Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 143

Archive 140

Archive 141

Archive 142

Archive 143

Archive 144

Archive 145

→

Archive 150

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2022

[ommission of space] change "reaching a high of 49 percent and a low of 35 percent. [718]" to "reaching a high of 49 percent and a low of 35 percent.[718]" Rowboat10 (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

 Excess whitespace removed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

White-space reduction, gotcha. PS - Ironically, recently at my talkpage, I got complaints about deleting white-space from election & referendum articles. GoodDay (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Please take out the hate

Wikipedia should never allow whoever wrote this biography to be so hateful and divisive. So many lies are added to undermine and disparage a US President. Furthermore, you omit Trump’s many accomplishments. It’s sad to see how we are becoming more and more like China— information is manipulated and censured to fit the narrative that keeps making the government bigger and We The People smaller. 2601:140:9180:8660:EC99:9EFF:F08A:248A (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Not quite as good as Lincoln's speeches, tbh. GoodDay (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Too long?

Wikipedia:Article size

This exceeds 100kB. Should we shorten it? Ak-eater06 (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, a near-20 year-old editing guideline that had been frozen at an arbitrary "100k" since 2007 is meaningless. If there are parts of the article that are deemed bloated, sure, suggest and trim away. But do it because the passages are truly not needed. Not to conform to a number that a handful old hands cling to like a cherished floppy disk. Zaathras (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

As I've mentioned many times, transfer some items over to the Trump administration article. GoodDay (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I would support efforts to shorten. Some of the things in this article seem to be a bit irrelevant overall. Some good things to do would be to shorten the pardons and commutations, eliminate Lafayette Square photo op (I've advocated for this before to no avail), false statements section, racial views, and maybe just condense a bunch of other stuff. I think we all need to agree with progress in this area of shortening, but it's hard to make substantive change because just about every edit on this page is going to be reverted. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The militarized photo-op at the Church is exactly the kind of important personal information that should not be sacrificed for the abstract and nonspecific principle of brevity. SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It was in the news for 1 week and now it's practically a figment of the past. It can be mentioned briefly somewhere, but an entire subsection that is relatively large is not proper of appropriate weight. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, it was only news for a week. After that, it became one of the most iconic momrents of Trump's time in the White House and is cited in RS as emblematic of his various proclivities. If it had been news like who won the Superbowl would that disqualify it? No. First it's news. Then it becomes news that endures as more than news. That is exactly what we need. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not been cemented as a major point in Trump's life or presidency. It does not endure as anything more than news. It's not like January 6, which does endure. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It never left the news, you just haven’t been paying attention to it. Since you mentioned Jan 6, here are a number of articles mentioning both: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], plus a number of books (among them Woodward/Costa’s Peril, Leonnig/Rucker’s I alone can fix it). The section has already been pared down to the bare essentials. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC) "Figment of the past"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Checkers, that comment strikes me as strikingly disappointingly uninformed. The church photo-op marked a turning point forTrump toward the overt public display of a militarized authoritarian role for himself as president. The recently disclosed draft executive order that would baselessly empower a military takeover of civilian election law enforcement is a direct descendent of that public display at Lafayette Square. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Lets not be melodramatic here, he never had a role as "militarized authoritarian" leader of any kind. You call this a turning point, but it wasn't. This event did not lead to anything significant. It didn't lead to an impeachment, any relevant criminal/civil charges, or any major legislation. I just don't see the significance, especially in comparison to events like January 6. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read my words more closely. Your reply is unresponsive. SPECIFICO talk 09:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion isn't the way to go. Follow WP:PRESERVE and WP:Summary style by splitting off content into sub-articles. -- Valjean (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

No, don't do that either. The things that Good At Checkers lists as deletable are all important aspects of Trump's biography. They illustrate permanent aspects of his character or of his presidential actions. Several of them already have their own Wikipedia articles, showing their importance; a summary here is absolutely called for. Content here could be trimmed but it should not be eliminated. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Frustratingly, if Trump runs & wins the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, this article will become overly too long, again. Right now, Biden's bios should be longer, as he's the incumbent U.S. president. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That's an unsupported and insupportable assertion. I think this thread has demonstrated consensus against using article length as a justification for deletion of significant NPOV biographical content. I suggest any further input be limited to separate threads on specific proposals for content that might be trimmed or removed. SPECIFICO talk 17:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The article on the fox should be longer than Britney's Oops!... I Did It Again Tour, but alas, we follow the sources. Joe Biden is a career politician, and gets the coverage due to a politician with a 50-ish year career. Trump has been many, many things in 50 years and garnered significantly more of the tabloid 24/7/365 media type of coverage. It's not a problem for the Wikipedia to solve. Zaathras (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

runs and wins: we'll cross that bridge when if we get to it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Too long. We all agree content can be trimmed. Items like the Lafayette Square incident should be reduced to discuss the protests and Trump's response broadly, for example. This section will not resolve whether there is a consensus for reducing that particular section though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I was just about to recommend turning that section to a broader section over Trump's positions on the protest/Black Lives Matter. I would support that. I think it would be best to just make it a subsection under the social policy section. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively in the past. There's no support for anything that folds the photo-op into other events or subject matter. Its significance for Trump's behavior, public messaging, and view of his role as president goes beyond the circumstances of the event. SPECIFICO talk 03:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I thought this idea sounded familiar. I think I remember it being discussed a while back. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, you and 1234IP initiated a few of those discussions. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Consensus can change.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 03:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I would support minimising the "photo-op" incident into content describing Trump's actions and responses to the events. That particular incident itself is not especially notable compared to others. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Lafayette Square section isn't even long. And the other sections that checkers has suggested cutting are also all quite due weight, as explained by Melanie and SPECIFICO. I'd personally prefer more specific proposals too. ––FormalDude talk 08:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It is too long and should be summarized. For example, instead of listing the many controversial things Trump said and did, we should note that he said and did many controversial things and mention the most significant ones. We can also reduce the detail. The article doesn't have to say that Trump "was treated with the antiviral drug remdesevir, the steroid dexamethasone, and the unapproved experimental antibody REGN-COV2." Most readers wouldn't even know what these drugs were. Since he was in the hospital, I assume he received treatment.

It is also possible to reduce the verbiage by paraphrasing statements rather than using "direct quotes" and also removing excessive in test details about the sources. For example, we don't need to say, "In October 2018, The New York Times reported that Trump "was a millionaire by age 8."" We can say, "Trump was a millionaire by age 8."

TFD (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

As to the first, we can't publish your assumptions. As to the second, you can be sure it will be challenged as soon as you rewrite the Times investigation as unattributed fact. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It wouldn't be unattributed, it'd have a citation, like normal articles. Nobody should ever be "quoting" a news story, anyway, only the people quoted in that story. Especially in that snippet style that's all the rage here; it just invites OR by allowing any editor to decide a particular sentence or "three word phrase" is worth copying and pasting above the others. At least when you're letting reporters and news editors choose the quotes, you can assume they're newsworthy.

Beyond that, yes, there's a ton of pure wordiness. Every section could be much shorter, without losing a single fact. I'd like to be allowed to work on that without being reverted on each useless filler word, then needing to go through a point-by-point discussion that just gets archived after enough sidetracks. Use pronouns, not say "however" or "additionally", combine stilted sentences...that sort of minor thing adds up (see all the red in my contribution history). I have no absolutely no illusions of ever being allowed to help do this, though, Checkers is right. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd just link those drugs, say he "was treated with remdesevir, dexamethasone and REGN-COV2". Don't know what they are? Click. Do know? Keep reading. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm wrong. Go ahead and remove the attribution to NYTimes and maybe nobody will revert. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, 63 down. I took the liberty of also skimming 422 bytes from the casino and golf sections. We shall see. If I listed those drugs, we'd be out half a kilo already! How about that? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Cut almost eight hundred more in Wealth and specified one Chinese energy company, done for now. You added one byte by changing "sense" to "acumen", but it's cool. I get it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the POINT of Wikipedia is to enable the free and quick and informal interchange of information about Trump, Assange, and everyone else except avec mor, ce soir. ETCETERA. The point - yea, the reason for the seasoning is NOT, repeat KNOT, to instruct a fellow how to tie a Windsor Knot....--Jack Upland (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

We're going to have to see what happens, and we'll see what happens. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Don't know what they are? Let's tell 'em, remove the names nobody knows, and save 65 bytes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't reverted this edit because I can just imagine the ensuing whining but the name of the company is not mentioned in the cited source. Also, the Wikilink is actually 6 bytes longer than the previous text saying that it's a "major state company" which should be improved by calling it what it is, a major state-owned company (adding exactly the same 6 bytes), per the source. Anybody want to know more? Read the source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The significance, per source, is that it is state-owned. Should remain in text. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The Wiki-linked name of the company or "major state-owned company" or both? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure the name of the company is necessary, but no problem to have both, except for current exaggerated length concerns. Or maybe in this case a pipe would be OK. BTW, the place where length really does cause problems is in recurring talk page tail-chasing marathons, troll engagement threads and nothing-new-rehashes of settled consensus. But that is unlikely to change in our lifetimes. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

It's named in the NYT report the AP report reports on; probably better to cite that directly. And of course name it, if mentioning it. All major Chinese companies are state-owned, that's how communism works, why be vague? Anyway, each of the three sections I trimmed have now been nitpicked, repadded and are spawning more discussion than I think they deserve. I thank you for noticing a number sign where a percent sign should suffice, but I refuse to further work under these conditions. Use whatever and however many words you want, except in describing the SGCC. Fair enough? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

See [6]. SPECIFICO talk 12:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Communism, state capitalism, whatever. I said word choice is yours. Just name and link the specific firm/company/whatever, I doubt you'd deny there are several others in the country. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

nitpicked: I almost always look at the recent edits to see if they're improvements IMO. If they're not, again IMO, I revert them, or if I think they could be further improved then I'll do that. That's what I did here. Take these edits, for example: yours and the two ([7], [8]) I made. I removed the cite after the first sentence of the second paragraph because it was about the Plaza Hotel, not the Taj Mahal, while the cite following the next sentence was about the Taj Mahal. I also removed "without much leverage" as unnecessary because the next sentence specifies how Trump financed the purchase, i.e., with junk bonds. My edits get "nitpicked" all the time, sometimes justifiably so, sometimes not, IMO—argument ensues. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean it as an insult or to imply it isn't standard here. I nitpicked it before you did, not ashamed. I just don't want to go through this multipoint discussion on the various bold edits you'll likely and legally continue to revise or revert, for reasons I'd agree with or not. Just not how I roll. All I ask now is whether specifying a known company is fair enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• The article is fairly obviously too long. Parts of it have already been cut to the bone, while other sections (COVID, the infamous Lafayette Square hed) have not. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Overturn consensus item 20

This has not been discussed since 2018 and the protests against Trump have faded away as being significant. The protests seemed to be much more relevant in the early portion of his presidency and have lacked importance overall to him as a person or really even his presidency. At this point in time, protests against him should be removed from the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Notability of an event does not fade over time. Zaathras (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not about notability, it's about significance. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It really isn't, and it hasn't changed. Zaathras (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The largest single-day protest in the history of the United States was against Trump. The brief and vague mention in the lead is certainly due. ––FormalDude talk 01:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That fact doesn't make it particularly significant for the lead. It's just trivial really. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Your argument is revealed as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Zaathras (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Your first argument that "notability doesn't fade overtime" is not relevant to content, only to an articles standalone notability. (see WP:NNC) Content is not governed under this policy in anyway. So when you said "It really isn't", you were really wrong. What matters for content is significance or what we call on Wikipedia "weight". Now weight can change over time, unlike notability. There was a time when it was significant enough to mention that Trump had considered a run in the 2012 election in the lead paragraph [9]. Obviously, as time has gone by, and Trump has made many more significant actions we've removed this fact from the lead to make room for what's actually significant. The same is true for these protests 4 years ago that had little impact on Trump as a person, his stances, his presidency, or even his election. Additionally, the lead is supposed to be a "summary of [the articles] most important contents." (see WP:Manual of Style/Lead section) These protest have 1 small paragraph in the article and thats it. It's not proper as part of the summary. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

As another user said, this was the largest single-day protest in history of the US. That trumps (pun unintended) any argument that you have against it. Zaathras (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting facts don't alway mean they warrant a spot in the summary of one of the most notable people in the world. No media source has talked about this one fact enough to be mentioned in the lead. Right now this sentence is similar in length to the lead sentence describing how Trump reshaped the federal judiciary for decades to come. Including appointing 1/3 of the members of one of the most powerful judicial bodies on earth. We have WP:WEIGHT for a reason and this is one of them. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Less notable/significant than in an upset victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the same paragraph? Here's a suggestion of what we could cut from the lead: He entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and was elected in the 2016 presidential race in an upset victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That sentence could be trimmed or rewritten, but only after a specific discussion specifically about it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• It's notable and significant. We can reconsider if and when another president attracts comparably large crowds of protesters in D.C. and elsewhere, not because he's napalming Vietnam but because of his campaign rhetoric. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• I was under the impression there were protests in 2018, 2019 and 2020.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• There's been no material change that would invalidate the established consensus. Such protest against a brand new president were and are highly significant for the US. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• Rather than deleting it, perhaps it could be rephrased to make clear that the protests weren't a one-off kind of thing. Calidum 17:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep it, with one minor change: instead of "have sparked" (a tense which implies protests are ongoing) it should now say "sparked" (a tense which implies they were in the past, namely during his presidency). I assume the "largest protest in U.S. history" is documented in the article text; no need to add it to the lead, but that fact is sufficient to keep a mention of protests in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment and question: someone removed "have" from the sentence in the lead almost a year ago, unnoticed and unchallenged. I think removing "have" from consensus item 20 would be uncontroversial? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. I struck through "have" in the consensus, with a note explaining when and why it was done. That's a minor enough change that I don't think it requires renumbering. -- MelanieN (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Given the scale of, and extensive sustained sourcing on, Protests against Donald Trump, it seems hard to support the argument that protests against Trump have faded away as being significant. They continue to get significant academic coverage, eg. [10][11][12]. Obviously now that Trump is no longer president, everything about him is going to fade away somewhat in terms of significance, but I don't think there's any reason to think that this aspect has particularly faded relative to the rest of that part of his bio or that a single sentence in his bio is WP:UNDUE; it was a defining feature of his administration and for years was a major aspect of how he was publicly seen. Omitting them also makes it a bit harder to understand other aspects of how he was controversial, since the constant protests are a key point of context. --Aquillion (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Remove from lead The lead of the article is supposed to provide "a summary of its most important contents." Would an article about the ten most important things to know about Donald Trump list this? Obviously not. The lead should say that his presidency was more controversial and divisive than any other recent presidents. The fact that he had large demonstrations against him on his first day in office is evidence of that, but does not need to be separately mentioned in the lead. Ironically, the fact his presidency was controversial is not mentioned in the lead at all. It reads more like an indictment rather than an encyclopedic article. TFD (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the body. We'd first have to add material saying more controversial and divisive than any other recent presidents to the body, presumably adding RS with rankings by historians, political scientists, etc. "Controversial/controversies" are terms editors, in my experience, tend to use to fudge the issues, i.e., instead of saying "accusations of nepotism", "conflicts of interest", etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

According to Collins, "If you describe something or someone as controversial, you mean that they are the subject of intense public argument, disagreement, or disapproval."[13] There is a lot of evidence that Trump's presidency was controversial in the lead:

• "[His] political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist."
• "[He] was elected in an upset victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote."
• He was "the first U.S. president with no prior military or government service."
• [An investigation] "established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign."
• "Trump's 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, and promoted conspiracy theories."
• "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic."

There are many more. All of these statements are evidence that Trump's presidency was controversial. IOW it implies it was controversial without explicitly saying so. That type of writing can make for great dramatic literature. Shakespeare for example never had an impartial narrator who explained which characters were controversial or anything else about them. The viewers watched the play and made their own assessments, eagerly anticipating what the characters would do next.

Encyclopedia articles OTOH summarize the facts and the findings of experts and avoid presenting any conclusions implicitly. We should explicitly say that Trump was controversial rather than attempt to prove it.

TFD (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be WP:SYNTH? Seems to me that your bullet points are summarizing the facts and the findings of experts, and that "controversial" is the implied conclusion not explicitly cited by the sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove from lead. This is significant enough to mentioned in the body, but as the protest movement was incoherent, achieved very little, and dissipated relatively quickly, there doesn't seem any basis to say in was a major part of Trump's life...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

They achieved what they set out to achieve—demonstrate their disapproval. They weren't planning an insurrection. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if one can make such broad statements about such a diverse group as 'protestors'. The Meta Boi (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we can. The main call was to "impeach" Trump (or something similar). Many protesters had no idea of the impeachment process, and the impeachment processes did NOT remove Trump...--Jack Upland (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we can. This is what the march was about—also pink pussy hats and not keeping quiet. Two million protesters in the U.S., no reports of violence, zero arrests. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Tax Cuts

In the introduction, add the fact that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased income inequality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:0:A550:49C:1289:B58E:841 (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure any of this should be in the lede, this article is not about his presidency, tax cuts do not define him as a person.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2022

Disregard opinionated claim about “worst president in history” no factual evidence or source. 2601:243:C400:53D0:F0BA:7314:3E89:B766 (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

We've already had discussions on that. You snooze, you lose. GoodDay (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's a link to an example of where it was discussed on this Talk page [14]. The evidence is based on a C-Span survey which may not be reliable information in my opinion and possibly in the opinion of the Washington Post too, which wrote, "To be clear, this was an informal survey whose respondents were selected by C-SPAN, not a scientific poll. Dozens more historians were invited to complete the survey this time than in years past. [142 vs 91] C-SPAN said this was to reflect 'new diversity in race, gender, age and philosophy, ...' "[15] Personally, for now I wouldn't bring it up again here, considering the anti-Trump sentiment of many of the editors here. The discussion wouldn't change anything and they would just express their annoyance that it is brought up again. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The WaPo article you referenced specifically says the following in the very next paragraph: “Still, the respondents are all distinguished presidential historians covering a broad range of perspectives, and there are insights to gain from their collective opinions.” That said, you are correct; bringing this up again won’t change anything. Cheers, Cpotisch (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Lack of citations

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

---

This is ridiculously biased article with no cited material to back it up. Not one citation until you hit sub articles.

When you look at other discussions you’ll see Bob shooting down good arguments and if you look at his other contributions you’ll see he has an extreme left wing bias. 2600:6C5E:5D7F:F073:1C81:C865:63CF:2C58 (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You mean the lead has no citations? See WP:LEADCITE. This article has 821 unique inline citations. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Characterization of Trump presidency

Suggesting that Trump is considered by scholars to be one of the worst POTUS to date is fair in an immediate narrow sense.

But a slight elaboration in the spirit of fairness is in order.

First, here is the salient passage that caught my eye:

“Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.”

Again, letting that verbiage stand as is is perfectly acceptable. But I propose adding an additional sentence along the following lines:

“But Trump retains a base of popular support, estimated by Pew Research Center at around one-third of the U.S. electorate. This makes Trump potentially viable as the Republican Party’s 2024 nominee for the U.S. presidency.”

(I never voted for Trump and never would, but as an ex-journalist, (Reuters & Bloomberg), I thought I’d share my professional opinion…)

Thank you for your consideration. OllyCooks (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia that is what's called "synth" -- the juxtaposition of two unrelated facts that might lead a reader to make an unwarranted inference for which there is not well-sourced evidence. SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Let it go. If he runs again & gets elected in 2024? Then there'll be changes to the topic-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It’s not that what you’re proposing is false; it’s that it doesn’t really have anything to do with the ‘historical rankings’ sentence, and I don’t think it’s worth including in its own right. Seems pretty clear from the lede already that he still has a base, and I just don’t see what it adds to speculate about him pulling a Cleveland in ‘24. Cpotisch (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

(Any reason why you put every sentence into a separate paragraph?) On Wikipedia, we need reliable sources, and the lead summarizes the body where this Pew estimate and a potential viability aren’t mentioned. What are the links to the Pew Research estimate of Trump’s popular support (nothing here) and to sources saying that it makes Trump potentially viable? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yep I go with wait and see, a lot can happen.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Highly subjective

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.

---

The article involving Russia should include Hillary Clinton spying update from Durham report.

Will stop donating when you come begging if we’re not going to be objective 2600:6C5E:5D7F:F073:1C81:C865:63CF:2C58 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

We don't give credence to fake news. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC

Yes you do its right here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections 2600:8805:C980:9400:B5A9:2F53:BCF2:AD94 (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022

Please delete the following: "Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics, and promoted conspiracy theories." 2601:183:867F:FAC0:9956:2C9D:CB76:6919 (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Remove this sentence

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.

No new argument was made in favor of removal, and the RfC in question that gave us consensus item #54 specifically decided the exact wording. Because this discussion is exactly as unproductive as all the other ones we've had of late, I'm closing it. Cpotisch (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Can we please remove the sentence "Scholars and historians generally rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history"? The thing is, it is bringing up a fact that is opinionated. It sort of bypasses on the line of being technically true, but brought up to give an opinion. I do not see this as acceptable because a whole article could just be full of opinions by doing this, but because they are facts it is somehow allowed. Honestly, you could put anything there and it be true. I could put "Some historians believe Trump was a great president." It is still true, but just as dishonest as the sentence that is in the article. Thank you. Master106 (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Name a historian who thinks Trump was a great president and we can consider adding it. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It's sourced in Donald Trump#Approval ratings. There is a big difference betwen saying "generally" and "some". When most surveyed scholars and historians rank him os one of the worst, it makes sense to give the quoted statement. It's not dishonest to correctly state the general view. If you are able to dig up a couple of people out of hundreds or thousands who rank him as great then it would be misleading undue weight to just say "Some historians believe Trump was a great president." PrimeHunter (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's just a correction to the reasoning in PrimeHunter's message, "When most surveyed scholars and historians rank him os one of the worst, it makes sense to give the quoted statement." A necessary condition for it to make sense is if it has been established that the scholars and historians in the survey have been selected in an unbiased way. Otherwise it cannot be said that the survey represents the opinion of scholars and historians in general. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Doesn’t matter. Sentence is staying, Bob. Cpotisch (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The consensus to include the sentence was established by an RfC in September/October 2021—see item 54. In the last few weeks it has been brought up again and again, without any of the—mostly IP address or red-signature—editors with few edits citing any reliable sources. If anyone has the reliable sources to establish why the consensus should change, please present them. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2022) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Bob K31416 and PrimeHunter are kind of right. I supported inclusion of this sentence in the original RfC, but I have never thought of it in the way they presented it. We maybe shouldn't use the word generally or any definite language because all we've done is pick a handful of academic sources that say Trump's the worst and now we've put this statement in. That's is the definition of WP:SYNTHESIS. Unless there is RS, in abundant amounts that is, that says scholars and historians rank Trump low this sentence should probably be removed. I seriously think this consensus needs to be reconsidered in light of this analysis. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

"We" didn't pick anything or anyone. Guess what? I did not support inclusion in the original RfC, and now I'm defending the consensus tooth and nail, and if there is a new RfC I will support inclusion. Are these RS abundant enough? [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] (Thanks for the workout. And for the record: I think you misunderstood PrimeHunter.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It looks like they're about the same C-Span survey and said so. The subject sentence in the lead here doesn't say it was a C-Span survey. It just says "Scholars and Historians". Bob K31416 (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Read the RfC closer's remarks. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Your message is unresponsive to my point. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Checkers, please give a careful look at WP:SYNTH -- it appears you are misapplying it here. SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The RFC in question specifically decided on the phrasing. "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in United States history". I ended up replacing 'United States' with American because it reads a bit better, but other than that, this is precisely what was agreed upon. Because, as always, no new argument is being made for removal, I'm closing this. Cpotisch (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Cpotisch Closing this was uncalled for in the middle of active discussion. If you don't want to discuss you don't have to comment, but don't shut it down. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has occurred literally 20 times this month. Every time, it’s the same result. If anyone here was making any new argument in favor of exclusion, I’d fully support the conversation running its course. But this has happened so many times already that it’s a waste of space. Cpotisch (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't like the sentence & its addition to this BLP, either. But, the RFC was held & enough editors wanted it there & in that wording. GoodDay (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Add my vote towards getting rid of it. I don't think these historical survey blurbs belong in any of the presidential article leads. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Unless you plan to open another RfC on the matter, complete removal is not an option here. Zaathras (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding "survey" instead of removing sentence

Well I was going to suggest changing the sentence to "A C-SPAN survey of historians ranked Trump one of the worst presidents in United States history." I think providing the source is important since RS also indicates the source of the survey. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really necessary. Time to move on. Zaathras (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

If you would kindly look again at the RfC, you would see that the C-SPAN survey is in fact *not* the only survey we considered, it was just the primary one because it was conducted after his presidency. Again, this was the exact wording chosen, with dozens of editors offering input. Cpotisch (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

See the section Discussion (Historical evaluations) of the RFC for the following excerpt.

"...Are there any ratings/rankings other than the C-SPAN Presidential Historians Survey 2021? The only one I found was Brookings, 'Comparing Trump to the greatest—and the most polarizing—presidents in US history' from March 2018. Space4Time3Continuum2x "

See in the closer's remarks,

"There was general agreement to base rankings only on the C-SPAN-2021 survey, since it was taken after the conclusion of his term and is highly regarded."

Also, adding a mention of "survey" as suggested by Iamreallygoodatcheckers was not discussed in the RFC. I basically agree with that suggestion, although we might consider a simpler change of just adding "A survey of" to the beginning of the sentence that is in the lead,

"A survey of scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history."

Bob K31416 (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not based on C-SPAN alone, there's multiple RS that state that historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents. See our article on the matter, the 2018 APSA survey, the 2018 Siena survey, and the 2019 Northwestern CSDD survey. ––FormalDude talk 04:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

We don't have to qualify it specifically to C-SPAN. In my first stament I had believed C-SPAN was the primary one, thats why I said it should be qualified to C-SPAN, but as you pointed out there are others. I'm primarily contending that this statement be qualified to these surveys because that is what is done in RS, such as the numerous ones provided by Space4Time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact that literally every reputable survey had him near the bottom was why we didn’t qualify the statement. Until that changes, I don’t think that this should change. Cpotisch (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

What matters is how RS is displaying this, and they almost always use it with qualification to the surveys. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

To not base it on the C-Span article alone is going against the consensus of the RFC, as stated by the closer. Here's the closer's remarks again,[30]

"There was general agreement to base rankings only on the C-SPAN-2021 survey, since it was taken after the conclusion of his term and is highly regarded."

Bob K31416 (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe you are putting words into the RfC closers' mouth that are not in evidence. Their statement on using only the C-SPAN-2021 survey was not a directive that the article's text had to state this explicitly. ValarianB (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

My message was responding to the false notion that "It's not based on C-SPAN alone", which is contradicted by the above quote of the closer. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

rewriting the lead for this article all togehter

The lead for this article is almost entirely his political opinions and political controversy from his presidency when the article is supposed to be donald trump the person in whole. I implore all of you to go read the lead for vladamir putin or george w bush. They are much more appropriate for an article about a person and still don't even miss out on the controversy. And really the article itself doesn't skip out anywhere on how bad trump is, I think the lead is just out of place for a person article, it would be fitting for an article about donald trumps political life/controversies, imo. 2605:A601:ACB3:5200:E5E6:4F97:4987:F16C (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit request on February 27 2022

Wikipedia is meant to be an unbiased source of information. The following section reveals the political bias of the article's author, and should be removed. "Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics, and promoted conspiracy theories."

This statement not only damages this article's credibility, it damages the entire site's credibility. Always remember - the purpose of this site is to increase accessibility of information, not to convince people what to believe in. We don't run ads here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7F:9250:B9B0:8BBF:6F77:3D81 (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Beginning this year alone. I believe you're likely the tenth IP or Mobile editor, to make such statements at this talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

And none of them can answer this question: in what way is that statement biased? Neutral point of view means accurately reflecting the sources that describe Trump as someone who makes many false and misleading statements and has promoted conspiracy theories, like the "rigged election" falsehood. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe that there was massive fraud in the election. But there were constitutional issues. Issue number one, signature matching in Georgia was illegally changed by a consent agreement without the approval of the Georgia legislature. In 2016 over 6% of ballots were rejected because of signatures in Georgia and in 2020 because of the consent decree only a third of 1%, even though the amount of absentee ballots massively increased. Election law is based upon the state legislature and not the governor, according to the constitution. Issue number two, hundreds of thousands of ballots were cast in Democratic precincts in Wisconsin by absentee voters who never submitted a request for an absentee ballot, which is required by the Wisconsin Constitution. Issue number three, also in Pennsylvania, the Governor allowed absentee ballots, which is not allowed by the State legislature. If those three states had followed the law as set forth by their legislatures and not those set forth by their governors, Trump would have won enough electors to win the presidency. Nerguy (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

This talk page to discuss editing issues of the Donald Trump article, not to rehash thoroughly debunked and dismissed tinfoil conspiracy theories. Move on. Zaathras (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Generally Bias

The page is generally bias and misleading. It presents information in vague half-truths without the proper context. 2603:9000:C201:145:589F:7DB6:C395:828E (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Such as? Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yet another IP or Mobile editor making the same complaint. Starting to wonder, if this isn't the same individual & maybe the talkpage should be semi-protected. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggested Edits to Donald Trump Page

Hi!

I noticed while reading through the page there are sections near the bottom for propagated conspiracy theories and misogyny, etc. I feel like it is biased against him in those several sections near the end. Though nothing stated there is strictly untrue, I think many of his supporters would contend it. To solve this, I would suggest just having the direct quotes and maybe changing the title to something broader like "Controversy." If you leave the quotes open to interpretation then it would be more neutral and harder for others to argue that it is inaccurate. Thanks for considering my suggestion! Clash2022 (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

As reliable sources extensively cover the propagated conspiracy theories and misogyny of the former president, the Wikipedia reflects that. ValarianB (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

State-controlled & largest Chinese bank's offices at Trump Tower

I added this sentence to Manhattan developments: The state-controlled Industrial and Commercial Bank of China has been a tenant since 2008, initially leasing three floors. It was deleted with the remark that the building has had scores of tenants since 1998, not to do enough w/Trump to merit incl. The building probably had more than scores of tenants since it opened in 1983 but most of them didn't pay almost $2 million in annual rent for three floors directly below Trump's offices and in the same building as his primary residence. The lease ended in 2019, and a new one was negotiated while Trump was negotiating with China on various tariffs and while other tenants left or couldn't pay the rent. Tenants Gucci or Ronaldo—meh, foreign government-controlled bank—noteworthy. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be well sourced over many years in multiple RS. I think it warrants inclusion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: all chinese banks are majority owned by the central government-if they were suspected of engaging in illicit activity that would be one thing. I meant to say 2008-not 1998. This specific entity paid market rate and Plenty of Trump Tower tenants have given millions over the years. The reference to the specific location of their offices seems like a mix of OR and an attempt to insinuate something not substantiated by any reputable sources. With all that being said, the relationship between this and the potential violation of the Emoluments Clause is what warrants inclusion in my opinion-maybe not even specifically on this page but if not on the Presidency of Donald Trump page (some may argue both). However the current inclusion of this content, in location and wording carries a tone of underhanded criticism of Trump just bc he owned a business that leased real-estate to a Chinese corp 8 years before he became President.OgamD218 (talk) 07:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You would need to show that the lease had received a lot of attention in reliable sources. Also, based on your comments, you believe that China bribed Trump. If we want to put that accusation into the article, it must explicitly say that rather than just hint it. TFD (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The image of Trump, per RS reports and accounts of those who know him, is that an explicit bribe is not always necessary to influence his perception of his self-interest. E.G. would be his apparent belief that currying the favor of NKorea leader Kim might get him development rights to some NK oceanfront property and his flattery of Putin due to an unfounded belief that the Trump Moscow tower would soon be built. I see no claim of bribery here. It's simply good business to cozy up to the rich and poweful. SPECIFICO talk 20:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll rephrase then: "Also, based on your comments, you believe that China influenced Trump. If we want to put that accusation into the article, it must explicitly say that rather than just hint it." And if you think it's telling that Trump rented out luxury office space in Manhattan to the rich and powerful rather than the poor and powerless, then you need a source that makes that conclusion. TFD (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• I just added more details and cites at current tenants at Trump Tower, BTW. OgamD218, you're reading meaning into the sentence in Manhattan developments that isn't there, and no, TFD, I don't know whether and didn't insinuate or imply that China bribed or "influenced" Trump or whether they're paying market rents. They were the third-largest tenant after Gucci and the Trump Corporation, and with the two floors they are currently renting they're probably still one of the top 3—5, considering that average occupancy has fallen below 80%. Would that make Trump feel beholden to ICBC? I really don't know, do u? Anyway, I just amended the sentence to read that ICBC is the third-largest tenant after Gucci and the Trump Corporation, i.e., the second-largest non-Trump entity. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose this is an attempt to smear Mr. Trump by association. It is not nearly important enough to include in this overly long article on the merits - there are hundreds of entities Trump has done real estate deals with and there is no particular reason this one is notable. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to take the most neutral stance possible and fact is violations of the emoluments clause is something that is was rarely ever even discussed as a possibility forget could realistically been violated. The rule does not require a bribe be made or influenced received it strives to prevent such from ever materializing. Due to Trump's resistance to placing his business assets in a blind trust, his administration was the only modern occurence when the commission of an EC violation was actually seriously discussed in public discourse-this is the one and only way the reference to the Chinese bank becomes potentially relevant enough to warrant inclusion. The fact a discussion has materialized over whether or not this specific lease influenced Trump's presidential policies to be more favorable towards the Chinese gives credence to the argument it was only added in the first place to insinuate as much. The key word being insinuate as no reputable source exists that would outright make such a claim. To be @Space4Time3Continuum2x: clear, it is clownish to think Trump felt beholden to the ICBC as President based on this lease. No reasonable person should draw such a conclusion but unfortunately reason all too often flies out the window when matters of contemporary politics are concerned-especially when Trump is involved. Without any other context or issues being raised, whoever the third largest tenant happens to be in one of Trump's real-estate properties, is not information that even comes close to warranting inclusion on this page. OgamD218 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Among the reasons you may not have seen ongoing discussion about emoluments was that it was noted and undisputed early in his administration. Not much to discuss. Please do not use this page to disparage other editors, and please review my comment in this thread above, which explains the misapprehension that underlies your rejection of this content. SPECIFICO talk 22:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If you say that Trump rented to the Chinese-owned bank, you are implying there may have been some influence otherwise why mention it? Why not mention all the tenants at Trump Tower? This tactic incidentally is one that Trump himself used successfully. "I'm not saying that Ted Cruz's father knew Oswald, I'm just saying that he looks like the guy in the picture with Oswald."

We cannot say that Trump might have violated the Emoluments Clause in this case without a source that says that. Although there are various definitions, one is that the term emolument means income paid to an employee. According to the DOJ, which interpreted it more broadly, it meant income in return for services to a foreign state. Only the broadest definition was any payment whatsoever.

TFD (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any suggestion we discuss emoluments in the proposed text, but I do think there could be some well-sourced content about mingling of personal and official relationships. The lease is significant not because Trump received cash income from the lease but because either party might have thought it could benefit from the wider relationship fostered by such proximity. Similar to what happened with the Trump Hotel in DC or the dinner table at Mar a Lago, where members regularly had the POTUS' ear. SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The criterion to determining whether something is significant is not editors' opinions, but the degree of coverage in reliable sources. That policy is necessary because different editors will have different opinions on what is important. While that is not the only possible policy, some policy is necessary and that's the one we have. Other wikis, such as Conservapedia, have different ways of determining due weight. But until you get Wikipedia's policies changed, we're stuck with existing policies. TFD (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I hope you'll take some time to broaden your view of this issue. I'm confident that if you care to read as many referenes as I have on this subject you will understand that what I've stated above reflects the central narrative of the most informed and respected available sources. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Ogam, you were the one in this discussion who brought up the emoluments clause, so were you referring to yourself with "clownish" and "no reasonable person"? Trump Tower is owned by GMAC Commercial Mortgage. It has 232 units, and 231 of those are residential. Trump owns at least one residential unit but its size is 10,000 square ft., not 30,000 as he claimed until recently, and worth a lot less than the $30 million he claimed. Trump owns the one commercial unit, i.e., the retail space in the atrium and the space on the 13 non-residential floors. According to the NY Times, they generated more than $20 million in profits annually, for a total of $336.3 million since 2000. He took out a personally guaranteed 10-year, $100 million mortgage loan in 2012; the master servicer of the loan, Wells Fargo, issued a debt warning in September 2021 when the occupancy rate dropped from 85.9% in September 2020 to a lower-than-average 78.9% in September 2021. The average landlord would probably want to avoid losing their third-largest tenant under these circumstances, by offering incentives such as lowering the rent, for example. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: the source discusses the emoluments clause-indeed a possible emoluments violation is literally the only reason any source considers this information relevant. Without making a case grounded in such this content simply doesn't belong in this article. What you have done instead is make a nonsensical argument based entirely on your original research about the business viability of Trump Tower-once again this content if it belongs somewhere it would most appropriately be on the page for Trump Tower. The situation might be different if this bank's lease was an essential source of revenue for Trump personally but such is not the case. OgamD218 (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That is a line of argument that's already been discused and rejected. What is the expected value of daily proximity and personal interaction with POTUS and his family? Google "trump hotel DC" for starters to see how RS have covered this issue. SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I have already put my comment above, but I would like to respond to some opposers. The Four Deuces, says "You would need to show that the lease had received a lot of attention in reliable sources". This subject has received numerous RS over a period of years. At first I though this was going to be a WP:NOTNEWS issue, but it clearly is not. Here's a source from 2016. 2017, 2020, and 2021. This is sort of significant when it comes to RS, per WP:DUE. Some editors have concern that inclusion is like hinting that Trump is bribing or something. RS has mentioned this with concerns over conflicts of interest. I personally, see no implication of bribing in the statement. However, with all that said, I do understand maybe the argument that it's just not really significant because it kind of isn't. This really hasn't bubbled up to be much for Trump. I think whatever the result is here it's not that important. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

"Donald Trump: A list of potential conflicts of interest" (BBC 18 April 2017) has sections for Trump International Hotel, 40 Wall St., the Dakota Access Pipeline, Deutsch Bank, the FCC, the National Labor Relations Board, the Secret Service, Stocks, Foreign Holdings, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the Dominican Republic, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Turkey and UK Golf Courses. One sentence is devoted to the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. For someone who has received the degree of news coverage he has, probably more than any other person in world history, this fails weight. And yes, saying that Trump rents to a Chinese owned bank with any commentary implies wrong doing, which is the only reason one would mention it. Why otherwise would you single out this tenant? Why not mention that Starbucks is a tenant? TFD (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware those have not been extensively covered in RS like the China Bank tenant. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe cuz Starbucks also has hundreds of other leases in New York? SPECIFICO talk 04:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That's one source from April 2017, there's plenty of coverage in other sources—adding one more. The tenant was no longer "singled out" after I added Gucci and the Trump Org. Largest non-retail and non-Trump or Trump-affilialed renter of office space with a lease renegotiated at a time when commercial occupancy rates are down and Trump Tower's occupancy rate is even lower than average. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I had added the two tenants who occupy more space than the bank, Gucci and the Trump Corporation (Gucci is a special case since their customers enter from the street and not from inside Trump Tower), so if we're not counting "renting to self" then the bank is the second largest tenant. Speaking about "renting to self", there are also Trump's PACs and the RNC. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Adding archived non-paywalled version of Bloomberg article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Abraham Accords

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.

---

Should the Abraham Accords be mentioned in the article under the Israel section? They are arguably his biggest foreign policy achievement.--DeathTrain (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Consensus from last year is against including it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

For reference, here's what is currently in the subsection Israel of the Foreign Policy subsection of the Presidency section of this article.

Trump supported many of the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[384] Under Trump, the U.S. recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel[385] and Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights,[386] leading to international condemnation including from the United Nations General Assembly, the European Union and the Arab League.[387][388]

The judgement of the closer of the discussion linked to in the previous message was,

"Opposed - The general feeling appears to be that this article is not the appropriate place for this info, as there is a difference between the person, and the office/position held by the person."

For reference, here's the proposal of the discussion linked to in the previous message.

"Trump and his staff brokered a normalization of relations agreement between Israel and the UAE, which was then followed by further agreements with Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. While these have been called the most significant foreign policy accomplishment of his administration, many scholars feel he overstated the significance of the agreements and that they are unlikely to produce lasting impact on peace in the region."

Maybe someone could explain why the closer's reason for excluding the previous proposal re Abraham Accords couldn't be applied to the current contents of the Israel subsection. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Trump's habit of destroying documents

There is more and more information coming out about Trump’s habit of tearing up or otherwise destroying documents while president, or taking them with him when he left the White House.[31] [32] [33][34] This needs to be documented somewhere in Wikipedia - maybe not in this biographical article specifically, but somewhere. Any ideas about where we could put this information? Or do we already have it somewhere? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't appear like anything out of the ordinary, concerning US presidents, TBH. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the scale of it is quite unusual for US presidents. I would think a mention in the article on his presidency would be warranted. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, is this a joke? You think every POTUS takes 15 boxes of documents, many of them labeled TOP SECRET, to their private residences after they leave the White House? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Not every single one of them. But, I highly doubt only one of them. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It is orders of magnitude different from the minor violations committed by other presidents. Trump made it a habit - a routine he did all the time - to tear up documents after he had read them. (It was actually his lifelong habit, he had done it as a businessman.) No other president has had aides whose job it was to gather up the ripped pieces and tape them back together so that they would be in the archives as the law requires. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, person familiar with the National Archives process calls this "unprecedented". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

As another editor mentioned. Put the info in the Trump administration article. This BLP needs trimming, not expansion. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay on this. Not important enough for the BLP. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a developing story—not enough information on what he ripped up or tried to flush down the toilet, what kind of classified documents were shipped to Mar-a-Lago and how they ended up being shipped (who had access to "top secret"?). For now, maybe a new paragraph "Alleged violations of Presidential Records Act" in Presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Ethics? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed per WP:BREAKING. If this develops to the point where it becomes clear that it's biographically significant (hearings, charges) it'll belong for sure then. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a good suggestions, SpaceTime. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It will probably never come to charges, Muboshgu. The presidential records law makes it a crime to destroy or otherwise remove any presidential documents at all - important or not. But AFAIK the law has no enforcement provisions. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

As with many of these laws it seems, Hatch Act etc., toothless. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There's jail time and disqualification from future public office. I think the issue is more whether the Biden Administration would shy away from prosecuting him (should solid evidence be found) for fear of political backlash and a fraught precedent given Republicans' recent vows to impeach Biden and presumably future Democratic officeholders should the elephants ever regain the House. SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I back the wait and see approach, if this becomes a major issue we can wait until then, if not we have lost nothing by waiting.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The scale of this is truly unprecedented, so I do think that it warrants a short “Alleged violations of presidential records act” section here. However, that would have to be very concise, maybe with a “for more info” link to a more extensive section in the presidency article. Cpotisch (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I think if we want to do that the more extensive section should be added to the presidency article first, then the short summary added here. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I just discovered there is extensive reporting on Trump's practices at the article Presidential Records Act. BTW our article doesn't say anything about jail time or disqualification from future office. I had read that there are no enforcement provisions or penalties at all - that it was assumed the rules would be honored by, well, honorable presidents. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph on this subject to the Presidency of Donald Trump article, under the section heading “Transparency and data availability”, which I changed to “Transparency, data availability, and record keeping”. We might later add a sentence to the text of this article if the subject turns out to have staying power. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, the violations of PRA itself are not a crime, but there are other statutes under which, if recent allegations are proved, Trump could face criminal penalties. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

And when and if he is charged we can revisit this, until then wp:blp applies. He is not guilty until a court finds him so.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I can see you want to put this in for propaganda. You should research this thing further and see what actually happened. Jake pres (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

Trump was also democratic before 1987 2603:6081:7943:279C:4909:9D21:3C87:DE66 (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AwfulReader (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Pardons and commutations

Re my "extreme pov move by editor who selectively deleted only this specific pardon from the section" and OgamD218's revert. Yeah, well, for once my "extreme POV" is supported not just by the usual suspects but also by a source from the right, first time I EVER cited the The Federalist (website). Aside from that, the text and the cite are outdated. Trump didn't just commute Johnson's sentence (something most people support)—while his AG and DoJ ordered federal prosecutors to pursue the toughest possible charges and sentences against criminal defendants, reversing President Barack Obama’s efforts to ease penalties in nonviolent drug cases (NYT 2018), and a mere three months after he himself had called for the death penalty for drug dealers (Vox March 2018). He later (a day after she appeared in a campaign video praising his leadership, to be exact) (NYT 2020, CNN) pardoned the "one-time non-violent drug offender" who actually spent three years in "middle-management" of a drug operation that brought 2,000 to 3,000 kilograms of cocaine into Memphis (Tennessean).

I just discovered that there is an actual article misleadingly called List of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump. I think the best way to handle this is to move that article to "Executive clemency granted by Donald Trump" and then add whatever is missing. Johnson, for example, is only mentioned as a clemency recipient who was part of Trump's "kitchen cabinet" of influencers. Then we can cut the section in this article to the bare bones: "Most of Trump's pardons and commutations were granted to people with personal or political connections to him. He sidestepped regular Department of Justice procedures for considering pardons, instead often entertaining pardon requests from his associates or from celebrities. Trump frequently bypassed the Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA), and the majority of his executive clemency grants were made to well-connected convicts who did not file a petition with the OPA or meet the OPA's requirements. Overall, Trump granted less clemency than any modern president." I copied the last two sentences from the lead of "List of ...", haven't looked up the sources yet. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I would be OK with bare bones on details such as Blackwater slaughter but with summary from RS about Trump's personalization of this authority with text similar to what's in second paragraph above. SPECIFICO talk 13:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: how does any of that "support" your "extreme pov move by editor who selectively deleted only this specific pardon from the section". You deleted a commutation/pardon of Trump's that received substantial attention and even you acknowledge the individual appeared in a Trump campaign ad. You just deleted it outright, you didn't provide any additional context or relevant information. I do not consider The Federalist RS, a position I still hold regardless of whether or not they agree with me. Hard for sources to be out of date as it pertains to pardons since those are permanent and specific, regardless you tag or save the sourcing you don't just delete it wholesale. I don't even necessarily think what you're saying is wrong, you raise some fair points; but it does seem to be as is so often the problem with this page that the point of an encyclopedia is disregarded in favor of OR and individual editor's politics. To be honest, Kim Kardashian's involvement in the Alice Johnson case, Trump made it known openly. The information re her appearance in his campaign ad and such is not as well known and in my opinion merits inclusion. However it is not ok to just up and delete this mention. OgamD218 (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy intelligence briefings for former presidents

I removed this sentence: Days after leaving office, his successor Joe Biden barred Trump from receiving intelligence briefings, the first former president to be excluded from the customary practice. I’m sure that wasn’t Soibangla’s intent but the text sounded as though Biden was just being mean to his predecessor. If we include the info it would need context—why former presidents receive security briefings in the first place,(… part of a long tradition of former presidents being consulted about, and granted access to, some of the nation's secrets. … They are provided access to secrets as a courtesy, with the permission of the current president. Typically, former presidents are given briefings before they travel overseas, or in connection with an issue about which the current president wishes to consult them, [former CIA officer] Priess and other experts say.) and that the intelligence community allegedly had stopped briefing him after the January 6 insurrection. Should we include this? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Given that this article is already so long and we would need that context, it's probably best saved for the "presidency of" articles, at least at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Muboshgu. Also, providing such thorough and detailed context also can become a WP:UNDUE, especially for a relatively insignificant factoid fact. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Relative to what? It is significant that he was locked out of American intel. soibangla (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Relative to everything else in the article. He was president of the United States, just about anything is insignificant relative to that. Trump is one of the most notable people on earth. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Relative to everything else in the article We disagree. soibangla (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

What are you trying to get out of this tangent? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no tangent. I continue to believe the content, as succinctly phrased in consideration of space constraints, belongs in his BLP. That's all I got on this. soibangla (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be a fact even if we hadn't heard about it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Factoid isn't the word I should have used. I corrected it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Your argument is unintelligible and is no more than an unreasoned assertion. You might strike through "tangent" as well, if you are not going to support that claim. Moreover, Trump's denigration of US national security briefings and intelligence in general are among the top reasons for his notability. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Biden removing Trump's post-presidency security briefings is 100% not among the top reasons for his notability. How about, appointing 3 of the 9 members of one of the most powerful courts in the world, being elected to be the most powerful person on earth, or overseeing the U.S. COVID response. That's just a few of so many things that he's actually notable for. Can you please explain how him being removed of customary post-presidential security briefings is among the most notable aspects of Trump? If you sincerely believe this is among the top reasons for his notability go put a sentence in the lead about it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

His obedient complicity in appointing Heritage Society folks to the court and his dishonest, stupid, and homicidal covid response are already covered. His conduct toward foreign governments is equally as significant, but in some ways more surprising. It could be integrated into a narrative about his conduct and statements with respect to North Korea, NATO, the Saudi murder of a WaPo journalist, his inviite for a weekend retreat with the Taliban at Camp David, etc. etc. -- If the standalone uncontextualized mention of Pres. Biden's precaution seems out of place, the solution would be to work on integrating it into the general topic of Trump's allegiance to the US and all the instances in which that has been questioned. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself. Put it in the Trump administration article. We're trying to cut down the length of this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

His life is getting longer so the article gets shorter? SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

We are trying to cut the article size because it's too long and hard to navigate. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Cut fluff about wrestling, the names of his relatives, etc. Length problem is not the consensus here and has been a huge waste of time. "Length" does not rebut advocacy of inclusion for important content. You need to show why it is less important than all the current content. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You've already cut everything about wrestling, from the fluff to his hiring of Linda McMahon for national small business to his headlining of the largest WrestleMania known to man (at the time). Cut some fake bullshit you enjoy for a change, eh? Personal sacrifice is only useful to a greater good if everybody gives up their two bits. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

And that is a personal attack you should delete. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a polite request to everyone controlling the flow of information to let some of their favourite filler go, especially if it's largely only in the interest of relaying a "narrative" from a cable news network, as it relates to an ongoing feud with the company's top heel. As a wrestling fan, I dismiss all this week-by-week commentary and hotshotting as exactly as big a waste of time and brainpower as Washington drama fans take the pomp and buildup surrounding his well-documented feud with Vince McMahon.

Acknowledging the scripted nature of political outrage theatre isn't a knock on any of its most devoted connoiseurs, least of all you two, but I'm sorry for calling it "fake bullshit". It's not fake, it serves a purpose to a very real audience with very real tastes in amusement, and makes good money doing so. In some ways, I respect the psychological skill of CNN and FNC's writers, editors and directors, honestly. But when an article about a WWE Hall of Famer turned federal political archnemesis has dozens of sections about the latter and two [expletive] sentences about the former (in a stub about his decades of work in other entertainment genres), it's hard to ignore the fact that post-2015 American news junkies have a disproportionate amount of pull in deciding how to apply NPOV, BLP and RS to the whole biographical picture here.

Enough is enough, in my detached opinion. You can keep every treasured piece of every week's "top story" fluff here forever for posterity if you want, or trim it like the silenced majority have repeatedly asked nicely, but to mischaracterize my incongruent suggestions as attacks just as an excuse to censor me would be incivil, so no, let it be. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This nonsense does not belong on an article talk page. And stop characterizing other editors. SPECIFICO talk 07:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Stop belittling modern political reality. It's not nonsense, it's just a side of him you don't seem to want to accept. I'm not sure why, don't presume to and am fine if you'd rather not explain why you have cut so much wrestling content for yourself. No characterization intended, of editors. But if you can't trust the multiple independent sources that say Trump was still utilizing wrestling tactics as the president, who can you trust? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Here on Earth 1 we didn’t agree to participate in any reality-TV show, and we didn’t sign up to follow WWE rules or buy tickets to become active audience members of the amusement. You’d need to present a considerable number of RS who say otherwise. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel like no matter what points I make, you'll insult me, then shift the conversation to an absolutely ridiculous demand that has nothing to do with what I wrote. Why would I or anyone even want to convince you you bought a WWE ticket or signed up for any imaginary rules? It's literal absurdity. I have no earthly idea, despite being a fellow human, why you highlighted "amusement". Are you saying I should have called it something else? Edutainment? Live history programming? National debate?

In any case, I'm 100% not proposing we elaborate on anything to do with wrestling in the article. Understand? I just wanted polling and policy-related superfluous detail and fan jargon reduced as well as the stuff other people prefer to enjoy learning about has been. I think the bio's very heavily skewed by recent events. If you, despite following this Trump coverage closely for several years and having a basic understanding of traditional wrestling booking, don't see how the scene has changed, I believe you. It's not important.

As for noting his lack of access to top secrets in the lead, Oppose. Rounded off, 100% of Earthlings also don't have such privilege, as Trump hadn't for the vast majority of his life. It's not crucial to understanding the person. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

From Trump's debts owed to unknown entities (not talking about Ladder Capital or Deutsche Bank) to his blabbing to Lavrov/Kislyev right after the inauguration to his tête-à-têtes with Putin to his Mar-a-Lago patio sessions he's been considered a threat to national security since before he was even elected. This needs to be mentioned. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Trump has always been a threat to national security. National loyalty, like truth, is an unknown quantity to him. Normally, he would never be able to get the security clearance required for those who work in the White House. Once elected, he just got it, which was immediately misused to endanger the life of a source in Israel. We may never know how many Russian assets were placed in various positions. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Russia Report expressed its concerns:

Finally, the Committee's bipartisan Report shows that almost immediately following Election Day in 2016, the Trump transition responded to Russia's election interference not by supporting punitive action, but rather by holding a series of secretive meetings and communications with Russian representatives that served to undercut the outgoing administration's efforts to hold Russia accountable. The transition's openness to this private Russian outreach prior to taking office, so soon after Russia's interference on Trump's behalf, combined with Trump publicly questioning Russia's involvement, signaled that there was little intention by the incoming administration to punish Russia for the assistance it had just provided in its unprecedented attack on American democracy."

See also Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information. -- Valjean (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The wording is fine how it was originally and it certainly merits inclusion here and not on the Presidency page as it happened AFTER his presidency ended. If Biden cited anything specific as his basis for denying Trump intelligence briefings then that probably should also be included briefly (one line or less) but it is silly to insist on re-summarizing content already included throughout the article regarding Trump's controversial statements regarding the topic US foreign intelligence. OgamD218 (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I take it, my suggestion hasn't been implemented. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Page size

Compared to Presidency of Donald Trump, we're doing OK.

• Page size: Presidency 491,268 bytes; Donald Trump 417,231 bytes
• Characters: Presidency 153,270; Donald Trump 108,522
• Words: Presidency 23,434; Donald Trump 16,851
• References: Presidency 979: Donald Trump 914
• Unique references: Presidency 870; Donald Trump 823 Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up to Russian bounties

The NBC source, dated April 15, 2021, added and removed today was also mentioned in the RfC. It contains a paragraph that is not supported by their linked sources: They still have not found any evidence, a senior defense official said Thursday. And the Biden administration also made clear in a fact sheet released Thursday that the CIA's intelligence on the matter is far from conclusive, acknowledging that analysts labeled it "low to moderate confidence." The link "still have not found any evidence" links to an NBC article written nine months earlier in July 2020, not a source for a briefing on Thursday, April 15, 2021. The linked WH fact sheet says this unter the section title "Reporting Afghanistan Bounties": The Administration is responding to the reports that Russia encouraged Taliban attacks against U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan based on the best assessments from the Intelligence Community (IC). Given the sensitivity of this matter, which involves the safety and well-being of our forces, it is being handled through diplomatic, military and intelligence channels. The safety and well-being of U.S. military personnel, and that of our allies and partners, is an absolute priority of the United States. That does not sound as though they're walking back much, if anything. There was a briefing by a senior administration on another Thursday, May 7, 2021. The NY Times wrote that Afterward, some commentators treated the bare line about confidence levels as a new development that amounted to the government walking back its suspicions from 2020.

Hatted quote from NYT

Ultimately, newly declassified information shows, those analysts discovered a significant reason to believe the claim was accurate: Other members of the same Taliban-linked network had been working closely with operatives from a notorious unit of the G.R.U., the Russian military intelligence service, known for assassination operations. “The involvement of this G.R.U. unit is consistent with Russia encouraging attacks against U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan given its leading role in such lethal and destabilizing operations abroad,” the National Security Council said in a statement provided to The New York Times. The statement was originally drafted and declassified to serve as talking points for officials to use in briefing reporters last month about U.S. sanctions and other punishments against Russia. The White House took diplomatic action — delivering a warning and demanding an explanation for suspicious activities — about the bounty issue, but did not base sanctions on it. The Biden administration did impose sanctions for Russia’s SolarWinds hacking and election interference. In briefing reporters, a senior administration official noted that the intelligence community had assessed with “low to moderate confidence” that Russia had offered bounties. The official, focusing on other complex issues, skipped over most of the newly declassified information that had been prepared to explain what the government knew about the bounty issue. Afterward, some commentators treated the bare line about confidence levels as a new development that amounted to the government walking back its suspicions from 2020. But The Times had reported last summer that different intelligence agencies, while agreeing on the assessment itself, disagreed on whether to put medium or lower confidence in it. The evidence available to analysts — both alarming facts and frustrating gaps — essentially remains the same.

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Put it all in the Trump administration article. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't planning on adding anything to this article, just explaining why the added cites weren't just "not on point" for our WP text but also mistaken about the facts. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I added Trump questioned the existence of the alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan and didn't mention it to Putin., with a reliable source (BBC), to the article here, see also RfC Russian Bounties claims -- User:Chess: Another discussion will likely be necessary to workshop a better wording that may be agreed on by the participants here.

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It's just one of those stories that flares up for political reasons then dies down. Intelligence receive many rumors that they must investigate and evaluate, most of which turn out to be false. If the president spent all his time addressing these rumors, nothing would get done. The sudden collapse of the Afhgan government should tell us how unreliable raw intelligence can be. TFD (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thats your OR. SPECIFICO talk 12:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:OR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." Editors are supposed to use their analytic skills in order to determine what belongs in the article. If we included everything that happened or didn't happen during the Trump administration this article would be very long indeed. Don't abdicate your responsibility to distinguish between what is or is not important and worthy of inclusion just because you think that process is OR. Now please provide your OR on why it should be included. TFD (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say OR is prohibited. But sorry, my comment apparently was too succinct for the occasion. Rephrasing: When posting your opinion or assessment of sources and context, please support these opinions with facts and analysis that might convince others of your view. The trivial observation that intelligence agencies evaluate diverse reports from the field does not address the sourced reporting of the significance of this event.The opinion you expressed about flareup and diedown does not invalidate the article content under discussion. I should have said "that's merely your OR or whatever. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

Indeed, one thinks back to 2003. When the Intelligence community claimed the existence of WMDs in Iraq. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC) Yeah, no. One needs to read The Facts. There were serious problems in the intelligence, some of which were relegated to dissenting footnotes. But the Bush administration also chose to highlight aspects of the intelligence that helped make the administration’s case, while playing down others. amd multiple CIA reports dismissed the claim that Iraq and al-Qaeda were cooperating partners — and that there was no intelligence information that supported administration statements that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaeda. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The edit you cite above was just one of three.

• The first one is the one you mention above. Reliable sources disagree on the facts. The NY Times article written three weeks after the BBC's and after another briefing is also a reliable source—see my above edit.
• The second one replaced the image once again. I had previously objected to the replacement.
• The third one changed the sentence preceding the one about the bounties. The text you added is incorrect, per the source you cited. The other countries mentioned were never in the G-8 and didn't need to be returned to it. Trump wanted to return Russia to the G-7 and add a number of countries, to enlarge the current G-7 to a G-10 or G-11. He had no right to initiate that unilaterally, and his plans were nipped in the bud. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x:: I had previously objected to the replacement. Please see WP:OWN: No one has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). The image of Trump and Putin was part of a photo-op for news media, taken by the WH photographer and released by the WH.-- Tobby72 (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Tobby, when you post an ad hominem instead of respionding to the substance of the concern, you make it extremely unlikely that editors will step in to endorse your POV on this edit. If it's any comfort to you, I believe that I have made the same or similar reverts to your content on a variety of articles. Most of them are simply off-topic, undue, poorly sourced, or fail NPOV. If these reverts are frustrating to you, try sticking more closely to our content PAGs. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If an edit has been objected to, you should discuss it on the talk page before repeating it. Wikimedia Commons has ten images of Trump and Putin, by themselves, at the G20 in Osaka. In most of the pictures Trump is smiling at or with Putin. You selected one of the two where Trump looks grumpily off to the side, and not the one where Putin barely smiles but the one where Putin smiles widely at the camera. Why? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This image was in the article for quite some time, between 2020-2021. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

So was the one that replaced it, unchallenged, on March 27, 2021, with the edit summary "better image". I also think that the current one is the better one for his bio. Trump's grab-and-yank handshakes made the news, e.g., NYT, WaPo, and others; this one would be the alpha-male stand-off, I think. Both images were taken by the WH photographer and released by the WH. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC Russian Bounties claims – better wording

22:34, 29 December 2021: User:Chess wrote: "I've been brought here by WP:RFCL to close, so here I am. Looking at the rough survey, this seems somewhat evenly divided in terms of !votes. ... I'll close with a consensus of retain, but add context. ... Another discussion will likely be necessary to workshop a better wording that may be agreed on by the participants here."

The sentence currently reads:

and never brought up Russia's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan with Putin.

I would suggest replacing this with:

Trump expressed doubts about Russia's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan and never discussed it with Putin.

or

Trump expressed doubts about Russia's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan and believed that the intelligence assessment was leaked to media to help Joe Biden's presidential campaign or to prevent the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.

My edit was reverted here by SPECIFICO with the following edit summary: "No consensus for these changes."

Your comments and suggestions will be greatly appreciated. @Chess:, @Bob K31416:, @Jack Upland:, @FormalDude:, @The Four Deuces:, @GoodDay:, @Space4Time3Continuum2x:, @OgamD218:, @Zaathras:, @Firefangledfeathers:, @ValerianB:, @InedibleHulk:, @Fieari:, @Iamreallygoodatcheckers:, @SPECIFICO:, @LM2000:, @Wuerzele:, @Adoring nanny:, @Alaexis:, @LondonIP:, @Neonorange:

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Put all of it into the Trump administration article, no matter what version is decided on. It doesn't belong in his bio article. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If it's found to be verified, I think it belongs in both articles. Indeed many members of Trump's administration were reported to be concerned and very much in disagreement with his behavior toward Russia and Putin, It was reported as a personal distinction of Trump's. And I am not talking about any of the unproven allegations about prostitutes and hacking conspiracies. Just that his behavior toward Russia and Putin was at odds with US policy, congressional mandates, and the advise of his own inner circle. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

For neutrality, we should mention that the claims were not adequately supported. To be fair, if Trump asked Putin about every rumor leaked to the press, he would have spent a lot of time talking to him, which of course would itself become an issue. TFD (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point. The issue that Trump was close to Putin is worth mentioning. Listing things that Trump didn't raise with Putin is a bit silly.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, many people who !voted to include this in the RfC wanted it with the context that the claims were disputed. One of the proposals mentions that Trump doubted it but he's a biased (and frankly unreliable) narrator.LM2000 (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Since I got pinged, yeah, figure out a consensus. I won't really take a side here on the actual dispute but SPECIFICO is somewhat right that there's "no consensus for these changes" which is why I recommended that you have a discussion on what form the "added context" should take before adding it into the article. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ditto. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Chess. Agree, but there is no consensus that the article should continue to include that Trump "never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan", so the disputed text should be hidden until the dispute is resolved and better wording is agreed on by the participants here. - diff -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. The text remains while under discussion. ValarianB (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I support "Trump expressed doubts about Russia's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan and never discussed it with Putin." It's short and sweet and adds all the context necessary. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Opposed to first proposal. The BBC source says that Trump tweeted "fake news" and "fake issue", the AP source mentions NSA O’Brien saying that Trump has not been briefed on the matter. IMO, neither one supports expressed doubts. The New York Times wrote that commentators had misinterpreted the 2021 briefings. Opposed to second proposal. First proposal plus speculations on what Trump believed about motivations for alleged leaks. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Proposal #3. The context isn't that Trump believed or didn't believe the intelligence. The WH had offered two different explanations anyway, that he didn't believe or that he wasn't briefed, i.e., he didn't know. I propose the following alternate wording to follow "Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7"

and did not confront Putin over intelligence information of varying degrees of confidence that Russian operatives had offered "financial incentives to reward attacks on American and allied troops."

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I would just say "about an intelligence report that..." -- The NYT article is consistent with that representation of the state of knowledge at the time. SPECIFICO talk 18:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Proposal #4: :

  and did not confront Putin about an intelligence report that Russian operatives had offered "financial incentives to reward attacks on American and allied troops."

  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support #4 a brief, straightforward representation of the source. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Pinging ValarianB—name misspelled in notifications of RfC participants. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Considering that this is about something Trump *didn't do* about the bounties which might or might not have existed, I don't think it should be included in this article. I see that GoodDay has suggested moving it to Trump administration.

I understand that the consensus is to include it, in which case I support any of Tobby72's proposed wordings. I like Proposal #1 more as it's more concise. Proposals #3 and especially #4 indeed constitute a "straightforward representation" of the NYT article, but that's actually a problem: due weight should be determined by a broad range of RS. Alaexis_¿question? 11:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You are advocating for proposals that have been rejected. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment any proposal that does not clearly say that these supposed bounties are in some way disputed or that Trump didn't believe they existed is not providing appropriate context. The consensus in the past discussion was pretty much to add the context that these bounties are disputed. This is primarily why Proposal #3 and Proposal #4 are not adequate at addressing the consensus from the previous discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not the way the sources report it. For example, he also said he didn't believe the Russians hacked the DNC. Not sure what you mean about addressing a previous decision that is now being overwritten? SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

RS says that there is not conclusive evidence that these bounties exist.[35] The bounties were disputed then and they are disputed now. Frankly, this discussion has already happened before and the consensus was to provide this context. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

And another RS says that some journalists misinterpreted what administration officials said. The consensus is that there seems to be rough agreement that some coverage of the Russian bounty controversy and its relation to Trump be maintained, but that the current wording of the coverage could be altered or contextualized. It doesn't say that the context is what Trump said he believed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not about what Trump said he believes. It's about the fact that these bounties existence are disputed, not just by Trump, but by RS. Trumps belief is rationally based with RS and this is an article about Trump, so what he believes certainly is relevant, especially if it's based in RS. That's the contextualization needed. A good compromise might to just say the bounties are dispute and not that Trump necessarily believed they didn't exist. I think the fight at that point is just petty. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

A good compromise might to just say — why don't you propose a sentence? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, the only real way of providing this needed context is to mention Trump had doubts of the bounties existence. That has to be the context that consensus showed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That isnt the mainstream narrative. By the time of this event, Trump's statements about his beliefs were rarely taken seriously. We can't parrot his words when RS dont treat them as credible. SPECIFICO talk 02:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning Trump's beliefs isn't treating them as credible. We are not saying or even implying that Trump is right, we're only stating his position on a topic which is what this article is supposed to be doing. This is not different than saying something like "Trump doesn't believe in climate change". We are not implying that climate change isn't real, we are just stating Trump's position. The same applies here. RS does speak of Trump's doubts. See these sources: Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

No. the point is that the mainstream does not assess that those are his true beliefs, so they are UNDUE. Few to none affirm that he believes what he says. Beliefs do not appear useful, so he does not need any. SPECIFICO talk 03:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

No one's saying or implying those are his "true beliefs". We are merely advocating for what RS has said, that he "expressed doubt". Now what Trump truly thinks in his mind I have no clue and neither does RS, but we do know he "expressed doubt". Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Right -- so what is the significance of what he expressed when it has nothing to do with what he thinks? Can of worms and irrelevant. SPECIFICO talk 02:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

(1) It's been reported in RS, so really thats all you need. (2) What Trump comments about an issue being mentioned in this article is inherently relevant to the article because this article is about Trump. (3) The last discussion mentioned that context is needed, and the revision you're supporting (prop. 4) does not address the contextual concern that the last discussions consensus had. The proposition your supporting is marginally different than the one that exists now. I would say it's even worse since it doesn't say the bounties are "alleged", which is a fact supported by RS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That's seriously and fundamentally incorrect. See ONUS and NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 03:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It's been covered enough for inclusion. Several sources have been cited above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal #5

Trump expressed doubts about Russia's alleged bounties to Taliban fighters for attacking American soldiers in Afghanistan and never discussed it with Putin.

@Chess: One thing is for sure, the current version is against the consensus of retain, but add context. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me. It addresses every angle and provides the needed context. Trump's opinion expression is absolutely relevant and not WP:UNDUE because this article is about Trump and Trump only. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Checkers, I think it's been established above that, while we know Trump's statements we do not know his opinions or beliefs. Self-serving statements not treated as credible by RS may certainly be omitted, and this is such a one. SPECIFICO talk 23:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This proposition in no way at all says what Trump believes. It says what he has expressed, which is covered in RS. I described it as opinion in my statement above. I will correct it to expression. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Tobby, that's your very first proposal, from a month ago, and—as one of the editors responded back then—Trumnp is still a biased (and frankly unreliable) narrator. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support — Improvement over what is presently in the article which falsely implies that Trump should have brought it up by not mentioning any doubt by anyone. Trump, the military and intelligence services had doubts about the existence of the bounties and later even Biden had doubts. See for example [36]. For reference, here's what is presently in the article

"Trump ... never brought up Russia's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan with Putin."

Bob K31416 (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This is better phrasing. What about, "It is unknown whether Trump was informed about unfounded rumors considered low probability by intelligence that Russia offered bounties to the Taliban for killing U.S. soldiers, but in any case never raised the issue with Putin." TFD (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have requested for the closure of this discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

North Korean progress in the lede

Trump met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, but made no progress on denuclearization.

As it is right now this reads overly negative. Trump was the first sitting president to meet with a North Korean leader at all and that should warrant a mention despite the overall talks failing in the end. As it is, it reads like his administration took three meetings for no progress at all, when the fact there were meetings at all was already notable. Suggestion:

Trump met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, the first sitting president to do so, but made no progress on denuclearization. --95.91.247.87 (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but was he the first president not ask?Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I assume you meant "to" and not "not"? I don't think that should play a role here, the article on the peace talks points out these summits being a first in several ways prominently as well, and so do sources from the time.--95.91.247.87 (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Well it would be as it would put why he was first into context.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Being the 1st is already mentioned in Donald Trump#North Korea. We don't need to cram every detail into the opener. Zaathras (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The lead should serve to summarize the article, and right now it makes it sound like the administration failed to make progress when the fact a president met with a North Korean leader was in itself considered progress and as of now is probably the most historically notable thing coming from these events. In either case it's definitely more notable than how often Trump and Kim Jong-Un met. --95.91.247.87 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The lead does summarize. Just meeting with the NK leader is not a success nor is it progress by any measure, if it led to nothing. Zaathras (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

More interesting is the recent RS reporting that sources close to Trump say he's continuing to exchange love letters with Kim from his Mar a Lago retirement home. SPECIFICO talk 14:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

As he is no longer president, yes this might be more relevant to this article. But I think we would need to see a bit more traction.Slatersteven 14:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, when Trump is reelected, the US might have its own Duke of Windsor thing. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This was recently discussed and resolved -- please refer to the talk archives and to Consensus #22. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• More concise and significant than what's in the lead is,

  Trump was the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean leader.

Bob K31416 (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that's better. The "no progress on denuclearization" is overly negative and ambiguously worded (what does "denuclearization" mean?).--Jack Upland (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Denuclearization, via a handy dictionary. Zaathras (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Leave it alone. Was already discussed & decided. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I know this discussion has probably been run into the ground already but sweeping absolutes such as he made no progress on denuclearization are often inherently untrue as it is very easy to overcome absolutely nothing. The sentence should be changed to something more like "made no long term/permanent progress on denuclearization". If not then the sentence should just be removed from the lead altogether, making no progress on denuclearization after 3 meetings is obviously not relevant enough to warrant inclusion there.OgamD218 (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I reopened this discussion after it was closed without good reason. In my edit summary I wrote, "premature close; active discussion with at least two new proposals pending; next lime wait several days for no discussion before closing". I mention this because there's too much of this going on and it gives the appearance of suppressing legitimate discussion of ideas that the closer is opposed to. Such suppression has also occurred by archiving. There's no reason to archive a discussion that has recently had comments, and unfortunately such inappropriate archiving has been done. Archiving is for sections where discussion has stopped for at least several days. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Archiving is sometimes done to prevent disruption from those who continue to beat a dead horse over a settled discussion. Zaathras (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, your comment has no basis in policy or guidelines. Archiving is for reducing excessive bulk of a talk page by removing old inactive discussions. The use otherwise may be a sign of abusive and disruptive editor behavior. Note that the current section is neither old or inactive. It appears there are new ideas being presented. For example, I suggested a change in the lead from

"Trump met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, but made no progress on denuclearization."

to

"Trump was the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean leader."

which is more concise and significant. So far one editor responded directly and was in agreement. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

My comment is in line with common practice across a wide variety of contentious talk pages. As for as your suggestion goes, I heartily disagree with it. Zaathras (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It's beautiful, I love it and we're doing this. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

No, we're neither lumping nor leaving it. It's meaningless and less concise. Three meetings, zero results—that's concise. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Zero results? Since the meetings North Korea has tested no ICBM and no nuclear bomb.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

When did anybody make any progress with North Korea, concerning nuclear weapons. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's a valid question. Superficially, however, the hiatus in ICBM/nuke tests could be seen as progress from a US point of view.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

In a recent article, 'North Korea's Nuclear Family: How the Kims Got the Bomb and Why they Won't Give It Up' in Foreign Affairs (September/October 2021), former CIA analyst Sue Mi Terry concludes: "Until that regime either dramatically reforms itself or collapses, the nuclear threat will remain".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2022

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.

---

Remove "Scholar and historians ...... American history". Insert "Trump has received criticism from the Democrat party for his actions. He has also received record support from Republicans. Remove "Many or his comment .... many as mysogynistic."

Just a note, I'm an independent, but I think the article should be as unbiased as possible. Some of your comments may not be wrong but are opinionated and have no place in an honorable, fact-based article which I know is the goal of Wikipedia. 813SDC-TES (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Your proposal would suggest to readers that criticism of Trump is merely typical partisan opposition that we've always had, but it's not. soibangla (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no party named the "Democrat Party" in America. You must be confused. Zaathras (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no “Democrat Party”, we report what RS say, blanket claims of bias are meaningless, etc. Closing this. Cpotisch (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Bias and political statements

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

---

This article about Donald J Trump goes against many Wikipedia guidelines in many ways including biased sources and political opinions. Unless these standards and guidelines only apply for those that the editors agree with this should be changed into a more neutral position. Instead of saying “he said many false statements and lies” it should say something like the following “opponents of Donald Trump say that he’s made many false statements” or something along those lines. This post might not attract any attention, knowing Wikipedia but this must be changed. Jake pres (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you realise how many editors (signed in & signed out) have made the same complaints. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

His lies have been documented by sources that you consider to be biased, but are in fact reliable. The "he said, she said" of Opponents of Donald Trump say reduces precision and introduces bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Jake pres, you labor under a delusion when you write: "goes against many Wikipedia guidelines in many ways including biased sources and political opinions". We have no such guideline. NPOV expressly allows biased sources and biased opinions. It is editors who must be neutral in their editing, not sources or content. I have written an essay about how we deal with biased sources and NPOV: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. It may help you understand this confusing topic. How can Wikipedia be neutral and yet have biased wordings and content? That's partially because around here "neutral" doesn't have the exact same meaning as elsewhere.

We are not allowed to present opinions as facts and word facts as opinions. There is also such a thing as factual opinions. Normally we attribute all opinions, but there comes a time when the opinions are so solidly established as fact that we just cite them without attribution. When the consensus of RS facts and opinions says Trump is a pathological, serial, liar with no connection to the concept of truth, we must not present that as some opinion which readers are free to doubt and ignore. It's one of the most solidly established facts about him.

He is not only wildly untruthful, he literally attacks and undermines the very concept of truth. He tries to create his own reality which his followers must accept, and they do. They live in a bubble. This is an old and very effective tactic used by authoritarians. This is how they destabilize society. Once such a society is destabilized, people no longer know what to believe and are at the mercy of the most powerful voice, which is the dictator in charge, the one who labels all RS as fake news. That is exactly what Trump has done and continues to do. His definition of "fake news" isn't even the proper definition. Read Fake news#Donald Trump.

Also read Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election, Trumpism, and Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. -- Valjean (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

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

3/14/22 | 30/500 Protection Edit Request

I have noticed lots of far leftist opinions on this page such as "He falsely claimed" (election fraud). There is no proof that there was no election fraud, but there is actually overwhelming proof as to the elections integrity being compromised. In Georgia one of the officials at the polls even came out and showed everyone how they were changing the votes as they speak. Not to mention the mysterious trucks full of Trumps votes disappearing and stuff like that. Will add sources later, am to lazy to spend hours looking for them now. I would edit it myself, but my account is almost but not quite 30 days old, and I have around 30 edits, not 300, so it will be a while before I am able too. ypc0cnz (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

We're not going to engage on this nonsense yet again, especially if you're too lazy to back them up Facepalm . – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Praise for Putin, invasion of Ukraine

I believe Trump's praise for Putin and for Russia's invasion of Ukraine might be news, but it is news that will certainly pass the WP:10YEARTEST - moreso, say, than buying another company. My addition was reverted by Space4Time3Continuum2x. Can I get consensus to include, even if modified? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I would rather wait, but yes this may be relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A lot of the content about Trump's support of Putin and other foreign autocrats (while deprecating the US' global alliances) needs to be summarized and contextualized. Too much of it is recited without articulating its significance. SPECIFICO talk 13:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The wording implies that Trump supports the Russian incursion into Eastern Ukraine. TFD (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That may be because that's what Trump explicitly stated? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

An excerpt from a Guardian article [37],

“Here’s a guy who’s very savvy … I know him very well,” Trump said of Putin while talking to the The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show. “Very, very well. By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened."

Bob K31416 (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Could certainly include that, too. What he also said was "I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, 'This is genius.' Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine – of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. I said, 'How smart is that?' And he's gonna go in and be a peacekeeper." Trump also stated that the Russian military buildup in Russian and Belarusian territory was "the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's the full quote from the talkshow (you can find a copy on youtube under 'President Trump Joins Clay & Buck from Mar-a-Lago'): "We could use that on our southern border. That's the strongest peace force I've ever seen. There were more army tanks than I've ever seen, they're gonna keep peace alright. No, but think of it: Here's a guy who's very savvy. I know him very well. Very, very well. By the way, this would have never happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable, this would never have happened.". If what you posted can be considered RS, maybe we should re-evaluate the standards on that. I honestly can't believe nobody has posted the unedited quote here before... Prodigial Son (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This one's a doozey for sure & should be included. The rest of yas can decide, whether he was being sarcastic or not. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It should probably be included. Thankfully it doesn't belong on his "presidency of" article. Maybe wait a few days per WP:RECENTISM to see what else develops. Like, he hasn't praised Putin since the invasion started last night (EST), has he? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

And here's the Guardian excerpt with the additional part of Trump's quote in brackets that came before it,

"[That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right. No, but think of it.] Here’s a guy who’s very savvy … I know him very well,” Trump said of Putin while talking to the The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show. “Very, very well. By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened."

Trump was being sarcastic about "peace force" and that's clarified when he added "No, but think of it." He does not support the invasion and thinks Putin is a formidable adversary that Trump thinks he could have handled but Biden couldn't. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't be the first time the so-called reliable news media twisted Trump's stance, into a negative light. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That's how I would interpret it. We will have to wait for expert opinion in order to interpret it. TFD (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

um? really? SPECIFICO talk 20:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Bob, "thinks Putin is a formidable adversary"? Sure, and he also admires Putin for doing it. He envies him and wishes he could do the same things Putin does, such as imprisoning and killing American journalists, if he's ever reelected as president. Both men are authoritarians with no respect for republican democratic values, human rights, or civil liberties, and their followers love them for it. Yes, Trump and his followers share Putin's views and have been expressing it lately. -- Valjean (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Re your remark, " [Trump] 'thinks Putin is a formidable adversary'? Sure, ..." — I'll take that as agreement. Regarding admiring Putin, it looks that way but Trump may not admire anyone. I think it looked like he admired other people and then they were either fired or treated like enemies or incompetents. Also note that he said regarding Putin's aggression in Ukraine, "By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable." As far as the comments and article on authoritarianism, they look fallacious. I could respond further but I think it would be going off on a forum-like discussion and not appropriate for here. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Source for "just kidding"? What makes you think he wasn't just kidding when he said, "Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened." ? SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, right, "sarcasm", twisted into a negative light by the "so-called reliable news media" . Here's the transcript of the entire section of the interview dealing with Putin:

Hatted quote Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Q: ... in the last 24 hours we know Russia has said that they are recognizing two breakaway regions of Ukraine, and now this White House is stating that this is an “invasion.” That’s a strong word. What went wrong here? What has the current occupant of the Oval Office done that he could have done differently? TRUMP: Well, what went wrong was a rigged election and what went wrong is a candidate that shouldn’t be there and a man that has no concept of what he’s doing. I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, “This is genius.” Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. So, Putin is now saying, “It’s independent,” a large section of Ukraine. I said, “How smart is that?” And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s strongest peace force… We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right. No, but think of it. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy… I know him very well. Very, very well. By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened. But here’s a guy that says, you know, “I’m gonna declare a big portion of Ukraine independent,” he used the word “independent,” “and we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.” You gotta say that’s pretty savvy. And you know what the response was from Biden? There was no response. They didn’t have one for that. No, it’s very sad. Very sad.

I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, "This is genius." Losing his fight with the English language, as usual, and sarcasm isn't in his repertoire. He's Trump, retiree, currently ineligible for security briefings. His remarks are late night comedy gold but other than that they only got a brief mention as an aside to the invasion—outside of Russia, that is. If that changes, we can always add it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A brief mention? CNN, Washington Post, The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, Sky News, the NYT, MSNBC, and many more... (as per the link in my initial comment in this section). As to commentary on his remarks - no, they don't appear to be taken as sarcasm. At least by the State Department. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Rephrasing: His remarks were only mentioned as an aside. Here's another one, same day, on the Ingraham Angle:

Hatting quotes Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb8t-UToTxw, starts at around 45:50 seconds) Ingraham: We’re just learning that U.S. officials are looking at a potential amphibious landing now in Odessa, Ukraine. A month ago, or three weeks ago, all the so-called experts were saying that Putin was probably gonna just be content with staying in those separatist regions. But I think given what’s unfolded sadly with a lot of weakness in the United States they just decided to go for it. I mean, looks like they’re going for it and where does that leave NATO, the NATO alliance. Trump: I think that’s what happened. I think you’re exactly right. I think that’s what happened. I think he was going to be satisfied with the peace and now he sees the weakness and the incompetence of the stupidity of this administration. And as an American I am angry about it and I’m saddened by it and it all happened because of a rigged election. This would have never happened and that includes inflation and that include (video ends) The rest can be seen here, apparently too embarassing for Fox to show: https://twitter.com/JonahDispatch/status/1496695902727196675 Ingraham: We’ll continue to monitor this. We’ll go back to President Trump for a quick reaction. We have kind of a really pathetic display from the Ukrainian President Zelensky earlier today where he in Russian, he doesn’t like to speak Russian, he was imploring President Putin not to invade his country. Now we have the Ukrainian ambassador to the United Nations looking like a defeated man. Your final reaction. Trump: Well, I think the whole thing again would have never happened, it shouldn’t happen, and it’s a very sad thing. But you know what’s also very dangerous you told me about the amphibious attack by Americans. You shouldn’t be saying that because you and everybody else shouldn’t know about it. They should do that secretly, not be doing that through the great Laura Ingraham. They should be doing that secretly. Nobody should know that, Laura. Ingraham: No, those were the Russians, the Russian amphibious landing. Trump: Oh, I thought you said that we were sending people. Ingraham: No no, that would be news. Trump: And you what, that’s all we need. That’ll be next, OK? Now, we ought to protect our own borders.

That's the stuff that sells papers and brings clicks but I doubt it's important enough to be included in his biography. Former president, out of the loop and out of it. I agree with the State Department spokesman: "I have no response, in fact, I have no words." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought Trump was supposed to be colluding with Zelensky.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It's great, that sanctions (as though that would stop Putin) are being piled onto Russia. But what about Belarus? Ok, that's another matter. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Jack, on the contrary. Trump tried to force Zelensky to back up his Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, a bunch of false allegations against Joe Biden designed to distract from his own misdeeds. Zelensky did not cooperate and Trump was impeached for making the attempt. Trump and Manafort were on the side of Viktor Yanukovych, the former pro-Russian President of Ukraine who worked for Putin, just like Trump, who is always on the side of Putin. -- Valjean (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I think Jack was just being sarcastic. SPECIFICO talk 02:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting that Putin only invaded Ukraine when Biden was VP or president, not during the Trump presidency. I am sure that historians will have a lot to say about that, but we will have to wait. TFD (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It would have been much more advantageous for Putin if Trump had been able to continue to work for him (see turning over Syria to the Russian/Syrian alliance, a purported discussion of "Russia’s encroachment on Ukraine" at the 2018 Russia–United States summit in Helsinki ending with Trump casting "doubt on U.S. intelligence agencies conclusion that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election" and not mentioning Ukraine at all, Trump continuing to talk about fulfilling Putin's top wish, withdrawing the U.S. from NATO, and making the U.S. administration more dysfunctional than he managed to do in four years. With Trump gone, Putin had to do his own dirty work, and he got right on it ([38], [39], [40], [41], [42]). Getting off my soapbox now. BTW, brilliant Rachel Maddow commentary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's wait and see if this WP:RECENTISM or not. If it proves to be enduring we should begin a discussion on the appropriate verbiage and ensure proper context of this. As of this moment, I'm just going to say we should wait. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Haven't checked the BLP itself, but no doubt it'll be added. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting qoute from Trump

• Include for right now: Easily sourced, both now and during his presidency. We can always remove it later if it turns out to be tangential. pbp 17:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Include: It is referenced to multiple high quality reliable sources and has been making the news in these sources for several days now. ––FormalDude talk 00:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: how could you possibly say this has been reported on for weeks? He made this statement just few days ago. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Corrected, sorry. ––FormalDude talk 00:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• comment — I suspect that the above two "include" votes don't know what they're voting on. Perhaps one or both of them could specify what they think the proposed edit is. The proposed edit I saw was the diff "reverted" in the first message of this section. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  We are of course !voting on the content of that revert which is the topic of this thread. The recent comments made by Trump praising Putin's invasion of Ukraine are due weight and should be included in the body of the article. Is that clear enough for you? ––FormalDude talk 01:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  In the interview, Trump was essentially saying that Biden was no match for Putin, but that Trump was because he understood how Putin worked. One of the parts of the interview that was left out of the reverted edit was where Trump said, "By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened."[43] It would be false to imply that Trump supported Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thats the third time that's been said in this thread. It's just Trump's trademark sarcasm. SPECIFICO talk 03:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  None of your comments should be considered in this discussion. You are blatantly misrepresenting Trump's comments and reliable source's reporting of Trump's comments. ––FormalDude talk 06:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  No. Trump said that if he were president, Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine. That's clear from the Trump quote in my last message. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Trump called the invasion of Eastern Ukraine the best peacekeeping force ever. Peacekeeping -- e.g. missile attack on a daycare facility. Reliably reported. It would not be false to state, let alone "imply" that Trump voiced support for the invasion. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  In my message of 16:07, 24 February, I already discussed that. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• No, you missed the point. Trump uses sarcasm for emphasis on important events. He was just being sarcastic when he said he would not have allowed the invasion. And anyway, there are very fine people on both sides. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Apparently we disagree on what was and wasn't sarcasm. I gave evidence in my Feb 24 message and you haven't. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm confused. You mentioned his sarcastic saying he would have stopped the best peacekeeping mission ever, so I think we are in agreement not to put it in. SPECIFICO talk 00:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

At this point Bob's comments should be taken with the same seriousness of that of a TROLL. This is some 2+2=5 bullshit. We've gone over the quotes half a dozen times. Anyone with an inkling of literacy can tell Trump's true sentiment is praising Putin and the invasion. ––FormalDude talk 04:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

With regard to a message like that, I'll just refer back to my above message of 02:36, 27 February that was my previous response to FormalDude. And I think that about does it for me with regard to FormalDude, except to mention Wikipedia:Civility. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS are not OK on an article talk page or anywhere else. If you have diffs to back up your concern, take them to an enforcement board and see what happens. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that Specifico posted a message in the Further coverage subsection with a link to the Reuters article, Trump condemns Russia invasion; hints again at 2024 presidential run. And regarding the article, Specifico said "repeats sarcastic remarks". In that article it doesn't look to me or apparently the journalist, that Trump is being sarcastic when he condemns the invasion. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. I've already commented on this above, but I really don't see this being noteworthy right now. When were are trying to decide if a recent news story should be included we use the WP:10YEARTEST, and I see no reason why this passes that test. Here is my rationale. (1) Trump's comments have no real effect on anything. He has no power and he's not a leader right now. So they make no impact on anything, at least in matters of foreign policy. (2) The candid and brief nature of the comments. These comments were said on like podcast of some sort, not like in a press briefing or official statement. As far as I'm aware, he hasn't been doubling down on them and attracting attention beyond the actual incident. (3) We have no reason to believe this will ever be significant for Trump, at this point in time. The only way I could see this ever being WP:DUE is if he runs for president again and this becomes a talking point, then it could be due. The only other examples I can think about when a brief comment by Trump has been mentioned is the Access Hollywood tape and the Charlottesville comment, and this definitely is not on that level. This is likely only WP:RECENTISM. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Bob K31416:: That's rather presumptuous of you to claim that I don't know what I'm voting on. pbp 21:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  First I said suspected. Second, you wrote in your vote, "Easily sourced, both now and during his presidency." The proposal was about statements Trump made recently, not during his presidency. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion, WP:NOTNEWS. The remarks of Putin’s dream president made the headlines for a few days—that's to be expected. They're no longer in the headlines. Trump is already trying to put a spin on his words, as usual, but it's getting hardly more coverage than his—also usual—coy hints at running again or him doing the Trump wobble. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - NOTNEWS. Needs context and RS narratives as to significance. Already Trump's efforts to walk it back are shedding more light on his view and its response to Republican condemnation. Any significance will be much clearer with time. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Trump's no longer the prez & what he thinks & doesn't think is irrelevant, accept to those news media who want ratings. Also, despite how it's being presented. The guy's not exactly giving Putin's actions total approval. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

He is the frontrunner for the 2024 GOP nomination and the principal backer of state and local GOP candidates, with a huge cash PAC fund. Highly relevant to US governance and public discourse He and his proxiees are currently the leaders of the GOP and if we had clear narratives as to his view and his attempts to reverse his initial statements, they would be appropriate article content. It's just too soon. SPECIFICO talk 21:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We both oppose the addition of the info. Leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

No, content decisions should be based on realistic and well-informed evaluation of the sources and circumstances. The suggestion that Trump's views are irrelevant to his bio is not well-founded. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I've nothing more to discuss with you. We both oppose the addition. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support As he continues to do it, so this is now very much part of who he is.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Still WP:RECENTISM. Something we can add to the BLP or his 2024 presidential campaign, when the time comes. Right now, he's just trying to get attention & the media loves the ratings. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

That utterly begs the question. He could get attention by condemning Putin, by praising Biden's response, or by dancing on ice. This discussion is about the notewothiness of his comments, not the fact that he frequently makes comments. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you supporting or opposing the additions of Trump's Russia/Ukraine remarks. Which is it? GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Except he has been praising Putin for 5 years, this is just then lastest chapter. In represents an ongoing admiration.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Carter opposes Israel. Both former presidents comments on both topics, aren't big news. The only reason why the media is more hyper about it (along with getting ratings) is because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. PS - You've made your choice, so I'm not gonna pester you any further about it. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Israle (last time I checked) was never hostile to the USA. With that apples and orangies I will ask you to stop wp:bludgeoning this thread, and I will stop replying.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Read my post again. "PS - ...I'm not gonna pester you any further about it". GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an "oppose" that's not based in policy. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose appears to be RECENTISM, and falls under NOTNEWS, thus we should not include it, at least for now.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 09:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Further coverage

Apparently, Trump is continuing to comment on Ukraine. [44] and repeats sarcastic remarks, here. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You oppose additions & yet seem to be making arguments for the additions. Which is it? GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

In Specifico's message, the second link is to the Reuters article, Trump condemns Russia invasion; hints again at 2024 presidential run. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

if we included every time a president misspoke, we'd be adding paragraphs to the Joe Biden article every day. TFD (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

That's Biden though. Different article treatment. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Apparently you are gonna pester us... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"Biden gaffes" -- a deprecated Republican talking point from years past. Let's see RS reporting any in 2022? That should be a cinch, since you seem to believe he makes dozens per day. False analogies and false statements are not good argumentation. SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

See "Joe Biden flubs speech appearing to call Ukrainians ‘Iranian people’ during State of the Union/The moment quickly went viral online as political pundits pounced on the video as a sign of the president’s declining mental sharpness." (The Independent, 2 March, 2022) TFD (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, right, pundits like Sebastian Gorka and Thomas Massie quoted in former KGB officer Alexander Lebedev's newspaper. It was neither a "gaffe or geographical confusion", it was a slip of the tongue. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a new low for talk page SOAPBOX. Shaming an 80 year old guy for minor vestiges of a prior speech impediment while the 80 y.o. POTUS has been 24/7 leading the world in crisis. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)