Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 132

Archive 125

←

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

Archive 133

Archive 134

Archive 135

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2021

I suggest that information about Trump's approval rating from Gallup poll upon leaving the office be added to the last paragraph in the introduction. He left office with an approval rating of 34%, while the average approval rating during his presidency was at 41%. Here is the link: https://news.gallup.com/poll/328637/last-trump-job-approval-average-record-low.aspx Ppt91 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

While I think this would be good information to have in the article, I don't think it should be in the (already bloated) lead. It would be far more appropriate under Donald_Trump#Approval_ratings. I'll leave it to other editors to speak their opinions before any changes are made, though. — Czello 16:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 22:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Czello. Good information, but not for the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

March on the Capitol

The line should read "he urged his supporters to peacefully march to the Capitol, which some of them then stormed" . But seeing that people who have "4 days until the nightmare is over"-banners (refering the the Trump presidency) on their user pages are allowed to edit and others are not, I know you won't agree with me no matter what. --212.35.8.114 (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

He said a lot more than that. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

As this is subject to a trial in the Senate, and other legal action, I don't think it's appropriate for us to cast judgment on this point.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

RS reported what he said. That has nothing to do with a trial. SPECIFICO talk 08:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

No need to quote him, let's just say that reliable sources consider Trump to have done X, Y and Z. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

He also said to "fight like hell". Is that peaceful? Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 19:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Peaceful people say things like that all the time.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

As do violent ones. Peaceful people don't generally have lawyers calling for "trials by combat" to decide elections at the same event. However, one should leave personal judgment out of this when we have RS, and we have plenty. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Agh, I heard Rudy Giuliani's voice right there. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Presumption of innocence?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law. We follow RS and, as applicable, WP:BLP. The section of that article on presumption of innocence doesn't say that we sanitize and remove everything reported by RS until a guilty verdict has been reached. Indeed, especially for public figures, it is specifically outlined how to word it. Feel free to add "allegedly" if you would like, but the "presumption of innocence" doesn't mean sanitizing well reported, reliably sourced, serious allegations. As it stands, he has been impeached (so essentially indicted) on the charge of insurrection. That the trial has not happened yet doesn't mean we don't report his impeachment on the charge of insurrection, and such content would need to include what RS have to say about it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. See WP:BLPCRIME.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I both linked to and paraphrased/quoted both of these policies. You don't get to ignore the latter because the former exists when the latter is specifically about cases like this. The presumption of innocence does not mean we sanitize and not cover issues that are widely in reliable sources, as this one is. Drop it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

No one has said we shouldn't mention the allegations. It is not possible to document the impeachment without explaining what it is about. But we can avoid presenting the prosecutors' points as facts. You keep saying "sanitize". What do you mean by that specificially?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"Peaceful people say things like that all the time" followed by "presumption of innocence?" What did you mean by these statements? Are you using this talk page as a forum for your own personal views on Trump, in violation of Wikipedia policy, or were you discussing possible edits to the content of this article? If the latter, sanitizing would mean removing the well sources allegations of speech inciting violence and inserting a belief that his words were entirely peaceful in their place. If the former, please educate yourself on WP policies regarding using talk pages as forums. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I am supporting Wikipedia policies, not violating them. It is clear that Wikipedia supports the presumption of innocence, as quoted above. Editors like you are clearly trying to prosecute Trump using Wikipedia as your mock courtroom. Please desist.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Small club of presidents who lost the popular vote twice

Not sure if it's worth mentioning: "Trump joins [John Quincy] Adams and Harrison to lose the popular vote twice" sourcesource

Also there's an interesting Venn diagram at https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-venn-diagram/ - Trump is the only one-term president to be impeached and lose the popular vote. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Probably trivial. This article is already overburdened, at almost half a million bytes. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

We have discussed this before:[1].--Jack Upland (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

And too many statements like this that make the overall tenor of the article a biased broadside. Mark Toal (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Legacy section

To be fair to the conservative viewpoint, do you think that we should include his appointing three Supreme Court justices as part of the legacy (at the moment, the section feels a bit one-sided)? Kokopelli7309 (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's certainty fair to say that Trump shifted the federal courts, including the Supreme Court to the right wing — appointing 30% of federal judges on the bench — but isn't Donald_Trump#Judiciary the natural place for this? Neutrality^talk 18:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Seems premature to have a legacy section. It's been an hour and seven minutes since Trump left office, and right now the section consists of the opinions of four or five people whose credentials I, for one, will have to look up. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • How much time that has passed is not important for Wikipedia; what's important is whether there are reliable sources out there that support the inclusion of such material. It seems clear that reliable sources, to an even greater degree than I expected (we have discussed this many times before), support the inclusion of a legacy section now. Appointment of judges is, normally and in itself, considered routine in most parts of the world, and it's clearly of secondary importance to the broader impact of his policies, assault on democracy, and so on, so I don't think it should figure prominently in a legacy section; it's also already mentioned several times in the article in a more appropriate context (and even in the lead, which seems rather UNDUE), so there is no need for it be mentioned once again in a legacy section. If appointment of judges is relevant for this article at all it's only because of the perceived abuse and politicization of the judiciary, in the same way that we've seen in Poland and Turkey, so it's certainly not a positive legacy to have politicized appointments of jugdges instead of having appointed the most competent jurists as is the norm in Western democracies (in the same way that the only countries where you can buy ambassadorships is the United States and the Central African Republic and comparable regimes); rather, such politicized appointment could be seen as part of (one of many examples of) his assault on democracy. --Tataral (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    • The problem with that is that Trump has had an impact on the Supreme Court, and it seems likely that that's going to impact on the US legal system into the future, especially considering Amy Coney Barrett is only 48. The other stuff you're talking about is extremely vague, and you don't provide any evidence to suggest that this — whatever it is — is going to continue into the future. That's what legacy means.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Intro section needs work, please.

Just an example, "Five people died in the melee" is inaccurate and fails npov.

Later and older sections stick to the facts, and illustrate the paradoxical and ephemeral quality of this president's accomplishments, like the quote "The New York Times reported in 1973 and 1976 that he had graduated first in his class at Wharton, but he had never made the school's honor roll." That section is well-written and careful. It correctly leaves as an open question why on earth the New York Times did that, it is just a fact that they did.

The first section reads like an angry middle-school student being a bully or ranting against a bully. It contains untruths also. Createangelos (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, what's the issue with "Five people died in the melee"? Is it the use of the word "melee"? — Czello 10:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It was certainly a melee...I believe the issue is "in the", which, there is a point there. I think four people died from other health issues, while the policeman died afterward - at least there are details to the deaths, and they did not die "in the melee". I am trying to move away from this article (again), but suggest "died as a result of the melee" as perhaps more accurate; we try to be succinct at our peril. It is notable that a policeman died, and there were other injuries; I am unsure of the RS, however. Bdushaw (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

About the 5 deaths/CNN I forgot about the lady that was shot. Bdushaw (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

His 2000 presidential run should be included in the article's lead, as it denotes part of his political history. Also, "Hours before the ceremonial counting of the electoral votes on January 6, 2021, Trump rallied his supporters and exhorted them to march to the Capitol, which they then stormed. Congress evacuated, and five people died in the melee. Seven days later, the House of Representatives impeached him again, for "incitement of insurrection", making him the only federal officeholder in the history of the United States to be impeached twice." is overly wordy.

An alternative could be "Hours before the ceremonial counting of the electoral votes, Trump rallied his supporters, exhorting them to march to the Capitol, which they then stormed, forcing Congress to temporarily evacuate and resulting in the deaths of five people. In January 2021, the House of Representatives impeached him again for incitement of insurrection, making him the only federal officeholder in U.S. history to be impeached twice." MrloniBoo (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's overly wordy.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Changed to which they then stormed. Five deaths occurred,[c] and Congress was evacuated. starship.paint (exalt) 09:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Incorrectly formatted wikilink in lead

The link to obstruction of justice is missing a bracket, so it doesn't work. Someone with the extended confirmed user access level might be able to fix that. Thanks. MTardigradum (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. SkyWarrior 22:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Farewell Address of US President Trump

Farewell Address of President Donald J. Trump-6h5 d3DUdR4

Can we add the Farewell Address? -- Eatcha 04:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This would be more appropriate in the Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2020 Q4-January 2021) article or presidency article. Mgasparin (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think just adding the video would be fine. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 13:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

See the section in the presidency article presidency of Donald Trump#Farewell address and transition of power, citing version that is held in the national archives.

However, it may be approprite to split these into two sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredscribe (talk • contribs) 22:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• No More appropriate: a summary of Trump's post-insurrection post-twitter messaging and the filmed, scripted communications strategy. The individual videos have not been reported as significant. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"Was"

It seems we need renewed discussion on the use of "was", per Special:Diff/1001750800. Prinsgezinde cited WP:BLPTENSE for the claim that it's necessary to add "is a politician who" before "45th president of the United States" in the lede. I think the pure "was" here is fine, because BLPTENSE is not actually unequivocal (… should generally be written in the present tense) and it avoids the need to define Trump as a politician or businessman or whatever before "was". And Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus item 17 clearly states that the current preferred language is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I know that BLPTENSE isn't 100% unequivocal, but oh my I can't stress how much I dislike reading was at the beginning because it makes it seem like he died. I'm personally a fan of Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a television personality and former businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, which was originally proposed by @Hazelforest:. One sentence, summarizes that he's still a TV personality (I doubt that will change for the rest of his life), he's mostly if not entirely severed his personal business connections, and he was the 45th president. It does not call him a politician, which would imply he's had a political career outside of his presidency (he hasn't). If he picks up his business dealings again we can easily remove "former". Extremely concise. Jonmaxras (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"...  is an American media personality and former real estate developer who [was or served as] 45th president ..." Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think he still is a businessman and has been since his youth. He has not severed his business connections. Setting up a trust does not stop him being a businessman. Trump now lives off the Trump brand. Trump Tower. Trump hotels. Trump golf courses. Trump steak. Trump presidency. He apparently now intends to live in Mar-a-Lago, which is a Trump resort. During his presidency, he continued to present himself as a deal-maker and spruik the real estate opportunities in places as unlikely as North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Real estate developer" is more precise than "businessman". The hotels, resorts, golf courses, casinos, commercial and residential properties, etc., are all part of a real estate business. The steaks, vodka, ties, etc., were marketing for that business (the brand) (and those products/businesses failed anyway). I'd support it with or without "former", and I suppose "former" isn't really accurate since he still owns some of that real estate. Also, "is ... was" is awkward, so I'm favoring "served as". So:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and real estate developer who served as 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

That lead sentence could replace the current two-sentence first paragraph. Levivich ^harass/_hound 08:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The first source I pulled up was this one which describes Trump as a "former television reality show host", so I think Levivich's proposal makes sense. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I also like Levivich's formulation except that it should say "... media personality and businessman who served.." "Real estate developer" was only the first years of his business; since then he has branched out widely into things like sports teams, beauty contests, franchising his name to all kinds of unrelated products and properties - "real estate developer" is way too narrow a description of his business interests. I also don't think either of those career descriptions should be described as "former" since there is a good chance he will keep up both activities. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, Levivich's wording is the best I've seen yet. I'm indifferent as to whether it says 'businessman' or 'real estate developer', but leaning towards businessman since he's had a variety of ventures. Jonmaxras (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I was frankly close to going to sleep and although I noticed the discussion, I was honestly surprised at what I saw. Nowhere else on Wikipedia is "was" ever used for a living person. It's incredibly confusing no matter what the reason is, and squarely in conflict with a major guideline. I just noticed the user Abdul Muhammad1 made the same change, which probably doesn't look good on me, but I'll still go ahead and assure that that person is not me. I support any variation that doesn't have "was" in the first sentence. Can we still consider him a politician if he is very likely to run again in 4 years? Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Only thing he'll be running for is out of the country. Ya'll get ready for a new Donald_Trump#Criminal_Charges section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.59.73.203 (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

He still is & always will be the "45th president of the United States". No matter how much CNN wants to kick him out of the 'former presidents club'. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing to remove the "45th president of the United States" line, just merely a grammatical issue. But as cited above (WP:BLPTENSE), "was" should only be used if the person is deceased. As the precedent set by George W. Bush and Barack Obama, "served as" works perfectly fine. However, if another article on Wikipedia references a part of Trump's presidency, using past tense only makes sense. ChipotleHater (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The examples given at BLPTENSE don't seem relevant here. If the article said "Donald John Trump was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021", you would have a point. (I think the article actually was worded this way at the time of the original objection). But the wording "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and real estate developer who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." seems perfectly fine. Trump "is", so we know he is still living, but he "was" president. --Khajidha (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This is where I'll agree with User:GoodDay. Trump was not previously the 45th president, he is the 45th president. That title was not stripped away from him upon him leaving office. Why does "served as" not work in this situation? ChipotleHater (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"45th President" is not a title. It is a description. He was president of the United States. His presidency was the 45th in the series. Therefor, he was the 45th president. --Khajidha (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

As for "served as", it seems to be too close to "acting", implying that the person in question wasn't really the president. --Khajidha (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

No, because if someone was in an acting/temporary role, it would state that clearly in the first sentence (Chad Wolf). I fail to see how "served as" implies it was a temporary role. And again, citing WP:Precedent, all former living presidents use "served as" in the lead. ChipotleHater (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you meant "all living former presidents" or "all currently living former presients". --Khajidha (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Oops, yes I did. ChipotleHater (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPTENSE says Biographies of living persons should generally be written in the present tense which leaves room for exceptions. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Should we change Trump went to Sunday school to "Trump goes to Sunday school" then? Every living person has a past that is talked about in the past tense. Anyway, as has been pointed out repeatedly, here and here, for example, it's just a temporary solution until we find a permanent solution for the first paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:BLPTENSE does not equivocate about the first sentence. It says BLPs should "generally" be written in the present tense, but leading the lead with "was" on a living person is incorrect, period. If a person is living but has retired, use is a former or is a retired rather than the past tense was. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

See 'below' survey/discussion on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Second Senate trial?

The Senate trial will begin once the article of impeachment is formally transmitted to the Senate, after he left office.

I removed this, but it was reinstated. There are three tenses in that sentence, and "after he left office" seems to be tacked on very awkwardly. We don't know whether there will be a Senate trial. But, putting that aside, I don't think this sentence says anything.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

There will be a Senate trial. The House will transmit the articles on the 25th (Monday), with the trial part not beginning until February 8. BBC article verifying that there will be a trial, just not this month. Mgasparin (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

What's your point?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, you said that you weren't sure that there would be a senate trial, but now there will be one. That's all. Mgasparin (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2021

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.

---

Untrue biased entry, only state FACTS not OPINIONS 72.90.88.84 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

We do. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2021

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

---

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality. 216.165.95.135 (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the ongoing discussion regarding the opening sentence here: Talk:Donald_Trump#Lead_sentence_proposal. — Czello 22:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Why does loser.com lead here?

Should we change this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.83.19.158 (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

We have no control over this, its not anything we can do anything about.Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's a news story about loser.com – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no control over that, someone simply created a redirect, using a domain space. Wikipedia is a nonprofit and also silenced under Creative Commons, so we literally can't remove it. We don't have control over if people want to create redirects to Wiki articles. I do fully agree with it however. Des Vallee (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, do you mean "licensed", not "silenced"? "Silenced" changes the meaning of your statement considerably? Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Replace old signature?

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.

---

Current signature in infobox, from 2009.

Newer signature, from 2016.

Currently, File:Donald Trump Signature.svg (shown on the right) is displayed as Trump's signature in the infobox. This signature's source is from 2009, while File:Donald J. Trump signature.svg's source (file is shown below) is from 2016, which is 7 years more recent. Should the signature be changed to the more recent version? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why not. People's signatures can and do change over time. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

There is another discussion about this change as well, from 4 years ago. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, in my opinion, signatures change from time to time however the signatures here look the same to me, the only difference I noticed is the thickness of the pen used to sign. PyroFloe (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The signatures are very different, so this and other "opposes" on similarity-grounds maybe should be discounted. Look at the horizontal lines, the uniformity of signature strokes, and the second signature is a much smoother version than the first, which looks hurried (it was sold by an Indiana autograph firm, and the link on the signature page is labeled 'dead link' so there is also the question of authenticity). In any case, the second signature is the more familiar of the two, and not written in a hurried manner as the first seems to be. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support, the more recent signature is much smoother (notice the horizontal-line of the 2016 example), and the thicker pen is what people are used to recently seeing in news coverage of Trump's bill signings. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, the newer signature is more contemporary and noticeably different from the old one. Jonmaxras (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

*Oppose, aside from the thicker pen, it really doesn't look all that different. Mgasparin (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Chaheel Riens. It does make sense to use the most recent signature. Mgasparin (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - while signatures do change over time, this is more a variant than a change. A "change" would be to include a middle name, initial, or something significant which this isn't. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I've thought about this, and have changed my opinion. Arguments seem to be in two camps:
  • The signature is different to his old one. If that's the case, then is surely should be updated to the new one.
  • The signature is hardly any different. If that's true, and the two are essentially the same, then it makes sense to use the more recent version.
  • Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - my signature from seven years ago is certainly different. This new variant is also used in all of his bills as president. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 13:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. We should be using the most current signature. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Remove the signature field here. And from all pages on Wikipedia. This is not encyclopedic material. --Khajidha (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

That's beyond the scope of this discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2021 (2)

To add a specific paragraph type line that Donald Trump is the only president to be impeached twice. Moleoz (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Well we say it in two places already.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 Already done – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we please change this first sentence?

When I was reading the article today, I got scared.

Now, "What made you so scared?",you ask?

Look at this sentence.

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021."

See the part that says "was" after his name and birth date? Yeah, the reason I was scared was because the person reading could possibly make a mistake and think that the subject in the article is deceased.

How to fix this?

Well, actually, it's quite simple.

Maybe say, for example:

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a former businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021."

That way, it will be convenient for people to read the article without the fear of thinking that the subject in which the article is talking about is deceased.

Thank you for your time.

God bless,

--97.118.137.11 (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Brayden Clark

Opposed See previous discussion here from last month on this same suggestion. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 23:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose; the first sentence already tells you that he’s alive since his death date is not included; there’s no need to change the wording of that sentence SRD625 (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course, there are many discussions about the lede. IP, you can chime in the discussion here. The way you asked for the change was interesting, though. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 23:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Historical View of Trump’s Presidency

As per every other article about US Presidents, they all include a link to Historical rankings of presidents of the United States and how historians view the presidency. With his term wrapping up, I’m assuming we would do the same for Trump. He’s generally viewed very unfavorably, and in some cases, the worst president we’ve had thus far. Is there a consensus on when this can/should be added to the article? ChipotleHater (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Whilst I agree he will be viewed "unfavorably" it's to early to really judge how historians will view him.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

For goodness sake. He hasn't left office yet. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The historian Victor Davis Hanson's works include The Case for Trump (2019), presciently pointing out that Trump has been too outspoken for his own good, and his fall is comparable to a protagonist in the tragic dramas of ancient Greek literature. Qexigator (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• @ChipotleHater: If you want this to be included, your best bet is to collect a bunch of historians describing his presidency and propose specific text aligning with those materials. Even so, it'll possibly fail per WP:TOOSOON, but without sources and a specific proposal it's all but guaranteed to fail. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

We should have something on his legacy pretty soon, as in the coming weeks and months, certainly before summer, and it's a good time to start thinking/working on a section (given that it will take some time). Quite unlike other presidents who left office Trump already has a very well-established legacy in scholarship, rankings and coverage in RS that typically describes him as the worst president in U.S. history, or in similar terms. It might be relevant to include the historical assessment of his presidency by his own successor Joe Biden[2]: He has been an embarrassment to the country, embarrassed us around the world. Not worthy, not worthy to hold that office (That assessment is particularly notable because it's not the norm for U.S. presidents(-elect) to offer that kind of negative assessment of their predecessor; for instance Obama didn't say anything like that about George W. Bush). --Tataral (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's way too early to be talking about this while he is still president, or in the immediate aftermath of his presidency. Passions are running too high, memories are too recent, no perspective has been developed yet. I notice that in the Historical Rankings article, the most recent survey results are from 2018. We should wait until the next such survey comes out - possibly this year, possibly next year. In any case we should not add anything on the subject to this primary biographical article until it has been recorded and reported in one or more daughter articles, such as Historical Rankings or Presidency of... -- MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"no perspective has been developed yet": That is simply not true. We have five years of extreme coverage of him in RS (as in being the person on the planet covered the most by RS), both scholarly and other RS, we have rankings, huge amounts of scholarly assessments and discussion, and a clear RS consensus on a number of issues. His legacy is firmly established, at least to the extent that we can say something (although RS consensus may of course, in theory at least, evolve over time, and then we'll adjust the article accordingly). When we could add material about the legacy of a normal politician who didn't do anything spectacular after a couple of months, we'll certainly be able to add something about the legacy of Trump. There is consensus among RS about his legacy (or at least key aspects of it) to a degree that didn't exist at all when Bush or Obama or Clinton left office. --Tataral (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Look, I get it. The verdict of scholars is almost certainly going to be that he was so far-and-away the worst president ever, that there is no one in second place. (Like the first America's Cup race, when Queen Victoria was told the American boat was winning by 8 minutes, and she asked who was in second, and the reply was "Your Majesty, there is no second."[3]) But I still believe the reputable scholars will wait, and we will have to wait, until his presidency is over by at least some months before evaluating it. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I was just curios if there was a consensus on when this should be added. Does anyone know when this was added to Obama's lead?ChipotleHater (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think in reality the verdict of historians changes with time. Churchill's reputation has risen. Mao's has fallen.Nixon's has recovered somewhat. I don't think anyone would have predicted the fall from grace of Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein. We need to wait on this. In reality, Trump's style is very brash, but there is very little in his policies, such as negotiation with North Korean or building a wall on the Mexican border, that is genuinely unique.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In regards to both Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein, their reputations were upended because of information we learned later. I cannot fathom any piece of information coming out soon that could possibly salvage Trump's presidency.ChipotleHater (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

If the economy, COVID-19, or foreign relations got much worse under Biden, then this might change the view of Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump had more legal votes than all previous presidents before him. To say he failed as a president what is the grading criteria? More people voted for him then all past presidents; while the entire time the mainstream media was against him entirely and viciously. Never have we seen the entire media forces demonize a president and still out vote all past presidents. 71.197.223.134 (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I knew there would be a response like this. Amount of votes =/= job well done. Also, he's gotten the second most votes for president, the first being Joe Biden. Regardless, his administration compared to administrations before has done a lackluster job. His largest campaign promises, i.e. repealing Obamacare and building the wall, both failed. He mishandled a pandemic, he incited a coup on the capitol, he frequently fired advisors and cabinet secretaries that disagreed with him. Did the media have a bias against him? Sure, but for good reason.ChipotleHater (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@ChipotleHater: @MelanieN: @Tataral: By February 20, 2017, Obama's page had more or less "settled" to reflect his historical ranking. There was some variation between edits as to whether it should be in its own section or in the intro, but the consensus at the time was clearly that it should be listed. On that note, come inauguration day (after 12:00 PM, I suppose), I believe we should add this at the end of the last leading paragraph. Something to the tune of "in the limited number of scholarly surveys of U.S. presidents conducted during or after his term, Trump's presidency has been ranked as one of the worst in American history." This is wholly representative of the rankings we have, and it makes it clear that there is only a limited amount of data. Yes, in 2017 it took a month or so to add this information, but as far as I can tell, that small delay was simply because it was an uncoordinated effort, and not because we had any reason to wait. So if we decide this in advance, I see no reason or precedent to wait well past inauguration day. Cpotisch (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think, T**** is exceptional in ways even Obama never has been, historically and currently, and I agree with Melanie, let's wait a bit. We don't know yet what will unfold. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

What is going to magically unfold that will somehow help Trump's presidency? The most likely thing to happen is that he is the first President convicted by the Senate.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of magic, nor was I anticipating events helping his presidency. I just thought we could wait a bit longer. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump's final day of his presidency is today. Therefore, I think it's fair to discuss the historical view of Trump, as is with every President. I do not think it's too early to give an overview of his Presidency according to historians and political scientists. He's the first President to be impeached twice and failed to handle the COVID-19 pandemic (according to sources in the lede). Obama, who left office is just 4 years ago, also has a statement about how historians view his Presidency.

I took a snapshot of the John Hopkins COVID-19 statistics page for today (last full day of Trump's presidency) with the over 400,000 deaths total number, in case someone wants to mention that figure in the article ("downplayed the pandemic... bla bla... resulting in more than 400 thousand deaths during his term" or sth). Guss77 (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

See historians views on Trump. He is viewed as one of the worst Presidents in American history. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].

Additionally, a poll by PBS found that nearly half of Americans believe Trump will go down as the worst President in American history.

A simple sentence such as "Historians and scholars generally rank Trump as one of the country's worst presidents" seems like it would apply. I would support such a measurePennsylvania2 (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we get a vote on what we're doing tomorrow? I believe that, until we get a clearer consensus, it should be totally uncontroversial for me to add that "in the limited number of presidential surveys of scholars and historians that have been conducted during or after hist term, Trump's presidency is generally ranked as one of the worst in American history." WP:TOOSOON covers the creation of dedicated articles, which is radically different than the addition of one sentence in a massive existing article. We added the equivalent info to Obama's article less than a month after his term ended, and there wasn't remotely as clear a scholarly consensus then as there is for Trump now. We've had these rankings in Historical rankings of presidents of the United States for years. Furthermore, frankly, Trump's terribleness (at least in the eyes of academics) kind of defines his presidency. The proposed sentence makes it clear that it's early and that the analysis is only in the eyes of scholars and historians. But withholding it, given the sources and surveys we have, seems unrepresentative of what we know now. Can we agree that this is reasonable, considering all those points, and that citations will of course be included to show exactly what we are taking this from? Thanks so much. Cpotisch (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I can concur with this request. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to add something now?

Let’s take stock here. User:Cpotisch believed it would be uncontroversial to go ahead and add something to the article right now, about Trump being ranked as one of the worst presidents in history. User:Pennsylvania2 concurred, so Cpotisch went ahead and added something. I removed it pending further discussion here. Let’s determine where we stand: First question, can we add something right now or should we wait a while for scholarly evaluations/rankings? Second question, if we agree to add something now let’s agree on a wording. On the first question, here’s how I read the discussion up to now:

• Add now: Cpotisch, Pennsylvania2, User:Guss77, User:Tataral, User:ChipotleHater.
• Wait for academic ratings: me, User:Sluzzelin, User:Jack Upland, User:Slatersteven, User:GoodDay, User:Qexigator, User:Jonmaxras, User:Felix558, possibly User:Sdkb.
• Opinions on content rather than timing: 77.197.223.134.

Wait for academic ratings. (Actually, my response to GoodDay was not 'on content rather than timing'.) Qexigator (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for misinterpreting you. I have moved you to the "wait" section. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn’t look to me like there is consensus to add something at this time, though opinions are pretty evenly balanced getting less even as feedback comes in. Note that I am not a neutral party, since I have expressed an opinion. Also note that at this Donald Trump article I function as just another regular editor, not as an administrator, due to WP:INVOLVED. BTW I have re-titled the section below this, to be about exactly what and how much should we say when we do add something -- MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What exactly does worst US president in history, actually mean? Furthermore the guy just left office 'yesterday'. Are we gonna go by CNN & MSNBC news' embarrassing biased evaluations? GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The sources aren't there to justify a legacy or other historical assessment section (yet). In my view the few sources put forward in this discussion so far are substandard (media, not scholarship). Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it's better to wait for academic sources, which of course will take time to manifest. It's been 26 hours with him out of office, far too early for including this IMO. Jonmaxras (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Just confirming that I support "Wait for academic ratings". Such ratings have to take into account the entire presidency, up to its last days (quite unusual days for a so-called lame duck period). And such ratings will be made from a certain distance, not necessarily a year or even six months, but enough time to assess everything in as much context and with as much factual knowledge as possible. These assessments of legacy and accomplishment will appear sooner than later, and I think we should at least wait until then. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree, better wait. Polemic hyperbole (for whatever motive) unworthy of Wikipedia criteria will continue to be unduly publicised for some time until the dust and commotion of the second impeachment proceedings have past, and by then some other crisis is quite as likely to make Trump's time while POTUS be re-assessed. Qexigator (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I also agree we should wait. Also, I am not sure how many scholarly evaluations are needed before such historical assessment should be included in the article? 5? 10? 25? Because there will be probably different scholarly viewpoints regarding this subject. Felix558 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Seem like WP:RECENTISM to add something already about his historical rankings, etc. Wait some years until we have a better range of meaningful sources.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

When we do add something, what should we say?

The following sentence currently appears as the last sentence of the lead (complete with an invisible quote citing this discussion):

In the limited number of scholarly surveys and evaluations of U.S. presidencies that have been conducted since the start of his term, Trump has generally been ranked as one of the worst presidents in American history.

Sources

Nothing on this subject appears in the article so it should not be in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I am going to remove it. If consensus develops here to say something, it must go into the article text first. And only after the subject is accepted as a significant part of the article text can there be a further discussion about including it in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@MelanieN: OK, I wrote up an entire legacy section to reflect all of that. Wanna take a look? Thanks. Cpotisch (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, so I didn't notice the 1RR and now realize that I broke it at least once. Really sorry 'bout that, y'all. Self reverted my last edit. Can we try to get a consensus on this, though? Here is what I am proposing. In the lede, I would like to add the following:

In the limited number of scholarly surveys and evaluations of U.S. presidencies that have been conducted since the start of his term, Trump has generally been ranked as one of the worst presidents in American history.

And in the post-presidency section, I want to add the following section:

Scholarly analysis of Trump's presidency has been highly unfavorable, with many historians and scholars considering him one of the worst, or the worst, president in American history. The Siena College Research Institute's 2018 survey of U.S. presidents ranked as the third worst president in history, above only Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan. Also in 2018, a bipartisan survey of 170 scholars and political scientists by the American Political Sciences Association found that Trump was the worst president in American history. This poor ranking mostly belied scholars' personal ideologies as well. In the survey, Democratic aligned scholars ranked Trump as the worst president in history, the independently aligned ranked him the second worst, and Republican aligned ranked him the fifth worst. A similar survey conducted by University of Houston professor Brandon Rottinghaus amongst nearly 200 scholars also ranked Trump worst.

In a January 2021 piece released shortly before the end of Trump's term, David Nakumara of The Washington Post interviewed several presidential historians and professors who felt that Trump would be remembered for "harm[ing] the country," and that he would be ranked among the worst presidents. In a piece for The Atlantic, NYU associate professor of history Tim Naftali made similar points. Naftali argued that Trump's presidency is the worst in history, in large part due to his poor response to the COVID-19 pandemic as well as his perceived abuse of power, conflicts of interest, and incitement of violence and the January 6 storming of the Capitol. The Australian Sydney Morning Herald talked to several historians and found very similar analyses.

References

I believe that this sufficiently and necessarily articulates the consensus of reliable sources on his presidency, and is entirely consistent with what we've done in the past. I also don't think it's too soon to add them here, considering two of the rankings I added have been in the historical rankings article for years. Is the primary issue for those of you objecting that it's too soon? Or is it on substance. Thanks. Cpotisch (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Way, way, way too much information for the article. This is a biography, we can give it at most a sentence or two - and then only after there is consensus here. This is not the way we do these things anyhow - quoting a random scholar here and an opinion piece here. We need to wait for actual, scholarly evaluation by panels of scholars, not what this person or that person thinks. At least that's my opinion. I'm not the one you need to negotiate with. You need to go back to the general discussion above and get consensus 1) to include something and 2) what wording to use. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Actually I have created sections here for discussion the two issues. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The first part of the above proposal is mostly fine (although some adjustment may be needed), but the rest of it goes into too much detail, and for now we need a more concise text. However, I vehemently disagree that we (as a matter of principle) "can give it at most a sentence or two" in the body of the article. There is definitely room for a nuanced discussion, but it will take time and effort to develop that, and for now we should only add a couple of sentences on what is already widely agreed upon by sources (scholars, rankings, commentators). Perhaps 3–5 sentences (for now), plus one short sentence in the lead. In time, when RS have further digested his presidency, a more extensive section on his legacy will probably be warranted. --Tataral (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Residence

@Politicsfan4: Re this edit. His official residence is Mar-a-Lago now. Residences of Donald Trump lists a lot of real estate Trump owns but has never lived in. I can't change it because of 3RR, so would appreciate it if you did. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: - Understood, will change! -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure about that, Space4Time3Continuum2x? He has only just got there and doesn't have a legal right to live there.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure, per RS NYT, 2020/12/16, NYT 2020/11/24. It's his legal residence for now. We'll see whether Palm Beach will enforce the agreement they entered into in 1993 that noone is allowed to stay there for more than 21 days per year and no longer than 7 days at a stretch. Before he became president, his legal and main residence was the Trump Tower apartment. He probably exceeded the limits numerous times but nobody cared or was paying attention at the time. If and when RS report that he's living at Trump Tower, we can also add that - I read somewhere that he wasn't pleased with Melania's Mar-a-Lago renovations. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Neither of those sources use the term "official residence" or "legal residence". You seem to be able to obtain certainty with very little evidence, Space4Time3Continuum2x.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

These two do: NYT2019/11/01 and NYT2019/10/31. Full-time residence, domicile, legal residence = primary residence. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Um, those were written when Trump was living in the White House and suggest his "move" to Florida is questionable.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, move he did, and it's up to Palm Beach now to decide whether they want to enforce the agreement or not. If they do and he doesn't vacate the premises, they'll have to take him to court. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump owns the Mar a Lago Club and property. He can live there. Mark Toal (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Apparently not, long term.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

He can only live there 21 days in a year, according to NPR. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 23:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Legacy section?

So I was thinking that we should write a long section on "Donald Trump Presidential Legacy". Before we write this I would let to get consensus and thoughts. Is it to early to be writing a legacy section? Should we wait perhaps another month to let everything cool down to view it within a neutral framework? Donald Trump according to recent polls Donald Trump appears to be one of the most disliked presidents of recent history only being surpassed by George W. Bush*. With Donald Trump never having 50% approval rating, so should we write a legacy section? Or should we wait for hysteria to die down a bit?

I highly doubt however the policies of Donald Trump will be viewed as positive, or that they will change from what is currently viewed, in fact it's likely Donald Trump will be viewed more negatively as time progresses. I therefor think we should write an "early legacy" section detailing Donald Trump's immediate legacy which seems to be fairly negative amongst both academic and popular positions and then write more later legacy detailing it overall. Or is the section to early to write, therefor we should hold back a bit?

Thoughts? Des Vallee (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"only being surpassed by George Bush" Which one? Dimadick (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Dimadick George W. Bush* Des Vallee (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It's too early, passions should cool down first. Writing legacy sections requires clear view, and some aspects of his legacy might be viewed more positively or negatively as time progresses (for example, if it becomes clear that the current administration isn't much more successful in combating Coronavirus compared to the previous administration, in spite of the fact that vaccines are available now, that part of Trump's legacy might be viewed in different light). Felix558 (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say no and seems like WP:RECENTISM he has only been out office for a few days. Wait some years for more scholary sources and public opinion polls, etc.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

See [11]. This is already being discussed.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, considering that basically EVERYWHERE else in the world is doing better, I have a hard time believing that the Biden administration won't be able to improve on Trump's record. --Khajidha (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

We need to have sources specifically about his legacy, otherwise its OR. Not joining the TPP, not starting any new wars, reducing the federal prison population, record stock market values and (before the pandemic) record lows of unemployment and highs of economic growth, moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, getting some Arab countries to normalize relations with Israel, adding sanctions to Cuba, Iran and Venezuela, increasing military spending in real terms, massive tax cuts, restarting the Keystone XL pipeline, reducing regulation on fossil fuel production and meeting with Kim Jong Un are viewed by some people as positive, depending on their ideology. (I'm guessing Des Vallee disagreed with all these policies.) Whether or not any of these continue remains to be seen. TFD (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Grammar nitpick in intro

"He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing." should have an "and" before "promoted": "He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing." I don't have extended confirmed protection so I don't know where else to put this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.33.105.138 (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. --Khajidha (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Unpopularity in lead

I think it might be worth including at the end of the lead that Trump was one of the most unpopular presidents in the history of modern job approval polling (his approval rating was under 50% for essentially the entirety of his presidency). Other presidential biography articles include statements about their public favorability rating(s) and this fact is unique enough to Trump that I think it's worth considering including. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead is already too long, and adding more trivia into the lead isn't going to improve that situation. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Ford's approval rating is kinda similar, but it's not mentioned in his lead. Why? Because it's trivial.

Too amorphous, I think. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn’t really seem that trivial SRD625 (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Explanation requested

The fact that Trump explicitly confirmed he was misleading the public about the severity of the Covid-19 pandemic ("I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don't want to create a panic"), and the fact that he was identified by experts as "likely the largest driver" of misinformation about a pandemic that's killed >420,000 Americans in less than a year, both seem unquestionably notable and worth at least one sentence fragment. Yet these sourced facts were removed in this edit by Levivich. Could someone please explain the justification for removing these pieces of information? MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I, too, have serious concerns about the omission of this content, particularly the Cornell study. Neutrality^talk 18:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• That seems kind of important SRD625 (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Needless to say, as the editor who reinstated that consensus text after it was first "trimmed," I was surprised to see the content quickly removed a second time without any substantive explanation. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with all users above; that seems exceptionally notable and is also well-sourced. I cannot find any justification in any WP policy to censor it. Jeppiz (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• A). This probably is better suited in a subarticle and B). The Hill reference admits that their piece was based on Cornell's comments that, "The study has not yet been peer-reviewed. Evanega told the Times the research was going through a peer review by an academic journal, but the process was taking too long, and the researchers felt they had to share the information sooner." Of course. Maybe Trump was, opinions vary...but odd this must go in this BLP? If that edit is restored, that last sentence isn't needed since it is not "peer reviewed" as that reference freely admits.--MONGO (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Perhaps User:Onetwothreeip and User:Levivich might wish to opine on this as they both removed the content.--MONGO (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  @MONGO: I agree with your analysis, and 123's original edit summary and their additional comments below, and PME's. Basically, I think most statements that need attribution are undue for this top-level BLP, and belong instead in the appropriate sub-articles (if it needs attribution, then it's not the consensus view of RS). The top-level BLP should contain almost exclusively statements in wikivoice. For example, w/r/t the Cornell study, an attributed statement highlighting a particular study is WP:UNDUE; we should stick to statements in wikivoice about Trump's covid misinformation (and there is no lack of RS consensus about that). So that Trump spread misinformation is something we can say in wikivoice; if we can't say that he was the primary source of misinformation in wikivoice, then the particualr study that says so is a detail and belongs in a sub-article. And of course, despite some claims to the contrary, this is not the consensus version (I don't see it on the consensus list at the top of this page), and WP:ONUS remains on those seeking inclusion of the content to gain consensus for it. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious about your assertion that only wikivoice statements can be included here, and that anything requiring attribution must be relegated to a subarticle. Is there any support for that in policy, or any precedent in best practices? Or is that an ad hoc standard that you've created and applied here? After all, your standard doesn't seem to be applied uniformly even in this article. At a glance, I see plenty of attributed statements (about Trump's net worth, his use of the "John Barron" sockpuppet identity, and so on. I mean, you don't have to read far to come across lines like: "According to the New Yorker, 'The book expanded Trump's renown far beyond New York City, making him an emblem of the successful tycoon.'". Does that belong in a subarticle? MastCell ^Talk 01:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY is probably the most-on-point-PAG, but the "say what you can say in wikivoice" principle is in WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:5P1, WP:5P2... I'd say "build articles based on saying things in wikivoice not based on attributed statements" is all over our PAGs. As for best practice, look at some FA bios like Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong: there are no statements attributed to news media or individual studies; the attributed statements are few and used for good reason (e.g., statements attributed to the subject of the biography). Yes, there are way too many attributed statements in the Trump article (along with a lot of other minutiae), and they should also be moved to a sub-article (or removed altogether, depending on the statement). The New Yorker attributed statement you quote above should probably be removed altogether. Who cares what the New Yorker says about Trump? That's not the level of significance sufficient for inclusion in a major top-level biography like this. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

By the way, "your assertion that only wikivoice statements can be included here" is a misrepresentation of what I wrote, which was: "I think most statements that need attribution are undue for this top-level BLP, and belong instead in the appropriate sub-articles." My expression of an opinion about best practice is not an "assertion that only wikivoice statements can be included here". You also misrepresented my edit in your OP. Please be more careful in paraphrasing me in the future, or just quote me instead of paraphrasing. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY says nothing of the sort, nor could I could find support in the other alphabet-soup you provided for the idea that top-level articles should be "almost exclusively" in wikivoice whereas attributed statements should be "almost exclusively" relegated to subarticles. Is there a specific aspect of these PAG's that you had in mind? Our policies explicitly recognize that both wikivoice and attributed statements are valid parts of well-written articles, which is why we have guidance for how to use both. I don't think that astronaut BLP's are super-relevant here, but looking at the last two Presidential biographies (GW Bush and Obama), both contain attributed statements, and both are high-quality (Bush is a GA, Obama an FA), so I don't see any support in practice either. MastCell ^Talk 21:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Onetwothreeip's original cut here. It's a suitable trim that retains that he tried to downplay it, no need to misrepresent what the edit actually is. Perhaps more notable in a sub-article. PackMecEng (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

There's likely to be such back & forth action between editors both here & at Joe Biden for months to come. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

While true, that's no reason to stop assessing such examples based on their merits. There are a number of editors here whose judgment isn't predictable (based on sides). I mostly pay attention to those editors. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion, as I was about to do so myself. Please don't mislead people who may not read the edit in question. I most certainly retained information about Donald Trump saying different in public what he said in private. If you have an agenda against the subject of the article, that is frankly not my concern. This article is far too large and need not contain as much detail as it currently has, even if all the detail is accurate and belongs on Wikipedia. The extraneous details can belong on other articles related to Donald Trump and to the events themselves. I also hope that editors will no longer be alarmed or astonished whenever merely 4000 bytes of content is removed from this article, as this is less than 1% of the total size. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, please focus on content rather than speculating vaguely about other editors' motivations.

The subarticle is a place to provide more detailed information on the topic, but this article still needs to provide a comprehensive summary of notable issues. It's not an either-or. A single sentence or two here on Trump's promotion of disinformation here seems, if anything, unduly minimal, given the pandemic's impact—I mean, >420,000 Americans have died, after all—with the understanding that additional detail may be found in the subarticle.

The Hill is a pretty low-quality source, and I'd suggest replacing it with something like this, from the New York Times. MONGO, our standard for inclusion is coverage in multiple reliable sources, not peer review. But I do take your point, and I appreciate the weight you place on peer review, so if that's your main objection I'm fine with omitting it, with the understanding that once it's published in a peer-reviewed journal you will presumably support the material's inclusion.

PackMecEng, I can't agree that Onetwothreeip's edit is an improvement. Trump "claimed to refrain from causing a panic"? That's poor writing and borderline incoherent; I'm not exactly sure what it means, and I certainly don't understand how that poorly-worded circumlocution is preferable to simply quoting Trump's own words on the subject. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any understanding at all. Did my comment "A.) This probably is better suited in a subarticle" go unnoticed? Bare in mind I was not saying none if it belongs on the pedia, merely that I do not think it belongs in this article. Maybe in the COVID article...? The Presidency of article?--MONGO (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I noticed your comment and responded directly to it in my second paragraph. Trump's role in spreading medical disinformation, and in misleading the public about the virus's severity, should be mentioned both in this article (briefly, 1-2 sentences) and in more detail in a subarticle. You seemed to be suggesting that it should be covered only in a subarticle with zero mention here, and I disagreed with that. MastCell ^Talk 00:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The COVID section is currently 41,000 bytes, which would be enough for an article in its own right, and certainly too much for a biography about a person's entire life or even an entire presidency. There remained plenty of information in there about Trump's misinformation, so it's simply incorrect to say that my edit removed most of that. Likewise, and I should have mentioned this initially, one random study with no particular notability isn't due for a biography article. There's just simply nothing special about this Cornell publication that rises it above all the other millions and millions of words that have been written about Donald Trump, which could just as well be included here. If you think "claimed to refrain from causing a panic" is poor writing, then please propose alternative wording. Would you prefer "claiming he wanted not to cause a panic"? Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer simply quoting Trump's own words ("I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don't want to create a panic"), as we did in the content you reverted. I thought I'd made that clear in my earlier comment. MastCell ^Talk 00:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean instead of quoting him directly, for which I apologise for not being clear enough about. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

123IP, sure hope you don't mean to be suggesting that the only reason anyone reverts your cuts is to push a POV. That doesn't even make any sense, because the article as it stands is NPOV as a result of many lengthy good faith discussions over the past 5 years. Many editors have told you for months now that some of your cuts are heavy-handed, too broad, and not easily parsed due to many of them comprising diverse content in one cut. The length of the article is no reason to remove longstanding text, most of it previously discussed on talk, piece by piece. In the first place, most of the bit length is due to templates and references, not article text. In the second place, when content such as the Covid detail is removed, the best practice would be to completely reconsider the section and replace current text with tertiary-sourced overviews -- many not available at the time of the original article text -- in place of a series of details or anecdotes that illustrate a certain narrative. This has been said this many times here, but this does not seem to be your approach. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm addressing the comments made by editors that clearly indicate negative sentiments towards the article's subject. If people want to have those opinions they are more than entitled to, but I am not motivated by either positive or negative feelings. The content I removed shouldn't be described as diverse as I typically stick to one section and few sub-sections at a time. Likewise, text being "longstanding" is no reason for it to remain, and most of it has not been discussed. If you would like to replace content with tertiary overviews, I would completely support that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

These are disappointing responses. The content had been stable in this heavily-watched article for many months. Yes, we do treat such text as consensus. And if you preemptively remove such context, it's on you and nobody else to ensure the article remains NPOV. Before making selective cuts in the future please consider whether the content can be more compactly cited to tertiary summaries. But that would be a prerequisite, not work assigned to others. Selective or arbitrary cuts unbalance the NPOV narratives here. SPECIFICO talk 00:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

What are the negative comments you refer to with respect to the content you cut? I don't see any. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Obviously the content isn't stable if I reverted some of it. I certainly ensured that the content that remained was neutral and appropriate for the article. I would certainly like to move to tertiary summary style but I have found much more resistance when I attempt to do so, which has lead me to only make edits that remove no more than a few thousand bytes at a time. The comments I am referring to are contained in this section and in many other sections of this talk page, and I don't wish to seem unkind on remarking about the views of editors. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You don't wish to seem unkind? That sure didn't stop you when you criticized me below. I'd like to see the comments you are referring to as well. Gandydancer (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Obviously the content isn't stable if I reverted some of it. What kind of crazy logic is that? Anyone can remove anything at any time; that has nothing to do with "stable". "Stable" means that it has been in place and unchanged for a long time, say months as opposed to three or four days. Yes, you can still try to change it, but that doesn't change its status as something that has been stable up to that point. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC) P.S. And btw, edits that "remove no more than a few thousand bytes at a time" are huge cuts and are very likely to be challenged. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer, I don't remember criticising you at all. Can you tell me what you are referring to? MelanieN, as this is such a contentious article, any edit at all has a likelihood of being reverted. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Merely ask oneself the question. If Biden was US president at the time & made the same statements, etc. Would said-information be in the Biden bio article or not? For the next several months, I suspect both articles will be under scrutiny, over whether they're are being treated equally. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, if Biden said it, it would be front-page headlines. The only reason it's not is that Trump just did so many questionable things that no-one really cared. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually at the time it was frontpage news, reported by dozens of sources including world-wide news outlets. That said, your comments are correct in that the amount of misinformation has been so great that even truly mind-blowing Trump comments tend to get moved along because in only a few days time another batch of misinformation comes out. However, as editors it's up to us to document the highlights and this policy resulted in hundreds of deaths, and if that is not important to cover adequately I don't know what is. Gandydancer (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Everyone agrees it should be included. The matter is how much should be included here, and how it should be written. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I said it should be covered adequately, which means to a satisfactory or acceptable extent. Given the fact that the Trump policies cost so many lives, I believe that it should be fully covered. Gandydancer (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

There is simply no way that the pandemic in America can be fully covered in this article. We can't include every comment he made. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Break for proposal

I absolutely think both the Woodward material and the Cornell material should be covered here, but with paraphrasing rather than detailed quotes (leave those for daughter articles). How about a trim like this (trimmed version of what is currently in the article):

Trump's public statements on COVID-19 were at odds with his private statements. In February 2020 Trump publicly asserted that the outbreak in the U.S. was less deadly than regular flu influenza, was "very much under control," and would soon be over. At the same time he acknowledged the opposite in a private conversation with Bob Woodward. In March 2020, Trump privately told Woodward that he was deliberately "playing it down" in public so as not to create panic. A Cornell University study concluded that Trump was "likely the largest driver" of COVID-19 misinformation in the first five months of 2020.

Sources

Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• We should not say "regular flu" because that implies that COVID-19 is a type of "special flu" (when it fact COVID-19 is not influenza at all). Other than that I think I am OK with this version, although I'd like to hear from others. Neutrality^talk 17:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  Agree with Neutrality, remove the word "regular" and I am 100% in agreement with that content. (And add a comma after "at the same time".) – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point. I'll change it. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC) I also added a separate reference for what he was saying in February. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you MelanieN. I think this is exactly the kind of editorial update we can now do with the benefit of time and new sources. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I could get behind this, though I would probably drop the Cornell deal for the reasons above. PackMecEng (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The COVID disinformation theme is one that is well developed in the section, and is mentioned in the "False statements" section. On the one hand, mentioning it here as specifically a Cornell U. study seems a sensible lead in to what comes below, on the other hand the statement could be broader than the Cornell statement about the disinformation. That issue is a principal aspect of Trump's pandemic response (or lack thereof, or counterproductive efforts thereof). If "Cornell study" is going to attract trouble, I'd be in favor of a more general statement, as is supported by quite a bit of RSs. Bdushaw (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

If the study is mentioned (and I believe it should be) I'd suggest adding "in a recently released but as yet unpublished study" to the wording. Gandydancer (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm good with this wording; thank you, Melanie. Personally I'm fine with mentioning the Cornell study, because it's been covered extensively in multiple reliable sources, although a caveat like the one suggested by Gandydancer would be reasonable. (Would suggest something like: "in a recently released study awaiting peer review...", if anything). MastCell ^Talk 18:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, replacing the current text with the proposed text would be an improvement, so I support it. But I still think it shouldn't be included as written, in that location (as the second paragraph of the intro of the Covid section). The intro of the Covid section should introduce and summarize the various sub-parts of the Covid section. "Trump's public statements on COVID-19 were at odds with his private statements" is not a summary of the sub-sections. It's not even important enough, in my view, to include in the Covid section intro at all. Is the most important thing about Trump and Covid that his public statements were at odds with his private statements? No! Trump actively and deliberately downplayed and spread misinformation about the pandemic. We should say that, in wikivoice, in the intro to the Covid section.

The lead of the article says He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. That's how this information should be presented. The intro to the Covid section should be an expanded version of that sentence, expanding upon (1) reacted slowly, (2) downplayed, (3) ignored or contradicted health officials, (4) promoted misinformation, esp. unproven treatments. Neither the current text nor the proposed text for the intro to the Covid section covers any of that. "Public comments at odds with private comments" is like a would-be #5 on that list that is so minor it shouldn't even make the list. In light of the first 4 items, it doesn't matter (and is obvious to the reader from the word "downplayed") that his private comments are at odds with his public comments.

Highlighting the Woodward statement makes it seem like that was the only one time he made a private comment at odds with his public comments. Woodward should be mentioned in Trump's bio because his books have had a big influence on Trump's life, but this one particular detail from Woodward's latest book is not important enough to include here. And, the Cornell study should not be mentioned for the reasons stated above re: attributed statements and because it's an unpublished unreviewed study. So while I support this as better than what's there currently, I still think 123's original trim was even better, and I would replace the entire current second paragraph of the Covid section with something that expands on those 4 points in the lead sentence I quoted. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Not seeing any reason to add that Cornell study where the NYT even says "The Cornell Alliance for Science, which spearheaded the study, is a nonprofit devoted to using science to enhance food security and improve environmental sustainability. One of its aims is to promote science-based decision-making. Dr. Evanega and a Cornell colleague, Mark Lynas, partnered with media researchers at Cision, a company that performs media analysis, to conduct the study. Dr. Evanega said the study was being peer reviewed by an academic journal, but the process was lengthy and the authors withdrew it because they felt they had compelling public health information to share." So they didn't want to wait for the peer review cause they are that certain they are correct. Of course they are...junk science is science that doesn't want to wait around for a peer review.--MONGO (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal, at least as a start, but without the Cornell study. Highlighting only one study is usually not a good idea, unless the study is notable in its own right. It's little factoids like this that the article really needs to do without. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we have consensus for the first two sentences. I will add them to the article in place of the current paragraph. For now I will leave out the Cornell study; discussion about it can continue. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

To bleach, or not to bleach...

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 looking at the recent dispute over "ingestion of bleach". I've looked over the sources, and I believe deletion of "ingestion" is correct. There are RSs that report explicitly on what Trump said, and "ingestion" wasn't stated. Biden said that Trump said that, and ordinary people interpreted it that way, such that there was an uptick in poisoning, and manufacturers felt compelled to plead with people not to ingest it, but Trump did not say that. As all things with Trump, it takes some explaining... Not sure how to frame the statement in the article, but the point about deleting that Trump said "ingest" is correct. Bdushaw (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I have removed "ingestion of bleach" from the article; he never said it. I left in "injection of disinfectants" which was his actual suggestion. Trump never said ingest or drink, and he never said bleach. Furthermore, he wasn’t making definite recommendations; he was thinking out loud about what he had just heard from his experts, that sunlight and disinfectants can kill the virus, and was suggesting to Birx some ideas that he thought should be tested. His exact words were: So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous - whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn't been checked but you're going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that too. Sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? So it'd be interesting to check that. Listeners and the media took the idea about internal disinfectants (itself a dangerous idea) and interpreted it as drinking bleach, but he never said it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN. The solution is simply to conform the text to the widespread sources -- BBC, NY Times, Wasington Post, Reuters -- that say he "suggested" injecting or ingesting disinfectants. The "ingestion" version is widely reported, although not evident in the video of the event. In reverting the removal, I did not carefully check the sources, but one would hope the text would initially have been conformed to the sources rather than blanked. SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The source in the article is the BBC, which does NOT say he suggested ingesting. Because he didn't. For that matter he didn't even directly suggest people do it - he suggested that Dr. Birx look into it. I think it's important that we not put words in his mouth, even if a lot of people thought that was what he said. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Also let's not revert edits when we haven't checked the sources. That way we don't violate BLP. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact is, any given week, Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, are swigging bleach. Some are drinking Kool Aid. Some are wearing tinfoil hats. Some are walking into pizzerias looking for the basement with assault rifles. Some are claiming that Kristallnacht has come again. This is the US of A. It is routine, and it doesn't have to have anything to do with Trump. It is just roadkill on the superhighway of American history.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Biased article

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.

---

This may be the most biased article I have ever read on Wikipedia. There are too many subjective, editorial statements and they’re not supported with any citations. I’m happy to edit it to rectify the situation. But Wikipedia runs the risk of looking like another outlet only concerned with trashing Trump if this article is not significantly edited to make it more objective and less biased. Mark Toal (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Mark Toal, have you read past the lead? The citations are in the article body. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"There are too many subjective, editorial statements and they’re not supported with any citations." Examples, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Mark Toal, this page has the most citations/references out of any biography on Wikipedia. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 15:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Which is fitting, since it is the most viewed article out of any biography on Wikipedia. Aza24 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not the number of references, there are plenty of them in this article. It's the choice of references. More than half of the references are from the media which were always openly against Trump and pro-Democrat, so if the text in this article is based on such references, it's no surprise if bias is present. I just analyzed for fun one randomly chosen block of 160 consecutive references in this article: 80 are from New York Times, Washington post, CNN and Guardian, and 79 are from all other media (NBC, CNBC, ABC News, USA Today, Bloomberg News, Politico, Reuters, etc. It is also interesting that only 1 reference in this block is from Fox News). Felix558 (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The Fox News citation should be removed. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions." Dimadick (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a great opportunity to quote something said by one of our esteemed fellow editors in a similar context some time ago: The so-called "liberal media" is biased towards reality, and the alt-right is biased towards anything that supports their ideology, which is, generally speaking, not reality-based. We are an encyclopedia, therefore we reflect reality, not any ideology. The right sees this and says "Ah, see, Wikipedia is supporting what the liberal media says, therefore Wikipedia is biased towards the left," but that's only because they see things through the filter of their POV, while we do our very best not to be biased towards anything except what is real and verifiable. The alt-right media are not, for the most part, reliable sources, since they have been shown to have been wrong again and again and again, and have an overall tendency to report whatever they believe, regardless of its relationship to reality. Thus we are forced to use reality-based media, which the alt-right sees as liberal or "leftist", which is actually ridiculous, since no mainstream American media outlet is anywhere near being left-wing -- but, then, the alt-right makes no differentiation between "liberal" and "leftist".

In short, it is wrong to point the finger at Wikipedia as being the genesis of the problem, which originates in the minds of the ideologues of the right. There is no "leftist view" to Wikipedia, that's an artifact totally created in the perceptions of rightists. Our viewpoint is centrist, just as that of the "liberal media" is. The fault is not in us, it is in those who cannot differentiate their ideology from reality. Mgasparin (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Felix558: - if conservative media were as reliable as the Wall Street Journal news section (which is unfortunately paywalled), I would be glad to include them. Unfortunately, popular online conservative media is quite shoddy nowadays. starship.paint (exalt) 00:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"no mainstream American media outlet is anywhere near being left-wing" - This is simply an absurd statement... I fully agree that the journalistic integrity of so-called conservative media often leaves much to be desired but to say that "liberal media is reality and everything else is not therefore conservatives should get over it" is just an astounding display of ignorance. The sad truth is that Wikipedia uses the reliable sources guideline as a gatekeeper to keep non-conservative viewpoints out of articles. I wish it was different, but it appears to me that that's what it comes down. I don't blame Wikipedia for mainstream media being biased, but I do blame Wikipedia and its editors for refusing to acknowledge the problem and instead hiding behind the typical elitist argument of "reality has a liberal bias." Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I would not say that liberal media is reality, but I will say that Wikipedia has a reality bias, and the chips fall from there. For more on this, Basil the Bat Lord, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-11-29/Op-Ed. starship.paint (exalt) 14:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias". And I'll say that's true. The truth is that there wasn't any ballot fraud, but if you say there wasn't, then you're a liberal. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 17:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia uses the reliable sources guideline as a gatekeeper to keep non-conservative viewpoints out of articles." Ummmm.... I think you've managed to confuse yourself. I know you've managed to confuse me. --Khajidha (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No it does not, we allow plenty of conservative sources, we just do not allow ones that tell outright lies.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is definitely biased. However, I think it's more that the articles about liberal politicians are really biased towards the left. Like here's an example of bias in this article this quote is located in the last paragraph of racial views section, "White nationalist publications and social media sites praised his remarks, which continued over the following days". Everything about this is true no doubt, but Trump has nothing do with this. He can't help a white nationalist posts crap on the internet as much as Joe Biden can help Antifa members burn down Starbucks' in Seattle, but I promise you'll never see that in Biden's article (and you shouldn't because that wouldn't be neutral). That's just one of dozen of examples. This little discussion might as well just be ended because Wikipedia already made its mind up. Hell, I've been trying to get on Biden's page just a mention of his gaffes, which were extremely notable to his candidacy. However, I have given up because liberal editors don't want to mention what reliable sources say, so they just stop commenting and consensus never happens, they de facto win. It is what it is, so why don't we just go ahead and close this discussion down because it's not going to go anywhere like the dozens before it. Cheers, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC).

Biden has made far worse racial comments than Trump over the years. But don't you dare try to add these to an article abut Biden, even if you find his statements reported in "reliable sources", you'll be told its WP:UNDUE (ie. It makes Biden look bad and that's not fair). BTW, did you know Richard B. Spencer endorsed Joe Biden? [12] Trump has strongly condemned white supremacy many times, but because CNN etc. claims he's a racist, that's what we go with. Wikipedia does not care about what is true, just what the media claims is true. Trying to remove bias from this article is a lost cause. As long as left-wing biased sources are considered "high quality reliable sources" and any source with the slightest right-wing bias is banned, you will always have articles like this.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The facts in this article are correct and accurately describe Donald Trump and his presidency, but the article is written in a "liberal tone" which we could do without. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2021

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 would suggest that you edit the Donald Trump page to state that he “served as” (not “was”) the 45th President, which would be in the same style as all the other presidents on your pages. Thank you. 2600:1700:8B32:2DA0:555A:4488:AEED:5599 (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Haha. It's pretty much an act of congress to change the lead. We can discuss it though. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This sentence is being discussed ad nauseam on this page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Why not change the other pages to "was" and do away with the silly, overly florid phrasing of "served as"? --Khajidha (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Khajidha: Oooor, better yet, we can change this one article to match literally every other one. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Why would we want to match bad writing?--Khajidha (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Saying that he "was the 45th president" is wrong grammar because he is permanently the 45th president, even if he passes away. PyroFloe (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Khajidha: Exactly. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

No, he isn't the 45th President anymore. He is the person who held the 45th Presidency, but that is over. Done with. Finished. Past tense. Thus, he WAS the 45th President. --Khajidha (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Emoluments

The remaining two lawsuits have been dismissed by the US Supreme Court. As well as having their own articles, CREW v. Trump, D.C. and Maryland v. Trump, and Blumenthal v. Trump are already detailed in the Presidency of Donald Trump and are mentioned in Efforts to impeach Donald Trump, List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump, Foreign Emoluments Clause, and Donald Trump and golf. Do we really need to mention them here as well?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, the brief mention in this article is appropriate. The Emoluments Clause cases against Trump were the first time that these constitutional clauses were ever litigated; they have been the subject of years of scholarly attention; and they are obviously significant as they related to the conflicts of interest. The Supreme Court dismissed the cases only because Trump was no longer president (i.e., they became "moot" as a legal matter). That has no effect whatsoever on their biographical significance. Neutrality^talk 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, surely the cases would be more significant if the court had found against him!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Both of the courts of appeal did rule against him [13] [14] Neutrality^talk 03:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You know what I mean.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

These lawsuits did not have a major impact on Trump's life.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Investigations

I trimmed the investigations section in these two edits but was reverted. It was only removing tenuous and extraneous detail, and doesn't change anything about Donald Trump's associations with the Russian government. The sub-articles contain all these details. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You removed a large chunk of the section on hush-money aka non-disclosure payments with the edit summary "minor trimming." Reliable sources, content had been thoroughly discussed - that's not minor trimming. You removed another part of the non-disclosure payments section but didn't mention it in the edit summary. Why? And you state that Manafort and Stone's Russia connections and federal agents overhearing Russian agents during the campaign saying they could use Manafort and Flynn to influence Trump (also with reliable sources and thoroughly discussed) must be removed because there hasn't been a trial. Indeed, there hasn't been, there being that little obstacle of Trump being president. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

There is an entire article on the non-disclosure payments, and all I did was trim the content that was on this article. All the main facts that anybody would need to know if they wanted a brief analysis remained in the article, as supported by the fact you haven't raised what parts I removed. If you don't actually object to the removal on that but object to the edit summaries then that is a separate point and I don't mind discussing that. The edit summary clearly names the section that I was trimming.

Extended detail about Russian agents overhearing Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn belongs on articles about those individuals, and on articles about those particular events. Trump being president doesn't prevent Manafort or Flynn from being tried and convicted in a court, but I'm not sure what point you're making there. I certainly don't think that the only content that can be here is from courts which have convicted individuals.

Most of all, don't misrepresent the edits either, as there are talk page readers who may not go through the links and rely on an account such as yours. You say And you state that Manafort and Stone's Russia connections and federal agents overhearing Russian agents during the campaign saying they could use Manafort and Flynn to influence Trump must be removed because there hasn't been a trial., but my edits clearly show that the article still said, after my edits, Russian agents were overheard during the campaign saying they could use Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort and former National Security Advisor Michael T. Flynn to influence Trump. I ask you to withdraw that comment. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

My apology for the Russian agent sentence. Wasn’t expecting part of the text highlighted as deleted in the left column to show up as added text in the right one (or whatever was going on there) and didn’t see it. While taking another look at your edits, I also noticed that—prior to the two edits Specifico reverted—you had already edited the "hush payments" section (original title), changing the title to non-disclosure payments and deleting all mention of AMI. However, Karen McDougal had a contract with AMI, not with Donald Trump or Cohen’s EC, LLC. Neither of the agreements was a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) (Forbes, and none of the sources refer to it as such.

McDougal entered into a Name and Rights License Agreement with AMI (parent company of the National Enquirer) which had an amendment that prohibited McDougal to speak or write about her alleged relationship with Donald Trump (McDougal's complaint). In Daniels’s case, it was a "Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release; Assignment of Copyright and Non-Disparagment Agreement" (they misspelled disparagement), and the parties were Peggy Peterson (whose signature reads Stephanie Clifford, Daniels’s legal name) and EC, LLC (the company Cohen had set up for the sole purpose of paying Daniels) and/or the pseudonymous David Dennison (Trump) who didn’t sign it (Daniel's complaint).

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, hush-money is the colloquial expression for a bribe to secure silence and the expression used by the sources. I haven't found a single source for "non-disclosure payments." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, this confidentiality provision is not what's meant by NDA. Full stop. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course I removed mentions of AMI. This is a biography article about Donald Trump, and the intricate details about how these agreements were made aren't due here. All that is relevant here, if anything, is that these payments were made to two individuals to hide their sexual relationships to Donald Trump. Michael Cohen's role would also be relevant, but not everything about it.

"Non-disclosure payments" is a far more proper title than "hush money", which you admit is colloquial. If editors think that "non-disclosure" sounds too much like a non-disclosure agreement, then I suggest we move to calling them confidentiality agreements. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"Admit?" Makes it sound as though I think it's improper and/or unencyclopedic language which isn't the case. It's pertinent and to the point. The section is about the pay-offs, and the heading needs to reflect that. AMI also admitted having bought the rights to McDougal's story to influence the election, and their records have been subpoenaed by the Manhattan District Attorney. Tomorrow Trump will lose presidential immunity. What's your rush? Let's wait and see if and how this plays out in court. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I have been editing this article for at least a year now, what rush are you referring to? We can report on any of the details about this, even if they are only allegations or not proved in a court, just not on this article. This is an article about the entirety of Donald Trump and this only deserves a couple of sentences as most, so the role of AMI is completely undue for this article, but is absolutely justified to be in articles specifically about the topic of these payments. As for the title, the issue is that we need to have encyclopaedic titles, so it should be "confidentiality payments". Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

123, you are repeating your stated position without providing any policy-and-sourcing based rationale and without responding to the arguments of the editors who oppose your view. Without a specific rebuttal there's no need to repeat your opinion. The role of AMI to proxy for Trump is a highly noteworhty example of his frequent modus operandi and is widely discussed and reported by RS as characteristic of "the entirety of Donald Trump." SPECIFICO talk 22:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You are expecting me to show sources that say AMI was not significant in Donald Trump's life? I don't mind saying that a proxy entity was used, but it's really irrelevant exactly how the payments were made. What's important is that the payments were made, and reliable sources give far more attention to Michael Cohen's role than AMI's. I didn't think anybody actually rejected these assertions about the balance of sources, but I'm willing to provide sources. Likewise with policy, is anybody seriously rejecting that this article should only summarise his life, and not describe every event in detail? If they are, of course I'll link to policy for that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

1. That's a straw man. 2. Nobody agrees with you. SPECIFICO talk 10:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

There hasn't been much explicit disagreement either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Really? This explicit enough? If you think "hush money" is too colloquial for Wikipedia, how about "Payoffs to formers lovers"? A lot more to the point than "confidentiality." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes as in saying what parts you disagree with and why. "Payoffs" is also colloquial, although better than "hush money", and McDougal and Clifford aren't "former lovers" either. Do you have any issue with "confidentiality payments"? It's the same as "hush money" but far more professional. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

That wasn’t a serious proposal. No idea what to call the participants in extramarital affairs and one-night stands, except for the married adulterer, and no intention to research the matter. It's the same as "hush money" but far more professional. Do you have a source for that bold contention? There isn’t a single source for "confidentiality." They were payments to keep the alleged affairs secret, and the sources called them by the generally known term, hush money. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the agreements themselves use "confidential", and this is how the agreements have been described. "Hush" is simply not a neutral term, even when reliable sources use it. It's a word being used to generate interest by implying that something is improper. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Trimming Mueller investigation section

This relatively minor effort of trimming the article was reverted and should be restored. These are details that are more appropriate for other articles than the biography of Donald Trump. Please note that anything important still remained, even if something regarding it was removed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have put in a reworded version of the part about the Mueller investigation not being a subject of an article of impeachment, which I think is better than either the previous version (which was unsourced) or the version you propose. I oppose the removal of the content in the paragraph about the Barr letter (especially the part that indicates that Mueller believed it was misleading), as I think this content is important, biographically significant, and does not take up much space. I do think we need to mention briefly somewhere that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was subsumed into the Mueller investigation, since we mention both investigations anyway. I am OK with the other trims you proposed. Neutrality^talk 22:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this continual argument that "this content...does not take up much space". This is an outsized article, but it could be reduced to a number of component parts which are quite small. Any trimming of this article must of necessity affect some of these component parts.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think anybody would disagree with that truism; it does not, however, help us address the merits of including, or excluding, any given content. In any case, I have proposed a shorter and better version below. Neutrality^talk 23:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• You have continually repeated this nonsense.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Neutrality: This was exactly the sort of complaint I was trying to address. If you look at the edit in terms of what I removed, then it does look like I removed Mueller's view that Trump's assessment of the report was misleading. However, looking at the version I retained, it can be seen that there still was a reference to Mueller's view of Trump's claims being misleading. There are things in the article that are repeated, and when I remove one instance, it shouldn't necessarily be seen as me removing it entirely from the article, when they are mentioned elsewhere. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

On March 22, 2019, Mueller concluded his investigation and gave his report to Attorney General William Barr. On March 24, Barr sent a four-page letter to Congress summarizing the "principal conclusions" in the report. He quoted Mueller as stating "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Barr further wrote that he and Rosenstein did not see sufficient evidence to prove obstruction of justice. Trump interpreted Mueller's report as a "complete exoneration," a phrase he repeated multiple times in the ensuing weeks. Mueller privately complained to Barr on March 27 that his summary did not accurately reflect what the report said, and some legal analysts called the Barr letter misleading.

• There were two serious problems with 123's cut. First, by removing the Barr/Mueller bit, it undermined the former carefully balanced NPOV treatment of the narrative. Second, it bundled that serious damage with the other less problematic removal in a single cut. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't remove Barr/Mueller, I only reduced it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

A better version, shortened and updated

I would propose the following change, which would both shorten content (~120 words to ~70 words) and would also update content (among other things, replacing "some legal analysts" with what a federal court subsequently said):

Current Version

On March 22, 2019, Mueller concluded his investigation and gave his report to Attorney General William Barr. On March 24, Barr sent a four-page letter to Congress summarizing the "principal conclusions" in the report. He quoted Mueller as stating "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Barr further wrote that he and Rosenstein did not see sufficient evidence to prove obstruction of justice. Trump interpreted Mueller's report as a "complete exoneration," a phrase he repeated multiple times in the ensuing weeks. Mueller privately complained to Barr on March 27 that his summary did not accurately reflect what the report said, and some legal analysts called the Barr letter misleading.

References

My Proposed Change and Update:

On March 22, 2019, Mueller concluded his investigation and gave his report to Attorney General William Barr. Two days later, Barr sent a letter to Congress purporting to summarize the report's main conclusions. A federal court, as well as Mueller himself, said Barr had mischaracterized the investigation's conclusions, confusing the public. Trump repeatedly and falsely claimed that the investigation "exonerated" him; in fact, the Mueller report expressly stated that it did not exonerate Trump.

References

--Neutrality^talk 23:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I support this version. Nice work. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Well done. SPECIFICO talk 04:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This version also has more references though, so it's not really a reduction in overall size. Unless this version would also replace more content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Refs don't count toward article size targets. (Refs/footnotes are not "readable prose"). This version decreases readable prose size substantially. Neutrality^talk 16:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not true; (per WP:ARTICLESIZE) there are several measures of article length, and this article is too long both in references/templates and prose. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe we need to mention Barr's letter. It was just a passing incident. It wasn't a major part of Trump's life.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

123, you are prioritizing length issues over core policies of V and NPOV. That is not how we approach artice content, and it's led to lots of bad edits, as well as (I imagine) lots of frustration for you when your cuts are reverted over and over and over on this and the Presidency article. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

We can prioritise all these issues at once. I have not only made edits addressing length, I have also made edits addressing NPOV. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

123, please look up the meaning of prioritize. It is the opposite of what you appear to be saying. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Support, Barr misrepresented along with Trump, and several others, so it’s a common thread, but Barr did it at a time when the public couldn’t verify. starship.paint (exalt) 10:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely keep Barr's letter. It totally influenced the public and congressional understanding of what was in the Mueller report, from which the actual report never recovered. It was very important in Trump's life, in that it basically made the Mueller report go away. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That is simply not true. Barr's letter led to a lot of controversy. What did you think was going to happen with the Mueller Report anyway?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, if it led to "a lot of controversy" - i.e., reporting, coverage - that's an argument to include it here. I agree with that. We reflect what sources cover. BTW the controversy arose after the real report came out and people realized how much Barr had whitewashed it. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You're just being contradictory.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Decidedly not 'just being contradictory'. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Has anything to do with Trump not been controversial? This so-called Barr letter doesn't rate high at all on the events of the last few years. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I support this version as an improvement over the original, but I think it should be condensed further, with the details (including the Barr letter) covered in sub-articles. For the main bio, the key points about the Mueller investigation are that it happened, its conclusions, its relationship with the first impeachment, and possibly Trump's false claims that it exonerated him... all of which could be handled in 1-2 sentences. The Mueller investigation was a big deal in Trump's life, but not the Barr letter. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The inappropriate removal of the Barr/Mueller bit is the premise of this thread. I think we're past reinstating its removal at this point. SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Per Levivich, this may be a marginal improvement but still contains details that aren't relevant to his life as a whole. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Good article nomination?

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

---

Since this is a B-Class article, and its subject is certainly notable (a former president of the United States), I was wondering if there was support for a good article nomination? Since I am not a major contributor, and therefore unable to nominate it by myself, I was wondering what the consensus is for a potential nomination. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would strongly oppose this being a good article. It is too long and biased. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Can you give an example as to the article's supposed bias? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Politicsfan4: There are a lot of examples. Go a couple discussions above and you'll see a discussion I started combatting undue weight in a sentence. That's just one, I plan on starting many more. Also this article is too long. It's simply not a good article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'd oppose, as long as the lead says .."was the 45th president...", instead of .."served as the 45th president...". GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Good luck working to get this article good, because it will take a long time for the controversy surrounding the former president to finally adequately die down and therefore for the edits to stabilize. FreeMediaKid! 03:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• No. The article is too long; it shouldn't be considered until it drops below 350KB or there's consensus here it cannot be trimmed further. It's also likely to be constantly updated, at least until the impeachment trial is done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• No. The article is too long. The article is biased and basically being stymied by cyborg SAPs who are obsessed with Russia. The article ignores the presumption of innocence. The article has a structure which violates WP guidelines and is completely illogical. The article neglects the first 70 years of Trump's life. This article features minor incidents and distorts major ones. No, no, no. If this article becomes a good article, I will be forced to abandon Wikipedia editorship and move to Baluchistan. Don't make me do it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

No; give it a couple more years there’s more stuff to be added like his second impeachment trial and whatever he starts doing in his post presidency; also, what’s with the drama, dude? SRD625 (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@SRD625: Drama? What are you talking about? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Politicsfan4: I assume they were talking about the editor who is threatening to relocate to Iran should your request for a good article nomination succeed. Kestreltail (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• There's simply too much controversy surrounding this article for people to agree on a potential GA nomination. Kestreltail (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• As much as I might want a fellow editor to make good on their promise to move to Balochistan, from looking at the good article criteria I'd think that 3b (without going into unnecessary detail)—if nothing else—is a problem. We still have widely diverging opinions on much of the content. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• There is no chance of upgrading this article to GA status, there is simply too much biased reporting to write a wikipedia npov quality biography. In truth as written now it isn't even worthy of a wikipedia B class biography. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  Sir or madam, our only mission is to reflect the reporting you are calling biased. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not a GAC - no way. It is the antithesis of GA and would serve well as an example of how not to write an encyclopedic article. Atsme 💬 📧 23:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

No 107.217.84.95 (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

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

For anyone who doesn't know yet, Mandruss is retired, so that's a major contributor that we can't ask to nominate. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 02:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2021 pls i need to help with a few things

Gman200 200 (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done — changes must be requested in a "change x to y" format, not "change x", or in this case "pls i need to help". Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Post–presidency (2021–present)

To explain why I said this heading was ridiculous, it's "2021-present". Um...??? And I think "Post–presidency" is too vague. You can defend it all you like but I don't think this heading will last the year.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland Well, what would you suggest as an improvement? Mgasparin (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

What’s so weird about it? SRD625 (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The present is 2021.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but it won't be 2021 next year... Again, do you have any suggestions for an improvement, because I can't think of any. Mgasparin (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

But as I said, I don't think this heading is going to last the year. There's no point having a heading that will be silly for many months. The dates are completely unneeded at the moment, and they will probably never been relevant. I don't think we need this section at the moment. It looks like the next event will be the Senate trial. The article is already outsized, and we don't need a Trump blog detailing what he's doing each week. We can create a section when there's something substantial to say.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

But the heading is accurate. I wouldn't bother with the (2021–present) bit, though. GoodDay (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Since 2021?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This is pointless. "Post-presidency" is fine. In 2022 it might make sense to use "2021–present", but 2021 right now is the present, and "Since 2021" is ambiguous and confusing (implies 2022+ to too many people, depending on their dialect). There's no reason to even change away from "Post-presidency" in 2022 unless there's so much material i needs to be broken up into year subsections. A decision made on a section title now has no implication for what heading title to use next year; just discuss it again. WP:NOT#PAPER and all that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Trump has been out of office for little more than a week and already this section has three paragraphs. This is absurd.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Early actions/Conflict of interest

There is a partial overlap between the last paragraph of "Early actions" and the first paragraph of "Conflict of interests". I tried to resolve this, but my edit was reverted. As it stands, the text is quite repetitive. I think there is potential to cut down the word count here without any loss of content.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Try cutting the weaker second mention. SPECIFICO talk 00:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The issue relates to "Conflict of interest" and so belongs under that heading, as far as I can see. There is no reason to discuss the management of Trump's businesses during the Presidency twice.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You made dozens of edits lately. It would help if you mentioned which edit and revert you are talking about. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not about a particular edit; it is about an overlap between two paragraph which is clearly explained.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2021

h CountryCoolGuy12345 (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

To editor CountryCoolGuy12345:  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DigitalChutney (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Time to address the elephant in the room

Regardless of my own political views I cannot stand this bias and overblown hatred against Trump on Wikipedia anymore you all act like he is far worse then he actually is because liberal bias is unfortunately common on Wikipedia to the point you can’t follow your own neutral point of view policy anymore I doubt you will listen me since I assume you will just call me racist or bigot to shut up me up but you WILL NOT shut me up enough is ENOUGH someone needed to call you out on this Wikipedia and unfortunately it had to be me P.S This is NOT a personal attack on anyone I am just calling Wikipedia out on it’s bias because this NEEDS to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.136.180.207 (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please also determine where the alleged "bias" part is on the page and we'll probably have a formal discussion about it. PyroFloe (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2021 (2)

Can I make some changes 2600:1700:3E83:2810:18C:1503:18FB:13B4 (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PyroFloe (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2021

President Trump was not the first president to serve as president without serving in the military. John Adams was the first president to serve not having any military background. Furthermore, there were another 14 presidents that served the office without having served in the military.

Please make the correction to President Donald's Trump page accordingly. Scheasbro (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: You have to read the entire sentence. It says He became the first U.S. president without prior military or government service. That is accurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Briefly mentioning "Patriot Party" in the Post-presidency section

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.

---

Hello! Now that the "Patriot Party" article has been redirected here per the recent dicussion, the Post-presidency section should probably have, like, a single sentence mentioning the fact that Trump is considering starting and might possibly start a separate political party. Even though the party hasn't been officially proposed yet, Trump's considering of it has been reported on in agreed-to-be-reliable-sources, and has significant ramifications. While there doesn't need to be paragraphs about it, there should probably be ONE sentence about it. How about:

"Following alleged criticism from top Republicans, Trump discussed with his aides the possibility of starting a new political party called the 'Patriot Party'."

Or something brief like that. Any suggestions? Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Weak support I suppose there's nothing wrong with adding it. My only problem is that this is just speculation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

There's simply not enough to it, especially for this article which is far too large currently. It's also far too recent, and probably not something that anyone will think is important in ten years. Do we have any articles about Donald Trump about his political positions? Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You raise a good point, it probably shouldn't be added. I don't feel crossing my old response out, so just note I'm opposed to this motion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose even one sentence because we don't know yet if it is significant that Trump considered a third party. Other, newer, news reports said he's no longer considering it (links are in previous discussions of this). In any case, we should not include what someone thought about doing, based on news media reports that were later contradicted by other news media reports. This is what WP:NOTNEWS is all about... we shouldn't report the day-to-day play-by-play of Trump's life. A biography is not a diary. Suppose we had three not-news RSes, like three biography books about Trump, pure secondary sources, and all three mentioned Trump considered but rejected forming a new party, then I'd support including it. History books, for example, will write that a general or other national leader considered some course of action but ultimately rejected it; this sort of thing we should include. But it's just too soon to know whether this third party thing is significant enough for inclusion; we have to wait for the history books to be written; and that's the point of NOTNEWS. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons stated.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

References

We should have one sentence talking about how he did consider and then decide to drop it because that’s what most reliable sources are basically saying now SRD625 (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Undue weight

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

---

"In August 2019 it was reported that a man who allegedly assaulted a minor for perceived disrespect toward the national anthem had cited Trump's rhetoric in his own defense." This sentence is undue weight, since this one incident is trivial in nature. Violates WP:NPOV and falls under WP:RECENTISM.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a summary source that also discusses the many other accused criminals who have cited Trump? That would address the concern. SPECIFICO talk 03:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Just check the next sentence. It talks about criminal cases supposedly from Trump inciting violence on a broader scale. This one case is trivial, and should be removed, especially since this is already an article that's too long. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, this is a "factoid" and should be removed. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Obvious remove. Even if there wasn't already anything in the article about Trump inciting violence generally, silly things like this need to be removed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It's a minor incident with a trivial connection to Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree on removal - it was probably notable at the time, and seemed to be a rare occurrence, but it's been overshadowed by more serious events since then. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You made dozens of edits lately. It would help if you mentioned which edit and revert you are talking about. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is in reference to the following sentence,"In August 2019 it was reported that a man who allegedly assaulted a minor for perceived disrespect toward the national anthem had cited Trump's rhetoric in his own defense." Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, why was that stated in the first post. No wonder Americans have turned to insurrection!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Removal of allegations that he was a Russian asset

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.

---

An editor has removed all coverage of well-respected journalist Craig Unger's new book American Kompromat that detailed allegations that Trump was a Russian asset:

• "'The perfect target': Russia cultivated Trump as asset for 40 years – ex-KGB spy". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 January 2021.
• "KGB groomed Trump as an asset for 40 years, former Russian spy says". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 30 January 2021.
• Former KGB spy claims Trump has been wooed by Russia for decades (The Independent)
• Donald Trump war offenbar jahrzehntelang auf dem Radar des KGB (Der Spiegel)
• Donald Trump, un atout pour la Russie, repéré il y a 40 ans par le KGB (Le Point)
• (just examples; there are hundreds of articles about this)

This widely reported information clearly needs to be mentioned in this article. --Tataral (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

No, one allegation does not need to be reported - none of the articles you present actually show any credibility to the claim, they simply report on it for clickbait purposes and to get their ad revenue. That is not due weight for this article at this time, and I stand by my reversion of the addition of a very controversial/negative claim on a BLP before discussion on addition based on a few sources which are all based on the same book. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• (apologies for the edit that I just noticed was made, was using the beta edit conflict resolution tool and it was not clear that would be changed) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian and the other sources are regarded by Wikipedia as reliable sources of good quality, regardless of your personal views about their advertisements outlined above. --Tataral (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

And those sources all provide absolutely no commentary on it of their own. They merely quote the book/book's author. I wrote an essay about this "source laundering" where people try to use "reliable sources" to report what ultimately is unreliable information simply because it's been republished in a reliable source here. That may be useful to read. Regardless, an exceptional claim made by one person in one book that has not yet been confirmed or collaborated by any other sources is not due for this article whatsoever. I'll note I have no problem with sites advertising - they have to make money somehow. But one must remember (and Wikipedia guidelines even encourage us to consider) that not all webpages/pieces of information which originate from a reliable source's website are the same level of reliability. I'm not saying this can never be added. But "any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources" and right now you have one source - it's a book - duplicated a few times in other sources, but at its core, it's one source, and it's not even high quality at that. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not the only source that has raised this concern. It has been reported elsewhere since at least 2018. [15][16][17][18][19][20] SPECIFICO talk 14:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, Trump's suspected Russia ties really define his presidency, and we need a section that presents an overview of his suspected business ties to Russia over the last decades and long-standing suspicions that he is either a Russian asset or trying to curry favour with Putin for some reason. There is a large body of articles that in different ways discuss Trump's suspected business or other ties to Russia. Some other examples: [21][22][23] --Tataral (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Saying he’s a Russian “agent” requires multiple sources to lend credibility to these claims. While the claims have been reported in multiple sources, they have not been confirmed or validated by any of the sources you link to. Feel free to start an RfC or seek other editors opinions, but per WP:EXCEPTIONAL this should not be included unless multiple high quality sources have confirmed such an allegation. As BLP is an exception to edit warring/revert rules, you should expect it to be removed again unless you find sources that actually themselves claim he was a Russian agent, as opposed to just repeating what one or two books have said without actually saying the reliable source agrees with that information. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a content and sourcing issue, not a BLP problem. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Claiming Trump was a Russian asset sourced to two books one of which cites a KGB operative (not reliable for this) does not comply with WP:EXCEPTIONAL, no matter how many reliable sources simply repeat those courtrooms, unless the reliable source is saying “we verified this claim ourself” which none of them do. You’re right - this is a sourcing issue, and exceptional claims require multiple high quality sources, which you have not met. As such, it is a BLP issue until the sourcing is resolved. Feel free to start an RFC or wait for other editors input if you wish. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

1) Nobody has called him a Russian "agent", that is a pure strawman on your part. 2) This discussion is concerned with the need for a section on his suspected Russian business ties, that have received a ton of coverage over many years, and the claim that it's all based on that one new book is false. Many of the examples cited in this discussion predate that book. Since you unilaterally removed the whole section, it hasn't been possible to develop it further, but it should include more than just the material on that one book, e.g. material based on some of the other sources cited in this discussion by SPECIFICO. --Tataral (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPPUBLIC. Note that nobody proposes calling him a Russian agent in Wikivoice. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the removal per WP:NOTNEWS, since this is a recent book. While its publication was reported in mainstream media, we cannot yet know how accepted the views will become. My guess is that based on the author's record it won't. See for example, "These dots don't join up," (David Leigh, The Guardian 29 Jul 2004.) The article says Unger assembled a number of facts to imply a conspiracy about 911 that did not exist. TFD (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• I also agree with the removal. If we can't say it in wikivoice, it doesn't belong in the top-level article, it's not significant enough for inclusion. This is one allegation, it belongs as an attributed statement in the appropriate sub-article. I also agree with the NOTNEWS rationale for exclusion, plus, this is absolutely a WP:BLP concern, as "Trump was cultivated as a Russian asset for over 40 years and proved very willing to parrot anti-western propaganda" is a controversial statement about a living person. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with the removal. Such claims can not be based on a recent book writen by author with such low credibility, or on reports in media which only repeat what was written in this book (without giving any proof to such claims). Felix558 (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• I support removal. We already have the Muller Report saying there was no credible evidence of Russian collusion. One poorly backed allegation doesn't deserve this much coverage within the page Anon0098 (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  No. Mueller did not say that at all, according to his report and RS. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• I support removal per WP:NOTNEWS. Also, I have to say: this likely won't hold up. For anyone familiar with how Intel/the KGB worked.....this story is just preposterous. (At least as it is presented in these articles.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• I disagree with the removal. It should stay because if a POTUS has been cultivated for 40 years by the KGB, then that's definitely notable. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 21:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • User:Thanoscar21 - big if. The allegations are flimsy at best, from someone with a shady reputation, and haven’t been confirmed or otherwise corroborated by any other sources than the original book. This is a BLP violation to include at this point - and that’s been agreed by multiple other editors. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    Berchanhimez, we don't need to call him an asset in Wikivoice; we can call it a claim or an allegation; if the Guardian and the Independent report it, then it's not a tabloid-y thing. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    No, we can’t, based on a single source. The Guardian and Independent aren’t “reporting” it, they are “repeating it”. They haven’t independently verified it, and that’s clear by the tone of their articles. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    First, the book is not based on a single person's statements. Second, this has been a longstanding subject of concern in mainstream RS accounts, including documented concerns of top former US intelligence officials. We do not need to cite that particular book or allegation, but the subject more broadly treated and with fine sourcing does belong in this article. It's certainly no BLP violation to cite well sourced widespread public discussion of his strange behaviors, campaign associations, and funding relationships. SPECIFICO talk 22:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY it isn’t appropriate to even make insinuations about this topic without multiple high quality sources, as this is an extraordinary and negative claim about a living person. You are in the minority here and multiple others have agreed that it’s a BLP violation, at least as currently sourced. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    We have many top RS discussing the concerns of many intelligence experts. Also, the secondary coverage of the book is what matters. We have books about atomic fission by authors who have not themselves achieved it at home. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    And you’ll note that the article on atomic fusion does not mention these people who wrote quack books with false claims based on shoddy logic/evidence in it at all - which is the more accurate comparison. The secondary coverage of this book/claim is nonexistent - the articles referenced thus far are merely reporting on the books release, not lending any credibility or extra “source quality” to it. There’s also a difference between concerns and “proof” - concerns with no proof/evidence aren’t due weight for an article at all, and there’s no claims/concerns with any reputable evidence right now. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

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