pentagon's response to the January 6 insurrection is not shown anywhere in any of the sources, and seems to be OR/opinion. The OIG report says nothing about Milley in this context.

The Newsweek source provided doesn't tell us anything about anything acutally important. It states that Milley apologized and shouldn't have walked with him. Okay? Are we trying to make a connection between Milley's statement and a potential Trump goal/Trump's willingness to use military force as a tool? I'm sure something like that can be argued but not with what's there currently.

The Milley statement shouldn't stand. It's a really weak tie-in and only really serves as bloat.

Also, this, this, and this do not directly verify arson, but describe/show what would typcally be called arson in different circumstances (think that's the justification)? Cessaune [talk] 07:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

In the Opening Post, Trump was referred to as "bunker boy". I looked at Bunker visit and reactions and found that a few days earlier near the White House, protestors injured more than sixty Secret Service agents, and eleven were transported to the hospital. The Secret Service recommended that Trump and his family move to an underground bunker. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Trump didn't take too kindly to being mocked on Twitter as #BunkerBoy. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Cessaune, you may want to acquaint yourself with the events of that evening. The main article, Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church, has 300 cites. The cite for the Milley sentence in this article is right where it belongs, following the sentence. Quote: "As many of you saw the results of the photograph of me in Lafayette Square last week, that sparked a national debate about the role of the military in civil society," Milley said. "I should not have been there. My presence in that moment, and in that environment, created the perception of the military involved in domestic politics." The cites I provided above are additional background information on how the events that evening affected events down the line. Two of your links refer to the vandalism that occurred the night before, Sunday night, May 31. (Your third link, BBC, produces a 404 Not Found.) As a result, Mayor Bowser announced a curfew for 7 p.m. on Monday, June 1. The demonstration that took place during the daytime on June 1 were peaceful until the Secret Service, the Park Police, and other federal forces began to forcefully push back demonstrators half an hour before curfew and without a prior audible announcement to clear the streets. What caused Trump’s decision to "dominate"? On May 29, the Secret Service had moved Trump & family into the underground WH bunker, which news, it being the Trump WH, was immediately leaked, and Trump was mocked in the Twitterverse where he lived, hash tag #BunkerBoy. Trump was furious "that he looked weak and insisted he be photographed outside the White House gates, a demand that ultimately led to his visit Monday to St. John’s Church across Lafayette Square." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's the actual link to the BBC article. I wasn't using those links to justify my point. It was simply sourcing the statemnet by Anythingyouwant.

I understand all this. What I don't understand is how the specific Milley statement, as it stands now in the article, is relevant. Your justification for inclusion is more of a justification for expansion. Cessaune [talk] 12:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Fine, but whether it should be status quo or expanded, there is no basis for removal. SPECIFICO talk 13:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

There is plenty of basis for removal. If it's not good currently, you remove it, or you fix it. You don't keep it. As the sentence stands, it shouldn't belong in the article. Cessaune [talk] 16:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Re recanting your previous opinion: which source(s) did Anything present to convince you that Arson at a church across the street from the WH prompted Trump to go and express soliditary with the victims, and show he wasn’t cowering in a bunker? George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C. doesn't make that claim, and neither does Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church. The "victims" (the church officials who said the fire damage was minor) begged to differ since Trump neither contacted them nor did he enter the church to inspect the damage. He also didn't read from the generic Bible Ivanka pulled out of her $3,000 Max Mara bag and he pawed and held aloft like some sort of trophy while talking about the country "coming back strong. It'll be greater than ever before". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I never said I agreed with Anything's position. I just used sources to described it. I don't (in an verifiable sense) agree that it can be called arson. Cessaune [talk] 19:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

So, since everything from Anything is either false or unreferenced or both, do you have a proposed enhancement to the current text and sourcing? SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Not really. I advocate for deletion. Everything that has been talked about is IMO not specific enough to Trump, trivial, unsourced/weakly sourced, or already talked about in the article (the day before the photo-op, the day of the photo-op before Trump got there, bunkerboy, arson, the wider January 6 plan, Trump potentially using military force as a tool, etc). I don't know. I just don't really like the sentence. It's minimally relevant to Trump in its current state. Cessaune [talk] 20:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That last link is exactly what I was looking for in my minutes-old now-deleted comment; why doesn't this article mention the link between the Twitter bunker hashtag and the photo op? DFlhb (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I wish. There are even greeting cards and stickers commemorating the event. The section kept getting pared down because some editors thought Trump letting his inner Mussolini hang out wasn't that important for his top bio, not even after January 6. You'll find several discussions in the archives. There's more info with cites at Donald_Trump_photo_op_at_St._John's_Church#Bunker_visit_and_reactions. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, though I read that page before commenting here. DFlhb (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's the sentence.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, later apologized for accompanying Trump on the walk and thereby "creat[ing] the perception of the military involved in domestic politics".¹

1. Lamothe, Dan (June 11, 2020). "Pentagon's top general apologizes for appearing alongside Trump in Lafayette Square". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 5, 2020.

Bob K31416 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

According to the NYT article that uses that wording:

Mr. Trump’s walk across Lafayette Square, current and former military leaders said, has started a critical moment of reckoning in the military. General Milley addressed the issue head-on." “As a commissioned uniformed officer, it was a mistake that I have learned from,” General Milley said. He said he had been angry about “the senseless and brutal killing of George Floyd” and repeated his opposition to the president’s suggestions that federal troops be deployed nationwide to quell protests. [2] Sectionworker (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is the link in question [3], we do not need ref on the talk page, links are fine. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Again we see that the reason for including this trivia is that it shows that Trump is a fascist (like Mussolini). This is not a rational take on the incident.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead Revert Reason Request.

Hello,

I made this edit and this edit to this page, a topic I have deeply studied since 2015. They were reverted by users @Zaathras: and @Cessaune:. I'm more than happy to elaborate on my edits, but I think they speak for themselves. I would appreciate rationale for your reflexive reverts beyond the dismissive "overlink" and the insulting "fringe" Volvlogia (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if my characterization was insulting. I never mean to do anything of the sort.

Here's the edit:

...he announced at CPAC 2023 to be his supporter's "warrior, [...], justice, [and] retribution".

a) Per consensus item 58, There is consensus towards using inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. This consensus should include an only somewhere. Consensus at this article has been to leave out citations in the lead, unless it's a controversial statement, per MOS:LEADCITE.

b) The lead as it is right now has zero quotes, from Trump or otherwise. It's more of an arbitrary style thing, I guess.

c) It just doesn't seem that important IMO. It's pretty standard and generic; Trump said something at CPAC to his followers. Why is it important enough to be included in the lead?

d) It's not specific enough. Trump said some stuff, but why? What was he referring to when he said this? The 'stolen election', likely? There's a weird dilemma here, also: if you make it more specific, then it isn't broad enough to be leadworthy.

e) I would support inclusion of something like this elsewhere in the article (if it isn't included already), provided that you characterize what he's talking about, and first bring the edit to the talk page.

I can only speak for myself; you'll have to ask User:Zaathras about the other revert. Cessaune [talk] 08:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• I would also have reverted your edits to the lead if the other editors hadn’t been faster. This edit: If it’s not mentioned in the body, it doesn’t go in the lead. I would also object to adding those quotes to the body. Trump says outrageous things and makes false claims all the time, and it’s going to get worse because he appears to be gearing up for large campaign rallies. This edit: I don’t think "authoritarian" and "demagogic" are in the body (is demagoguerie a political position?) In this article we don’t link dictionary words, and doing it turned the sentence into a WP:SEAOFBLUE. We had an RfC, in addition to quite a few prior discussions, on Wikilinks in the lead (see consensus item 60), and any additional links need to be discussed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Just a comment on terminology, it wasn't a WP:SEAOFBLUE, as one can see by reading the info there. The links were separated by commas (non-blue at that) and did not look like one link. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Technically, you're right. The effect is close enough, though: populist, protectionist, isolationist, nationalist, authoritarian, and demagogic. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Volv, yes, we have no FRINGE. But any new content, as in both of your edits, would need to be signiicant article text prior to appearing in the lead. As to whether the retribution bit is so important that it belongs in the article, you would need to make a strong case for that view in the absence of ongoing mainstream coverage of what's to date a single pitch of Trump's retribution branding. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It was best that those additions were reverted. If we were to include every quote by the 45th U.S. president. This BLP might become one of the longest BLPs on the entire project? GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Thing is, unlike past presidents, Trump speaks constantly about everything. And millions listen. An example is his statement that he will be arrested Tuesday. I don’t even see how that is possible as he’s not in NY. Even if he were in NY, he would be given the chance to negotiate when to appear. He has not been told this. The DA has not said this. And yet, many Republican leaders are making dramatic statements condemning the DA and the police are making preparations for violent protests. So, this article is likely to be large. Having said that, I think these reverts were correct. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Support the revert pretty much for the same reasons of Space4Time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 18:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Hereby, 🎈, a preemptive appeal not to launch an immediate RfC on reinstating those edits to the lead. SPECIFICO talk 17:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Crowd-control weapons

I replaced a list of crowd-control weapons, "batons, rubber bullets, pepper spray projectiles, stun grenades, and smoke" with the term "crowd-control weapons", and it was reverted [4]. I thought use of the term, instead of the list, was more concise without losing the point. I mention it here so that editors can decide which version they want. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Must you head to the talk page every time an edit doesn't go your way? ValarianB (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that's an unjustified, improper, and disruptive remark that I probably should have just ignored, but what the heck. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with ValarianB. This article has nearly 400 watchers. If it needs to be discussed it will be discussed, but we don't have to bring every little revert here. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Why are @ValarianB and @FormalDude discouraging @Bob K31416 from utilizing the "discuss" portion of the Bold Revert Discuss cycle, which has been a central part of seeking consensus on this website since 2006? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not discouraging it per se, I'm saying it is not always necessary and effective on a highly visible page where WP:Silent consensus and WP:Bold-refine are frequently utilized. If every revert were discussed on this talk page, it would be at least five times as long, and the article would be much worse off for it. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Bob, I left you a note on your user talk page. I consider your removal of that article text indefensible and I see no substantive defense or constructive advocacy offered here. SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Click on the stun grenades link and read all of the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The generic term is less concise precise than naming the actual weapons. Except for water cannons and electro-shock batons, law enforcement appears to have used the whole range of crowd control weapons. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but could you clarify what you are trying to say? The part about less concise threw me off. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, this has generally been a strange response to a proposed simple edit that improves the article. Like stirring up a weird hornet's nest. What I see is a ridiculously uphill battle for a simple worthwhile edit which seems to have almost zero chance of being accepted. So I'll leave this discussion. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Though it may not be standard operating procedure. It's likely best to run potential additions to or deletions from this BLP, on the talk page 'first'. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't an improvement. Using stun grenades and rubber bullets against non-violent and lawful protesters — the specific weapons, as reported by RS, in this case are not superfluous details. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Bob, your edit removed the NPOV description of Trump's response to a peaceful demonstration in the public square - a response he used to pose himself as a tough leader ready to deploy similar militarized or military responses throughout the US. The content was longstanding in the article because RS have pointed out the degree and type of weaponry that was deployed. Calling a POV shift away from the central narrative of RS is not an improvement and this one was not a "simple edit". @ONUnicorn: since they have previously shown an interest in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 22:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Please remove "Political Upset"

Its interesting that some call this a Political Upset. It was not. The simple fact that the People choose Hillary Clinton should remove all doubt of that. Please removed the statement. Thank you MagnummSerpentinee (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Well it contradicted the polls. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

"Upset" is supported by the accompanying source. — Czello 16:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

US presidential elections aren't won by national popular vote, though. It's who ever get a majority of the electoral (i.e state-by-state popular) vote. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op

I was surprised to find something significant about the Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op that is not in the article but instead there is an opposite false implication.

Police did not clear D.C.'s Lafayette Square of protesters so Trump could hold a photo op, new report says NBC, June 9, 2021

Report: Park Police didn’t clear Lafayette Square protesters for Trump visit Washington Post, June 9, 2021

Watchdog report finds Park Police did not clear racial injustice protesters from Lafayette Park for Trump’s visit to St. John’s Church last June CNN, June 10, 2021

Review of U.S. Park Police Actions at Lafayette Park Office of Inspector General, June 8, 2021

"The evidence we obtained did not support a finding that the USPP cleared the park to allow the President to survey the damage and walk to St. John’s Church. Instead, the evidence we reviewed showed that the USPP cleared the park to allow the contractor to safely install the antiscale fencing in response to destruction of property and injury to officers occurring on May 30 and 31."

Instead there is a false implication in the article that the protesters were cleared for Trump's photo op. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Cherrypicked, dated, POV. Nothing to see here. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It was a Special Review of the Park Police. "There are no standards for reviews, no verification by an independent reviewer, and no review for bias. In fact, the review plainly states its extreme limitations." They only reviewed the actions of DOI personnel, i.e., the Park Police, didn't interview demonstrators, journalists who had been at the scene, or "Attorney General William Barr, White House personnel, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) officers, MPD [Washington Metropolitan Police] personnel, or Secret Service personnel regarding their independent decisions that did not involve the USPP." The Park Police, according to the DOI's report, wasn't even in charge at Lafayette Square. "The USPP acting chief of police was in Lafayette Park on June 1 serving in his role as the chief of police, but he did not direct the unified command." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

No such implication is even made in the article. Next. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, In your message you presented excerpts from a Salon opinion article [5]. Regarding the issue of why the protestors were cleared, the author can only give his opinion, "The gassing of protesters at Washington's Lafayette Square in June 2020, by all appearances intended to clear the area for a photo op by then-President Trump, ...".

Regarding who was in command to make the decision to clear the area for fencing contractors, the IG stated,^[6]

"On May 30, the USPP and U.S. Secret Service established a unified command to coordinate the law enforcement response to the protests."

"The USPP, in coordination with the Secret Service, determined that it was necessary to clear protesters from the area in and around the park to enable the contractor’s employees to safely install the fence. The USPP planned to implement the operation as soon as the fencing materials and sufficient law enforcement officers arrived at the park. Six other law enforcement agencies assisted the USPP and the Secret Service in the operation to clear and secure areas near the park."

Bob K31416 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Our description is about as neutral and bland as it can get. A happened and then B happened, and saying that is neither an implication nor a false implication. And we’re following that up with Trump’s false narrative. (That’s the content we should remove!) It wasn’t just the Salon commentator, there are also Vox, Politico, WaPo analyst Phillip Bump on Twitter and in WaPo here and especially here, and others. The June 2, 2020, WaPo article Bump mentions is this one. The Park Police was planning to install another perimeter fence and remove demonstrators after the 7 p.m. curfew. At 6 p.m., they started drafting the public announcement they intended to make. Quoting the Jun 2 article: Other administration officials said the move to clear the crowd was part of a previously planned effort to extend the perimeter around Lafayette Square. Two federal law enforcement officials said that authorities decided either late Sunday or early Monday to broaden it by one block and that Barr participated in those discussions. The plan was to be executed the following afternoon, according to the Justice Department official, who was not authorized to comment ahead of Barr addressing the matter himself publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity. But when Barr went to survey the scene, he was "surprised" to find the perimeter had not been extended and huddled with law enforcement officials, the Justice Department official said. "He conferred with them to check on the status and basically said: 'This needs to be done. Get it done,’ " the Justice Department official said. Police soon moved on the protesters.

On the subject of "inspection of damage" vs. "dominating": WSJ’s Michael C. Bender wrote in Frankly, We Did Win This Election, pg. 164-165, that Trump had "huddled" with Jared Kusher, Ivanka Trump, and Hope Hicks that afternoon and that Trump wanted to counter that footage of the darkened White House and show he wasn’t cowering in fear. With Park Police planning to push the perimeter farther back, the White House had notified the Secret Service that the president was interested in walking through Lafayette Square to inspect damage at the park and to speak to law enforcement in the area. But inside the Oval Office, Trump discussed two other destinations to demonstrate he was out of the bunker and in control. … The other choice was St. John’s Church … The chapel where Lincoln had prayed was a powerful symbol of faith in the heart of Washington, and a visit from Trump would be an unmistakable communiqué to the evangelical base the president had wooed for years. … Trump loved the idea of walking to the church.

There is also the testimony of Major Adam De Marco of the D.C. National Guard. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The sources you presented were either before the IG report, were just irrelevant for the most part, were of little hard substance regarding the question of why the protesters were cleared, or included support of the IG report re this question when it came down to hard substance. An example of the latter is in your Washington Post source "especially here":

"We now know, for example, that the plan to install fencing along the square was, in fact, ready to be initiated. There were three trucks with material already on scene by 5:30 p.m. At 5:50 p.m., the report indicates the incident commander for the Park Police “instructed the USPP Horse Mounted Patrol unit and the USPP and ACPD civil disturbance units to prepare for deployment onto H Street,” the street just north of the square and the northern boundary of the secure area. “At 6:04 p.m.,” the report continues, “the USPP incident commander drafted the dispersal warning on his mobile phone.

Both of those preparations were made before Barr arrived at the scene. That’s compelling evidence for the argument that the area was going to be cleared despite Barr’s presence."

When the misleading political advocacy items of little hard substance in various sources are stripped away, we see that the sources I presented in the OP were correct that the area was not cleared for Trump's photo op. That's about it for me. I'll let you have the last word, if you want it. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Just this: cherry-picked and out of context. There was a curfew coming into effect at 7 p.m. for which the Park Police chose not to wait. It chose to clear the area right at the moment that the White House was making preparations for Trump to come out. It is, in fact, possible that this was a coincidence that worked out for the president; that the Park Police were just about to push the protesters back and Trump just had to kick out his speech by half an hour.

But that brings us to a Washington Post report from June 2, the day after the incident. Post reporters did speak with a Justice Department official who offered a different assessment of Barr’s role the prior day.

"When Barr went to survey the scene, he was 'surprised' to find the perimeter had not been extended and huddled with law enforcement officials, the Justice Department official said," according to our report. The official added that Barr "conferred with them to check on the status and basically said: 'This needs to be done. Get it done.'"

It got done." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Now that seems cherrypicked.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Mark Milley apology

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RfC concerns the inclusion of the sentence as presented below. WP:ONUS dictates that it is up to those seeking to include content to rally consensus. As of the moment of writing, the sentence is included in the article. A discussion preceded this RfC.

Proponents were outnumbered by the opposers two-to-one. Those arguing for retaining the passage suggested that Milley's apology was basically a veiled rebuke of his boss, and since he could not refuse his orders, this is about as big a repudiation of Trump as he could make. They argued it is important to mention for context, as Milley's apology was highly unusual in the circumstances. For opposers, the fragment is about Milley not Trump. It also clutters the already too large article with relatively minor details, so they belong in articles with narrower scope. Finally, if the criticism of Trump's actions is to be included, it must be directly stated and not inferred from the text's framing.

For several reasons, the proponents failed to establish consensus to include. The !vote count does not favour the "yes" side. The proponents did not address the argument that the article must be trimmed and did not look for shorter alternatives to the text.

As for the implication of criticism that the proponents want to give by including this statement, it does not convince me as a strong argument. Writing that that apology is veiled criticism without a source stating so could reasonably be treated as an unsupported assertion. If you mean to say that was a rebuke, why not write it upfront and why stick to an apology?

There might be relevant scholarly commentary or journalist analysis on what this incident tells about Trump's broader style of governance (authoritarian? egoist?). It is not there yet, but new sourcing may justify inclusion. Another suggested possibility is to merge Milley's reaction with the previous sentence, whom it does not cover for now. This may be discussed. But for now, there is clearly no consensus to retain the fragment. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now) under the subsection Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op?

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, later apologized for accompanying Trump on the walk and thereby "creat[ing] the perception of the military involved in domestic politics".

Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 07:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Added categories bio, media, and hist to publication lists. See discussion below. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Survey

• No - This article should be in summary-level description of aspects of his presidency. Mark Milley's apology is significant and important but it's not relevant enough to Trump the man to be mentioned in this BLP. Save the apology for Mark Milley, Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church, and even Presidency of Donald Trump, but not this long-article in need of a trim. Here it's only serving as bloat. I will contend to you that this article should focus on Trump's actions/statments and direct responses to his actions/statments. This article is not about Mark Milley's after-the-fact reflection on his own actions and their effects on the image of the military/country. This article is about Trump, not Mark Milley. Also, Milley was not actually present at the photo-op itself, just a portion of the walk. So, I'm not seeing how Milley's walk and subsequent apology could be seen as a significant enough part of Trump's legacy or his presidency to be in this summary-level description. I think you get the point I'm trying to make here; this article needs to stay on topic. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 07:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe you'll want to consider more fully if you review all the RS coverage showing Milley in his military uniform resolutely marching through the park. Trump, media genius, got exactly the images he wanted to project and Milley's apology for enabling that is essentially and entirely about Trump and his projection of strongman brutality on peaceful US civilians. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes As it serves to undercut an administration mistruth about the attempt to burn the church down. Trump wanted a military response, and this is a one-sentence summation of the matter, expanded on at the next article. ValarianB (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• No Per Iamreallygoodatcheckers. This might be a relevant part of Milley's biography, but it's not a significant part of Trump's life. Nemov (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• No per User:Nemov&User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers - This would be a good thing to include in other articles (e.g. Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church and Mark Milley), but here it would be WP:UNDUE. NickCT (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Leaning no. Let's face it; the main reason for that sentence's inclusion (and indeed, for the entire section's inclusion) was what SPECIFICO succinctly expressed in this comment. The whole section solely exists to highlight Trump's authoritarian character, but it fails to make any of those points explicitly. I'm tired of this article "alluding" and "hinting" at things we should be stating directly. We're only doing that because our current sources are too weak to support an explicit statement, and because we're too lazy to find a source that would.

We need a source that says that Trump ordered the Square's clearing, one that says that Trump did it for ego-related reasons, one that says the clearing was a blatant violation of freedom of assembly, and one that says that it reveals Trump's authoritarian character. That's what the section is trying to say, but we resort to meekly hinting at it because we're too lazy to look for sources that would allow us to say it outright. It's pathetic. The section should be centred around Trump ordering the military to violate American citizens' rights, followed by (attributed) explanations of how this violates the Constitution/Bill of Rights/whatever. Nothing else is due.

Rant over, and I plead with others to read this as an impassioned plea rather than an attack. We're all doing our best, but it's not remotely good enough. DFlhb (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. The proposer says that this article should focus on Trump's actions/statments and direct responses to his actions/statments. Milley's statement, blaming himself for going along on the walk Trump ordered him to go on, is as direct a response to his Commander in Chief as he could give without directly criticizing Trump for making Milley accompany him. (Trump was the president; when he says we're going to take a walk, you take a walk.) Milley was not actually present at the photo-op itself, just a portion of the walk.: he was still behind Trump when they walked past the bathroom on H Street opposite St. John’s at 3:56 in the C-SPAN video but did not cross the street towards the church, i.e., he peeled off at the first opportunity short of making a run for it inside the park while being filmed. not ... a significant enough part of Trump's legacy or his presidency: less significant than the Tour de Trump or the star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame or his physician’s 2015 letter stating he would "be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency?" Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  I like your CSPAN video showing Milley getting little attention among many civilians, and the part that shows the door and ground floor windows of the church boarded up [7], presumably as protection against protesters. I like CSPAN because it is unedited and gives a more realistic view. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, as WP editors, we do not use "unedited" i.e. primary sources to evaluate verification or NPOV of BLP content. We rely on the narratives of Reliable Sources, which are reliable due to their editing/reporting/expertise. A view based on such a preference for unedited sources is invalid. SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Here's the edited Trump WH version with the "heroic" soundtrack. Best viewed on computer monitor to get the full effect. Speaks for itself, as for Trump's intent, I think. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  In your recent Trump WH video, Milley's appearance is even less noticeable than in your CSPAN video. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  He's the one in fatigues trying to hide in the herd of suits. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes As is evident from the discussion thread on this page above, that I hereby incorporate by reference. This should never have gone to an RfC because there was no consensus to remove the incident, which is an unprecedented public rebuke of a sitting President by the most senior military officer he commands. I'd be fine with a more conclusary tertiary statement, which the removalists failed to contribute. Removal would violate NPOV and omit critical context for one of the most significant evants in Trump's personal evolution toward fascist signaling and display. I also note that the many additional sources that support the noteworthiness of this event have not been cited by OP, a regrettable omission for a presumably neutral polling process in which less experienced editors may come to cast a quick !vote. OP, tear down this RfC. Abort, please. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• No- Recommend it be placed in the Trump administration page, as it took place during that time. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  That does not present a reasoned evaluation of the text. Most of what's in this page took place during his time as President. SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  My position on this topic, hasn't changed. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• No per the other no’s. Additionally, I don’t think General Milley apologizing, by itself, tells us anything significant about Trump. We would have to include more context to suggest anything about Trump, and the additional context would then be undue weight. So it’s better to cover in Wikipedia articles where it won’t be undue weight. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Milley's apology is a specific rebuttal to Trump's actions of the day, it is relevant to the article. Zaathras (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• No - Maybe include in one of the sub articles, if at all. --Malerooster (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• No Per Checkers and Nemov. Milley’s comments are more relevant at his BLP. I don’t see how this sound byte is DUE for Trump’s already too detailed article. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Strong No per arguments by Checkers, DFlhb and others. We don't need everything tertiary that has happened during Trump's presidency. It's not important enough IMO to be included, though it fits at Mark Milley and maybe Presidency of Donald Trump.

Also, SPECIFICO commented this in the prior discussion: The actions and statements of Trump in this incident are one of a handful of defining moments that reveal his personal stance and agenda. Like the Charlottesville march and the Putin/Helsinki. The statement by Milley, still in command of the institutions Trump sought to subvert, was an extraordinary and unprecedented action that gives definitive context to who and what Trump is about. Maybe, but this is a) original research/unsourced and b) only hints at the idea instead of directly making the claim, which is what it should do. Cessaune [talk] 03:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The weight of secondary and tertiary RS reporting on this clearly supports my statment, and no -- editors are not required to cite sources in talk page discussions. The "claim" that Milley condemned this is explicit and it's what you apparently call "tertiary". Ironically ''that'' is not only Original Research but is inconsistent with the mainstream narratives on the issue. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• No — The subject was already covered by the previous sentence in the section, "Many retired military leaders and defense officials condemned Trump's proposal to use the U.S. military against anti-police brutality protesters.[286]" Removing the Milley sentence, which is evidently very difficult to do, is a drop in the bucket of items that should be removed from a bloated Political career section.

Bob K31416 (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes - The subject is not entirely covered by the previous sentence, which is about criticism from retired personnel. This one sentence is about the then and now serving chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Political criticism from any serving officer is highly unusual, much less criticism of the US President by the highest-ranking officer in the US Armed Forces. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Milley is not criticizing Donald Trump through this apology. He's an active general and they tend to not be political; hence, why they don't clap at the state of the union address and also why it would indeed be unusual to see a general criticize the president over a policy choice. His apology is about his own poor-choice to join a walk that gave the impression that he was involved in politics. That doesn't have anything to do with Trump and should not be seen as Milley criticizing Trump because it's only about his own actions. If you still want to say it's criticism, it would be appreciated if you provided RS describing the apology as a form of criticism of Trump. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  OK, then it is definitely not covered in the previous sentence and is an important addition as it removes the implication that he supported Trump's actions by walking at his side through the cleared field of protesters. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  O3000, I wrote that the subject was covered and you make a straw man argument of not entirely covered, which I think is not an appropriate goal. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  My argument's clothing had a complete lack of thrashed grain. In any case, reading Iamreallygoodatcheckers's response, it now appears it wasn't covered at all. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  The subject was Trump's use of the military re protesters. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  And you don't think The general's statement was along those lines, as Checker's quotes from Haberman make clear? The point is that the highest ranking member of the military made it clear that he considered this stroll a political act which he had been ordered to attend at odds with the Constitution. I think this meets DUE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Responding to Checkers: As I wrote above, Milley's statement, blaming himself for going along on the walk Trump ordered him to go on, is as direct a response to his Commander in Chief as he could give without directly criticizing Trump for making Milley accompany him. Quoting from Maggie Haberman’s "Confidence Man", pg. 436, after Trump called himself "your president of law and order" and the protests "acts of domestic terror" in the Rose Garden speech: Suddenly, cabinet officials and White House staff were being lined up to walk out the north side entrance of the White Houe; they were told Trump wanted them to join him looking at the damage outside. … Milley and Esper walked out of the White House alongside Trump, but Esper quickly realized that they had been "duped" into something. Milley pulled away en route, telling an aide "this is fucked up" as he did.. Pg. 438: Esper and Milley were incensed to have been used as props in what was clearly a political portrayal of Trump against the protesters. Both drafted memos the following day, on June 2, choreographed for when they’d be released; together, they underscored an oath to the Constitution, the military remaining apolitical and the right to freedom of speech. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's what sub-articles are for. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• No per Iamreallygoodatcheckers. The sentence is about Milley, not about Trump. Station1 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• No - per everyone else. Not about Trump the man, not a rebuttal of him, and not important enough to be on this article - belongs elsewhere, where it can be given context. Pincrete (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes it was a direct apology by an incumbent JSC Chair of an action taken with a sitting president. That sort of rebuke is massive compared to anything this side of Truman-McArhtur. It is eminently relevant, newsworthy, directly involved in the contemporary history of the period and Trump's life. Imagine if this happened to any other president. Volvlogia (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Absolutely it belongs here. I have spent too many years here working too hard to present articles for people that really want to understand the topics and not those that hardly even have time to finish reading the lead, let alone the entire article. SPECIFICO got it right as do the others that voted yes, for example Volvlogia and many others. Sectionworker (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Weak no. This strikes me as too much intricate detail. The sentence is not really about Trump – it's about Milley's comment on Milley's own participation in an event organized by Trump. Even the lead of the article about the photo op doesn't go into this much detail about Milley's comment. This is a long article, because there is obviously a lot to cover, so we can only go into the broad strokes of any specific incident. Milley's statement should of course be covered in other articles such as Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church that have more room to go into detail. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• No, and on articles for subjects with this much coverage, our first instinct should always be to remove unless something is essential for a broad overview. As has been said above, the appropriate place for this is Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church. This article struggles with WP:SUMMARY as it is, and squabbling about the inclusion of each sentence makes it impossible to clean up articles like this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• No. This is not significant in Trump's life. It can adequately be covered in the photo op article.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• No. Not biographical for Trump, and also WP:UNDUE for Trump. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• No As others have said already, the sentence doesn't have much to do with Donald Trump himself; it belongs more on the Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church article instead. Some1 (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes: With due respect to those who think this was "about Milley, not Trump", it was a statement by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs about how the military (including him) had been used for Trump's political publicity stunt – which, in light of the long national tradition of keeping the military out of domestic partisan politics, is a profound condemnation of Trump. That this same incident also trampled the separation of religion and government, and the religious freedom of that church's own staff and clergy (who were among those violently forced off church grounds for Trump's photo-op) makes this a three-fer of shame. It would be worthwhile quoting one of those church personnel, too. – _•Raven  ^.talk 22:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• NoThis, imo, would constitute unnecessary article creep. WP:CREEPAKerdooskis (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers Why an RfC for this? You can start with a regular talk page discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

We’ve already tried right above. It hasn’t solved the issue. We need outside input. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 08:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah sorry I missed that discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Withdraw RfC Chex, Please, we don't jump to an RfC on a discussion that failed or disappointed a few editors. This is the worst way to collaborate on contentious talk pages. Please withdraw this. There is no deadline for your advocacy or views, but formalizing the discussion when even your !vote above, does not reflect the views raised in the prior discussion - that's the worst thing for any talk page. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This is textbook WP:RFCBEFORE. That discussion did not result in a consensus or agreement and you and I both know it isn’t going too. We can get this over with now in the next month or we can rediscuss it for the rest our natural lives in the talk page with repeated threads like the Abraham Accords. Also, my !vote above is the based on the same principles I discussed above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

No, that's an utter and total misunderstanding of what's at that link. Not every discussion needs to go to an RfC just because some editors fail to disengage when they don't win consensus. This kind of pointless RfC wastes the time and attention of volunteer editors and is a drain on the project. Please withdraw. Your repeated insistence on your principles, which have now failed to respond numerous times to the reason for rejecting the disputed removal, is just more proof that the RfC needs to be withdrawn. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a perfectly valid RFC to me, especially judging by the interesting and varied responses to it thus far. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. I understand, and somewhat agree with what you're saying here SPECIFICO, but this RfC follows all the main tenets of RFCBEFORE:

a) it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC. Tried that; got nowhere.

b) Doesn't fall under any of the other dispute resolution mechanisms.

You can argue that it wastes editor time, and I somewhat agree that this issue is not important enough to go to RfC; it really comes down to editor opinion, however. Cessaune [talk] 15:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"Got nowhere" is a POV version of "the discussion failed to change the established consensus text". Most discussions "get nowhere" in that sense. It's highly disruptive to encourage a small group of editors with marginal or fringe editorial suggestions by hardening the discussion into an RfC. The RfC posts one editor's up or down version of the issue, as if it were black and white and there were no room for a compromise or all-inclusive solution. Just for example, we could mention Milley in the preceding sentence while avoiding the second separate sentence that cites him. But OP, by unilaterally deciding that he will declare an RfC on his terms with his yes-or-no question, has prevented spontaneous collaborative work here. @Iamverygoodatcheckers: withdraw this RfC and remember the editorial version of the Hippocratic Oath. First do no harm. Undue RfCs harm collaborative resolution on article talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

a) The RfC question only pertains to this specific sentence. Other important Milley info can be included elsewhere if we feel it's due. We can mention Milley in the preceding sentence while avoiding the second separate sentence that cites him, so I don't get your point here. I don't think anyone is against including something like including General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time.

b) A lot of what you just said was your own opinion treated as if it were fact: marginal or fringe, highly disruptive, undue RfC and others. I don't necessarily disagree, but treat your opinions like opinions.

c) Quite a few people have already commented and no one except for you is calling for this. It's not going to be withdrawn. Cessaune [talk] 18:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

WRT (A) - that's exactly the problem. If it is decided to remove this sentence, I can guarantee you that any attempt to include a different sentence about Milley will be attacked as "against the RfC" etc. etc. Just look at the antics at other politics articles where a vocal minority shuts down improvement by pointing to a narrow RfC as if it were a broader poll on other related wording. And if as you seem to suggest this is only about this one sentence, consider whether any article could ever be improved one sentence at a time in isolation and without regard to alternative sentences that state similar content. WTR (B) I have written no opinion or statement of fact or statement presented as fact. WRT (c) Irrelevant. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The RfC is about the sentence, but it's also about the apology being mentioned; that's what the sentence is about and it's what every reasoned response above is striking at. The apology being mentioned or not is a black-and-white question. The RfC will not be withdrawn; several editors are participating in it and you're the only one that's complaining about the RfC. Maybe a bigger issue is the tendency for us to keep in content that discussions (like the one above) reveal a lack of consensus for, yet we keep it in just because it's the status quo. That's also problematic with WP:BLPRESTORE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

a) Maybe, but everyone reasoned on this page (quite a few nowadays) will not read it like that. Provide a wording and a source and let's discuss potential inclusion of something like that. ...consider whether any article could ever be improved one sentence at a time in isolation and without regard to alternative sentences that state similar content—it's not that it isn't possible to regard any alternate wordings, it's that no one has. Yes, I agree, but I don't think that's what's happening.

The RfC posts one editor's up or down version of the issue, as if it were black and white and there were no room for a compromise or all-inclusive solution—I don't agree. Here's OP's sentence: Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now) under the subsection Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op? I feel like this leaves room for a compromise. Again, present your wording and a source.

b) Saying things like Undue RfC so matter-of-factly and without first stating that its your opinion is stating your opinion like it's fact. Unless this is, objectively, an undue RfC, which it isn't per Nemov, at least.

Also, I don't think the OP has prevented spontaneous collaborative work here. Let's collaborate. No one's stopping you.

c) I think it's very relevant. You know the RfC isn't going to be withdrawn. Yet you still push. Disagree with the fact that it was started, but you are using up valuable editor time. Pushing for a decision that isn't going to be implemented, no matter how correct you think it is, wastes people's time.

That being said, I don't see why this issue had to go to RfC. If the idea of an RfC had been proposed in the discussion, I would've said no. I don't like using RfCs for every sentence, but I get why Checkers did it. Nothing gets through anymore.

Also, status quo and consensus are two different things, and I don't think there was ever a consensus to include this sentence. ...the discussion failed to change the established consensus text isn't true IMO, as there doesn't seem to have ever been a consensus. A truly NPOV reading would be something along the lines of "the discussion failed to generate a consensus either against or for the sentence's inclusion". Cessaune [talk] 23:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Just because I haven't asked Checkers to withdraw the RfC doesn't mean that I don't think they should, it just means that I think they won't, i.e, it's a waste of time. The discussion petered out after a few days, Checkers wasn't happy with the inconclusive status, hello RfC. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the RfC. It's a perfectly natural step in an ongoing content dispute. Nemov (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The RFC is already in progress, so let it run its (one month) course. There can be only two results. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a super consequential RfC, but nonetheless the oppose arguments are quite weak. The idea that the sentence is not relevant enough to Trump is a stretch–it is about the highest ranking military official that reports directly to the president and was appointed by Trump voicing their concerns on a notable Trump event. The numerous editors adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment carry little weight. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with this reading. It is notable that this happened, but the argument is that it's too trivial in its relation to Trump. Secondly, an argument based on previous arguments is valid. Seconding someone else's argument is common RfC practice. (You can argue, and I would argue, that people turn their !vote into a normal vote by seconding literally everyone, without talking specifically about what they agree with.) Cessaune [talk] 20:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It may be common practice, but it does nothing to add to the discussion, and as you mention, it's not a vote. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It's common practice, so don't condemn it, especially when the group you are condemning is the group you disagree with. Cessaune [talk] 00:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Uh, don't tell me what do? Being common practice does not absolve it from all criticism. And it is not my fault that the only ones who are just repeating arguments saying "per X" are all on the opposing side. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair. Cessaune [talk] 15:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

FormalDude, Re your comment "...it is about the highest ranking military official that reports directly to the president and was appointed by Trump voicing their concerns on a notable Trump event." — Read the sentence again. It does not say anything about Milley expressing his concerns about the event itself, only his concern about "creat[ing] the perception of the military involved in domestic politics". Bob K31416 (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Bob, read RS accounts of this. The event was a kickoff for Trump's threats to send the military into Seattle's and other woke hotspots. SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This RFC is about one sentence, not what you are talking about. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I attempted to remind you of the subject of said sentence. Please read the article and cited sources for that section. Here's another good one. SPECIFICO talk 00:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you can't just say this. It doesn't make this connection in the article (or maybe it does; if so, can you point me to it?) It's irrelevant until you provide a source. Cessaune [talk] 00:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It's irrelavant even with a source because the sentence of this RFC is not about that. Here it is, "The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, later apologized for accompanying Trump on the walk and thereby "creat[ing] the perception of the military involved in domestic politics".[1]" Bob K31416 (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that this RfC about a biography wasn't even listed in "Biographies". Also, the incident in question being about an event produced for media consumption, I added "Media", as well, and "History", which seems just as relevant as "Society, sports, and culture". I'm not sure whether listing the categories the way I did is sufficient or whether I need to do something different to alert the bot. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes: With due respect to those who think this was "about Milley, not Trump", it was a statement by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs about how the military (including him) had been used for Trump's political publicity stunt – which, in light of the long national tradition of keeping the military out of domestic partisan politics, is a profound condemnation of Trump. That this same incident also trampled the separation of religion and government, and the religious freedom of that church's own staff and clergy (who were among those violently forced off church grounds for Trump's photo-op) makes this a three-fer of shame. It would be worthwhile quoting one of those church personnel, too. – _•Raven  ^.talk 22:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC) Moved this up to the survey section Cessaune [talk] 01:15, 10 April 2023 (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.

Bankruptcy date for Trump Taj Mahal

Current text is "Trump bought a third Atlantic City venue in 1988, the Trump Taj Mahal. It was financed with $675 million in junk bonds and completed for $1.1 billion, opening in April 1990. It went bankrupt in 1989."

I propose to correct the last sentence to: "It filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 1991." source Please note the change of year (1989 -> 1991). Jeran Renz (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I corrected the date and changed the wording per your suggestion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Petition to upload an audio voice file for Donald Trump

Given that all U.S. presidents who are known to have an audio recording of their voice have one uploaded onto their Wikipedia page I think it's only fitting that Donald Trump has one as well. That being said I do not have enough edit access to upload any myself so I would like to request someone with high enough edit access do so in my stead. I have uploaded a short, concise, and non-controversial audio Clip of Donald Trump announcing the formation of the U.S. Space Command that should satisfy all parties as a non-controversial audio recording of him. If you would like, it should be the most recent audio recording of him in the Wikimedia Commons section, however I have also provided the file in full as it appears here: Donald Trump on the formation of the United States Space Command.ogg

Additionally, the date this event took place was August 29th 2019. LosPajaros (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Previous discussion here. I see the point of audio files for birds or the mating call of the red deer, or rare audio files from 1900 or even the fifties or sixties. I don’t see the point of voice samples for present-day celebrities. You can find video and audio for anyone currently in politics, show business, sports, and any other celebrities all over the place. But someone started adding voice audios recently, and now apparently all.articles.on.presidents.must.have.them. A Wikimedia Commons search for "Donald Trump" produced some interesting results - definitely wasn’t expecting Pence’s entrance music at rallies to be All right now. If we absolutely have to have a voice file, I could live with the 3:49 Space Command thing ("The United States combatant commands were developed to join branches of our harm forces … essential to tiktacting and destroying … "). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Not opposed to a voice file, but he should be speaking naturally in it, and that's not the SPACECOM audio. You're most likely to find that if you look for recordings from 2015-2016, or even as far back as the 80s. Since around 2018 or so, almost every speech he gives sounds halting and bad, but it's not representative of his overall voice throughout his life. DFlhb (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Trump has had a long and varied career, but before becoming president there was nothing particularly noteworthy about his voice or speech. Interest and coverage has only really taken off since 2016, with extensive coverage of his odd style and mannerisms. If we're going to include an audio sample, it would be disingenuous for it to not be something along the lines of "I Never Understood Wind". Zaathras (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

That video is acceptable, because you'll notice he's not speaking haltingly, and the intonation/volume is relatively representative of his overall speech patterns. DFlhb (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

This is what Wikimedia Commons has to offer when you search for "Donald Trump" and "Audio", and most of the files are about Donald Trump, not him talking. He waxes incoherent on a lot of clips but most of them are not in the public domain. As for a typical speech pattern, he has several, "pitched somewhere between a squawk and a scream", per the above WaPo "extensive coverage" source. One of them is the monotonous drone when he reads off the teleprompter as in the Space Command clip. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why we're treating Donald Trump differently than all the other U.S. Presidents and all others with audio files. when people know they're speaking to an audience in an important setting everyone changes the way they speak on some small level. that's not new. Just because Trump isn't speaking as though he was at a campaign rally doesn't mean that's not his voice. the Audio file for Obama announcing the assassination of Osama bin Laden is different from his more casual manner of speaking at dinner parties or on the campaign trail. The fact is of course he's going to talk differently on the campaign trail but the manner he talks on the campaign trail is exaggerated too because he's playing for the crowd. Just because he's not yelling and screaming about something like he would at a campaign rally doesn't mean he's not speaking normally. If you look up speeches of him casually talking to reporters he's not that different from talking here. Yes it's slightly more stilted because it's a formal event but he still has his typical speaking patterns present it's just not in an exaggerated way which he does when he's campaigning. Also this is from his announcment and signing of the U.S. Space Command by the way. I got the clip from C-Span. Here is the link of the audio announcing it if you don't believe me:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?463778-1/president-trump-launches-us-space-command LosPajaros (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Introducing a voice file on this BLP, might cause a dispute over which voice file to add. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

If we were to include a voice file, it would have to be him saying something benign. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed; I've stressed on another talk page that the files are purely there to showcase vocal characteristics, not personal idiosyncracies. DFlhb (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty with the concept of any audio clip that wasn't an historical event. In which case, it shouldn't be added until we know that years from now. But then, I don't understand why signatures were ever added. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support adding something. Nearly every president has a voice file. Trump shouldn't be an exception to the rule. We should remain consistent. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support as well, I brought this up before, but there was resistance. ValarianB (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - if it's neutral in nature. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Though I am confused by the especial focus on audio, disregarding video, which seems to me like it would be far more informative on multiple fronts. Heavy Water (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Should be included, consistent with every other president. For now, maybe not his American Carnage inauguration speech :) ... I always thought it was a great addition to the pages. -Teammm ^talk? 22:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support: I think the addition of voice samples to biographies is pretty neat.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - An addition like this helps to give context to Trump. It's consistent with other articles on US presidents. Cessaune [talk] 00:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Consistent with the other US president infoboxes. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - For sake of being consistent with other presidential infoboxes. Planetberaure (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support because why not?—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - at this point someone needs to go add a voice file. There is clearly an emerging consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I went ahead and added the Space Command one (File:Donald Trump on the formation of the United States Space Command.ogg). There doesn't appear to be a lot of other good options on Wikimedia Commons other than this very brief clip File:White House audio of Trump's WSJ interview.ogg or this speech about the 2020 election File:Donald Trump voice.ogg (which for obvious reasons I don't think we want to use). If there ends up being clear consensus against the space command one we may need to upload a new audio clip to commons. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'd much prefer his response to Assad's use of chemical weapons, which is more representative of his usual speaking style (see my criticism of the SPACECOM clip above), and is more in line with other U.S. presidents (for example, Obama's clip is on bin Laden, Nixon's clip is about the Cold War, and Roosevelt's clip is on Pearl Harbor); they tend to be speeches not about their own policies, but about significant world events. DFlhb (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have set up an Audio file of the Syrian Missile Strike if the Editors feel as though it would be more appropriate. The File is as follows:

  File:Donald Trump Ordering Missile Attacks in Retaliation for Syrian Chemical Strikes.ogg

  The date of the Video release was April 6th 2017 as was stated by the Department of Defense website.

  Again, the specific strike he is referring to is labeled the '2017 Shayrat missile strike' in Wikipedia at large in case anyone wants to apply the crosslinkage. LosPajaros (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Lovely; thanks. The audio quality also seems a lot better. DFlhb (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Current event tag until the conclusion of his trial

We know he’s going to plead Not Guilty, so there’s going to be a trial. Givin the amount of attention to his article it will obviously bring I think that the current event tag is necessary throughout it. 2A00:23C7:6140:C601:F150:C4A7:AD40:15AA (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

there's no much editing to be done here, most will be at Indictment of Donald Trump. ValarianB (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Page views

Should we keep or delete this template from the talk page?

Space4Time3Continuum2x is keen on removing it so what do you think? 195.20.17.82 (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Does not appear to be a useful or interesting metric. ValarianB (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Not needed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 13:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Remove it. It's pretty useless, and not all that interesting. Cessaune [talk] 18:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

In....what

In history, surely...? 31.54.248.212 (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

? What are you asking? Cessaune [talk] 05:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Aaron Burr

I added info on how Burr was previously the highest ranking official charged. I see why it was removed, but wanted to know what others thought. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Your edit summary said this was "historical context". How so, and does "first former president" need more context than "first"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I see it being unneeded, but it seemed like it was worth mentioning that prior to, a Vice President had been the highest before Trump. Given that it occurred after both left office, I thought it might be worth bringing up and people who wanted to know more about high executive officials being charged could see Burr and then go to his page to read up on it.3Kingdoms (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2023

LanallahYazid (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Good day, members of the Wikipedia community,

I stand before you today to humbly request that my application for editing rights on Wikipedia be accepted. I am excited at the prospect of contributing to this incredible platform, and I believe that I have much to offer.

Firstly, I would like to express my passion for knowledge and my eagerness to share it with others. I have always had a love for learning, and Wikipedia has been an invaluable resource for me over the years. I am eager to give back to the community by helping to ensure that the information provided on Wikipedia is accurate, reliable, and up-to-date.

Secondly, I am a detail-oriented person who takes great pride in the work that I do. I understand the importance of fact-checking and source verification, and I am committed to ensuring that any contributions I make to Wikipedia are of the highest quality. I am willing to put in the time and effort necessary to make sure that my edits are accurate, informative, and valuable to the community.

Finally, I am respectful of the guidelines and policies set forth by the Wikipedia community. I understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, and that every contribution made has an impact on the quality and credibility of the platform as a whole. I am committed to upholding the standards and expectations set forth by the community, and I believe that I can make a positive contribution to the ongoing growth and development of Wikipedia.

In conclusion, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the opportunity to speak with you today. I hope that my passion for knowledge, attention to detail, and commitment to community guidelines have convinced you that I would be a valuable asset to the Wikipedia editing community. Thank you for your time and consideration.

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. EpicPupper (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

This article as written

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 suggest reading how all other Wikipedia entries are and coming back to this one. It's full of people's emotions and feelings towards the man. It's not a good source for a school paper or any form of report. I suggest it be rewritten to only include facts not linked to controversial or opinionated anecdotes. Instead u can say that he has controversies surrounding him and policy's that many considered negative. But to specify them and to report them as facts when it's speculation and open to interpretation makes this entry biased and too emotional on the writers part. And totally degrades the authenticity of Wikipedia Justsomegirl05 (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

If you have specific examples in the article, mention them them here and it can be discussed, or search the archives of this talk page for possible previous discussions. The article has gone through plenty of writes and rewrites and adjustments throughout the years. The version we have now is a result of that. The article shouldn't and I don't believe has any writers' emotions or speculation, it all should be verifiable and have reliable sources cited. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Justsomegirl05: You are hardly the first to post such a complaint, but they always come from readers who don't understand the relevant Wikipedia policies. To provide a standard response, we created the page Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. You might give it a look, and I hope it will change your perspective. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2023

Add the about template, should have Donald Trump Jr. to the first text, and link "Donald Trump Jr.". ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about his father, and Donald Trump Jr.'s name does not belong in the first sentence or anywhere in the lead. Donald Trump Jr.'s article is linked in the infobox and in the Donald_Trump#Family section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

what I mean is:

first: Donald Trump Sr.

Second: his son:

Donald Trump Jr. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Any reason why we should be doing this? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

For those who are looking for Donald Trump's son. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You mean to change "Children Donald Jr". to "Children Donald Trump Jr because people might not realize that the former means Donald Jnr means his son? Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

no ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

(Not sure if our collective leg is being pulled here.) Trump has more than one son, and those looking for Donald Trump Jr. will just have to search for "Donald Trump Jr." in their browsers (his WP article is probably the top result) or in the WP search bar, or read the infobox or the Donald_Trump#Family section in this article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

There is little to no attempt to be neutral and lack of citation.

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.

---

Just read the main section of the article and you will see exactly what I am talking about. Many of the things mentioned in the main section seemed to be cherry picked to be the negative aspects of Trump, neutral aspects skewed to seem negative, false information or just the author's opinion. There is also only two citations for the whole thing, both relating to the opinion of the media and other institutions known for bias. Jordan LaQuey (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Where the number of citations is concerned, please see WP:LEADCITE. In short, citations that are in the body of an article are to be avoided in the lead. — Czello 22:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Eh... I wouldn't define LEADCITE like this. It's more of a suggestion to do as you see fit when it comes to citations in the lead, and if certain citations prove to be redundant, they can be omitted if wanted. Cessaune [talk] 05:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

"if certain citations prove to be redundant, they can be omitted if wanted." any cite in the lede would be redundant as it has nothing in it not cited in the body. Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

If wanted is the key phrase here: Editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Cessaune [talk] 16:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The article follows what reliable sources say about the subject. If it seems to be overly-negative, then that is a reflection on the subject being mostly well-known for disgracefully and dishonorable activities. As for citations, they are used sparingly in the opening section, you will find many more for the same material in the body of the article. Zaathras (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

826 is too few citations for you? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

In the lead, specifically. Not the entire article. Cessaune [talk] 05:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Vague whining is non-actionable. Be specific. Dricoust (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe write the section in a neutral tone. Balance the amount of slander and facts. 136.50.140.154 (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

These are all facts, are they not? What in the section do you think is "slander"? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Or, what is it you actually object to/want to change? Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

This should not have been de-archived. There is no there there. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Jordan LaQuey, Thanks for your comment and feel free to make further comments here or elsewhere on Wikipedia, if you like. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

As no substantive request has been made, and therefore can't be discussed or actioned I move we close this. Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

My request is to write the section with a more neutral veiw point. Possibly include some things that people consider positive about Trump, provide counter opinions to the ones already presented. Use better diction etc. 136.50.140.154 (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear I don't like Trump. 136.50.140.154 (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Give some examples, is what we mean. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether you "like" Trump or not is irrelevant. This article is written based on the WP:WEIGHT of news coverage. What problems are there with "diction"? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• What about this lead rewrite that was proposed by User:DynaGuy00 a while back? It had substantial support in this discussion. Of course it would have to be updated to reflect what we know now, but I feel it's just generally better written. Cessaune [talk] 16:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Becasue it had been rejected and no new arguments have been made to change that decision. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Rejected? By who? Cessaune [talk] 16:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  By the people who either did not enact it, or changed it to what we have today. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  There was substantial support in the discussion, and the major issues that people had with it were sorted out. The 'links in the lead RfC' killed the discussion, but to say it was "rejected" is an uninformed statement. Cessaune [talk] 16:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  So it was rejected, as a discussion killed it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Have you actually read the discussion? Cessaune [talk] 16:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Then why was it killed by 'links in the lead RfC'? Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Again, have you actually read the discussion? The RfC killed it because it was so intensive, IMO. Cessaune [talk] 17:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  And what I see are a lot of discussions that seem to be about a different version to the one you link to, so changes were clearly made during the discussion. Hell its even mentioned, and people are asked to recast based upon the changes (which they did not, what I assume you mean by "The RfC killed it because it was so intensive". Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. The entire point was that there was some support for the change, and the issues brought up in the discussion were fixed, for the most part. We can try to revive it, or not. I think we should. Cessaune [talk] 17:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  OK, then suggest a new text (in a new thread, as this one is not about this text, nor does it seem to address some of the issues). Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Despite efforts, Bob K31416 continues to disrupt this talk page by insisting on keeping a discussion open that will ultimately serve no purpose. ValarianB (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Then report them, this is not the place to discuss their conduct. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

JL - It would help if you would propose what you'd like added to this BLP, word-by-word. Simply saying 'add something positive', is too vague. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about figuring out how to make a WIP page and proposing it. 136.50.140.154 (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I assume you are Jordan LaQuey, signed out? GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Well, we now have 32 edits in this thread and not one that shows examples of cherry-picking, bias, or skewing facts. Same as the previous times this discussion has taken place. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2023 (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.

RfC: Mark Milley apology

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RfC concerns the inclusion of the sentence as presented below. WP:ONUS dictates that it is up to those seeking to include content to rally consensus. As of the moment of writing, the sentence is included in the article. A discussion preceded this RfC.

Proponents were outnumbered by the opposers two-to-one. Those arguing for retaining the passage suggested that Milley's apology was basically a veiled rebuke of his boss, and since he could not refuse his orders, this is about as big a repudiation of Trump as he could make. They argued it is important to mention for context, as Milley's apology was highly unusual in the circumstances. For opposers, the fragment is about Milley not Trump. It also clutters the already too large article with relatively minor details, so they belong in articles with narrower scope. Finally, if the criticism of Trump's actions is to be included, it must be directly stated and not inferred from the text's framing.

For several reasons, the proponents failed to establish consensus to include. The !vote count does not favour the "yes" side. The proponents did not address the argument that the article must be trimmed and did not look for shorter alternatives to the text.

As for the implication of criticism that the proponents want to give by including this statement, it does not convince me as a strong argument. Writing that that apology is veiled criticism without a source stating so could reasonably be treated as an unsupported assertion. If you mean to say that was a rebuke, why not write it upfront and why stick to an apology?

There might be relevant scholarly commentary or journalist analysis on what this incident tells about Trump's broader style of governance (authoritarian? egoist?). It is not there yet, but new sourcing may justify inclusion. Another suggested possibility is to merge Milley's reaction with the previous sentence, whom it does not cover for now. This may be discussed. But for now, there is clearly no consensus to retain the fragment. The reason for this outcome is that according to WP:NOCON, disputed content about living persons generally gets removed for no consensus closures, and I see no good reason presented in this discussion to override that recommendation. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now) under the subsection Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op?

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, later apologized for accompanying Trump on the walk and thereby "creat[ing] the perception of the military involved in domestic politics".

Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 07:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Added categories bio, media, and hist to publication lists. See discussion below. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Survey

• No - This article should be in summary-level description of aspects of his presidency. Mark Milley's apology is significant and important but it's not relevant enough to Trump the man to be mentioned in this BLP. Save the apology for Mark Milley, Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church, and even Presidency of Donald Trump, but not this long-article in need of a trim. Here it's only serving as bloat. I will contend to you that this article should focus on Trump's actions/statments and direct responses to his actions/statments. This article is not about Mark Milley's after-the-fact reflection on his own actions and their effects on the image of the military/country. This article is about Trump, not Mark Milley. Also, Milley was not actually present at the photo-op itself, just a portion of the walk. So, I'm not seeing how Milley's walk and subsequent apology could be seen as a significant enough part of Trump's legacy or his presidency to be in this summary-level description. I think you get the point I'm trying to make here; this article needs to stay on topic. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 07:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe you'll want to consider more fully if you review all the RS coverage showing Milley in his military uniform resolutely marching through the park. Trump, media genius, got exactly the images he wanted to project and Milley's apology for enabling that is essentially and entirely about Trump and his projection of strongman brutality on peaceful US civilians. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes As it serves to undercut an administration mistruth about the attempt to burn the church down. Trump wanted a military response, and this is a one-sentence summation of the matter, expanded on at the next article. ValarianB (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• No Per Iamreallygoodatcheckers. This might be a relevant part of Milley's biography, but it's not a significant part of Trump's life. Nemov (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• No per User:Nemov&User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers - This would be a good thing to include in other articles (e.g. Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church and Mark Milley), but here it would be WP:UNDUE. NickCT (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Leaning no. Let's face it; the main reason for that sentence's inclusion (and indeed, for the entire section's inclusion) was what SPECIFICO succinctly expressed in this comment. The whole section solely exists to highlight Trump's authoritarian character, but it fails to make any of those points explicitly. I'm tired of this article "alluding" and "hinting" at things we should be stating directly. We're only doing that because our current sources are too weak to support an explicit statement, and because we're too lazy to find a source that would.

We need a source that says that Trump ordered the Square's clearing, one that says that Trump did it for ego-related reasons, one that says the clearing was a blatant violation of freedom of assembly, and one that says that it reveals Trump's authoritarian character. That's what the section is trying to say, but we resort to meekly hinting at it because we're too lazy to look for sources that would allow us to say it outright. It's pathetic. The section should be centred around Trump ordering the military to violate American citizens' rights, followed by (attributed) explanations of how this violates the Constitution/Bill of Rights/whatever. Nothing else is due.

Rant over, and I plead with others to read this as an impassioned plea rather than an attack. We're all doing our best, but it's not remotely good enough. DFlhb (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. The proposer says that this article should focus on Trump's actions/statments and direct responses to his actions/statments. Milley's statement, blaming himself for going along on the walk Trump ordered him to go on, is as direct a response to his Commander in Chief as he could give without directly criticizing Trump for making Milley accompany him. (Trump was the president; when he says we're going to take a walk, you take a walk.) Milley was not actually present at the photo-op itself, just a portion of the walk.: he was still behind Trump when they walked past the bathroom on H Street opposite St. John’s at 3:56 in the C-SPAN video but did not cross the street towards the church, i.e., he peeled off at the first opportunity short of making a run for it inside the park while being filmed. not ... a significant enough part of Trump's legacy or his presidency: less significant than the Tour de Trump or the star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame or his physician’s 2015 letter stating he would "be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency?" Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  I like your CSPAN video showing Milley getting little attention among many civilians, and the part that shows the door and ground floor windows of the church boarded up [8], presumably as protection against protesters. I like CSPAN because it is unedited and gives a more realistic view. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, as WP editors, we do not use "unedited" i.e. primary sources to evaluate verification or NPOV of BLP content. We rely on the narratives of Reliable Sources, which are reliable due to their editing/reporting/expertise. A view based on such a preference for unedited sources is invalid. SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Here's the edited Trump WH version with the "heroic" soundtrack. Best viewed on computer monitor to get the full effect. Speaks for itself, as for Trump's intent, I think. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  In your recent Trump WH video, Milley's appearance is even less noticeable than in your CSPAN video. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  He's the one in fatigues trying to hide in the herd of suits. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes As is evident from the discussion thread on this page above, that I hereby incorporate by reference. This should never have gone to an RfC because there was no consensus to remove the incident, which is an unprecedented public rebuke of a sitting President by the most senior military officer he commands. I'd be fine with a more conclusary tertiary statement, which the removalists failed to contribute. Removal would violate NPOV and omit critical context for one of the most significant evants in Trump's personal evolution toward fascist signaling and display. I also note that the many additional sources that support the noteworthiness of this event have not been cited by OP, a regrettable omission for a presumably neutral polling process in which less experienced editors may come to cast a quick !vote. OP, tear down this RfC. Abort, please. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• No- Recommend it be placed in the Trump administration page, as it took place during that time. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  That does not present a reasoned evaluation of the text. Most of what's in this page took place during his time as President. SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  My position on this topic, hasn't changed. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• No per the other no’s. Additionally, I don’t think General Milley apologizing, by itself, tells us anything significant about Trump. We would have to include more context to suggest anything about Trump, and the additional context would then be undue weight. So it’s better to cover in Wikipedia articles where it won’t be undue weight. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Milley's apology is a specific rebuttal to Trump's actions of the day, it is relevant to the article. Zaathras (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• No - Maybe include in one of the sub articles, if at all. --Malerooster (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• No Per Checkers and Nemov. Milley’s comments are more relevant at his BLP. I don’t see how this sound byte is DUE for Trump’s already too detailed article. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Strong No per arguments by Checkers, DFlhb and others. We don't need everything tertiary that has happened during Trump's presidency. It's not important enough IMO to be included, though it fits at Mark Milley and maybe Presidency of Donald Trump.

Also, SPECIFICO commented this in the prior discussion: The actions and statements of Trump in this incident are one of a handful of defining moments that reveal his personal stance and agenda. Like the Charlottesville march and the Putin/Helsinki. The statement by Milley, still in command of the institutions Trump sought to subvert, was an extraordinary and unprecedented action that gives definitive context to who and what Trump is about. Maybe, but this is a) original research/unsourced and b) only hints at the idea instead of directly making the claim, which is what it should do. Cessaune [talk] 03:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The weight of secondary and tertiary RS reporting on this clearly supports my statment, and no -- editors are not required to cite sources in talk page discussions. The "claim" that Milley condemned this is explicit and it's what you apparently call "tertiary". Ironically ''that'' is not only Original Research but is inconsistent with the mainstream narratives on the issue. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• No — The subject was already covered by the previous sentence in the section, "Many retired military leaders and defense officials condemned Trump's proposal to use the U.S. military against anti-police brutality protesters.[286]" Removing the Milley sentence, which is evidently very difficult to do, is a drop in the bucket of items that should be removed from a bloated Political career section.

Bob K31416 (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes - The subject is not entirely covered by the previous sentence, which is about criticism from retired personnel. This one sentence is about the then and now serving chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Political criticism from any serving officer is highly unusual, much less criticism of the US President by the highest-ranking officer in the US Armed Forces. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Milley is not criticizing Donald Trump through this apology. He's an active general and they tend to not be political; hence, why they don't clap at the state of the union address and also why it would indeed be unusual to see a general criticize the president over a policy choice. His apology is about his own poor-choice to join a walk that gave the impression that he was involved in politics. That doesn't have anything to do with Trump and should not be seen as Milley criticizing Trump because it's only about his own actions. If you still want to say it's criticism, it would be appreciated if you provided RS describing the apology as a form of criticism of Trump. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  OK, then it is definitely not covered in the previous sentence and is an important addition as it removes the implication that he supported Trump's actions by walking at his side through the cleared field of protesters. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  O3000, I wrote that the subject was covered and you make a straw man argument of not entirely covered, which I think is not an appropriate goal. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  My argument's clothing had a complete lack of thrashed grain. In any case, reading Iamreallygoodatcheckers's response, it now appears it wasn't covered at all. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  The subject was Trump's use of the military re protesters. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  And you don't think The general's statement was along those lines, as Checker's quotes from Haberman make clear? The point is that the highest ranking member of the military made it clear that he considered this stroll a political act which he had been ordered to attend at odds with the Constitution. I think this meets DUE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Responding to Checkers: As I wrote above, Milley's statement, blaming himself for going along on the walk Trump ordered him to go on, is as direct a response to his Commander in Chief as he could give without directly criticizing Trump for making Milley accompany him. Quoting from Maggie Haberman’s "Confidence Man", pg. 436, after Trump called himself "your president of law and order" and the protests "acts of domestic terror" in the Rose Garden speech: Suddenly, cabinet officials and White House staff were being lined up to walk out the north side entrance of the White Houe; they were told Trump wanted them to join him looking at the damage outside. … Milley and Esper walked out of the White House alongside Trump, but Esper quickly realized that they had been "duped" into something. Milley pulled away en route, telling an aide "this is fucked up" as he did.. Pg. 438: Esper and Milley were incensed to have been used as props in what was clearly a political portrayal of Trump against the protesters. Both drafted memos the following day, on June 2, choreographed for when they’d be released; together, they underscored an oath to the Constitution, the military remaining apolitical and the right to freedom of speech. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's what sub-articles are for. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• No per Iamreallygoodatcheckers. The sentence is about Milley, not about Trump. Station1 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• No - per everyone else. Not about Trump the man, not a rebuttal of him, and not important enough to be on this article - belongs elsewhere, where it can be given context. Pincrete (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes it was a direct apology by an incumbent JSC Chair of an action taken with a sitting president. That sort of rebuke is massive compared to anything this side of Truman-McArhtur. It is eminently relevant, newsworthy, directly involved in the contemporary history of the period and Trump's life. Imagine if this happened to any other president. Volvlogia (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Absolutely it belongs here. I have spent too many years here working too hard to present articles for people that really want to understand the topics and not those that hardly even have time to finish reading the lead, let alone the entire article. SPECIFICO got it right as do the others that voted yes, for example Volvlogia and many others. Sectionworker (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Weak no. This strikes me as too much intricate detail. The sentence is not really about Trump – it's about Milley's comment on Milley's own participation in an event organized by Trump. Even the lead of the article about the photo op doesn't go into this much detail about Milley's comment. This is a long article, because there is obviously a lot to cover, so we can only go into the broad strokes of any specific incident. Milley's statement should of course be covered in other articles such as Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church that have more room to go into detail. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• No, and on articles for subjects with this much coverage, our first instinct should always be to remove unless something is essential for a broad overview. As has been said above, the appropriate place for this is Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church. This article struggles with WP:SUMMARY as it is, and squabbling about the inclusion of each sentence makes it impossible to clean up articles like this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• No. This is not significant in Trump's life. It can adequately be covered in the photo op article.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• No. Not biographical for Trump, and also WP:UNDUE for Trump. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• No As others have said already, the sentence doesn't have much to do with Donald Trump himself; it belongs more on the Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church article instead. Some1 (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes: With due respect to those who think this was "about Milley, not Trump", it was a statement by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs about how the military (including him) had been used for Trump's political publicity stunt – which, in light of the long national tradition of keeping the military out of domestic partisan politics, is a profound condemnation of Trump. That this same incident also trampled the separation of religion and government, and the religious freedom of that church's own staff and clergy (who were among those violently forced off church grounds for Trump's photo-op) makes this a three-fer of shame. It would be worthwhile quoting one of those church personnel, too. – _•Raven  ^.talk 22:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• NoThis, imo, would constitute unnecessary article creep. WP:CREEPAKerdooskis (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers Why an RfC for this? You can start with a regular talk page discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

We’ve already tried right above. It hasn’t solved the issue. We need outside input. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 08:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah sorry I missed that discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Withdraw RfC Chex, Please, we don't jump to an RfC on a discussion that failed or disappointed a few editors. This is the worst way to collaborate on contentious talk pages. Please withdraw this. There is no deadline for your advocacy or views, but formalizing the discussion when even your !vote above, does not reflect the views raised in the prior discussion - that's the worst thing for any talk page. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This is textbook WP:RFCBEFORE. That discussion did not result in a consensus or agreement and you and I both know it isn’t going too. We can get this over with now in the next month or we can rediscuss it for the rest our natural lives in the talk page with repeated threads like the Abraham Accords. Also, my !vote above is the based on the same principles I discussed above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

No, that's an utter and total misunderstanding of what's at that link. Not every discussion needs to go to an RfC just because some editors fail to disengage when they don't win consensus. This kind of pointless RfC wastes the time and attention of volunteer editors and is a drain on the project. Please withdraw. Your repeated insistence on your principles, which have now failed to respond numerous times to the reason for rejecting the disputed removal, is just more proof that the RfC needs to be withdrawn. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a perfectly valid RFC to me, especially judging by the interesting and varied responses to it thus far. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. I understand, and somewhat agree with what you're saying here SPECIFICO, but this RfC follows all the main tenets of RFCBEFORE:

a) it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC. Tried that; got nowhere.

b) Doesn't fall under any of the other dispute resolution mechanisms.

You can argue that it wastes editor time, and I somewhat agree that this issue is not important enough to go to RfC; it really comes down to editor opinion, however. Cessaune [talk] 15:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"Got nowhere" is a POV version of "the discussion failed to change the established consensus text". Most discussions "get nowhere" in that sense. It's highly disruptive to encourage a small group of editors with marginal or fringe editorial suggestions by hardening the discussion into an RfC. The RfC posts one editor's up or down version of the issue, as if it were black and white and there were no room for a compromise or all-inclusive solution. Just for example, we could mention Milley in the preceding sentence while avoiding the second separate sentence that cites him. But OP, by unilaterally deciding that he will declare an RfC on his terms with his yes-or-no question, has prevented spontaneous collaborative work here. @Iamverygoodatcheckers: withdraw this RfC and remember the editorial version of the Hippocratic Oath. First do no harm. Undue RfCs harm collaborative resolution on article talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

a) The RfC question only pertains to this specific sentence. Other important Milley info can be included elsewhere if we feel it's due. We can mention Milley in the preceding sentence while avoiding the second separate sentence that cites him, so I don't get your point here. I don't think anyone is against including something like including General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time.

b) A lot of what you just said was your own opinion treated as if it were fact: marginal or fringe, highly disruptive, undue RfC and others. I don't necessarily disagree, but treat your opinions like opinions.

c) Quite a few people have already commented and no one except for you is calling for this. It's not going to be withdrawn. Cessaune [talk] 18:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

WRT (A) - that's exactly the problem. If it is decided to remove this sentence, I can guarantee you that any attempt to include a different sentence about Milley will be attacked as "against the RfC" etc. etc. Just look at the antics at other politics articles where a vocal minority shuts down improvement by pointing to a narrow RfC as if it were a broader poll on other related wording. And if as you seem to suggest this is only about this one sentence, consider whether any article could ever be improved one sentence at a time in isolation and without regard to alternative sentences that state similar content. WTR (B) I have written no opinion or statement of fact or statement presented as fact. WRT (c) Irrelevant. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The RfC is about the sentence, but it's also about the apology being mentioned; that's what the sentence is about and it's what every reasoned response above is striking at. The apology being mentioned or not is a black-and-white question. The RfC will not be withdrawn; several editors are participating in it and you're the only one that's complaining about the RfC. Maybe a bigger issue is the tendency for us to keep in content that discussions (like the one above) reveal a lack of consensus for, yet we keep it in just because it's the status quo. That's also problematic with WP:BLPRESTORE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

a) Maybe, but everyone reasoned on this page (quite a few nowadays) will not read it like that. Provide a wording and a source and let's discuss potential inclusion of something like that. ...consider whether any article could ever be improved one sentence at a time in isolation and without regard to alternative sentences that state similar content—it's not that it isn't possible to regard any alternate wordings, it's that no one has. Yes, I agree, but I don't think that's what's happening.

The RfC posts one editor's up or down version of the issue, as if it were black and white and there were no room for a compromise or all-inclusive solution—I don't agree. Here's OP's sentence: Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now) under the subsection Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op? I feel like this leaves room for a compromise. Again, present your wording and a source.

b) Saying things like Undue RfC so matter-of-factly and without first stating that its your opinion is stating your opinion like it's fact. Unless this is, objectively, an undue RfC, which it isn't per Nemov, at least.

Also, I don't think the OP has prevented spontaneous collaborative work here. Let's collaborate. No one's stopping you.

c) I think it's very relevant. You know the RfC isn't going to be withdrawn. Yet you still push. Disagree with the fact that it was started, but you are using up valuable editor time. Pushing for a decision that isn't going to be implemented, no matter how correct you think it is, wastes people's time.

That being said, I don't see why this issue had to go to RfC. If the idea of an RfC had been proposed in the discussion, I would've said no. I don't like using RfCs for every sentence, but I get why Checkers did it. Nothing gets through anymore.

Also, status quo and consensus are two different things, and I don't think there was ever a consensus to include this sentence. ...the discussion failed to change the established consensus text isn't true IMO, as there doesn't seem to have ever been a consensus. A truly NPOV reading would be something along the lines of "the discussion failed to generate a consensus either against or for the sentence's inclusion". Cessaune [talk] 23:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Just because I haven't asked Checkers to withdraw the RfC doesn't mean that I don't think they should, it just means that I think they won't, i.e, it's a waste of time. The discussion petered out after a few days, Checkers wasn't happy with the inconclusive status, hello RfC. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the RfC. It's a perfectly natural step in an ongoing content dispute. Nemov (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The RFC is already in progress, so let it run its (one month) course. There can be only two results. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a super consequential RfC, but nonetheless the oppose arguments are quite weak. The idea that the sentence is not relevant enough to Trump is a stretch–it is about the highest ranking military official that reports directly to the president and was appointed by Trump voicing their concerns on a notable Trump event. The numerous editors adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment carry little weight. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with this reading. It is notable that this happened, but the argument is that it's too trivial in its relation to Trump. Secondly, an argument based on previous arguments is valid. Seconding someone else's argument is common RfC practice. (You can argue, and I would argue, that people turn their !vote into a normal vote by seconding literally everyone, without talking specifically about what they agree with.) Cessaune [talk] 20:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It may be common practice, but it does nothing to add to the discussion, and as you mention, it's not a vote. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It's common practice, so don't condemn it, especially when the group you are condemning is the group you disagree with. Cessaune [talk] 00:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Uh, don't tell me what do? Being common practice does not absolve it from all criticism. And it is not my fault that the only ones who are just repeating arguments saying "per X" are all on the opposing side. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair. Cessaune [talk] 15:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

FormalDude, Re your comment "...it is about the highest ranking military official that reports directly to the president and was appointed by Trump voicing their concerns on a notable Trump event." — Read the sentence again. It does not say anything about Milley expressing his concerns about the event itself, only his concern about "creat[ing] the perception of the military involved in domestic politics". Bob K31416 (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Bob, read RS accounts of this. The event was a kickoff for Trump's threats to send the military into Seattle's and other woke hotspots. SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This RFC is about one sentence, not what you are talking about. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I attempted to remind you of the subject of said sentence. Please read the article and cited sources for that section. Here's another good one. SPECIFICO talk 00:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you can't just say this. It doesn't make this connection in the article (or maybe it does; if so, can you point me to it?) It's irrelevant until you provide a source. Cessaune [talk] 00:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It's irrelavant even with a source because the sentence of this RFC is not about that. Here it is, "The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, later apologized for accompanying Trump on the walk and thereby "creat[ing] the perception of the military involved in domestic politics".[1]" Bob K31416 (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that this RfC about a biography wasn't even listed in "Biographies". Also, the incident in question being about an event produced for media consumption, I added "Media", as well, and "History", which seems just as relevant as "Society, sports, and culture". I'm not sure whether listing the categories the way I did is sufficient or whether I need to do something different to alert the bot. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes: With due respect to those who think this was "about Milley, not Trump", it was a statement by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs about how the military (including him) had been used for Trump's political publicity stunt – which, in light of the long national tradition of keeping the military out of domestic partisan politics, is a profound condemnation of Trump. That this same incident also trampled the separation of religion and government, and the religious freedom of that church's own staff and clergy (who were among those violently forced off church grounds for Trump's photo-op) makes this a three-fer of shame. It would be worthwhile quoting one of those church personnel, too. – _•Raven  ^.talk 22:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC) Moved this up to the survey section Cessaune [talk] 01:15, 10 April 2023 (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.

Piped link to same page

Somedifferentstuff just added a piped link to the recently renamed Donald_Trump#False_or_misleading_statements section. (I'm 3 for 3RR today, so I can't do anything about that 11-word #005ccc wall.) Does that mean that it's OK now to use piped links to the body of the article instead of other articles, something I tried to do fairly recently? 'cause I'm ready to do just that . Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If you are referring to the 'squigglies', then, please, no. Per the previous consensus. I'm fine with section linking in general (though V2022 has made section linking less useful with the new TOC). Cessaune [talk] 05:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Explanatory footnote for divorce

There is a lot a articles saying they divorced in 1992 which has been proven false by court records,[9] which specifically state the divorce was granted on December 11, 1990 and a post-divorce settlement reached in 1991. The reason i added the footnote is to prevent people changing it back to 1992 because they are a lot of articles that ran with this misinformation. Aaron106 (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

(@Aaron106: moved edit from my talk page.) Please, be advised that active arbitration remedies apply to this article (see warning at the top of the talk page). If your change was reverted, you may not reinstate it until you have posted a talk page message discussing your edit and waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message. I assume that includes <!-- NOTES -->, as well. You corrected the divorce date in the body and the infobox on March 5. Nobody has reverted it to the wrong date since then. The notes following some sentences in the lead and some items in the infobox refer to "controversial" items that were discussed—usually at length—on this talk page and that now form the current consensus. The cite for the divorce date makes more sense than a note, IMO, although it's not really necessary since we have the cite for the date in the body. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

My point is they are thousands of sources online that ran with this misinformation. If so many articles didn't exist saying otherwise we wouldn't need a explanatory footnote. It's necessary in order to prevent people changing it back because they are thousands of articles out there that ran with this wrong year. --Aaron106 (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You mean news articles? Where did you find these thousands? I got curious and checked WP's editing history. Seems we listed the correct year, 1990, until this edit in 2017 when the Guardian (and presumably a few more newspapers) ran this Associated Press article on Ivana writing a memoir about "raising the US president's children". (Maybe AP got the dates confused because Donald and Ivana Trump were still haggling over the divorce settlement amidst a few Trump business bankruptcies.) We now cite the December 12, 1990, New York Times article saying that they were divorced on December 11, 1990. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I added the New York Times article in March, also with this edit in 2017 my point is it could be changed again just like that, because a lot of news articles say 1992. That’s why an explanatory footnote would be helpful so editors do not make the same mistake and change it. If you don't wish to have a explanatory footnote though then you could remove the cite you added in the Infobox. Aaron106 (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Link the Trump Wall in lead?

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.

---

My edit was reverted by for WP:STATUSQUO reasons which linked "building a wall" in the lead sentence diverted military funding towards building a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border to the Trump wall. Would like to obtain consensus on adding this link per WP:BRD. I believe that this link can additionally be helpful for readers looking for more information not he wall itself as the link to the article on Trump's wall is more prominent is placed here. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Include the link. Obviously, it's relevant linking. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Include; it's one of the most prominent symbols of his presidency. This recent paper calls it one of two metaphors that animate Trump's rhetoric, and describes how it ties-in to everything else: the "President-as-CEO" metaphor, dealmaker symbolism ("I'll make Mexico pay for it"), nativism, protectionism, and soundbyte-as-policy. DFlhb (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, Trump wall says that The concept for the proposed expansion was developed by campaign advisers Sam Nunberg and Roger Stone in 2014 as a memorable talking point Trump could use to tie his business experience as a builder and developer to his immigration policy proposals. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's the edit [10] by User:Space4Time3Continuum2x that reverted the link. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: did you intentionally remove the link or was it just collateral damage to the removal of the other content? Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

It was intentional. The sentence already has two WikiLinks, and the second clause isn't about the wall that didn't get built but about President I-did-more-for-my-military-than-any-president-ever-in-the-known-universe attempting to divert $3.8 billion in funds allocated by Congress to the Defense Department's budget for (among other purposes) "buying equipment for National Guard and Reserve units, such as trucks, generators and spare parts, as well as fighter jets and ships." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the fact that the sentence already has two links really a reason to not include the link? That seems quite arbitrary IMO. Cessaune [talk] 00:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You know my opinion: the blue "ink" is distracting from the information. If we have to have some blue (item 60 of the consensus), then let's keep it to a minimum and off the PR stunts like Trump's wall. relevant to his presidency — about as relevant as the other PR stunts, the meetings with Kim Jong-Un, currently commemorated on Trump's I-love-me wall at Mar-a-Lago. They were all distractions from the real agenda, tax-cuts for the super-rich and further dismantling of the social safety net. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Source? Cessaune [talk] 14:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

For what, the social safety net? The proposal sunk by an election. Or for his PR stunts being a distraction ([11], [12])? I'm opining on the talk page, SYNTH doesn't apply. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikilinking as necessary is better than a quota. Plus, I would say that the Trump Wall is too big of a PR stunt to be grouped with all other PR stunts, considering that it was one of the most well known campaign promises of his as well as the center of a Steve Banon GoFundMe controversy. I don't think that a firm quota should be implemented for sentences; as long as an entire sentence isn't blue (or red for that matter), we should be fine. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Include it; it has obvious ties to Trump and is relevant to his presidency. Cessaune [talk] 16:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Neutral - linking or not linking to the Trump Wall, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per Link clarity: "The article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link." Trump's wall is "an expansion of the Mexico–United States barrier" begun under Trump. But Trump never explained what the wall would be except that it would be beautiful and Mexico would pay for it. TFD (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Stop !voting

Please don't treat every talk page discussion as if it needed an up or down !vote off the top. Horrible. And the link is silly, per OP. We need more tertiary sourcing and less holding up each individual action or controversy as if it is dispositive of some unstated conclusion about the subject. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not like you can WP:Bold-refine this specific edit. The ArbCom restrictions also make things a bit tedious. If it was deemed important enough to be reverted, it's important enough to bring to the talk page, and a !vote is a simple, easy and relatively quick way to gauge conesnsus. I don't see what other option there is. Cessaune [talk] 16:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I read your response as confirmation of my concern. There are thousands of alternatives that do not take the form of yes or no. I tried to suggest one in my post, without any specific article text proposed. Namely, the article needs to use more tertiary sources, not editor-curated lists of sins and outrages. Tertiary RS by expert mainstream commentators are increasingly abundant. The upshot is that this man was unprepared for the office -- even outside the very wide range of all but one or two of his diverse predecessors. That he lacks the knowledge or personal character to assume such responsibilities, that he routinely misapplied and misapproriated the powers of the US executive, etc. etc. That is more what's needed, with RS citations rather than a mere collation of "smoking gun" gotcha's like the wall, the Bible fiasco, etc. Not that some of those may not be noteworthy in themselves, - the Neo-Nazi equivocation, e.g. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Re "That is more what's needed, with RS citations rather than a mere collation of "smoking gun" gotcha's like the wall, the Bible fiasco, etc." — What Bible fiasco are you referring to? Bob K31416 (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree. ...holding up each individual action or controversy as if it is dispositive of some unstated conclusion about the subject is something we're all guilty of on this page. The article definitely needs to use more tertiary sources, especially now that many tertiary RSs exist on the man.

However, to bring up a full scale overhaul/rewrite in a routine talk page discussion about whether to link three words or not seems kind of... excessive. I don't know. And since this potential tertiary source rewrite isn't going to be finished any time soon, what you're saying just seems kind of irrelevant to the discussion IMO. Cessaune [talk] 20:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Silly side comment: given what article this is, I find this subsection title to be unintentionally humorous. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 05:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose --Jayron32 15:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

We need to begin closing discussions like this

This is the type of discussion that is so typical of this page. We have a minor content dispute of relative unimportance and it leads to some discussion among editors and nothing will ever be accomplished from it because everybody is too scared to act on it. Now of course, it doesn't make sense to escalate this further into the dispute resolution process (noticeboards, RfC's, etc.) because it's just not that important. So it results in status quo being aggressively kept in place. This unfortunate reality creates an environment where nothing will ever be readily accomplished and literal hundreds, or thousands, of hours of editor time is sunk for nothing. I understand that I'm involved in this dispute and can't be a fair closer or judge of this discussion, but most closers would probably find a rough consensus or so for inclusion. But, this can not and will never be implemented because on this article status quo is king unless you damn near got a RfC result closed by admin or something equivalent. Frankly, it's analogues to a form of filibuster. WP:Closing would seem to suggest not closing discussions of this nature, but it's written under the pretense that those involved in the discussion saw the consensus and understood that it should be respected, whether they like or not. I sincerely believe that standard can never be successfully applied onto this talk page, and from my experience it rarely happens. That is why for this article, we should have a practice of uninvolved editors going through these simple threaded discussion to determine if there is a consensus of any kind. I believe this would be a effective way to make progress on this article and a more efficient way of ensuring consensus prevails over the status quo. It would also be a reasonable way of avoiding time being spent on time-draining, contentious RfC's, which may be reserved for the big, clearly defined questions or perhaps when a smaller discussion was closed with no consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. On a heavily edited page the status quo has substantial consensus. In this case there's 2-3 editors who care to change it and hundreds who have not agreed. Also wrong is the suggestion that we should impose or rely on uninvolved editors unfamiliar with all the reasons for the status quo and have them make decisions instead of the most experienced and knowledgeable cohort here. "Most closers would..." = an assertion that cannot be verified or falsified and therefore a meaningless statement. SPECIFICO talk 12:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that, since this page is so heavily edited, anything currently in the article (status quo) has a sort of 'silent consensus' of, at least, the hundreds who watch this page? Just asking for clarification. Cessaune [talk] 15:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but it would be better to say a rebuttable "substantial degree" of consensus. so a small insubstantial dissent means relatively little. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't like this line of thinking. If we shouldn't rely on uninvolved editors unfamiliar with all the reasons for the status quo and have them make decisions instead of the most experienced and knowledgeable cohort here, why would you care about the silent opinions of those who watch the page but don't contribute to discussions or the article to any meaningful degree? If someone raises an issue on the talk page, people should have free rein to !vote on it, and, if they choose not to, I don't like the idea that we should assume silence is a form of consensus. Cessaune [talk] 16:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Note, I said a rebuttable degree of consensus for the status quo. This is very well established practice on Wikipeda. If you are interested you can read the dozens of discussions of such consensus on various discussion pages. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

If you would like to change any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, I would suggest that you discuss it on those talk pages. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair, I guess. Cessaune [talk] 18:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This is pretty sensible, despite obvious downsides (and dubious alignment with our policies except WP:IAR). It would have prevented the mess currently ongoing at United States, for example. (full-protected, with such a rapid-fire rate of major changes that it's impossible to keep up or properly scrutinize them). DFlhb (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It's been a week now. Perhaps we can have an outsider close/hat the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved. I'll hat it if you like. SPECIFICO talk 20:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2023 (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.