Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 136

Archive 130

←

Archive 134

Archive 135

Archive 136

Archive 137

Archive 138

→

Archive 140

Lead too long

The introduction section is wayy too long. I don't think I have ever seen another wikipedia page that has more than 2 paragraphs before hitting the contents box. Is this a thing that should be fixed? It just doesn't look right to me. 2001:569:BE3B:C700:B88D:C732:531C:123E (talk) 07:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It is indeed quite long, but that's not exceptional given the amount of information this article covers. Wikipedia has a rather loose guideline on lead length. The ideal number of paragraphs for a long, complex article is 3-4, but I don't think the 5 shortish ones here is so out of line that it needs an urgent 'fix' – the current length is just about acceptable. Leads naturally tend to end up longer because of WP:RECENTISM, particularly with controversial topics. This one has been discussed extensively as there are different views on what should and shouldn't be included. I expect it'll be easier to make decisions about what to cut as time passes and the most important parts of Trump's legacy become clearer (and more sources are written). If you have any concrete suggestions for improvement though, fire away. Jr8825 • Talk 18:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Trump website

The official Trump post-presidential website is 45office.com. Why is it not listed? Ajlipp (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.45office.com Ajlipp (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Or is it https://www.donaldjtrump.com/?Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

In the same way that Obama has two sites: https://barackobama.com ("The Office of Barack and Michelle Obama") and https://obama.org (Obama Foundation), Trump also has two.

https://45office.com is "The Office of Donald J. Trump" and https://donaldjtrump.com is "Save America", a site for fundraising for Save America JFC, a joint fundraising committee of Save America and Make America Great Again PAC. Its legal disclaimer says it is "not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee." The site also forwards to a store for Trump merchandise, and forwards to https://45office.com via the "contact" link. Both sites catalog Trump's recent official statements. Ajlipp (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I changed the link to 45office. The other one, donaldjtrump, is just a link to the for-profit GOP fundraiser WinRed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

https://45office.com is his "official" site, but this week he started using https://donaldjtrump.com/desk as his replacement Twitter-type page as well. Ajlipp (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

There’s a link to it listed under "External links." The "desk" button was added to the shop/fundraising website on May 4, 2021. It wasn’t there when the Wayback Machine crawled the website at 17:47, it was there when the website was crawled at 20:51 (I don’t know whether they’re using UTC or another time zone). It’s a blog (think WordPress) trying to copy the look of Twitter. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds fair. We don't list the Twitter accounts (or their equivalents) of Obama, GWB, Bill Clinton, or Carter in the "personal details" section of their pages either. Ajlipp (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Why was Trump's official website switched to https://donaldjtrump.com? That site states "Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee." It's written on literally every page. It is *not* Trump's official website, and could not be more direct about that fact. It is paid for, controlled by, and exists for the sole financial benefit of the Save America joint fundraising committee.

Trump's only official website is https://www.45office.com. That Save America's site also happens to contain Trump's blog doesn't change that. Please switch Trump's official website back to https://trump45office.com Ajlipp (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

From the Desk of Donald J. Trump

Trump's new official website is called From the Desk of Donald J. Trump 46.212.103.44 (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

See how canceled he is? He only has access to eight TV networks and a website to get his message out. Guy (help! - typo?) 06:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 06:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

And that message is "same old same old," except he now has to wait for office hours to get his messages posted by the content managers. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It’s not a new official website, it’s a blog (think WordPress) on the shop/fundraising website. They added the "desk" button to the shop’s website on May 4, 2021. It wasn’t there when the Wayback Machine crawled the website at 17:47, May 4, 2021. It was there when the Wayback Machine next crawled it at 20:51 (I don’t know whether the archive uses UTC or another time zone). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we need an RS for what his official website is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Is your Google malfunctioning? Here ya go. Jackson, David (May 4, 2021). "Trump launches 'From the desk of Donald J. Trump' as potential Facebook ban looms". USA TODAY. and Murphy, Tim (May 4, 2021). "Donald Trump Has a New Website But It's Bad: Here is the latest media personality to turn to blogging". Mother Jones., etc. etc. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I just wanted somethign that says it is "his official website", not that it is one he operates (he has a few).Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've gone ahead and updated the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

No, his official website is https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ In the infobox we should link to his home page, not a subpage like https://www.donaldjtrump.com/desk or https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news - I've moved his blog to External links'. starship.paint (exalt) 03:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

You didn't restore his official taxpayer-funded website as the former president which is "www.45office.com." "www.donaldjtrump.com" is a shop/fundraising site, now with a blog for promulgating Trump's—uh—thoughts. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

https://donaldjtrump.com is *not* Trump's official website. That site states "Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee." Those words are written on literally *every* page. The site could not be more direct about the fact that it is not Trump's site. It is paid for, controlled by, and exists for the sole financial benefit of the Save America joint fundraising committee. That it also happens to contain Trump's blog doesn't change that.

Trump's only official website is https://www.45office.com. Please switch it back. Ajlipp (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Ajlipp and Space4Time3Continuum2x: - acknowledged, changed, thank you, and sorry for my error. starship.paint (exalt) 10:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Add COVID-19 Recession to Paragraph 4 of Article

In paragraph 4 of the article, the part that details President Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic (in the sentence after his appointments of Supreme Court justices), it should include a sentence about how the pandemic led to an economic recession that led to President Trump leaving office with fewer jobs than when his term began. This detail about the economy is crucial, because the recession itself played a big role in Trump losing re-election. Additionally, should there also be a sentence about how 400,000 Americans died of COVID-19 by his final day of office? Please consider making these additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainamerica099 (talk • contribs) 13 April 2021 20:27:43 (UTC)

This is a biography of a person, not an article about his presidency, nor the recession, etc. The sentence about his reaction is there because it directly involves him (his reactions). Your suggested addition is not about Trump the person - it's about COVID/the presidency/administration. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add them but put it in the lead...the only thing anyone is going to remember about him is he took us a generation backwards and got a lot of innocent people killed along the way..best to get it out there now before he slithers away back into the hole he climbed out of...the mob is fickle and no one is going to give a damn about trump and soon 2600:1702:2340:9470:E0AC:CD44:4802:427 (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding details about the Covid death count wouldn't make sense. We do not know if those numbers are significant in any way, since no other presidents have had to handle this virus (except currently Biden, but he took office at the tail end of the virus so you cant really compare) --Met84ak (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Even though this Wikipedia article is a biography of Trump and not an article about the COVID-19 Recession, the Wikipedia articles for Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush discuss the economy. More specifically, the article for President Bush details the United States entering the Great Recession. Therefore, please consider adding a sentence about how the United States suffered a recession during the part of the article where Trump's response to COVID-19 is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainamerica099 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Post-presidency section should be updated to include Trump targetting Liz Cheney

Post-presidency should be updated to chronicle Trump's targeting of Liz Cheney and how he used his influence to kick her out of her leadership role for her criticism of him. Here are some sources:

• BarneyHank (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree..considering the length of this article..all the details regarding his life personal life..business dealings..political career etc as well..this tiny little blurb about where he is and what he is doing is just plain weird, especially that he seems to be moving back into some type of public life although it`s obvious it will be eventually as he is an ex president..it`s just a matter of time..whatever he`s doing at Mar-Largo needs to be in as well as any relation he seems to be cultivating with the Republican party 2600:1702:2340:9470:B087:E7A3:77E3:CDCA (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Deaths "as a consequence" of the Capitol storming

Pipsally, you [1] reinstated the sentence: Five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died as a consequence of the riot. describing it as sourced content. You appear to be unaware that the three sources you restored [2][3][4] are outdated, all of them being written in January, with the latest update being in February. You removed an April source (WTOP / AP) I provided from which states that out of the five deaths, the D.C. medical examiner found that three (Brian Sicknick, Kevin Greeson, Benjamin Philips) were natural deaths (stroke, hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) and one (Roseanne Boyland) was an accidental death (amphetamine overdose). Other sources have also reported this (NBC on Sicknick / USA Today on Sicknick / CNBC on the others / Forbes on the others) Additionally note that according to the police incident report, Greeson died before rioters entered the Capitol [5], and according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, there is no evidence that Philips participated in the storming [6]. In light of this new information, we cannot continue to maintain that Five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died as a consequence of the riot. starship.paint (exalt) 03:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this, but I'll note that people are still insisting on the "5" number on the talk page of 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. As that can be considered a "sub article" of this, I think per summary guidelines the issue should be rectified there before it is changed here. I agree that the death count should not be 5, but there are many editors who are attempting to keep it as high as possible to prove their beliefs regarding the political views at play. Unfortunately, this group consists of editors who are well respected and are not getting called out for relying on old sources for their beliefs - thus the number hasn't yet been changed there. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez - clearly there were 5 deaths that sources have associated with the riot plus protests (which is true, the people did attend the protests/riot). That does not mean that all the deaths were a consequence. I feel that the storming article should discuss these 5 deaths, to make clear the manner, but this isn’t exactly a sub-article of the storming. They may be some nuance here, who knows if the stress of the riot contributed to Sicknick’s stroke? But this article on Trump isn’t the place for such nuance. starship.paint (exalt) 05:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The main article has more nuanced wording, which I've followed in changing "as a consequence" to "There were many casualties, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died before, during, or after the riot." Note that No less than 138 officers (73 Capitol Police and 65 Metropolitan Police) were injured, of whom at least 15 were hospitalized, some with severe injuries. Even if Sicknick's stroke was entirely "natural", that would make him a Casualty (person)#Non-battle casualty . . . dave souza, talk 06:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that the wording "as a consequence" implies that deaths were directly caused by the riot. I agree with starship.paint that they've been associated - but that does not mean that they were "as a consequence of". I think the current text saying There were many casualties, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died before, during, or after the riot is good. The only improvement would be to replace casualties with injuries - seems that it's being used to say injuries primarily and that injuries is more straightforward. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

As that article also notes, Two police officers who responded to the attack died by suicide in the following days. Some members of Congress and press reports have included these deaths in the casualty count, for a total of seven deaths. . . dave souza, talk 06:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Should the casualties caused by heart disease and drug intoxication even be included in the article? Sure, you could argue that it exacerbated symptoms, but so could any stressful, high-energy event. Though at the same time, maybe it should stay for being so widely talked about in relation to the riots, regardless of how much it actually matters. Met84ak (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure this has a place here. It is (I would argue) that a major part of his life.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

Fraud has been found in multiple states and instances. Seems like fake news to have it listed that Trump wouldn’t let it go. He let it go but the voters did not. 67.61.90.156 (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Rejected. Note the guideline for such edit requests:

"Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

You would need to propose a specific edit. I suggest, however, that you not waste your time. Any edit must be supported by reliable sources (see WP:RS), and you will not find reliable sources echoing the claims of widespread fraud. JamesMLane t c 20:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Trump comment on Liz Cheney

Should we mention Trump's recent comments on Liz Cheney? I think someone who has access to editing the page should if they can. Fixing26 (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No. WP:NOTNEWS. Zaathras (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No, but you can add it to the Liz Cheney page.--Countryboy603 (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

Needs to be mentioned how popular Trump remains after office 2600:1700:BC21:5F70:E133:E9B3:90B7:AD7E (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 21:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The article should mention operation Warp Speed

I read in this article of USA Today, ("Biden blazed past his vaccine target for the first 100 days. Does the Trump administration deserve credit too?"), which is a reliable source, that Operation Warp Speed played a crucial role in the success of the american vaccination campaign. In order to ensure the neutrality of this wikipedia page, one should mention it, since it's an argument often used to defend Trump's actions and it is supported by reliable sources.

The issue here, I guess, is that Trump did more than probably any other single person on Earth to undermine efforts to stop the spread of coronavirus, so the fact that, by accident, one thing he did was not shitty, is not widely regarded as significant in context. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry but that's an opinion and Wikipedia is not made to express one opinion in particular but all the ones that are supported by facts. This article already gives many elements that could be use to criticize Trump's gestion of the crisis, I just ask that we add a contradictory element supported by a reliable source. Since vaccines are probably the things that will end the pandemic, the billions of dollars that were given by the federal governement to fund research on it are relevant in context. Dimitrius99 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

"Given by the federal government". Not by Trump.Pipsally (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Trump was a part of the federal government and the reliable source I proposed explicitely gives credit to his administration.Dimitrius99 (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a relevant scholarly report given the context: "Donald Trump and vaccination: The effect of political identity, conspiracist ideation and presidential tweets on vaccine hesitancy." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This article was published in May 2020, it isn't relevant to talk about the current vaccination campaign. Dimitrius99 (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

What does the source say, does he say he deserves more credit, or just ask the question should he get it (and then concludes no, or yes)?Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Here are some excerpts : "His careful wording – which casts the sprint to vaccinate as a collective effort –underscores a months-long debate over who deserves credit, something health experts say belongs to both administrations: Trump for aggressively developing a vaccine and Biden for rolling it out", "While Trump made a high-stakes gamble that led to record-breaking vaccine development before Inauguration Day, the Biden administration formalized a national strategy that helped the nation's patchwork of health systems execute a vaccination rate of more than 3 million shots a day","Julie Morita, executive vice president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and a former Biden transition adviser, said that while the Trump administration was successful in vaccine development, Biden's focus on providing states funding and resources to actually coordinate and deliver vaccines has been crucial to the rollout", the article is balanced but underscores the importance of Trump's administration decisions.Dimitrius99 (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem I see with this article can be summed up in one question : here are two elements on Trump's gestion of the crisis, one could be found in the article, the other could't : -Trump said in April 2020 that vaccine was months away while some experts said one should wait at least 12 months (and they were wrong). -Trump's administration launched an iniative to manufacture vaccines at fast at possible by giving billions of dollars to research teams. What is the most important of these two elements ? The neutrality of Wikipedia will be judged by its ability to write balanced articles on controversial figures : there's a link to Operation Warp Speed's Wikipedia page in the "Template : Donald Trump series", as a part of governement response to the pandemic, while it isn't even mentionned once in the body of the article or in the introduction.Dimitrius99 (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Then I think we can add something about his vaccine response. Something like "Trump was given credit for his vaccine development plan, and the speed with which they were developed. However...".Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The wording is great, it is balanced and it is coherent with the reliable source. I would completely support something like this. Dimitrius99 (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Cherry-picked quotes from one article that doesn’t even mention that the vaccine approved first (BioNTech/Pfizer's) was developed with German government funding. Followed by Warp Drive malfunction: crashlanding of 'Operation Warp Speed'. According to Operation Warp Speed, Trump’s involvement was the official announcement on May 15, 2020. BTW, the Trump administration quietly took around $10 billion from a fund meant to help hospitals and health care providers affected by Covid-19 and used the money to bankroll Operation Warp Speed contracts. Summing up: name pilfered from Star Trek, funds pilfered from money provided by Congress for pandemic-related expenses like hospital staffing and staff's personal protective equipment, treatment of uninsured COVID-19 patients, and vaccine distribution. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You are trying to make a proof of your point, but that's original research and "No original research" is one of the core content policies of Wikipedia. USA Today is ranked first by circulation on the list of newspapers in the United States, and it is a reliable source, so if an article consider that Trump's administration policies were crucial in the success in the american vaccination campaign, it should me mentionned in Wikipedia. If you want to refute this idea, you can use other secondary sources but a long article of one of the main american newpapers deserves to be mentionned. Your Politico article could perfectly be mentionned after the "However"Dimitrius99 (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Original research? Bloomberg, Politico, and Stat are reliable secondary sources. Another quote from USA Today: Less than a month in office, Biden moved to purchase 200 million additional Pfizer and Moderna doses to cover 300 million adults. The president also purchased an additional 100 million doses from Johnson & Johnson and helped cement a deal between the vaccine maker and its rival Merck to help make the newly approved vaccine. Trump officials have pointed out the alliance was the result of conversations between the two pharmaceutical companies before Biden took office, but Merck CEO Ken Frazier credited the Biden administration with expanding discussions and offering "financial support that allowed us to then think about converting our factories to make this stuff," he told The Washington Post. Among the FDA-authorized vaccines, only Pfizer did not take federal dollars to fund research and development. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

We may have misunderstood each other, what I am saying is that there's a long article of a reliable source that is dealing with Operation Warp Speed, in it some excerpts give credit to Trump's administration, while others criticize it. What I am asking for is that this article is used as a reference in this Wikipedia page in a paragraph that deals with Trump's relation to Operation Warp Speed. I'm not attached to a particular phrasing, the one proposed in the beginning of this conversation was just a first idea. What I consider to be original content would be to refuse to even quote this article because other sources contradict it in a subjective subject( I mean the appreciation of one's political decisions can never be purely objective), and thus make a choice among several valid options using its own judgment. I said earlier that Politico was also a reliable source so I argue that one should quote both of them, but at least mentionning Warp Speed somewhere in the article. Dimitrius99 (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You do not actually seem to understand what "original research" means in the context of the Wikipedia, first off. Second, the USA Today source you're leaning on for all of this is not as ironclad in the "Trump deserves credit" camp as you think it is. Did you, perhaps, not read all of it? Much of the pro-Trump bits are cited to Paul Mango, a partisan member of the previous administration. The article also notes Trump's vaccine hesitancy and denials hampered any potential benefits the Warp Speed program may have initially had. ValarianB (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, I added a paragraph to the COVID response section (months ago) precisely about Operation Warp Speed but it was swiftly removed.JLo-Watson (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Immigration policy in the lede

I'm aware this has been a much discussed topic for the lede in the past. However, I think we should perhaps revisit having Trump's immigration policy (i.e. the Trump wall etc.) in the lede? JLo-Watson (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

What, specifically, do you propose? Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Lede 1st paragraph

I propose adding the following sentence to the first paragraph of the lede:

A member of the Republican Party, he was the first U.S. president without prior military or government service.

This material is already in the lede, in the third paragraph.

Virtually every other article about an American president has in the first paragraph of its lede what party the president belonged to as well as his prior political experience. A lede paragraph with only one sentence is very awkward.

PS @MelanieN: where does it say that any change to the first paragraph lede must be first discussed here? The very first sentence should not be changed, because there is consensus as to what it should be. But other than that...? Zingarese talk · contribs 22:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, the invisible comments do say “NOTE: Changes to the lead are regularly discussed on the talk page. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT WAR. If you make a change that is reverted, please open a discussion or contribute to an existing one, per WP:BRD” and “DO NOT CHANGE this sentence without prior consensus; see Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus, item 50.” I took that to mean the first paragraph, which has been a single sentence for a long, long time. But anyhow, you boldly added a sentence, I reverted it, and let’s discuss it, as the first note says. You wanted to add two things the to the lead paragraph: his political party (at least his most recent party) and his lack of previous government experience. I believe those two items are better placed in the body of the lead, as they currently are. In particular I think emphasizing that he had “no previous government service” could be interpreted as a putdown, and it is better handled as a kind of footnote to his presidency. That’s my “discussion”, let’s hear from others. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN. The lead is fine. Several other facts about Trump's presidency are unique or noteworthy, e.g. the two impeachments, his propensity to spread falsehoods, the claims of election fraud, etc. They are all mentioned later in the lead. His lack of prior experience isn't more noteworthy than the other items, and there's no reason to move it to the first paragraph. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

P.S. As for his political party: it's true that we usually do include that affiliation in the first paragraph for most elected officials. But it isn't entirely accurate to simply describe Trump as a "member of the Republican party". His party affiliation is complicated and has shifted over the years. IMO it is best left to the infobox and the "Pre-presidential political career" section in the body of the article.-- MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist."

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to add something about "misogynistic" comments/actions - with references per WP:BLP of course - but only if not in the same sentence. Or in other words, following the references, keep info about racist comments and misogynistic comments, separate. - jc37 17:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Note: This discussion was closed, but the closer reverted themselves following discussion at User_talk:FormalDude/Archive_4#Trump_RfC_close. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we also add misogynistic too? I feel like we should put something in the lead that says Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged and misogynistic. Ak-eater06 (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me it should be..why isn`t already worded that way? 2600:1702:2340:9470:8883:4B26:17AB:9CB3 (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

We already have too much of a Litany of Sins in the lead section. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

What does that mean in English ? What are you really trying to say..that trump is not a misogynist or that it`s not a character flaw ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:8883:4B26:17AB:9CB3 (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It means that we don't have to list every negative trait about the man in the lead section. Just mathematically, we have only 4-6 paragraphs, and I'm sure there are at least 15 paragraphs of negative material to write about the man. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Do any RS say that "many of his comments and actions have been characterized as mysogonsitc"? The point is he used dog whilstes as a campighn strategy (which is what many RS claim), I am n9ot sure they havcwe said the same about him using mysogony to win votes.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. BBC is the top Google result, but there's a litany of RSP-greenlit sources to choose from. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Not a forum
Except that these are two of the most relevant along with being a pathological liar and an unapologetic reactionary 2600:1702:2340:9470:8883:4B26:17AB:9CB3 (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic, WP:NOTFORUM. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't forget stupid. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC) Also funny looking. PackMecEng (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC) And politically incorrect. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC) And incorrectly political. PackMecEng (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Boorish and UnAmerican, dammit. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC) cowardly drug addict hold up in a gated " community " ? wonder how is golf game is going..can`t wait for the book 2600:1702:2340:9470:8883:4B26:17AB:9CB3 (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC) We're talking about his commonly characterized comments and actions here, not the man himself, keep it clean? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Indubitably my good friend. PackMecEng (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Wha-wha-what?!? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC) I'll be your dream, I'll be your wish, I'll be your fantasy? PackMecEng (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC) I think a comma could be everything that you need. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Allegations about Trump's misogyny have been thoroughly documented and have received a comparable level of media attention to those relating to his racism. There is room in the lead for one additional word, and I strongly disagree with 力 that the fact that the information is negative in a lead with other negative information already present somehow means it should not be included. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support I agree..it needs to be in the lead in addition to the allegations of sexual misconduct against minors 2600:1702:2340:9470:ECAE:6827:C0A:C280 (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• I Support the addition of "misogyny" to the lead sentence. I've raised this point before (why does racism get the special call out?). Trump's misogyny/sexism has been widely reported and has been a common and persistent aspect of his life. Trump's treatment of female reporters was often horrible. The section in the article describing this has been "trimmed" and restored, etc, supporting citations removed; I've advocated for a substantive section. A description of this behavior and its consequences, before, during, and after presidency is entirely warranted in this biography. Recall that during one of their debates Clinton called him on it, mentioned as an indication of its importance. It is true that this starts a path down to making a list of sins, but I would oppose such a list. Bdushaw (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose No real sources have been provided for this statements or any sourcing providing to establish that this is WP:DUE weight for the article.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Misogyny has been a hallmark of Trump's personal behavior and rhetoric over the course of his life, including while president, along with gaslighting women who then question his misogyny. It is well documented both academically and in the news; a simple google search comes up with hundreds of articles documenting this. It is an important addition to the lead sentence. Dr. Van Nostrand (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose adding to the current sentence, could propose adding that information in the lead in a reworked lead. Remember that BLP suggests that we avoid making any section/lead focus on negativity - having a bunch of negative information without context in one sentence in the lead violates that in my opinion. The more negativity is added to one sentence in the lead, the more we risk it being the "litany of sins" - which is not appropriate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  WP:BLP says no such thing. Our neutrality standards do say that articles should never focus unduly on negative information, but where sources have reported widely on negative information, we absolutely include it, otherwise the leads of a lot of serial killer pages would look a lot different. Arguing that we shouldn't include negative information because there's already other negative information and we can't have too much of it is the very definition of WP:FALSEBALANCE.

  It seems that there is rough consensus here to include; I'd encourage someone to close this sometime soon so that it doesn't drag on interminably. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  I based it on Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation that quote. The overall presentation of a sentence devoted entirely to this sort of negative information in the lead is similar to criticism sections - there are a plethora of negative (and a plethora of positive things, especially from before his politics) that could be included in the lead. We should not be attempting to "hang" a ton of negative words in the lead just because they can be reliably sourced. That's not false balance - it's true balance. His racism is much more prevalent in reliable sources - and elevating misogyny to be at the same level is inappropriate because there's maybe 5-10 times more reliable sources that discuss his racist comments/actions than his misogynistic ones. Which is exactly why I said I may support it being added elsewhere - may - if it can be done in such a way to not make it similar in weight to the racist comments, which have received much more attention in reliable sources than has this. Alternatively, I see no reason that the "race" and "sex" has to be called out - why can we not just change the wording altogether to be "discriminatory", as I feel that'd be supported and would encompass not only racial/gender discrimination but also sexual orientation (which can be reliably sourced) and all of his other hateful comments? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  I could conceivably go for a line like many of his actions have been characterized as discriminatory toward marginalized groups, including women and racial minorities. But that seems like a separate discussion. For now, the question is about misogyny, and it seems most of us here feel it's received roughly comparable coverage to his racism, not 5-10 times less. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment As has been repeated numerous times, the lead should reflect the content of the article. This article has a lengthy section "Public Profile" that covers several controversial aspects of Trump's life, including a section on misogyny and sexism. Per policy, I would argue that the lead should briefly summarize Trump's "Public Profile" as, indeed, it is a defining characteristic of the man (i.e., he cares more about his public profile than anything else). The section on misogyny and sexism has gone through revisions, with text and citations being removed - I object to what seems to be a sustained effort to downplay this aspect of Trump, to portray it as not significant. From his behavior during his Miss Universe days, to his debates with Clinton, to his hostile interactions with the press, Trump's sexism and misogyny have been apparent and well reported. Per the content of the "Public Profile" section, we are not talking about an endless list of sins, but a representation of what is in that section. Bdushaw (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose RS do not mix the two, nor does mainstream thought. Misogyny must stand on its merits (and sources). SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per SPECIFICO Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the objection of including racism and misogyny in a single sentence. As mentioned above, I think the lead ought to have a paragraph on Trump's "Public Profile", per the lengthy section on this in the article. The article still suffers from "presidentitis" - an inflamation caused by excessive material regarding his presidency, for which there is a separate article. One example, of many!, is the recent addition of supreme court justice names to the lead. Of lessor importance to Trump the man, of importance to Trump the president. Bdushaw (talk) 09:36, 19 May 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.

Lede Rewrite

This article's grammar has much room for improvement. I'll rewrite the lede today and will probably do other sections later.

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 (sorry if there's already been a discussion about this, but do you think we should specify January 20 for both of these dates? I understand that consensus 50 indicates that it should not mention the dates, but when I go to the archived link, none of the proposed options had specific dates in them. If there has already been a discussion about this, could someone point me to it and if not, could you please provide reasoning to not do this if that is your opinion?).

Born and raised in Queens, New York City, Trump attended Fordham University and the University of Pennsylvania, graduating with a bachelor's degree in 1968. He became the president of his father Fred Trump's real estate business in 1971 and renamed it to The Trump Organization. Trump expanded the company's operations to building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses. He later started various side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies. He owned the Miss Universe brand of beauty pageants from 1996 to 2015. From 2003 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice (I added a comma between "2015" and "he.").

Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist. He entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and was elected in an upset victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote. He was the first U.S. president without prior military or government service. His election and policies sparked numerous protests. Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist.

During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. He enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court as well as more than 200 federal judges (I added a comma between "Kavanaugh" and "and."). In foreign policy, Trump pursued an America First agenda: he renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement as the U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement and withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal (I added a comma between "change" and "and"). He imposed import tariffs that triggered a trade war with China and met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, but negotiations on denuclearization eventually broke down. Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging, and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.

A special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller found that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the goal of helping Trump's election chances but did not find sufficient evidence to establish criminal conspiracy or coordination with Russia (I removed the comma between "chances" and "but."). Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice and neither indicted nor exonerated him. The House of Representatives impeached Trump in December 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after he solicited Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. The Senate acquitted him of both charges in February 2020. (Again, for these two sentences, should we include exact dates? Please let me know if there has already been a discussion about this. I would add that if we do change "December 2019" and "February 2020" to exact dates, then we should change the "in"s immediately before them to "on"s.)

Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat (I removed the comma between "Biden" and "but."). He attempted to overturn the results by making false claims of electoral fraud, pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition (I added a comma between "challenges" and "and."). On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which hundreds stormed, interrupting the electoral vote count. On January 13, the House impeached Trump for incitement of insurrection, making him the only federal officeholder in American history to be impeached twice. The Senate acquitted Trump for the second time on February 13, 2021. (Two things here: I think we should keep the date format for these two sentences the same - we should either not say the year both times or say the year both times. Also, the part that talks about the first impeachment and acquittal does not have specific dates. I also think this should remain uniform - either we should have specific dates for both impeachments and both acquittals or we should have specific dates for neither the impeachments nor the acquittals.) Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. A few reactions: 1) It is not necessary to say "January 20" for his term of office; it is "understood" because that date is set by the constitution. We don't say January 20 for other recent presidents. 2) I agree that we should give the actual dates for his first impeachment - including the year both times since the year is different. (December 18, 2019; February 5, 2020.) I will go ahead and add them. 3) With the second impeachment, we do not need to repeat "2021" for the second and third dates since we already said "2021". I will remove it. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If you could post a markup showing proposed additions and deletions here on talk that would be great. SPECIFICO talk 22:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the ignorance, but what does that look like and how do you do that? I'm still fairly inexperienced at Wikipedia editing (as you can probably tell, I'm not yet extended-confirmed). I tried looking through help pages, but I couldn't find one with an explanation. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: IMO User:Mrytzkalmyr actually did describe the changes they want to make, using parenthetical comments in the text. I have already implemented several of their suggestions, regarding dates. Most of the rest of their suggestions had to do with commas, "and"s, and the like. I think they did just fine for a newbie. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks MelanieN. OP, one way to do it is to post the original on your sandbox, then edit it to the revision and post the sandbox page diff here on the talk page. Your suggestions were helpful, so if you have more in the future that diff method might be handy. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

First Step Act in lead

Space4Time3Continuum2x removed the First Step Act from the lead even though it had been up there for months with no issues. Just wanted to open discussion on this. I don't see why this doesn't deserve to be in the lead as it was legislation which represented a major development in criminal justice reform. It shouldn't matter whether the bill was bipartisan or not to warrant lead inclusion. Thoughts?

EDIT: I also just noticed that the names of Trump's three Supreme Court justices were removed from the next sentence, they should absolutely be placed back, especially since justices are mentioned specifically by name in other presidential bio articles. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree and have restored the FSA. JLo-Watson (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Disagree. It’s a bipartisan bill he signed only after considerable prodding by Kushner and various celebrities. Not lead-worthy compared to the number of federal judges he was able to appoint. Also, he signed criminal justice reform? Did he legally change his name? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC) And I just noticed that neither the First Step Act nor criminal justice reform is mentioned in the body (MOS:INTRO). If you want to mention it, here are a couple of sources to consider: Trump has repeatedly claimed credit for passing the First Step Act, and then his administration did everything it could to water it down and make it harder for inmates to qualify. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Absolutely correct, and this same issue has been decided the same way for other events that took place during Trump's presidency but with no documented impetus or input from him. please self revert your reinstatement pending this ongoing discussion. It's not helpful. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)@JLo-Watson: SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"It’s a bipartisan bill he signed only after considerable prodding by Kushner and various celebrities." It's not clear to me why any of that should disqualify it from being in the lead. FSA not being mentioned in the body is a fair point though. I think it should be included in the body and then the lead as well. It strikes me as a bit odd and unfair that editors are going to such lengths to try to rationalize keeping this legislation out of the article. It was objectively speaking a major bill signed by Trump during his administration and it's hard for me to imagine a bill like this not appearing in the lead of any other president if they had signed it. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Lede 4th paragraph

MelanieN - 1st sentence, 4th para of the lede states: "A special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller found that Trump benefited from Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election," - it is not cited to a RS, there's a ^(b) footnote that doesn't say anything about benefited, and there's nothing in the body text that speaks to "benefited". We either need to remove it from the lede, or cite it and add the material to the body text. I'm not working lede improvement right now but that was a glaring comment that I thought needed attention. Atsme 💬 📧 21:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Atsme: You are correct; the Mueller report did NOT say that Trump benefitted from the Russian interference. In fact the report specifically did not evaluate whether the interference had influenced the outcome. I have modified the lead sentence, and added Mueller's "did not assess the outcome" to the article text. Thanks for calling this to my attention. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this is quibbling, but IMO the text you added ("did not reach any conclusion") says that the Mueller investigation did assess. I could live with "did not assess" but what's the point? Quoting 538: But if it’s hard to prove anything about Russian interference, it’s equally hard to disprove anything: The interference campaign could easily have had chronic, insidious effects that could be mistaken for background noise but which in the aggregate were enough to swing the election by 0.8 percentage points toward Trump — not a high hurdle to clear because 0.8 points isn’t much at all. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. A new version should note that the interference was intended to help Trump, and that Trump welcomed the interference because he believed he would benefit from it. -- Valjean (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Did Mueller say that Trump welcomed the interference? I didn't find that in a brief search. Note that we are talking about what the Mueller report said, not what commentators or interpreters said. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I believe that Mueller found that Trump's campaign coordinated with the Russian actions without do so in an explicit agreement that would constitute a crime falling within Mueller's mandate. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The Mueller Report doesn't use the word "welcomed" but it does say that the Campaign expected to benefit electorally. Vol. 1, page 5: The social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government.

The Office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring or coordinating with Russia in its election-interference activities.

Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

The Russian contacts consisted of business connections, offers of assistance to the Campaign, invitations for candidate Trump and Putin to meet in person, invitations for Campaign officials and representatives of the Russian government to meet, and policy positions seeking improved U.S.-Russian relations. Section IV of this Report details the contacts between Russia and the Trump Campaign during the campaign and transition periods, the most salient of which are summarized below in chronological order Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, there's his "Russia, if you're listening" remark. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Most controversial president in US history

Would this be appropriate to add to the last sentence of the lead? I implemented this edit but was reverted by another editor. Trump is considered to be one of the most controversial presidents in American history. If not, would you support it if I provided sources to support this? Interstellarity (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Certainly not in the lead. As for the text, up to now we have resisted that kind of historical comparison. What sources would you provide to support it? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and whatever definition of 'controversial' is included in such a reliable (and hopefully academic) source should be given here as well. Controversial among voters at the time of election? Among citizens during the presidency? Among historians in retrospect? etc. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Probably all three... — Czello 21:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

How about these sources? Interstellarity (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No, those aren't great. One of them is a WP:NEWSBLOG at best and the other one is an opinion-piece in a source of no particular note. I think we could easily find better sources saying he is highly controversial, but I'm skeptical that high-quality non-opinion sources exist stating explicitly that he's the most controversial, since polling doesn't go back that far and even just based on hazy historical readings it is hard to argue that he is more controversial than Lincoln was at the time, and depending on your definition of "controversial" there are probably a few others who could qualify. --Aquillion (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Weasel. It really doesn't add encyclopedic information and will be read differently by various users, I'm afraid. I don't think you'll find adequate sourcing, either. Certainly we would not make such a categorical statement cited to the two references below. SPECIFICO talk 22:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO on this. Doesn't add much encyclopedic material, and I don't know how readers would take it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

My opinion has not changed since then last time this was asked, too early.09:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

References

University name in infobox, part three

Trump's infobox needs to say University of Pennsylvania. This is how all former presidents'undergraduate degrees are handled. Barack Obama is listed as having graduated from Columbia University, not Columbia College. For George W. Bush, Yale University is listed, not Yale College. Same for Bill Clinton, who graduated from Georgetown College, but Georgetown University is what's listed. So why is Trump the only president who has a named graduate program within a university listed as his undergraduate alma mater?

I believe a reason could be to deceive the public, because saying one graduated from "Wharton" heavily implies earning an MBA. Whether that is the reason or not, Wikipedia is continuing to perpetuate that deception by treating Trump's page differently from all other former U.S. presidents.

There is no public figure of Trump's significance with only a bachelor's degree, but who has the Wharton School listed as their alma mater. There is no other president whose undergraduate alma mater is listed as a named graduate school, rather than the University.

In a previous discussion about this, as an example, user Hipocrite wrote that all presidents who graduated from Harvard College, Harvard Law School or Harvard Buisness School, *all* are listed as Harvard University (John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama).

User Hipocrite also noted that some public figures with MBAs have Wharton in their infobox. But what was never discussed was that I can find *no* other significant public figure that has Wharton, nor any other named graduate program (be it business, law or otherwise) listed as their *undergraduate* alma mater. Trump is the only one I could find.

For Wharton to remain in Trump's infobox, you should be able to find many other public figures of Trump's stature with a named graduate program listed as their undergraduate alma mater. But you can't, because they don't exist.

Trump's needs to revert back to University of Pennsylvania, because standards need to be applied objectively. Ajlipp (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

But Trump did graduate from the Wharton School of Finance --Distelfinck (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

That would be fine if that's how other presidents were listed, but it's not. Obama graduated from Columbia College, George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush graduated from Yale College, Bill Clinton graduated from Georgetown College, and yet *none* of their infoboxes say the names of those colleges. Their infoboxes say Columbia University, Yale University, and Georgetown University, respectively. The undergraduate alma mater is always listed as the name of the university. Trump doesn't get to be an exception. Ajlipp (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Ajlipp The consensus at the Clinton, Bush and Obama articles does not have to apply to here. A local consenus at one article should not dictate a local consenus at another article. There is no policy that all related articles on Wikipedia must be formatted in sync. Mgasparin (talk) 06:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course related articles should be formatted similarly. It would be malpractice to deliberately mis-format Trump's infobox, to the exception of all others, for the purpose of misleading readers by heavily implying Trump earned a graduate degree that he never received. Plenty of public figures have received undergraduate degrees from Wharton, and their infoboxes all say "University of Pennsylvania", and so should Trump's. Ajlipp (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with you on the site-wide consistency. We are not implying that he earned a graduate degree, as the Wharton School also gives bachelor's degrees. The people who know what the Wharton School is will be more interested to see that Trump attended and graduated from there than simply "UPenn". From MOS:INFOBOX, the purpose of the infobox is to summarize key details about the article. From this discussion in 2017, the number 1 point about Trump is that he was the POTUS. Numbers 2 and 3 are that he is a celebrity and has made a lot of money in real estate. #4 is his education, which is the Wharton School. The Wharton School gave him the degree. This has been discussed roughly every year for the past 4 years and consensus has always coalesced around the "Wharton School" option. If you want to change it, you should really open an RfC. Mgasparin (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The other Wharton graduates' infoboxes that say "University of Pennsylvania" should be changed to "Wharton". --Distelfinck (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2021

[[Federalist Sangering Democrats is missing the double brackets at the end Mwiqdoh (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: Someone fixed the brackets, but then I removed the sentence since it's not mentioned in the source, and that phrase exists only in this article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Website(s)

Trump appears to have two websites now, 45office.com and donaldjtrump.com. Currently, only the former is listed in the infobox. I was looking for his blog there, but the blog is only on the latter website. Can we add that one to the infobox, too? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed a couple of weeks ago. See here and here. The blog on the PAC’s fundraising website donaldjtrump.com is listed under "External links." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, where's "external links"? I can't find it on 45office.com. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The external links section in this article, not on the 45office.com website. We have no control over that website or what links they have where. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

OuroborosCobra, obviously we have no control over Donald Trump's website. That's kind of a ridiculous thing to suggest. Thanks for pointing out that Space4Time was talking about our external links section. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

My apology for the misunderstanding—I knew what I meant and didn't notice that the sentence could be read to mean something else. And in an article this size it's a long scroll down to its "External links" section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Convening of grand jury

@Soibangla: What's the source for your edit? WaPo says "was convened recently," and all other sources I've seen based their reporting on WaPo's. WaPo also says that "It is also unclear when or even whether the grand jury will be asked to consider returning any indictments." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, please note WaPo reported "Manhattan's district attorney has convened the grand jury that is expected to decide whether to indict former president Donald Trump," rather than "a" grand jury, the latter suggesting it's new, because googling "Vance grand jury" shows the GJ has been seated since last year. soibangla (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla, googling "Vance grand jury" I got the same results I got when I googled Trump+grand jury+new york, i.e., no source saying that the grand jury has been seated since last year. Which sources say that? According to AP, this grand jury is new, and that there was another, investigative one that issued subpoenas. The Democratic prosecutor has been using an investigative grand jury through the course of his probe to issue subpoenas and obtain documents. That panel kept working while other grand juries and court activities were shut down because of the coronavirus pandemic. The investigation includes scrutiny of Trump’s relationship with his lenders; a land donation he made to qualify for an income tax deduction; and tax write-offs his company claimed on millions of dollars in consulting fees it paid. The new grand jury could eventually be asked to consider returning indictments. While working on that case, it also will be hearing other matters. The Post reported that the grand jury will meet three days a week for six months. That does not say that the grand jury is considering indictments. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Use "tools" in google to exclude results from this month, like this: https://i.imgur.com/SilQPFF.png. The very first WaPo line says "expected to decide whether to indict" and then "it also will be hearing other matters. The Post reported that the grand jury will meet three days a week for six months." soibangla (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I now see the AP story which is different from what WaPo reported, and the latter story drove the coverage. soibangla (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, in my view the WaPo story which broke the news was not clear it was a new, special GJ, but subsequent independent reporting was, so I added AP and "special." soibangla (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2021

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 who also is an American media personality and businessman. 152.131.10.195 (talk) 23:17, 10 June 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2021 (2)

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Stop lying about him using the fake corporate news media who used fake narrative toward the president of the United States. Wikipedia has become less and less trustworthy by following the fake corporate news media narrative. 152.131.10.195 (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

We know when he served. What is your point?Crboyer (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Judiciary

Valjean, RE your question: Looks like I didn't use the latest version prior to the edit I manually reverted. Thanks for catching it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Trump's campaign message shifted to appeals to racism in an attempt to reclaim voters lost from his base.

As Wikipedia usually attempts to avoid directly referring to Trump as a racist should this sentence be rephrased? Transcendent Presence (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I just changed the sentence to the version you self-reverted. Either way, IMO saying that Trump's campaign returned to overt and dog-whistle racist appeals as a central element of their message isn't the same as saying that Trump is a racist. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It still directly states that Trump's campaigning methods are racist in Wikipedia's own voice. this is a matter of opionion more than direct fact as viewpoints on this differ widely and in IMO the sentence should reflect this. Transcendent Presence (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Although it uses the term "racist appeals," the source is not calling Trump or his methods racist, but saying that his campaign appealed to people's racist attitudes. While the meaning is clear in the article, the direct quote without context is not. I would therefore prefer "appeals to racism" as an unambiguous and accurate reflection of the source. Also, if Trump or anyone else is called a racist in a reliable source, we should treat it as an opinion and provide in-text citation, per Contentious labels. TFD (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable position and the most appropriate way to adress the issue I would be in favour of this alteration Transcendent Presence (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2021

Change "There were many casualties, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died." to "There were many injuries, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died." A casualty, by definition, is a person killed in a war or an accident. 47.200.50.139 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Technically casualties are those killed or otherwise rendered unfit (see Casualty (person)), but I agree that "injuries" reads better. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

DT's blog: 'From the Desk of Donald Trump'

DT's blog was launched with something of a Trumpesque fanfare in early May 2021. Today, 2nd June 2021, after one month it was closed down. Various reports say that it had very low readership for such a well known celebrity and he was fed up with it being mocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.43.30 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I saw no Trumpesque fanfare around its launch. The blog is too insignificant to mention here, though it may be of use on Social media use by Donald Trump. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yesterday, I changed the url to the blog which can still be reached at www.donaldtrump.com/news (instead of /desk). It was deleted in this edit. I don't care whether the link stays or goes, and my hands are bound by 3RR anyway. Headline in WaPo: Trump ends blog after 29 days, infuriated by measly readership - Upset that it was being mocked for low traffic, Trump ordered his team Tuesday to put the blog out of its misery. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I would tend to agree its a bit trivial.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Trump's personal involvement

@Chrisahn: Your edits here and here and all the ones in between: Your edit summary for the first one referred to a recent discussion. Which one was that? I haven't looked at the sources for your edits yet, but in the case of the edit Specifico reverted the argument that Trump wasn't personally involved in the protests is a little odd, other than being the subject of everyone's wrath. Were you expecting him to join the protesters or send the troops (early days, we had to wait until 2020 for that one)? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Ah, tit for tat? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Heartily agree. Some of the edits "could not be undone" and I don't have the time to disentangle the damage. For example with respect to the Saudi's, the cut omitted content that further contextualizes Trump's special relationship and catering to MBS there. If that particular text is to be cut it should be replaced with summary text that explicitly states RS characterizations of this very surprising and widely criticized treatment of the Saudis by Mr. Trump. The good news is that such a summary would enable further cuts to detail that was accumulated in real time and certainly can be revisited. SPECIFICO talk 13:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: SPECIFICO wrote: "Editors of this page have for years, repeatedly, focused it on Trump personally, not his presidency, his businesses, his TV and wrestling ventures -- except as details relate to his personal involvement in such details." Sounds like a reasonable criterion to limit the scope of this biographical article. Of course, we have to apply it consistently. That means we can't include events that were rather general reactions to something he did or said, e.g. the protests. He wasn't personally involved in them. They belong in the presidency article, but not here. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Not at all. Much of what these people were saying was that they found him personally repugnant and unfit for public display, let alone high office. SPECIFICO talk 13:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

What is Trump's personal involvement with the protests? "Someone said something about him" is not personal involvement. (By the way, I find Trump repugnant as well. But our opinions don't matter when we're editing Wikipedia.) — Chrisahn (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Please provide evidence that Trump was personally involved in the Taliban peace talks. Otherwise, we'll have to delete them from this article. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

He was going to bbq a goat with them at Camp David until the press caught wind of it and the miltiary and the public outcry canceled the visit. SPECIFICO talk 14:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

He cancelled the one meeting he was supposed to have. OK, so he was not personally involved. Thanks. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please read press and expert foreign policy and military comment on the shock and horror of Trump autonomously inviting the Taliban to Camp David. The alarm and outrage was so immediate and extreme that he was forced to cancel at the last minute, after concealing the plan from relevant officials. SPECIFICO talk 13:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Trump, MBS, Yemen

We mention Trump's first support for the Saudis in Yemen, but not his 2019 doubling down. Here are a few sources. A sentence or two seems appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Chrisahn, Soibangla, SPECIFICO about the current wording of the Saudi Arabia paragraph. "Limited" is based on this sentence in Reuters’ March 2, 2018, article: Mattis said the U.S. assistance, which includes limited intelligence support and refueling of coalition jets, was ultimately aimed at bringing Yemen’s war toward a negotiated resolution. I read "which includes" to mean that there is additional support, i.e., the arms sales by the U.S.—and numerous other countries—to Saudi Arabia since the invasion of Yemen in 2015. During the Trump era, that’s the $110 billion "deal" announced in March 2017—I don’t know whether the sales rushed through in late 2020 were part of that. "Supported" is supported by all sources, "actively supported" is kind of OpEd-ish IMO. I think we also should mention that Trump chose to ignore U.S. intelligence reports indicating that bin Salman approved/authorized the killing of Khashoggi. Thoughts? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not married to "limited", but "active support" gives a wrong impression. AP wrote: "[Trump] acknowledged that the U.S. has provided limited support to the coalition, including intelligence sharing, logistics support, and — until recently — in-flight refueling of non-U.S. aircraft." This and other sources, e.g. sound like "limited" may have been copied from White House or Trump memos, so we might as well drop it (WP:PRIMARY). The "logistical and intelligence" part is important though, because otherwise readers might assume that US military is directly involved, which is not the case.

By the way, it looks like the Trump administration simply continued what the Obama administration had started. See Barack Obama#Foreign policy: "In March 2015, Obama declared that he had authorized U.S. forces to provide logistical and intelligence support to the Saudis in their military intervention in Yemen [...]. In 2016, the Obama administration proposed a series of arms deals with Saudi Arabia worth $115 billion." That's the $110 billion deal signed by Trump. I'll just leave these sources here:

I think Trump's stance towards the Khashoggi murder isn't relevant enough to mention it in the article. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's been widely cited as abhorrent and a departure from any precedent in US foreign policy. And Trump's dozens of public equivocatioins on the murder of a US journalist drew ongoing shock and condemnation, similar to his endorsement of Putin's denial of DNC hacking and his precipitous withdrawal attempts RE: Afghanistan and northern Syria. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: Please read WP:TPG. It is important not to edit your talk page comments after another editor has responded to them. Thanks. As to your stance: Much changed between the initial appropriation and Trump's siding with the murderous MBS in the face of worldwide horror. No similarity despite the budget authorization being in place. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Please provide sources for your claims. (When I edited my comment, I simply replaced a question by a statement and added a source.) — Chrisahn (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

the Trump administration simply continued what the Obama administration had started It's a big black mark on Obama's record, IMO, but Trump continued after withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal (i.e., it was no longer necessary to assure the Gulf states that the U.S. wasn't taking Iran's side against them) and at a time when Saudi war crimes in Yemen were well documented. Also, by late 2016, Obama had halted sale of precision-guided munitions because of problems with Saudi targeting. I don't remember what the sources say about the kinds of weapons included in Trump's deal, don't have the time today to check. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Active Arbitration Remedies warning

Why is the warning different when you're editing the talk page? It says "Limit of one revert in 24 hours" and "24-hr BRD cycle." When I'm not editing the talk page, the warning just mentions the 24-hr BRD cycle. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Awilley: may know. I think it is just a software anomoly or a switch he overlooked when he removed the 1RR. In my opinion that was a very good move by Awilley. The 24-hr BRD is a better implementation of the intention of a 1RR restriction. I would like to see that replacement more broadly applied. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I just fixed it. There was a separate edit notice for the talk page. I didn't realize it was there, as it's not required and it's pretty unusual to have one. Normally you just have a banner at the top of the talk page and an edit notice that shows up when you edit the article. If the talk page edit notice bothers anybody I can delete it. ~Awilley (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead/Impeachment and Ukraine investigation sentence

The lead presently has the phrasing, The House of Representatives impeached Trump on December 18, 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after he solicited Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. The Senate acquitted him of both charges on February 5, 2020. which is confusing, since it puts the cart before the horse (and does not indicate why Biden was the target) (and interrupts the impeachment from the Senate acquittal). Better language would be After Trump solicited Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden, the House of Representatives impeached Trump on December 18, 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress . The Senate acquitted him of both charges on February 5, 2020. (The paragraph requests Talk before changing the language.) The suggested change also makes for a clearer transition from the previous sentences. Bdushaw (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump and anti-Semitism

Hey all! I know this is contentious, but it looks like Donald Trump has gotten some coverage for anti-Semitism [7][8][9]. I suggest we add the following sentence towards the end of the racial views section: "Jewish groups have criticized Donald Trump for invoking anti-Semitic stereotypes that American Jews overvalue money and unconditionally support Israel." Benevolent human (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems valid to me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, racial views is imperfect title but is the best location in the articles current scheme. I would hesitate to say that it's Jewish groups, because there's been widespread condemnation of this. Also, the stereotypes are more extensive, about controlling global finance and the like. Narrow miss on blood libel, however. Not sure Qanon connects it to the Jews, but I could be out of date on this. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

If those are the specific references you're using, you might want to be clear that it was four Jewish groups. Five, technically, if you count praise as criticism. But four against. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This is worth a mention. I seem to also remember reading an article (I forget the outlet, but I'm sure I could find it) where it discussed Trump stereotyping Jews, based partly on past public statements, but especially on what long-time friends and associates called "positive prejudice", or something of the sort. Basically, the typical tropes that they're naturally "good with money" and "make good lawyers", but also being slightly dismissive of them outside of these contexts. As I said, these were friends and close associates that were basically saying this was accurate, directly, but as a defense: that it showed he wasn't overtly anti-Semitic, because he held these positive views of Jewish people, even if they were basic pedestrian stereotypes. I'm inclined to think it was in the Atlantic? If the rest is mentioned, I can see this article being a counterbalance (of sorts), and something that's likely due. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

hat note with link to Presidency of Donald Trump

I am not sure why this hat note was removed - that other articles don't have such a notice is not a reason or rationale. I added the link to Presidency of Donald Trump for several reasons. First, most readers may not know that article exists - the link is given in the article to be sure, but far down in the article and not exactly conspicuous. Second, on these talk pages it has been repeatedly - endlessly - repeated that this is a biography, not the article on the presidency, as the reason for preventing the addition of material that is more presidential than biographical related. That being the case, this article should highlight the presidential article. There has also been endless discussion about adding a tag that the article is too long - I thought the hat note would be a useful compromise in that regard: A notice to prospective editors to add presidential material to the presidential article. I am sure there are other good reasons for advertising the existence of the presidential article at the top of this article. Since I don't see the given statement as a valid argument for removing the hat note, I will restore it. If the ensuing discussion here determines otherwise, then it can be removed then. Bdushaw (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

"I am sure there are other good reasons for advertising the existence of the presidential article at the top of this article." That's exactly the issue with it: it's advertising. Our job here is not to bombard readers with "hey, look at these other articles we have on Trump!" like a pop-up ad. See WP:ADVOCACY. The hatnote is for items that have a genuine chance of being confused with the page title. Presidency of Donald Trump is not one. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely unnecessary to have a hatnote for the presidency article. Hatnotes are for places where readers at a genuine chance of being at the wrong page. If you are on the page simply called "Donald Trump" obviously it is his biography page. If readers do not know about that specific article they will find out about it naturally. I.e. if they are looking for info on his presidency they scroll down to subsection called "Presidency" and easily see there is a dedicated article.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 02:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

These are not valid arguments; the points made are not correct (hyperbole; "obviously his biography page"...that's obviously incorrect...per these Talk pages). Given the emphasis on these very Talk pages to placing presidential material on the "Presidency of Donald Trump" page, that article should have visits comparable to the biography page. People visit the Donald Trump pages mostly out of his presidency and politics; we export/should be exporting most of that material to the Presidency page, as has been repeatedly emphasized here. But as the graphic below shows, the Donald Trump page visits are an order of magnitude more than the Presidency page - people don't know the Presidency page exists; they are not finding it. Wikipedia pages should be making things easy for the reader.

Reader visits to "Donald Trump" and "Presidency of Donald Trump"

Bdushaw (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Well yes I do not think it is incorrect to say this is obviously his biographical page. The page is simply called "Donald Trump" nothing more or less so obviously since it specifies nothing further is going to the man himself, not specifically his business career or his political career, just the person, i.e. a summary of everything he done/ noted for. How is that not obvious by the title? that article should have visits comparable to the biography page. People visit the Donald Trump pages mostly out of his presidency and politics Well that is a huge assumption to make... Though assuming that is true which I am not convinced, first time the readers come to the page they will see the lead. Assuming they want to find presidency infomation they will make there way to the presidency section via the table of contents of which there is a "main article" template there linking readers there (assuming they do not want to read the shorter summary on this article).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Not a huge assumption at all! The source of the interest in this page is demonstrated by the uploaded figure - the huge numbers, and spikes in those numbers, are associated with Donald as president. These Talk pages and its archives are full of incidences where material has been reverted out and more appropriate for the presidential page - even our own editors are confused. To rely on the link somewhere down in the article (the presidential page is not even in the lead, that might be a compromise) for people to get the message that there is this whole other article is not working. This page and the presidential page should be coordinated; that is how their size can be reduced. As I said, there are a lot of reasons to advertise the Presidency of Donald Trump article at the top of this article. Bdushaw (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Well unless you have any meaningful evidence, it is still seems like an unfounded assumption. I would oppose such a hatnote as this time. Readers can very easily and naturally find a link to that article already.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Any attempt to rectify the "problem" you're identifying by the graph is an attempt to right great wrongs. If the answer to the problem "not enough people are viewing this article" (which I do not consider a serious problem) is to abandon hatnote rules, then, in the words of John Lennon, "you can count me out." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Bdushaw, please see WP:RELATED for why hatnotes aren't usually used in that manner. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

On WP:RELATED, I see the following quote: This guideline does not discourage the use of disambiguation hatnotes in a situation where separate topics are related, but could nonetheless be referred to by the same title and would thus qualify for disambiguation,... The question comes down to whether Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump could be referred to by the same title. I would argue, which I have above, that that is the case here - there is confusion over which article is the primary for President Donald Trump, and people are not finding the latter. As I've noted, the numbers by visits suggest so, and the history of that confusion (constant reversions of material that is better suited on the latter article) by editors to this article and its Talk pages suggest so. There was an argument above that this article could never be confused as anything other than a biography, but that's not true - people come here to find out about President Donald Trump. Those following this discussion should note that I am advocating a small change that strengthens a path for the reduction in size of this article - a path for reducing the size of the Presidency section of this article and more strongly pairing this article with Presidency of Donald Trump. I've read the opposition statements...they are baffling. Bdushaw (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity between the titles "Donald Trump" and "Presidency of Donald Trump". If you mean there is ambiguity between the subjects of Donald Trump and his presidency, that is what WP:RELATED addresses, and advises against. It is presumptive to assume that everyone who comes here wants to read about just one of many, many sections and sub-articles we have on this subject. — Goszei (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence hits the nail on the head, there is no ambiguity here.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

An alternative

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 agree with Bdushaw that it's problematic that so few readers are finding their way to Presidency of Donald Trump, given that Trump's presidency is what most of the visitors to this page are seeking to learn about. But I also agree with those who note that hatnotes are solely for disambiguation, not advertising other related pages. Fortunately, there's another way that we could help people find the presidency page: better wikilinking. Specifically, placing a wikilink in the first sentence, changing served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 to served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. In fact, that link was included in option A, which achieved consensus here, just no one ever changed the article to match. There was previous discussion here that removed the presidency link from the first paragraph; the objection I made when I came across it after it closed is relevant here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• I would still oppose putting it in the lead paragraph like that, seems pretty MOS:EGGy to me. The most natural link for "president of the United States" is the office, not his presidency article.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• That said, the article currently has a very MOS:EGGy start, in that many readers evidently come to this page expecting its main topic to be his presidency, yet the actual article on that is only linked near the end of the third paragraph, "Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.", hidden away after much more significant biographical points including "He owned the Miss Universe brand of beauty pageants from 1996 to 2015." If we want readers to expect this article to cover Trump's presidency in summary style, the link should be prominent and explicit in the first paragraph. Propose:
  Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. The presidency of Donald Trump was unprecedented in many ways.
  That keeps "served as the 45th president of the United States" intact, and serves as a simple neutral introductory sentence to the detail later in the lead. . . dave souza, talk 16:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  How do we know that readers come here to learn about his presidency? Our presidency articles in general get into detail and policy issues that may not be as interesting to a mass readership. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  @ SPECIFICO – Don't know, that's the premise discussed by Bdushaw and Spy-cicle above, a reasonable inference from edits and comments, but simply for clarity it works better to link openly to presidency of Donald Trump before going into less famous career points, instead of hiding it in the piped link "presidency" near the end of the third paragraph. . dave souza, talk 06:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  Making the wording even more neutral, I've boldly added "The presidency of Donald Trump increased his fame." instead of obscure piped link. . . dave souza, talk 07:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  I have reverted the bold edit [10]. I have strongly disputed that intial premise since there is no meaningful evidence of it thus far. This is a solution in search of a problem, which does not exist. Adding "The presidency of Donald Trump increased his fame." Adds nothing of substance for readers. Most presidents have increased their 'fame' after their presidency given the nature of the office.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  There's no longer any link in the lead to presidency of Donald Trump, as far as I can see, Please consider where it's best placed. Presumably you don't think this topic should be excluded from the lead, or obscured so that it's hard for readers to find. . . . dave souza, talk 13:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  Surely readers will see the huge list of links in the infobox? I don't see any pressing need for such a link, at least not up top. SPECIFICO talk 13:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• It seems that there's still some disagreement in this area. I've aligned the lead to the RfC result, as that's what's in current consensus item 50. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Actually in direct discussions about that wikilinks in the lead paragraph like this [11] consensus was building to not have the link there. The only reason that formed was becuase there were hardly any options for at the time status quo "president of the United States" link. If we had both options for both it would have doubled the number of options. Though I suppose I could direct, proper RfC on it though I thought we already had one...  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:34, 2 June 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.

telling associates he believed he would be reinstated

This content was reverted[12] by Berchanhimez on the assertion it was inadequately sourced. I intend to restore the content with these sources[13][14][15][16] tomorrow unless someone else does it first or a persuasive argument can be made here that it should be excluded for other reasons. soibangla (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

not really sure what the point would be.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Charles C. W. Cooke of cited National Review appears to see the point:

The scale of Trump’s delusion is quite startling. This is not merely an eccentric interpretation of the facts or an interesting foible, nor is it an irrelevant example of anguished post-presidency chatter. It is a rejection of reality, a rejection of law, and, ultimately, a rejection of the entire system of American government.

soibangla (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Then wp:blp comes into play, and for a clinical diagnose we would need MEDERS complaint sources, not a journalists opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I cited Cooke here on Talk to address your response, but I cite it as an article source because he also wrote:

I can attest, from speaking to an array of different sources, that Donald Trump does indeed believe quite genuinely that he — along with former senators David Perdue and Martha McSally — will be “reinstated” to office this summer after “audits” of the 2020 elections in Arizona, Georgia, and a handful of other states have been completed.

soibangla (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

What does this have to do with medical diagnosis? It's just his belief, similar to Biden believes child care is infrastructure. I don't see anyone proposing text that calls it demented in either case, SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Really seems like a due weight issue. In the end who cares? In the extremely unlikely event anything actually happens, either way, then we can revisit. Until then I would say it has no value to the article. PackMecEng (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I will resist the temptation to make a snarky remark about the "extremely unlikely event anything actually happens." soibangla (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Cool! PackMecEng (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with Pack, in that it may be a WEIGHT issue, but it is definitely not ill-sourced opinion as the revert edit-summary claims. Further, I don't see a BLP issue with a widely reported fact concerning possibly the most public figure on the planet. It didn't say he eats babies or starts forest fires. SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Noting that I reinstated this before looking at the talk page and seeing this thread. SPECIFICO talk 18:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The sources flat out don’t support “will be” reinstated. His actual statement was “could be”, not will be, and that’s what’s reflected in the reliable sources. I agree that it’s also likely not due weight for this article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

(ec)::Be, we should go with the multiple RS references Soibangla has provided. They don't support "could be". SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The edit says "he believed he would be reinstated," but I'm happy to go with "expects"[17], though Cooke wrote "Trump does indeed believe quite genuinely..."[18] soibangla (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

No, we absolutely cannot cite the tweet from the reporter in lieu of the (presumably) fact-checked actual article (such as I linked in the edit summary). We cannot say "expects" to be anything unless we clarify with "could be". That is the operative word, the actual NYT article makes sure to include that, and we cannot use extremely more biased sources to use other language just because it fits Soibangla and SPECIFICO's narrative of trying to make Trump look like a lunatic (which is a BLP violation, by the way - using extremely biased sources to say something that less biased sources do not claim is the truth). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not suggesting the tweet be cited. I merely noted it here because it got the whole story started, which the RS I provide clearly show. The operative word here is believed and that has been reported by multiple RS. soibangla (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

No, the operative words you included that lead to my revert are "would be reinstated". This is adamantly not what the most reliable source out of all of them says. This source (the NYT itself, not the one reporter's tweet) also happens to be the original "RS reporter" of the information. And they don't say that. They say specifically, to quote their article (linked here): has told several people he believes he could be “reinstated” to the White House this August. That does not support the text "would be". Period. Could and would are very different - one implies certainty, one implies possibility. The fact that you made this edit without seeing that glaring discrepancy, and the fact that SPECIFICO is blindly supporting the edit without recognizing this blatant misrepresentation of the reliable source, highly suggest that you should take a step back and re-evaluate whether personal opinion is clouding your judgement on this topic. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

You may have been thinking the operative words you included that lead to my revert but that's not what you said in your edit summary, which is why I have challenged your rationale, which you are now changing. Believed is most certainly the operative word. soibangla (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

take a step back and re-evaluate whether personal opinion is clouding your judgement Right back atcha. soibangla (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Saying what amounts to "this person is crazy" (or "this person said something crazy") is a WP:REDFLAG claim that wasn't supported by the source you included. Maybe you misread my edit summary, but clearly not everyone did. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

My edit does not say what amounts to "this person is crazy". My edit says what he is reported by multiple RS to believe. soibangla (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It says what heavily biased sources report him to believe, and you ignored the actual source of the information which is much more reserved. That's called "cherry-picking" to fit your desire to make him look as crazy as possible by using the worst language you think you have a chance at making "stick" in the article, and is similar to previous things you've done in this topic area. I'll AGF and assume that you're just not doing your due diligence on information that is a WP:REDFLAG claim (which requires comparing all available sources, trying to find the best, and only then including information) - I encourage you to do that in the future rather than just adding something you think is "verifiable" when in reality you're using heavily biased sources to push a POV into this article. We cite the original source here or nothing - we don't enable POVPUSHING by using laundered, biased sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It says what heavily biased sources report him to believe Such as National Review? Ha! I finally found a way to use a conservative outlet as a source and someone has a problem with it. Just can't make this up. soibangla (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Bias goes so much deeper than "political leaning in general". Since even before he was the nominee for the GOP, that magazine has been extremely anti-Trump - so regardless of their political leaning in general, they are a heavily biased source. Again, the fact that you cannot recognize that shows that you are not following due diligence in researching REDFLAG claims, and have no business editing REDFLAG claims if you don't start doing so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I have cited multiple sources deemed reliable, regardless of what you might think of them. take a step back and re-evaluate whether personal opinion is clouding your judgement soibangla (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

REDFLAG claims require exceptional sources. Not just reliable ones. Even otherwise reliable sources get very murky when discussing something they have an obvious (and in the case of National Review an admitted) bias towards/against something. You did not provide exceptional sources for your exceptional claim. Your editing is the problem here - not mine. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Something is not REDFLAG simply because you assert it is. soibangla (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

If you can't see how what you added is a REDFLAG claim (hint: anything that says "person X believes something that's considered a conspiracy theory" is always a REDFLAG claim), then you have no business editing even potentially controversial information about living people. I encourage you to review this with a fresh head - right now you're digging a hole that shows you have not just a lack of understanding for, but a complete disregard for our most important policies on Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Your WP:ASPERSIONS are duly noted. soibangla (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Be, REDFLAG is not applicable to the text in question. Please read it again with care and parse what it says.. SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

clearly not everyone did. I don't see anyone here defending your reversion on the basis of your edit summary. soibangla (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Unless I've missed something we have RS saying that Trump told people privately that he (+Perdue+Loeffler+others) will be reinstated by August. If and when he does so publicly (the sources also said that his staff (?—what are his handlers called these days) is trying to keep him from doing so) and RS report it, we should mention it. Until then, it's WO:NOTNEWS, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  You're missing something. We have biased RS saying that he said "will be", and we have more neutral (and more reliable in general) RS saying he said "could be" reinstated. That distinction is important, and I think that an accurate depiction may merit inclusion. However there's also the due weight concerns - not everything he says is due weight to include at all. The reason I reverted originally is because Soibangla cherry-picked obviously and extremely biased sources to support a REDFLAG claim that is explicitly not supported by more mainstream sources such as the NYT (the ultimate source of the information to begin with). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez said: Soibangla cherry-picked obviously and extremely biased sources. Minutes ago I advised you are casting aspersions upon me, and now are intensifying it. Don't go this way. soibangla (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

You wrote obviously and extremely biased sources which was actually one source, WaPo, which is green per WP:RSP, with the only qualification being blog posts, which this was not, but rather by a prominent journalist, Philip Bump, not some hack. It was labeled "analysis," but it was not an opinion as you asserted in your edit summary to justify reversion, and if anyone thinks "analysis" from a prominent reliable source should be excluded they need to litigate that at WP:RSN to change policy, not attempt to litigate it selectively in a specific case when it suits them. You alone assert WaPo is less neutral and less reliable than other RS, here at least. You say "will" is not supported by more mainstream sources, but this[19] says "will," as does this.[20]. And the the ultimate source of the information to begin with said "expects he will get reinstated."[21], followed by a conservative publication reporting based on "speaking to an array of different sources, that Donald Trump does indeed believe quite genuinely that he — along with former senators David Perdue and Martha McSally — will be “reinstated.”[22] Believes. Will. My edit said: By June 2021, Trump was telling associates he believed he would be reinstated as president by August. Those who have been paying close attention know that in recent days, Trump loyalists/influencers Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell have made similar assertions in public, the latter saying he's gonna get SCOTUS to do it by August, and Mike Flynn appeared to express support among the QAnon crowd for a military coup to get it done. Perhaps we can allude to those things in the edit to establish it is noteworthy. soibangla (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

An editor who reverts material sourced to the Washington Post, a rock-solid reliable source in this project, is by definition disruptive. We can certainly have a discussion on due vs. undue, but a knee-jerk "I don't like the Washington Post" should earn a quick disinvite from the American Politics topic area, IMO. Zaathras (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

If we include this we need to report it correctly. The original source for example said, "the New York Times’s Maggie Haberman reports that Trump thinks he will somehow be reinstated as president by August." When the source provides a qualification such as "according to X," then we have to include that qualification. We must not report things as more certain than the sources we use.

Assuming Trump said he would be reinstated, we don't know if he actually believes that. Trump constantly says outrageous things and also contradicts himself. We could fill dozens of articles with outrageous things he said. What we include however depends on the degree of coverage. Maybe we could have a spin-off article about Trump in Elba.

TFD (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I think there is enough coverage and we've got good sources, plus Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent for The New York Times with a long background and I don't think she is one to be blabbing stuff that is not factual. As for what Trump really thinks?--it's pretty scary to think he just actually believes it because then things are worse than I even thought....Gandydancer (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with reporting it without attributing it to one reporter. But we must report the actual fact-checked NYT article - not biased failed reproductions of it (ex: WaPo, etc), and not her tweet. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 12:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The continued harping about the Washington Post, a solid reliable source for this project, is a complete non-argument. Zaathras (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It actually is - there is no "God source" on Wikipedia - sources are evaluated against other sources, and when they are incorrect (as in this case) in copying original reporting from elsewhere, we are encouraged to use the source of the information as opposed to the less accurate one. Furthermore, bias does not affect reliability in general, but it certainly does affect reliability on specific topics or in specific articles. Your attempt to dismiss my arguments without any counter argument is actually not very helpful to get it included. But again, I'm fine with the NYT being cited and "could" being used if people think it's due weight - if people wish strongly to use incorrect sources as opposed to less-biased and the actual sources, an RfC should be held. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and an "analysis" article by one person is akin to an opinion article in the Washington Post - it's just written by someone who works for them. It's no different than articles by "The Editorial Board" in the NYT - they're editorials/opinions written by staff and as such are given a different name. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• I support keeping the content. Due weight argument is irrelevant because not everything Trump did or said is covered by many reliable sources. Also, I prefer neutral wording in according to neutral sources. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• I as well believe the content, sourced to the Washington Post, should be restored. Zaathras (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Gandydancer, the article in The Week sources Haberman's statement to a tweet, not an actual fact-checked article in the New York Times.[23] "Twitter should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons," per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. So we cannot use the tweet and cannot misrepresent the sources we use. Unless they verify her tory, It cannot be treated as fact since it is not treated as fact in any reliable sources. Also, since Trump is very newsworthy, you need more than a few articles to establish noteworthiness. Haberman's tweet has not received the same degree of coverage as for example Trump's relations with Putin or Kim Jong un, or moving the embassy to Jerusalem or having a TV show. If we put in everything about Trump that was reliably sourced, this article would run into thousands of pages. TFD (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

But we're not using the tweet as a source. Including WaPo, five RS are being proposed that report on what Haberman reported, via whatever medium, and she's one of the leading experts on Trump, with unrivaled access to his associates. She was writing about Trump before 2015. It has not been retracted/corrected. And Cooke independently confirmed it. soibangla (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

One of those sources (an article in the Week) says, "the New York Times’s Maggie Haberman reports that Trump thinks he will somehow be reinstated as president by August." It does not say "Trump thinks he will somehow be reinstated as president by August." You can't say that because it reports a tweet by a respected journalist that the original information is reliable, since tweets are not considered rs.

Also, per policy, statements by journalists are not reliable sources unless they are published in a forum with editorial oversight.

TFD (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like in this case and to my surprise, you may not have read the citations, TFD. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Does National Review qualify as a forum with editorial oversight? soibangla (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I read the first citation provided and in fact quoted it. I don't see why I should have to read through multiple citations just in case one of them supports what you want to include. Tell me which if any of them do and I will read it and get back to you. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, there is "no consensus" on the reliability of the National Review. TFD (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why I should have to read through multiple citations. Well OK then. soibangla (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I read the National Review article. As I said, there is no consensus on the magazine's reliability, and also since it is an opinion piece it is not a reliable source anyway. I'll read the other sources and get back to you. Please don't add multiple additional sources that you have not read and ask me to read them too. TFD (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

You have no basis to say add multiple additional sources that you have not read and ask me to read them too. You did, however, acknowledge that you have been discussing this matter without reading the cites provided in the opening edit. soibangla (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

OK I read them all. The AP article says, "And Trump has gone a step further recently by giving credence to a bizarre conspiracy theory that he could somehow be reinstated into the presidency in according to a longtime Trump ally who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations." The Independent article uses the terms reportedly and according to the conservative National Review magazine. So basically they use similar phrasing to the Week. It's not rocket science. If reliable sources say Trump said something, we say Trump said something. If they say "according to so-and-so," Trump said something, we say "according to so-and-so," Trump said something. We cannot misrepresent sources. TFD (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

soibangla, Wikipedia policy, guidelines and explanatory supplements aside, neither you nor I would trust anything we read in the National Review without checking it against a reliable source. I mean Ann Coulter was one of their editors! TFD (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

"Opinion" or analysis pieces by notable experts or qualified journalists in RS publications are RS as to facts stated therein. That does not mean that we convey their opinions or analysis as fact, but these publications and these experts are trusted sources for accurate citation of facts. You will not see Sean Spicer or Kellyanne Conway reciting alternative facts in a WaPo or NYT or National Review article, because these publications exercise editorial oversight as to statements of fact, even when they publish diverse and conflicting statements of opinion. Let's wrap this up. Soibangla, what is the current proposal for article text, taking account of any legitimate objections that may have been raised? SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. News organizations says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Articles by reporters are only reliable sources when they are published as news articles in reliable sources. Furthermore, there is a specific ban on using tweets as reliable sources, whoever the author is. TFD (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Strawlady argument. And so is Ann Coulter. The proposed references are news articles in various RS, not the opinon piece. Soibangla will draft our article text according to the numerous RS cited here. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. Which argument is stawperson and why? Wikipedia editors have no consensus on the reliability of National Review and opinion pieces published anywhere are not reliable sources, according to policy. Are you actually telling me that in your opinion the National Review is reliable? Just say it and make my day. TFD (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Nobody wants to cite twitter. The source is a NYT news article, thus qualifying your concern as strawwoman. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

With or without attribution, it was just a brief blip on the radar and not noteworthy enough to put in his biography. This is the guy who does not know how things work in the real world. He thought that you need ID to buy groceries, he doesn't know that First Amendment freedom of speech refers to the government censoring citizens and not to his contract violation squabbles with Twitter and Facebook, etc. Yesterday at the GOP convention in North Carolina he bored his GOP audience with the same old whine about the crime of the century, sans mention of reinstatement (NYT, CNN). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, he's been warned with considerable urgency, and from several of his trusted advisors, not to mention the reinstatement thing. Bobbing and weaving is good PR and good politics -- a lesson he learned, and a skill he's honed, over the years. I give him credit for adjusting his message and showcasing Lara to tilt the headlines coming from the NC appearance. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The speech was subpar. He sounded as though he might nod off any second numerous times, there wasn't a whole lot of the usual raucous audience response except after the usual dog whistles about China, immigrants, etc, exactly like CNN described it. He has the pillow rally coming up next weekend, let's wait and see whether he mentions reinstatement. We have two sources citing a longtime ally (AP) and an array of different sources (NR), and Haberman's tweet and the NYT article on the NC GOP convention speech citing "several people." The Week reports Haberman's tweet, the Independent and Bump at WaPo cite NR. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC) I don't doubt the sources but it's citizen Trump, venting. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Why are we discussing a twit when Maggie wrote a NYT news article about it and other RS reported the news. I don't think we should speculate as to whether or why he's dialed it back for public media management. As I said, we have reports he was heavily advised to do so by his advisors. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see this discussion, but I have trimmed the material back by about 50%, as it contained way too much detail. I do think a mention of this belongs in the Post-presidency section, but just a sentence or two, and as simple reporting without any analysis. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I haven't seen a NYT news article by Haberman, just a tweet. Do you have a reference? TFD (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

This is why I am so concerned about you amigo.[24] Hā'-ber-man. SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. This isn't twitter, it's Wikipedia. AFAIK, no one has presented that source in this discussion, is not mentioned in any of the sources provided and in fact it was published yesterday (Jun. 6), the day after this discussion thread began. The NYT article, by Annie Karni and Maggie Haberman, is worded in a similar way to all the other reliable sources: "Mr. Trump...has told several people he believes he could be “reinstated” to the White House this August, according to three people familiar with his remarks." TFD (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I've never been worried about your good faith. I doubt anyone else has either. SPECIFICO talk 21:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It was probably hidden in one of my comments - I put it in the edit summary of my initial reversion but I should've made it more prominent when commenting here. I agree with you that it's all "anonymously attributed" - and we should replicate that in the article if we're going to use sources - but we should also favor "could" over "will/would" because that is closer to the original source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Well let's hope SPECFICO isn't concerned about you. I checked through the discussions and could not find it. I prefer the NYT article wording over the tweet because it was published in a reliable source and also written after the tweet by the same author. Of course it loses its zing. If someone who bought a lottery ticket says they could win $500 million it would be accurate, if they said they would win it, it would almost certainly be false. TFD (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? Look, if Irish talk radio is having the likes of Cal Thomas on, talking about Trump thinking he's going to be re-inaugurated as President in August, (as it was last Tuesday, 1 June, if I'm not mistaken on the day), then it's news, and due. As to his competence, no, we may not have MEDRES-worthy sources, but we do have the likes of this. Oh, my. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thomas who was VP of the Moral Majority, accused Obama of treating Israel like an enemy, wants to stop mosques being built and hates gays? If that's who you are listening too maybe you should talk to someone. The Trump put his pants on backwards hoax was debunked within minutes and if you believed it you are seriously gullible. {Try putting your pants on backwards and see it isn't easy.) Anyway this is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not an SNL skit. TFD (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Pants: It was a joke based on President Skroobs in Spaceballs—meh, Galaxy Quest is much better. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC) In case anyone missed the info where the missing fly went: to 2020 Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Not a hoax -- which implies an attempt to fool people -- but a mistake. I'm hoping that the Daily Mail or other British tabloid does a story about the debunking with the headline, "That Donald Trump story? It was PANTS". --Calton | Talk 15:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Joke, not hoax, with possibly some photoshopping before retweet, misunderstood by tabloids (or maybe intentionally misunderstood). The source didn't have the best resolution to start with, but making it fuzzier and the colors more garish shouldn't have fooled anyone into thinking it was anything other than trolling Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Am I wrong to believe that this sentence, "By June 2021, Trump was telling associates he believed he would be reinstated as president by August." is to be included in the article with some changes? What is the sentence that we can all agree on? Gandydancer (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I support the sentence currently in the article, which is In June 2021, it was reported that Trump had told several people he would be reinstated as president in August. We should say "reportedly" or "it was reported" rather than state in Wikipedia's voice that he was doing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN, {{by whom?}} Elizium23 (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

By, um, the cited source? Tag was unnecessary. Zaathras (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

“has told several people he believes he could be “reinstated” to the White House this August, according to three people familiar with his remarks.” 'Donald Trump reportedly thinks he’ll be reinstated as president" In other words, multiple sources, attribution not necessary. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Want more? [25] [26] [27] [28] -- MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Zaathras, actually the tag was necessary, and your removal was out-of-process. You should have fixed the problem instead. I fixed it for you, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. We simply don't use passive voice like that: per WP:WEASEL. Elizium23 (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Please don't nitpick this. "Multiple national publications reported that..." If you wish to remove the passive weasel. SPECIFICO talk 23:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

So you actually did something rather than a drive-by tagging. Kudos. Zaathras (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23, you "fixed" it by attributing it to Haberman and Karni in the text. They were the first, but not the only ones, to report this. Look at the other sources I listed here: it’s been independently confirmed by the Associated Press, [29] the National Review [30] and the Daily Beast (as quoted by NBC News).[31] If we need attribution, it should be as proposed by SPECIFICO: “In June 2021 multiple national publications reported that…” -- MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN, seems vague but whatever. Elizium23 (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources

The AP story does not confirm a report that Trump says he would return to the presidency before the next election. It says, "And Trump has gone a step further recently by giving credence to a bizarre conspiracy theory that he could somehow be reinstated into the presidency in August, according to a longtime Trump ally who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations." Two points: the words would and could have different meanings. When you buy the powerball for example you could win $500 million, but you will not necessarily win anything. Second, just because someone who worked for Trump said something does not mean it's true. Trump notoriously made many false statements and it's irrational to believe that everything his aides say is true. TFD (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Re your second point, so I guess that Maggie was just blabbing Capitol Hill gossip, right? Gandydancer (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Good luck with your ticket, TFD. SPECIFICO talk 11:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Should the text say that Trump believed he would, could, or will be reinstated by August (all three beliefs are unmoored from reality)? Of our two cites, NYT uses could while AP uses could and will—giving credence to a bizarre conspiracy theory that he could somehow be reinstated into the presidency in August in the body, reportedly thinks he’ll be reinstated in the headline. Cooke/NR also says will. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I will change it to "could" since that word is used by both of our sources. And I will change the current "it was reported..." to "Multiple national publications reported that..." Those two changes seem like they should meet all the objections here. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Trump solicited Ukraine

As many have noticed, I've been fussing with the Mueller/Ukraine scandal paragraph of the lead. Mostly modest clarifying copy edits, IMO. But I've been contemplating this phrasing "Trump solicited Ukraine", which is not quite correct. More accurately would be "Trump pressured Ukraine", since not only was a favor asked, but there was some coercion in the $400M military aid. Any objections to changing the language to "Trump pressured Ukraine"? Bdushaw (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I think both words are accurate, but "pressured" is likely more understandable to the general reader. I have no problem with the chance suggested. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the changes. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2021

Add to the end of the "COVID-19 outbreak at the White House" section, the following sentence (with citation):

It was later reported that nearly 900 Secret Service personnel contracted the virus. According to the watchdog agency, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the President's holding of large campaign rallies had contributed to the infections. Bluewater02 (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Why? What has this to do with Trump?Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2021

Trump said “peacefully and patriotically march” during the Jan 6 speech! If you leave that part out you lie through omission Kresseljustin (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

“Peacefully and patriotically” Trump told Jan 6 protesters that! If you leave that part out you lie through omission

Kresseljustin (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Has been discussed extensively, search the archives. "Peacefully" tossed in at the end of incitement is meaningless. ValarianB (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2021 (2)

Change

"On 1 July 2021, New York prosecutors charged the Trump Organization with..."

to:

"On 1 July 2021, New York prosecutors indicted the Trump Organization with..."

Big difference. Keep it honest. 97.89.36.122 (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: the sources say "charged" and "arraigned", so Wikipedia will continue in kind. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 22:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2021 (3)

There was no Russian interference in the 2016 election. That is a proven fact. 2601:142:C180:86C0:59B7:AA4E:9CDC:38B5 (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Read these: [32][33][34] – Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS reversion

Space4Time3Continuum2x reverted an edit with what I consider an invalid rationale, WP:NOTNEWS, which the editor has invoked multiple times for other reversions.

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1029046331&oldid=1029046123

I restored the content on that basis.

Slatersteven then reverted my edit without explanation.

I don't consider this proper. soibangla (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, as I said on my talk page I hit enter by mistake. My reasoning was WP:ONUS, so make a case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think WP:NOTNEWS is valid rationale for this reversion, and others you've made https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1029042676&oldid=1029040282 soibangla (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC) @Soibangla: I was going to move your post from my talk page to this one for general discussion, but I see you've already posted here. I hadn't noticed that the article was—possibly—back under 1RR and have therefore undone my second revert, and since you reverted my third one and then Slatersteven reverted your reinsertion, that horse has already left the barn. My rationale is this: This is Trump's top biography. He has a habit of musing about/saying/blogging weird, outrageous things—or just things that'll keep his name in the news, like the alleged book deal offers from "two of the most prestigious publishing houses" (there have been rumors)—that receive their 15 minutes of fame coverage. What's their long-term or even medium-term importance? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The content you removed was not fleeting musings. Your frequent invocation of NOTNEWS might be valid in other instances, but not this one. soibangla (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Its also not his musings, its peoples opinion of them. Whilst it may have value on the page about the election, or the riot, or his presidency, it tells us nothing about him.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

it tells us nothing about him. ha soibangla (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

No it does not, not that we already do not say, it adds nothing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The edit in question, noted at the top of this section, was one that I made. The rationale for the removal is frankly ridiculous - "Big Lie" has been discussed now for several months, Trump has continued it since winter 2020, and the lie has been the motivation for certain GOP states enacting their voter restrictions. The removal also took with it 5-6 reliable citation supporting the word, apparently first used by Biden. The issue is a major one for Trump, it has been ongoing, and it has large impact not only on voting, but on the behaviour of the GOP. Not to mention the question was under active talk, BEFORE the reversion, in the section just above. I'd suggest restoring the text and letting the above discussion take place. I am suggesting that "Big Lie" is worthy of a mention in the lead (and its lead, people, not lede, just saying). Bdushaw (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The False statements section already says that In 2020, Trump was a significant source of disinformation on national voting practices and the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump's attacks on mail-in ballots and other election practices served to weaken public faith in the integrity of the 2020 presidential election. I quoted WP:NEWS because the cites for the additional material were mostly from early January, and the term "big lie" didn't appear to have been used much until May 3 when Trump posted a sentence to his blog] proclaiming that "The Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020 will be, from this day forth, known as THE BIG LIE!" and Fox and Co. ran with it. I found a number of sources from May, covering both how the term came to be used by Trump critics, how it was "commandeered" by Trump, and how it's now used by the GOP. I edited your original material and put it in the "Post-presidency" section with three more current cites than the ones from January. Seems a better fit because it's an ongoing situation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla, my apologies. I overlooked that you had reverted my removal of Bdushaw's edit and not one of the two edits of yours that I removed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2021 (2)

Trump's father was not a German immigrant. His grandfather was a German immigrant. please correct this. 69.68.149.147 (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Not done. Both of Trump's paternal grandparents were German immigrants, and that's what the article says. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Size of lede

Why isn't the lede the typical four paragraphs as recommended by MOS? ~ HAL333 22:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: One thing I have noticed with bios in which there is a lot to say about them, general topics in which there is so much to say (World War I, United Kingdom both 6 paras) it seems editors choose to WP:IAR and decide how many paragraphs they deem is necessary on said article. In regards to the Trump lead, we could possibly merge the last two paragraphs which would get us closer to 4 paras, but I am not sure how to go beyond that.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, the whole article is oversized. And most editors don't care.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I also prefer shorter leads. This one isn't so bad, but it could be improved. Maybe his policies could be shortened, just stating "Trump's policy was populist, nationalist, small-government, isolationist, non-interventionist, protectionist and authoritarian", without listing each measure. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2021

Donald Trump has announced plans to sue Google, Facebook and Twitter, claiming as the the victim of censorship. [Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57754435] 94.15.194.82 (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason to mention a fundraising stunt that has virtually zero chance of prevailing in court because it is contrary to rudimentary concepts of the First Amendment. soibangla (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done You'll need consensus for this. And for myself, "Trump threatens lawsuit" isn't actually news, and certainly isn't noteworthy for this very long biography. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh well then... (and I am the same person that wrote the request - because my Sky ISP does IPv6 dynamic IP changing and I wrote it using a computer that as of the typing uses IPv4 fixed IP address) 2A02:C7E:E98:1100:C9BF:99DB:1070:36EE (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It never hurts to ask ... at least for a good-faith request like this one. Some sources are saying he actually has filed a lawsuit, while others just say he is planning to do so; if he does file the lawsuit and there is anything beyond "being laughed out of court" as a response, it will probably be discussed on some Wikipedia article, though probably initially not this one. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Legal affairs of Donald Trump seems to be the appropriate place. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone has added it anyway... but thanks - and bye - the rest of you can do something else. (and it switched to a fixed IPv4 address that is used to write this request - that Sky ISP thing). 94.15.194.82 (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

...but one more thing: some information about that is also in "Facebook and Instagram" section on Social media use by Donald Trump page. 94.15.194.82 (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Bold edit had already been made, and I moved it into "Social media" section, after the paragraph about the Twitter bans. Wouldn't oppose removal. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Small fire???

With regard to the St John's incident (discussed above), the article still uses the fallacious and misleading term, "small fire". If you are controlling the fire, for example, a campfire or a cigarette lighter, a small fire might be a reasonable term — except in point of fact I believe that most people would just call a campfire a campfire or a cigarette lighter a Bunsen burner. The fact is — as I can tell you as an Australian resident — a wildfire, as lit by an arsonist or an inadvertently dropped ciggie can unleash a fire storm. Literally. Calling it a small fire is true in the sense that it didn't spread very far, thankfully for St John's. But it sounds rather apologist. If I lit a blaze in the Australian bush, and it was rapidly dowsed by a rainstorm, I could arguably say it was only a small fire, no biggie. But I wonder if people would forgive me, knowing that I could have put people and homes at risk. Fire is a dangerous element. Don't play with it. It ill-behooves Wikipedia to use terminology that potentially encourages the kiddies to think that arson is harmless fun. And I say this as a visiting fireman manque.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

What do RS call it?Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I just answered that question.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

You did? Care to give some quotes or links then? [[35]] "According to local police, a small fire was deliberately set in the basement.".Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I question the seriousness of an editing suggestion that relies on a think of the children fallacy. Zaathras (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Can the phrase about the fire just be removed? Is is relevant to the biography of Donald Trump? Was the fire an important occurrence in the event that requires a mention? Bdushaw (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that is a valid point, what does it tell us about Trump?Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

It gives context to the disproportionate firepower he unleashed on the demonstrators. RS tell us it was a small fire. P.S. Jack -- a cigarette lighter is not a Bunsen burner please paddle within the mainstream. SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Now you tell me!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bdushaw and Slatersteven: - there's some missing context here which I have added. The missing link is that Trump said that the protesters were cleared due to the fire - they tried to burn down the church the day before and almost succeeded ... The church was badly hurt. He also shared a post that the church was firebombed by terrorists - which I didn't add. Hence the fire itself, and the nature of the fire, is relevant to Trump - he made the clearing about it. starship.paint (exalt) 06:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: - sources plainly say "small fire". ABC News / New York / VOA / NYT / Global News, then you have WaPo quoting D.C. Police as saying it was a small fire, and you also have NBC News quoting the church rector as saying it was a small fire - and so - Wikipedia will also say it was a small fire. starship.paint (exalt) 06:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Please forgive me. I come from the Land Down Under. Where men splay and women chunder. I said to him do you speak-a my language. He just smiled and gave me a Vegemite sandwich. I met a woman who made me nervous. She took me in and gave my car a service. Etc. It was a small fire factually. It was a fire according to the holy hearsay of Wikipedia. And it got a lot of covfefe.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

So then we say "Trump claimed" and put in what he said. And then what RS said.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, i think it's storm in a teacup. What actually happened is nothing exciting.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the fire is an irelivance.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The lead

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

Consensus is that Option A: ... who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. should be in the lede of this article. The arguments of each camp are not as weak as those holding the other view would think. Consensus is that US Presidential articles currently have a set format that should be maintained throughout the series, and that the Trump article should not be an outlier. That said, there is also some consensus that this linking issue should be revisited across the entire series. This requires an even larger RfC, so yes you can blame me for kicking the can down the road. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Frustratingly, I see that once again the lead of this article has been changed to differ it from all the other US presidents intros. I'm of course speaking of the 'bleeping' linkage of "45th president of the United States" to Presidency of Donald Trump. Hopefully, this inconsistency will eventually be overturned. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree it should be linked to the office as opposed to his presidency article. We have had a few discussions about it. This one seemed to be in favour of the office [36] (there have also been other iirc). But this recent, general one [37] resulted in it being the presidency article, even though that discussion was hardly about links instead about the lead sentence content, briefly discussed here [38]. We should just probably start a RfC to clean this up again.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 02:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, an RFC is required. GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Also found this discussion which led to presidency article being moved out of lead sentence [39].  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 02:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said in my revert, I'm not necessarily opposed. I reverted strictly based on the edit notice. I'm usually one for consistency, but I also don't see what the piped link hurts either, especially when the general Presidency article is linked all over the place. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The intro is out-of-sync with the other US presidents intros. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

To reiterate, I'm not opposed to your edit suggestion. Regularity is important. But we should also take into consideration that Trump is an irregular president. The point of links are to inform the reader, and expose them to things that they might be interested in. The piped link does this, as the only other time (if I recall) that this is linked is about halfway through the article. The general Presidency article is linked a couple of time elsewhere. I understand both sides of the "argument", such as it is. I'm not opposed though, and if we move toward consistency in the prose (per other articles), I still think that this should still be linked somewhere in the introduction. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned above, an RFC is required. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was. There was little to no attempt to engage the community beforehand (as required), and I find it hard to believe, given that you're an experienced editor, that you missed the multiple edit warnings. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Trump was an irregular president, I'm sure you meant to say. That will be the moment they pinpoint in the history books of the future. --Pete (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Symmachus Auxiliarus: FWIW, the status quo you spoke of, was only 6 days old & implemented 3 months after the previous 10 choices discussion, which made the current matter a secondary issue, at the time. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC (lead sentence link)

How should we handle links within the lead sentence in regards to the "45th president of the United States" section?

Option A: Link to President of the United States article, ... who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

Option B Link to Presidency of Donald Trump article, ... who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

Also if you are wondering why the link selections slightly differ in regards to the "45th" part (not linked in A, but is in B) it is becasue in the two revisions that have gone back and forth (see previous disscussions linked above) that is way they have been handled.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey (lead sentence link)

• A per the precedent. I would expect "45th POTUS" to link to Trump's biography, which would make no sense. ~ HAL333 04:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• B. Simply because some people keep saying that the reason we have to include every minute detail about his presidency in this article (hint: 4 years of his life is longer than literally the entire rest of the article by a very decent margin). We don't. We have an article for that. And linking to it early on would help people find that information whenever people start respecting WP:ARTICLESIZE here. But that's a whole other topic - I still think that because most people searching "Donald Trump" are likely looking for information on his presidency, that it should be presented high up in the article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Berchanhimez: - your view most people searching "Donald Trump" are likely looking for information on his presidency answers the problem you raised 4 years of his life is longer than literally the entire rest of the article by a very decent margin - these 4 years are the most important ones of his life. starship.paint (exalt) 04:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  And that section is more than 200kb of information. It's completely in violation of summarizing what's in the presidency article. Maybe linking prominently to that in the lead will allow us to actually work on summarizing, instead of repeating every single thing that can be repeated. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  The presidency article is already very easy for readers to find anyway, moreover B does not meet MOS:LINKCLARITY. The first time readers come to the page they will see the lead. Assuming they want to find presidency infomation they will make their way to the presidency section via the table of contents of which there is a "main article" template there linking readers there (assuming they do not want to read the shorter summary on this article). It does not mean we have to jam it into the lead sentence.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 05:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  Based on the pageviews data discussed above, I question your assumption that all the readers interested in it are easily making their way there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  I was about to say basically this. Either we're wrong that most people are looking for information on his presidency, in which case there's literally no excuse for it being so long in this article (complete violation of SIZE and SS), or we're right that most people are looking for it, and the pageviews prove that it's not easy to find. People need to realize that we can't have it both ways - one of the biggest reasons for not allowing information to be removed is claimed to be "it's relevant and people look for it" - so either that reasoning is incorrect (and the pageviews are correct) and information should be removed, or the pageviews prove that it's hard to find and needs linked sooner. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  I've already gone over this. Okay so the pageviews of the biography page (Donald Trump) is consistently higher than that of Presidency of Donald Trump. That is the fact. So what? You seem to be concluding that based on this, that readers are not finding the Presidency of Donald Trump page which is why the presidency article has lower pageviews than the biography article? If so, that is a huge assumption which you will need some solid evidence for. The pageviews discreptancy could be becuase: a) Readers want to read about his overall biography rather than a dedicated presidency page b) Readers find the Presidency summary here sufficient in regards to the level of infomation they want to find out about the topic. Either way, the pageviews discrepancy is a fact, but the conclusions drawn from it provide possible speculative reasons as why that is which have not been proven.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 06:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  Please read my comments again. We get a contradiction either way - this is a common way of proving something in mathematics here. If we assume that people are wanting the presidency information, then we have a problem because they aren't finding it. If we assume they aren't looking for it, then we are dedicating way too much space here to the topic. Either way, something is wrong. We should not be violating ARTICLESIZE twice over in one single section just because some people are looking here for the information - that is fixed with better navigation options to the sub-article, not an article that takes over 5 seconds to load on a high end computer with gigabit internet! -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  I suggest you read my comments again but there you go. then we have a problem because they aren't finding it How did you come to did conclusion that they are not finding it? The presidency article has at least 1-2k views a day... then we are dedicating way too much space here to the topic We base the weighting, importance, and level of detail on topics based on reliable secondary coverage not based on reader pageviews. If a certain event/subtopic, etc recieves a lot of coverage it may be added and worthy of inclusion per as WP:DUE weight. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• B, per the MOS:SPECIFICLINK guideline, which speaks precisely to this situation. The Trump presidency article is more specific and much more likely to be useful to readers than the article on the U.S. presidency as a general concept. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  For closer: I hope that you will evaluate the strength of the arguments in this discussion rather than just counting votes and jumping to a no consensus result. Reading the thread below, the B !voters have made a strong case supported by MOS guidance, whereas the primary arguments of A !voters have centered on "consistency" with other presidency pages, which is not a guideline or policy, and an appeal to MOS:EGG/MOS:LINKCLARITY which has been rebutted. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I realise that at the moment, you don't like the way the RFC is playing out. But, it creates a bad impression, when you appear to belittle the arguments/positions of those who disagree with you. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Some arguments are stronger than others. It's not belittling to point that out; Wikipedia has no "equality of arguments" guarantee. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, you shouldn't be trying to bolster your position, by attempting to implement such changes to article linkages at Joe Biden, as you did 4 days ago. This determination of yours to link to those presidency of... articles is becoming uncomfortable. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Nope my arguments centred around meeting MOS:LINKCLARITY and ensuring we do not violate MOS:EGG. Moreover, the consistency arugment is an interesting one becuase is it a coincidence that every ohter US president (and officeholders in general) link to the specific office he held? No not a coincidence, some stuff exists for a reason. The reason being that it is most natural, professional link that readers expect whilst meeting MOS:SPECIFICLINK, and not violating MOS:EGG.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 11:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• A As it meets MOS:LINKCLARITY and B is MOS:EGGy. MOS:LINKCLARITY states The article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link, given the context. If readers read the first sentence they expect the "president of United States" portion to link to the exact, precise office he held, not the presidency article. Moreover, links should be intutive (MOS:EGG) and should be exactly what the readers expect to see, which Option B is not. This is also consistent with every other president article, and most officeholder articles in general further solidifying the fact the reader is going to expect the officeholder article link rather than the presidency article.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 05:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  Option B is not EGGy because it links over 45th president of the United States, not just president of the United States. Having "45th president of the United States" link to our article about the 45th presidency of the United States is perfectly intuitive. Regarding the precedent argument, that amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFF. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Per Ronald Reagan, I would argue that the more intuitive target for 45th president of the United States would be List of presidents of the United States. Hence, EGG. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to be pedantic about rules, MOS:SPECIFICLINK and MOS:EGG both have guideline status, and the violation of MOS:SPECIFICLINK from option A is clear-cut, whereas the MOS:EGG concerns from option B are minor at best. The nice thing about the Trump presidency article is that it links to President of the United States right in the first sentence, so anyone who wants to get to that page can easily do so from the current structure. That would not be true if we switched to option A. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

MOS:SPECIFICLINK from option A is clear-cut Strong disagree (and some goes for the EGGy part being 'minor') on that point for the reasons I and others have laid out here and in previous discussions but it appears at this point I am not going to be able to change your mind on that.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 06:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Not it is eggy becuase no where in the text 45th president of the United States does it imply or suggest it is talking about his specific presidency, unlike where it was before (During his presidency.... Moreover, A is specific to the actual office he held and it is very clear meeting MOS:LINKCLARITY. Moreover, readers of this encycoledia will more often than not be familiar with links in lead sentences in other articles and will expected to be taken to the article about the specific office article, allowing to meet MOS:LINKCLARITY states which The article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 06:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  "45th president of the United States" plainly refers to a specific presidency—that's what's signified by "45th", as there was only one 45th presidency. To meet MOS:LINKCLARITY for that text, therefore, the target should go to a page specifically about the 45th presidency rather than the presidency in general. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  Nope, in the lead sentence we discussing the the specific office he holds not the specific presidency signified by "president of the United States" that could not be any clearer. Moreover, the 45th it just there to number as to the ordinal/order in which he held the office. If you wanted to make it clear that it was about his specific presidency it could be added to this part as it was before During his presidency, .... In addition, to meet MOS:LINKCLARITY we must link to the specific office he held and not some overview article, it is the most natural link that readers have come to expect.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 11:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• A This is a no-brainer. Whatever one thinks of the objective merits and demerits of each option (and I can sympathize with both "sides" on this point), they apply equally to Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, other Bush, and Reagan, and all of these follow the pattern of "A", with the slight exception of Reagan, whose article has a lead sentence reading served as the 40th president of the United States. Since the last time I engaged in a semi-scientific sampling of random related instances to formulate an argument, a bad-faith troll insisted I was selecting "arbitrary dates", I will say that I checked the lead sentences of our articles on every US president during my own life (per the disclosure on my user page that I was born in 1988); since 100% of the sample I took all agreed with "A", the burden is on anyone arguing for "B" to present evidence that either (a) it is just a coincidence that these articles all follow this pattern (such as a result of recent editorial changes) or (b) there is some reason to make an exception for this article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I will add that, if Trump were to be treated as an exception because of what editors think readers might be looking for, it would be the other way around. Biden, Obama, Clinton, and both Bushes are all known -- at least today and at least outside the United Stated, but perhaps also during their own terms of office and in parts of the US other than their hometowns or home-states -- almost exclusively for their presidencies or vice-presidencies. This makes sense, since being elected president was, for all of them, the pinnacle of their careers in politics. Trump, on the other hand, was well-known as a reality TV personality and social media celebrity long before becoming president, and at least for the time being most English-speakers still know him for his reality TV shows and tweets as well as for his presidency. (It may be that non-English-speaking countries are not as familiar with The Apprentice, but per Levivich's comment they represent a relatively tiny proportion of our readership.) I have not actually seen any evidence that readers are not being sufficiently served by the present article: if they want to read about his presidency, they can Ctrl+F "pres...", quickly see that "5 Presidency (2017–2021)" is its own section, and when they click it they'll quickly see that it has a main article devoted to it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option A per the arguments above. While I'm not usually of the mind to say that a "local consensus at article X should dictate a local consensus at article Y" or that "site-wide consistency is an attainable goal", I can't see a reasonable argument for why we should make an exception for Trump and keep the status quo of linking to his personal presidency page. Mgasparin (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• B, per Berchanhimez (talk · contribs): I think that most viewers come to Trump looking for his Presidency, not the concept of the Presidency in general. Furthermore, there's a link to the Presidency in general in the infobox, it's not so hard to find. The infobox stands out, no reason to have both be identical there. We should also probably change it on the other 44 articles. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• A, as per the intro of the other US presidents & all the US vice presidents. Consistency is best. GoodDay (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• A let's be consistent across all presidential articles, there's no reason to be different for the previous resident of the White House. ValarianB (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• A As others have said, lets not make of him a special case.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• A consistent with precedent (though the precedent should be reconsidered in another venue) soibangla (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment See my comment in the section immediately above. I'm not sure this was done in good faith, or that the requirements for an RfC were technically met, though I hardly think it matters at this point. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option A, for it to be consistent with other US president/vice president articles, linking "45th" just for a special case can just be made a hatnote on one of Trump's section. It will also feel wrong to compress a whole article wikilink into just four characters of "45th". PyroFloe (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• A Clear choice. Per consistency. And, Trump is not any more special than let's say Washington or Lincoln. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option B I've argued vigorously previously for a wikilink to the very important Presidency of Donald Trump article, that this article and that one should be more closely aligned; they are mutually supporting and interdependent. Even as these discussions are going on, contributors have complained that their additions better suited to the Presidency article have been reverted out; not only are readers confused, the editors are as well. Consistency/that "other articles do it" has never been an acceptable argument; see the history of this Talk page...I agree with the suggestion that if that is true, then those other articles should have a similar link (e.g., Jimmy Carter/Presidency of Jimmy Carter, and others). I reject the statement (not even an argument) that the Presidency of Donald Trump link is easily found in this article...it isn't; it is buried. Articles should be written for the convenience and utility of the reader; the Presidency link is far more useful, while not being particularly obvious. Any reader can readily find the article for President of the United States, while the Presidency of Donald Trump is not so obvious (see data, arguments, history of this Talk page; who would google search for "Presidency of Donald Trump"???). I've thought about wording that would allow for both links, while not being redundant; a solution is not obvious. Bdushaw (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option B per the MOS:SPECIFICLINK guideline/per SDKB. If the other articles link to "presidency" when there is a more specific article, they should be changed too. MB 18:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option A per well-considered established site practice. The arguments for B are OR speculation as to reader motivation. Further, Trump personalized his time in the White House to an unprecedented extent. The presidency-related content in this article is overwhelmingly about instances of that, not about governance and policy. TO:USER BE: please -- no need to repeat your rationale about "contradiction either way" -- it has been heard, considered, and rejected. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Neither - but leaning towards A. I would prefer to find a way to include both links; something like "45th president of the United States". The problem with that is it creates a sea of blue that looks like a single link instead of two separate links. I don't know how to grammatically separate "45th" from "president of the United States" and still have it make sense. We could have "president of the United States" link to president of the United States and include a link to the presidency article in the paragraph beginning, "During his presidency," although I would prefer the link to be earlier in the article than that. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option A, not just because of the precedent but because the reasons that is precedent apply here; namely, we should not assume that every reader, now and in the future, is familiar with the presidency of the United States or what it means to say that someone served in that office. Trump's presidency can be properly linked using a main-article link in the subsection for it. MOS:LINKCLARITY. SPECIFICLINK doesn't apply because an individual presidency is not simply a subset of the office of president in a way that eliminates any need to link to the office - the immediate question the link needs to answer is "he was elected to what?" for people who do not fully understand it or who need more information on it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion, the "President" article is also linked in the infoboxes of past and present presidents. Why have two links to the same article right at the top? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option B (thanks for the ping). I'm most-strongly opposed to the WP:SEAOFBLUE option, linking "45th" to one article and "president of the United States" to another; if that's done at other articles, it shouldn't be. But that's not one of the options in this RFC. I think there may be only two things we can be sure about our readers: (1) they speak English, and (2) they're connected to the internet via some device. I cannot be persuaded that there is any person, or any sizable group of people, who speak English and are on the net but do not know what a "president" of a country is. I really believe that any English-speaking person on the net is going to know that there's a country called the United States and its leader is called President. Everyone English-speaking internet user in North America certainly knows this. Everyone in India and South Africa knows what a President is because their country has one. Everyone in the UK and Australia knows what a President is, even if their country doesn't have one. There is not a continent that doesn't have at least one country with a president. So we don't need to link "president of the United States," because everyone reading the words knows what that is. Linking to the article about Trump's presidency will give readers more useful information that linking to the article about POTUS. It's sort of a no-brainer that the average reader will know more about the office of the president in general than about any individual presidency, so to the extend a reader wants more information about "president," they probably want more information about Trump's presidency and not presidencies in general. In sum, Option B is more likely to lead the reader to what they're looking for, or what they'll find useful. Levivich 20:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • To Levivich and other B people: have you actually read the President of the US article recently? There is plenty of significant information there about the powers, authorities, evolution, and controversies of the office itself as part of the American government structure. It is most certainly a page from which most readers will learn something if they're so inclined. Trump's administration can be linked in a manner conforming to precedent in other POTUS articles where the same issue has been resolved and repeatedly applied in manner A. SPECIFICO talk 20:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes. You reminded me of another reason for B in the lead: A is already linked in the infobox. Levivich 21:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Please review the President of the US article when you have time and address my point. Glad you like the infobox, but I'm not aware that it's germane. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Sure, most people know what a president is. However, most people don't know about it in details such as its power (and power limit), history, selection process and so on... Plus, president of the US could be significantly different from other presidencies regarding those points. User Aquillion got a good point above. There is a reason that every presidential article has done it this way. And no, it's not because of coincidence. There is absolutely no reason why Trump article should be any different (aka more special). Nguyentrongphu (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
        • This highlights the critical point. When reading/learning about Trump and his presidency a reader will benefit from the link to the President article in order to understand the degree to which Trump's actions deviated from both past norms and in some cases legal and constitutional process. SPECIFICO talk 00:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

          Are you admitting that your opinions on this matter are based on trying to present to readers what you want them to read/understand, and not based on a neutral presentation of factual information? Because this is the closest you've come to admitting that is your goal here, and it leaves very little room for any other interpretation of why you would presume what readers will benefit from most in this way. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  I think it should be pretty obvious that none of the A !voters are especially interested in pushing a particular reading list on our readers, since virtually all of us have said that we are seeking consistency with the other POTUS articles; several editors, meanwhile, have expressly supported B because they are worried readers are having trouble finding what said editors apparently consider to be the article that they are looking for. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  Nobody is trying to direct readers to what they may be interested in reading. If they want to read about the office president of the US then option A is a clear choice. If they want to read specifically about Trump's presidency then we already have a subsection for it with a link. Anything else is pure assumption and speculation. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  I don't want to go too far with this analogy, as it's not one I would have chosen to make myself, but FWIW the countries listed above that are supposedly populated by people who know what a "president" of a country is mostly seem to have presidents whose roles are quite different from the POTUS. India's current "leader" is widely considered to be Narendra Modi, not Ram Nath Kovind, and the same is true of places like Singapore and Ireland. (South Africa appears to be a rare exception, and was perhaps cherry-picked.) An argument could be made that, thanks to American TV and movies, people in these countries know more about the role of the US president than the presidents of their own countries (I certainly do), but that does not appear to be the argument being made; moreover, this argument would have to apply to all the other articles on US presidents, including (to an even greater extent than Trump) the current one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  this argument would have to apply to all the other articles on US presidents - Yes, I agree it would apply to all pres articles. The generic POTUS article being linked in the infobox, and the administration-specific article being linked in the lead, is the arrangement that makes the most sense to me for all pres articles. (Vice versa [generic link in lead, specific link in infobox] is not as good IMO but would also work, and would be better than linking the generic twice [in the lead and infobox] and the specific not at all in the lead.) Levivich 17:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  I have a huge problem with the presumption that readers would rather read about that specific presidency as opposed to the role of the president in general, especially given the general purpose of the lede of the article and the site's world-wide scope. For instance, other countries with presidents generally link to the office of the presidency in the lede, which is appropriate, since a reader may not be familiar with the role of presidency in that country, and I see no reason why the U.S. should be unique in that regard. (The articles on non-U.S. presidents which don't link to the office I found were not the best formatted articles, unfortunately.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  Readers who want the general article can click on the link at the top of the infobox, which reads "President of the United States" instead of "45th President of the United States." To me it makes sense that the instance with the number (in the lead) links to the specific article and the instance without the number (in the infobox) links to the general article. Option B results in both links appearing at the top of the page, whereas Option A would result in the general article being linked twice. Consistency is good but it should be consistently the best option, so the fact that other articles double-link the general article and don't link the specific article in the lead doesn't mean we should keep doing it. It doesn't matter how many other articles take the flawed approach, it's still flawed, for these reasons I've laid out here. Levivich 03:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  Levivich describes my conclusion here. There is no reason we have to have A (consistency) OR B (a "Presidency" link), when we can correct a systemic problem with all President articles that the "Presidency" link is absent. It is not that people may be "looking" for such an article, so much that readers are unaware of its existence. And it is an important sister article to the biography article. I was unaware of this pairing, and I've been on Wikipedia for quite some time. Let's fix the problem and go with A AND B, with a suitable solution for B. Bdushaw (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  The problem with this is the assumption that people will be looking to learn specifically about the presidency in the lede of the article. No other presidents in the U.S. or for any other countries link the number. They all link to the presidency. Don't forget the lede is what appears first on mirrors and in reproductions, and will be the first thing non-Americans and non-native speakers will see. They may not see the infobox at all. The links need to be as general as possible and not surprise the reader. Furthermore even though the presidency is often the pinnacle of someone's career it does give undue weight to that part of their life. I have absolutely no qualms about including a link in the infobox, mind you, but there are very good reasons for not changing the lede willy-nilly, and doing so on articles that aren't this one will likely require a wider RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 19:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Just to note that this RfA is about the specific language of the first sentence of the lead. As a practical matter, my original concern was just that the main associated article, Presidency of Donald Trump, was not noted anywhere at the top of the article. If there was a way of including such a link at the top, I'd be happy, irrespective of the specific language of the first sentence. People try to add presidential material to this article because the Presidential article is obscure. I do not agree that the present arrangement is sufficient. Bdushaw (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Both options A and B use the same language. If you want to add another sentence near the top that says something like Trump's presidency was marked by X, Y and Z., this RFC is highly unlikely to establish a consensus for such. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• B InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• A To be consistent across all presidential articles. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• A --RaiderAspect (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option A Let it be the same with the other presidential articles. Sea Ane (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• B per MOS:SPECIFICLINK and Levivich's argument. Vaticidalprophet 04:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• B As many have already stated above, I believe Option B per MOS:SPECIFICLINK. Also, the 44th President of the United States links to President Barack Obama and the 43rd President of the United States links to George W. Bush. We should have consistency here. ---CranberryMuffin (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  We should have consistency here I am not sure what you mean by this considering all other president article link using option A as opposed to B, meaning it B would be inconsistent with other articles. Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 10:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  @CranberryMuffin: your position is confusing. You appear to arguing for option A. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Point taken I probably got the options confused. ---CranberryMuffin (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• A in order to maintain consistency with other presidential articles; I am also of the agreement that you would expect to read about a presidency when you click that link, not a specific presidency. I also do not understand the comments above saying that other presidential pages operate similar to B, a quick look of five presidents picked at random shows they all follow A. SportingFlyer T·C 11:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• A After reading the above, since I had no clear opinion at first, it should be A to be consistent. Ihaveadreamagain 18:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• A for consistance.--Mhorg (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option A, primarily for consistency across US president ledes, but also for MOS:LINKCLARITY (on which I would also like to echo Hal333's point). -Coreydragon (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• A To be consistent with other president articles Mitsurugi78 (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• Consistency is a weak argument. If other articles have it wrong then they should be fixed. It is always better to link to a more specific article and our guidelines support this. Aircorn (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• If it's between A and B, then A. But we could always link "served as" to Presidency of Donald Trump and "president of the United States" to President of the United States. (...businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from...) Some1 (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  That would be a fine solution in my opinion. Given that this RfC is at the tail end of its lifespan, it might be something to raise in the next round so it can receive fuller consideration. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  An interesting idea, but it would still differentiate this bio's intro from that of the other US presidents. There's already a link in this article, to the presidency of... article-in-question, at the top of the "Presidency (2017–2021)" section, as is done in the other US presidents bios. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  The majority of readers never scroll beyond the lead. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Your proposal won't change that, either way. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (lead sentence link)

@GoodDay and Symmachus Auxiliarus: RfC started above.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ping users involved in this discussion [40] @Sdkb, Mandruss, ONUnicorn, and Space4Time3Continuum2x:. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ping users involved in this discussion [41] @Scjessey, May His Shadow Fall Upon You, Emir of Wikipedia, and Steverci:. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ping users involved in this discussion [42]@SPECIFICO, PyroFloe, Levivich, ValarianB, ChipotleHater, Jonmaxras, Qexigator, Rreagan007, Throast, MelanieN, Thanoscar21, Onetwothreeip, Jack Upland, Giraffer, Anon0098, Berchanhimez, Chrisahn, Hazelforest, Neutrality, Felix558, AleatoryPonderings, Mgasparin, ProcrastinatingReader, Starship.paint, Govindaharihari, Moxy, Throast, SRD625, Thanoscar21, Hijiri88, Khajidha, Bdushaw, Ewulp, GreenFrogsGoRibbit, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, PyroFloe, Kolya Butternut, and DarthBotto:. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ping users involved in this discussion who haven't already been pinged above: @Bdushaw and Dave souza: {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Listed at WP:CR.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

An alternative?

How about we implement A on the lead sentence (really restoring the article's status quo -- technically this RFC goes against the normal BRD process) and change the sentence Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics., which currently appears near the end of the second full paragraph, to read During both his campaigns and his presidency, Trump made many false and misleading statements, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Because the main argument for B seems to be that the lead doesn't include a link to Presidency of Donald Trump (an argument I don't agree with, mind you), the main argument for A seems to be that the first sentence should be formatted similarly to the other POTUS articles, these two positions are not mutually exclusive, and there is therefore no reason to disagree. (It's possible that the people arguing that they only want a link to the presidency article somewhere in the lead are being disingenuous and they are actually insisting that it be in the first sentence of the article, but per WP:AGF I'm assuming this not to be the case.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It was at one point included under this part During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban... as a result of this discussion [43] but I cannot remember at what point it was removed.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 07:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I can't say no president has a link to the presidency in their lede, but none of the first sixteen do and no other recent one does, so it's really not a great argument, and one that doesn't need compromise. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't really care WHERE a link to Presidency of Donald Trump appears, just that the reader is quickly informed that this separate article exists. Right now the first instance is at the top of the 2nd infobox, confusingly noted as "Presidency (timeline)". Looking at the first infobox...firstly the link to the President article is there (making including that link in the first sentence of the lead somewhat redundant). Then there are the words "In office"... what about replacing those words with Presidency of Donald Trump; that would require changing the form of the infobox itself. Does every president have a biography article and a presidency article? It occurs to me that one aspect of this discussion is that many editors may view the presidency article as not that important, perhaps on par with the multitude of other Trump related articles. Given the number of times the presidency article is referred to when material is precluded from this article, the importance of the presidency article seems unique. Perhaps a more basic task would be a consensus assessment of how important the presidency article is. If the consensus is that that article is not that important, then the resolution of this question becomes easier (and I become even more baffled...). Bdushaw (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

To answer my question, yes, most presidents have a biographical article and a presidency article (I checked Carter, Reagan, Hoover, Grant). From my perspective all those articles have the similar issue that this one does, that the presidency article is not readily apparent at the top of the article. Interesting. The question is broader then...should presidency articles be more clearly noted at the top of president's biography articles? Perhaps a modification to the top infobox form? The existence of the presidency article is a primary justification for reducing the size of the presidency section of the biography...the presidency article should be apparent up front. Bdushaw (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

We've had a status quo for a long time for a reason - these are all relatively important articles for the site, and we can't assume that someone going to the page will be interested in that specific presidency instead of a definition of the role of the president (especially considering the worldwide audience.) I do note that the link is right where it's supposed to be at the top of the "Presidency of Donald Trump" section. The infobox may not be a bad idea, though. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

To me, having both links somewhere at the top and easy to find is more important than where exactly either link is placed. So I'd support this or other similar alternatives. Levivich 13:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm just annoyed that the linkage-in-question in the lead, was made without a consensus for it. Something similar to that, was attempted in July 2020. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Alexis Jazz added a hatnote with a link to Presidency of Donald Trump. Hatnote with link to Presidency article, first sentence with link to President of the United States—seems like a good compromise to me. Opinions? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Changed my mind and removed hatnote—appears to indicate that this article doesn't mention presidency at all. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  Food Fight! SPECIFICO talk 11:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Never! Pillow fight, maybe. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Space4Time3Continuum2x, well, I tried. The section about his presidency seems to be roughly half the length of Presidency of Donald Trump. IMHO either discard 90% of Donald Trump#Presidency (2017–2021) or redirect Presidency of Donald Trump here and add the other half here. Considering the length of this article, I'd prefer discarding 90%. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Numerous editors—I'm one of them—still have "very strong" (quoting subject) notions about what must be mentioned in this article, and we don't agree on what that is, so here we are for now. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, Decided for you. That was easy. The section about his presidency was simply misplaced, it was in the lead. Just make sure that everything I chucked is actually covered in Presidency of Donald Trump and it'll be fine. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The slash-and-burn approach to WP editing :) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's not make changes in other articles, during RFC

I haven't checked out the history of this article, to see who changed the link from President of the United States to Presidency of Donald Trump, without getting prior consent. But I do know who just attempted the same thing in the lead at Joe Biden in changing the link from President of the United States to Presidency of Joe Biden, four days ago. I wish the individual-in-question would stop doing this & get a prior consensus first. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay, if you're going to refer to me, it's polite to give me a ping. "Presidency of Donald Trump" was the article linked at the time this RfC was launched, and was fairly stable (apart from your attempted change, which another editor quickly reverted), so it's what should be retained as the status quo until the RfC is closed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

There NEVER was a consensus to link to Presidency of Donald Trump to begin with. In fact, quite the opposite. The status quo through out this article's history was linked president of the United States in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Well well, I just checked the article's history & appears that it was you, who changed the linkage without a consensus, on June 2, 2021. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You left out the diff link from that edit, where in my edit summary I noted and linked to the consensus for the change. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)^{Modified 09:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)}

There was no consensus for the change, in that linked discussion, you mentioned, in your edit-summary. That so-called RFC was a mess, which is likely why you waited 3 months after its end, before choosing to change the lead. GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Closure

I've changed the lead to what I believe is the consensus of this (expired) RFC. If there's disagreement on that, then would somebody contact the page where such closures are requested? GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, RfCs don't expire, they need to be closed. Until then, consensus item 50 remains in effect. Please, self-revert your edit. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

21 support option A, while 7 support B. I've already contacted the closure page. You can contact them as well. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

You were involved in this RfC. AFAIK, you can't close it, count or no count. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

If you want to revert on that basis, that's your choice. Right now, I'm busy looking for 2 archived RFCs on other matters. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted. WP:There is no deadline; we can wait for a closer, and as Bdushaw noted below, it is far from clear that they will find a clear consensus for option A. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

What surprise, it was you who reverted. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Closure requests, "if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion". ~ HAL333 19:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is NOT clear, as it has been repeatedly noted that this is a !vote, the "!" in front meaning "not a vote", closure being indicated by the stronger argument. Most of the 21 "A" votes indicate a simple preference for consistency, which is not much of an argument, as was noted. However, I suggest we let the closure stand, bring the present Talk section to an end, and open a broader discussion, involving all the presidents, as to a revision to the beginning of the presidential biography articles that would note the associated presidency articles. (Its still not clear to me why people seem to want to hide the presidency articles...) Bdushaw (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Nobody's hiding anything. Those articles-in-question are linked to, at the top of the Presidency section of all the US presidential bios. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 11 July 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.