Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 144

Archive 140

←

Archive 142

Archive 143

Archive 144

Archive 145

Archive 146

→

Archive 150

Bornstein claim

Under the subhead "Health", the article read "In 2018, Bornstein said Trump had dictated the contents of the letter, and that three Trump agents had seized his medical records in a February 2017 raid on the doctor's office", with a cite to NBC News. The sentence was true as to Bornstein's claim, but did not include information in the source that disputed that claim. So I added ", a characterization that was disputed by the White House press secretary" at the end of that sentence, for balance. Another editor then removed everything after "February 2017", which is mostly ok, but because of that I then changed the word "seized" to "taken", which was reverted by a third editor. Nowhere in the source is the word "seized" used. The accused say the records were handed over voluntarily and cordially. Our source says that the records were "taken", of which there is no dispute. We should use the neutral word used in our source if we don't want the longer but balanced sentence. Station1 (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:MANDY. If this article recited all of Trumps implausible denials and revisions, claims of sarcasm, and equivocations, it would be 5 times the current length. This section content has been discussed extensively in threads that you can review in the archives. As I stated in my edit summary, "seized" is a compact summary of RS accounts. The alternative is much longer detail about 3 large men entering the doctor's office without legal authority, rifling through the files, and taking and removing medical records That's why "seized" is a neat solution. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't find anything in the archives about medical records, but maybe I missed it. If you have a source that says 3 large men entered without legal authority and rifled through files and removed records without permission, then "seized" would be good word. Meanwhile the neutral and reliable source that we have doesn't say that. It reports that there was an "incident" that "Bornstein described as a 'raid'," and that a "spokesperson for Garten" described as a peaceful "hand off" where Bornstein "willingly complied." NBC also says that "Bornstein said" the documents "were taken". Without additional sources, "seized" is not a neat solution, it's an unsourced word that is unnecessarily biased. Station1 (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:MANDY is not a valid policy for reverting anything, and is especially irrelevant here. The source uses "took," "collect," and "taken." There is nothing in the source about 3 large men, which appears to be SPECIFICO's original research. SPECIFICO please stick to what the sources say and do not interject your own fantasies. Taken is the neutral word and should be how our article describes it. One side likened it to a raid and the other side described it as "voluntary turn over" or a "handoff," so let's stay neutral here. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Since the current wording of Bornstein's experience is being contested (and it was far too short), we'll do what we always do: we double down and describe more accurately, even if it's longer. Since "seized" is being contested, we need to be completely accurate and describe the feelings of "rape", fright, and chaos created by this unauthorized "raid" that violated HIPAA patient privacy laws. This is how we usually deal with attempts to minimize what RS say. Such attempts create a Streisand effect and the content becomes even more noticeable. So be it. -- Valjean (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed your NPOV assertion of only one side of the sourced text. It is also wildly UNDUE. Per your comment it appears to be some kind of revenge addition, so please try to avoid that. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a very accurate description from Bornstein and NBC. "that three Trump agents had taken his medical records" is so non-descriptive that it is an NPOV violation. What is the "other side"? Is it the deceptive denial from Garten? Sure, we could include that. -- Valjean (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is the removed text:

He also described what he called a "raid" of his office the morning of February 3, 2017, by three men acting for Trump: Trump's bodyguard Keith Schiller, the Trump Organization's top lawyer Alan Garten, and a third man. The men arrived "without notice and took all the president's medical records": "They must have been here for 25 or 30 minutes. It created a lot of chaos," said Bornstein, who described the incident as frightening." He told NBC News that he felt "raped, frightened and sad". He was not given an opportunity to authorize release of the records, which is a violation of HIPAA patient privacy laws.

We could add that Garten's spokesperson wrote "that Bornstein "voluntarily turned over the medical records to Mr. Schiller" at the request of the White House. "The hand off, which occurred well over a year ago, was peaceful, cooperative and cordial. Prior to turning over the records, Dr. Bornstein was informed of the reasons for the request and willingly complied.""

That makes it plain who is telling the truth and who is lying, and that would be more informative for readers. -- Valjean (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Let’s discuss instead of edit warring in the article, please

Hey folks. Way too much of this argument is being carried out via additions and reverts and changes in the article itself. You all know better than that. Let's call a halt to that, and discuss any changes here at the talk page like good Wikipedians, and try to reach consensus. I propose that each of you spell out what you think the sentence should say, make a numbered list, and then we can discuss it rationally. In the meantime I am going to restore the longstanding version as #1, and you all can post your suggested improvements or changes, and then we can see where we stand. My own feeling: this is a hugely bloated biography and we should try not to put in too much verbiage about any one incident; my suggestion would be to keep it to a single sentence.-- MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate this approach, but disagree about one sentence. It is a bland and non-descriptive NPOV violation as it gives no context or feeling for the situation as described by Bornstein and RS. We need more than just "taken". The version you propose to restore is more accurate, as "seized" is a much better description. The word does not have to appear in the source. Also use of "raid" is from the source and very accurate. We need Bornstein's description of disruption and the violation of HIPAA that occurred.

We also need to put the citations in the right place. The first citation only applies to the first part of the sentence (about dictation). Then we need a new sentence that covers the raid more fully. -- Valjean (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

MelanieN, I notice that you haven't restored the consensus version yet.

Also, may I move the first source to the right spot in the sentence? -- Valjean (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I intended to restore the longstanding version (#1 below) but neglected to do it. I see that User:Firefangledfeathers has restored it; thank you. Let's leave it there unless and until there is consensus to modify it. That's not to say it is the best — just that it was there for a long time and that gives it a kind of implied consensus. I'm not seeing any consensus yet here around any proposal to change it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggested versions

1. (the original version) In 2018, Bornstein said Trump had dictated the contents of the letter, and that three Trump agents had seized his medical records in a February 2017 raid on the doctor's office.

• @Station1: "Trump's aides seized the records" I agree with MelanieN it's hard to understand why experienced editors are reverting valid content without responsive engagement on talk. SPECIFICO talk 22:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not sure why I'm pinged on this. I've reverted nothing. I've made only 2 edits, the second of which you reverted. And I think I responded quite fully to your only previous comment. Will add those 2 edits here (first one modified based on your earlier comment), if that's what you're suggesting. Station1 (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Station1 and Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Station, you say you are not sure why you are pinged above. I pinged you because in the original post of this thread you expressed concern that "seized" was inappropriate. But "seized", to repeat, is the ordinary English word for "take without authorization" and that is what is described in the source that was in the article. However, to demonstrate that there are also sources that use the more specific term "seized", I linked to the WaPo article above in this section and pinged you. If you think it's important to insert that reference with an in-line citation in the article, that's fine, but I personally don't think it's necessary to source each word in the article text. SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The whole point is one party says the records were "taken without authorization" and the other party says they were taken with authorization. The source properly includes both accusation and denial and in its own voice neutrally describes an "incident". I have no objection to the word "seize" if we also say, per source, that the other party disputes that characterization; that was my original and preferred edit. And you do understand that the Washington Post piece is not a hard news article, it's an "analysis", so labeled, not intended to be neutral. In fact, it's an analysis of the NBC News article that is our hard news source! And certainly we don't need to source each word in every article, but we do need to source those words that make Wikipedia seem to be biased to anyone who does check our sources and finds something more neutral than the words we choose. Station1 (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Station1: Believe it or not: Yes, I do understand that The Fix is a tertiary source, and as you should be aware it is a perfectly valid one for straightforward english wording of facts. Did you expect Trump to say that he instructed his agents to commit a crime -- burglary -- and illegally enter the Dr.s offfice? Per my statement above, WP:MANDY is a valid reason to omit WP:FALSEBALANCE. Although I am ready willing and able to hear you refute my view on that, I'm disappointed to see it ignored. SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I accuse you of bias. Don't bother denying it, because "you would, wouldn't you?" Station1 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

No, if you were to do that -- which I presume you are not intending to do -- I would ask for evidence. In this case, it would have been easy for the 3 large men to have presented the authorization either at the time of their arrival or upon the publication of the story they unconvincingly denied. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Note: Despite the "original version" label, this is the version written by SPECIFICO on 27 Jan 2022. The earlier version read: "In 2018, Bornstein said Trump had dictated the contents of the letter and that three agents of Trump had removed his medical records in February 2017 without authorization." Station1 (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

2. In 2018, Bornstein said Trump had dictated the contents of the letter, and that three Trump agents had seized his medical records in a February 2017 raid on the doctor's office, a characterization disputed by one of those agents. [Or...]

• I favor this version, and we should use WaPo for the "seized", as it says "Trump's aides seized the records". "Seized" is a more accurate description for when something is taken (literally stolen!) by surprise, without permission and illegally. -- Valjean (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

3. In 2018, Bornstein said Trump had dictated the contents of the letter, and that three Trump agents had taken his medical records in February 2017.

Discussion

I suggest taken be used instead of seized, as per the source that is only one party's interpretation of the event and not the other. NPOV directs us to describe it neutrally. Taken is neutral and clear. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I support just changing "seized" to "taken". All that matters is what RS says, and RS uses the word taken. Nuff said. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

NBC uses "took" and "collected" in their own words, CNN uses "retrieved" and "had come to collect". While the WH said that the medical records were "handed over peacefully", they didn't deny that the men showed up unannounced and demanded 35 years worth of medical records. Who does that unannounced, expects copies to be made on the spot, and then takes off with the originals 20 minutes later? "Seized" seems to be a good compromise between peaceful handover and robbery. The physical records do not belong to the patient, they belong to the doctor. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Chex, you were given good tertiary RS for seized. But per SpaceX, "seized" is also simply a polite English word for every RS description of events. The alternative would be Valjean's solution, which is needlessly long and complex. You do understand that RS describe a criminal misconduct? Burglary. Theft, etc. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you think using the word taken which is explicitly used in the RS cited for this sentence in some way negates the possibility this was "criminal misconduct"? It doesn't seem like a big change to me. It's not like a reader is gonna be like "Oh my God, the word "taken" must mean the agents peacefully and legally obtained the files. I can't believe Trump is that kind and respectful." Who cares what the word is? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

A bizarre and specious argument. By that logic, we could omit the fact that he was elected president in 2016. After all, there would be nothing to negate that possibility. That's not how we write article text, even for something that's "not a big change." SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, you write: "Do you think using the word taken which is explicitly used in the RS cited for this sentence in some way negates the possibility this was "criminal misconduct"?" You are technically correct but practically wrong. Synonyms have shades of meaning and using the wrong one can give a misleading impression. A neutral one like "taken" says nothing at all about the circumstances, whereas "seized" is a synonym that describes what happened much more accurately. Below MelanieN has addressed RS use of "seized", which is a much better word to use. -- Valjean (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Apparently NBC news didn't think it was innapropriate, but I found you solution above for using seized with a citation to WaPo as a good compromise. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Statements by White House physicians Ronny Jackson and Sean Conley in 2018, 2019, and 2020 said Trump was healthy overall, but was obese. Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's 2018 LDL cholesterol level of 143 did not indicate excellent health. Trump's 2019 coronary CT calcium scan score indicates he suffers from a common form of coronary artery disease.

• Trump went to great lengths to hide accurate/complete information from the public about his wealth, his grades, and his health. Before the news got out that Trump had been much sicker with COVID than he and his WH had previously let on the health section used to mention that he didn't allow the release of the kind of information released by previous presidents.

Health section, October 2020

In 2015, Harold Bornstein, who had been Trump's personal physician since 1980, wrote that Trump would "be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency" in a letter released by the Trump campaign. In 2018, Bornstein said Trump had dictated the contents of the letter and that three agents of Trump had removed his medical records in February 2017 without authorization. Statements by White House physicians Ronny Jackson and Sean Conley in 2018, 2019, and 2020 said Trump was healthy overall, but was obese. Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's 2018 LDL cholesterol level of 143 did not indicate excellent health. Trump's 2019 coronary CT calcium scan score indicates he suffers from a common form of coronary artery disease. Trump was hospitalized with COVID-19 on October 2, 2020, and treated with the antiviral drug remdesivir, the steroid dexamethasone, and an unapproved experimental antibody drug made by Regeneron. He was discharged on October 5.

Health section, June 2020

Trump abstains from alcohol. He says he has never smoked cigarettes or cannabis. He likes fast food and French cuisine. He has said he prefers three to four hours of sleep per night. He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. In December 2015, Harold Bornstein, who had been Trump's personal physician since 1980, wrote that Trump would "be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency" in a letter released by the Trump campaign. In May 2018, Bornstein said Trump had dictated the contents of the letter and that three agents of Trump had removed his medical records in February 2017 without due authorization. In January 2018, White House physician Ronny Jackson said Trump was in excellent health and that his cardiac assessment revealed no issues. Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's 2018 LDL cholesterol level of 143 did not indicate excellent health. In February 2019, after a new examination, White House physician Sean Conley said Trump was in "very good health overall", although he was clinically obese. His 2019 coronary CT calcium scan score indicates he suffers from a form of coronary artery disease common for white men of his age. In June 2020, Conley released a memorandum saying "the data indicates that the President remains healthy." The memorandum was not the usual report issued after the annual physical exam. It summarized medical appointments that had taken place between November 2019 and 2020.

Right now the first two paragraphs are a tad anecdotal. We could replace the Bornstein paragraph with a link to the Bornstein page in a sentence about Trump claiming to be extraordinarily healthy and withholding the usual reports on presidential physicals. (I haven't given a lot of thought yet on how to word that.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Another solution would be to add the summary you gave above, Trump went to great lengths to hide accurate/complete information from the public about his wealth, his grades, and his health. to the article text, with a few linked examples. From the comments in this thread, that would appear to nail it down a bit better, while also shortening the article. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You said "Who does that unannounced, expects copies to be made on the spot, and then takes off with the originals 20 minutes later?" In fact, copies were NOT made; the entire intent was to remove all of Trump's files from the doctor's hands. Per the NBC News source, Bornstein said the original and only copy of Trump's charts, including lab reports under Trump's name as well as under the pseudonyms his office used for Trump, were taken. As for the word "seized", it is specifically used by at least one source, the Washington Post: It involves Trump's colorful longtime personal doctor, Harold Bornstein, who claims that Trump's bodyguard, a Trump Organization lawyer and a third man conducted a “raid” of his office in February 2017, seizing 35 years of Trump's medical records. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. It was SpaceTime who said that. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

If we were to use the Washington Post analysis piece as our source for the word siezed, we'd need to put "raid" in quotes like they do. We shouldn't cherry-pick our favorite words from different sources. Station1 (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You are proposing to change longstanding, extensively discussed, content. You bear the WP:ONUS to find new consensus for your change. There appears to be little chance of that. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I am very disaapointed by that statement. I've just now discovered that the sentence under discussion is not longstanding at all and has never been discussed. In fact, the sentence as it now reads was put there by you, SPECIFICO, on 27 Jan 2022, in other words a few weeks ago. You are the one who added the words "seized" and "raid" to the previously more neutral senetnce, which read: "In 2018, Bornstein said Trump had dictated the contents of the letter and that three agents of Trump had removed his medical records in February 2017 without authorization." If no consensus is reached in this discussion, we need to simply restore the pre-27 Jan 2022 version to get back to status quo. Station1 (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

SpaceX has already posted the former versions above. To shorten the text -- a widely voiced objective of editors on this page -- I replaced "removed...without authorization" with the single word "seized". There have been a couple hundred edits since then. I have no problem calling that longstanding consensus. And notwithstanding your disappointment, if you'll review the talk archives you will find that the health section has been extensively discussed in detail. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

No, that is not true. You have not fully described your changes of 27 Jan 2022. You made the sentence longer, not shorter. Station1 (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not constructive to misrepresent editors' comments. I said nothing about shortening a sentence. I said I shortened the text, and that occurred in a series of copyedits to the bit about Bornstein. And it has been accepted consensus through a couple hundred edits and loads of eyes on this page. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

This entire section is about that sentence. You said, "To shorten the text ... I replaced 'removed...without authorization' with the single word 'seized'." You left out the fact you added additional words to that very same sentence to make the sentence longer than it was. I would not accuse others of misrepresentation. Station1 (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I doubt anyone is interested in such minutiae as the placement of a period, comma, semicolon, or any other punctuation. The oft-expressed concern about article length is searchable in the talk archive for your perusal. It relates, roughly, to bit-length, not the location of a period. That's why I explained to you that I shortened the article, not any sentence. The reason that seasoned editors break up edits into little pieces that way is, ironically, to make it easier for well-intentioned newcomers to follow the changes. SPECIFICO talk 22:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

No one has mentioned punctuation. No one has mentioned length being a concern regarding the single sentence that is the subject of this section except you, just above, as justification for your change. Yet you made the sentence longer, not shorter. If your only goal in making the changes to the sentence we're talking about was to make the article shorter, then you did not succeed. To make the article shorter, we need only revert your change of 27 Jan 2022. Station1 (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Two large men and Trump Organization VP/General Counsel Garten paying a surprise visit and leaving with what they came to get. I also don't see the necessity to add that Huckabee Sanders disputed Bornstein's account of the incident with the weird claim that "taking possession of medical records was 'standard operating procedure for a new president' and that it was not accurate to characterize what happened as a 'raid'." Well, she would, wouldn't she? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

References

"Far-right" and "conspiracy theorist" categories

Both these categories are inappropriate for inclusion in this article. WP:CATV requires categories to follow a neutral point of view, just like all other content. The term, "far-right" is not cited in this article anywhere, and the vast majority of sourcing uses terms like "right-wing populism" or "nationalist" to describe Trump, both of which are cited in this article and are categories listed. As for conspiracy theorist, it's inappropriate to describe Trump as a "conspiracy theorist" in WP:WIKIVOICE. We only say he has promoted conspiracy theories, that is not equivalent to being a conspiracy theorist. This category violates that NPOV standard. Both these categories should be removed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Far right is throughout the article, properly sourced. Ditto promoting conspiracy theories. SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Not one sentence in this article says the Trump was a far-right politician and not one sentence says he's a conspiracy theorist. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, I have trouble taking your reading comprehension seriously, unless you're trying to be tricky and extremely technical. Trump has enjoyed much support from the far-right, largely because he shares their POV and has lent them much support. They are his base. Keep in mind that he and his heritage have been enamored with Hitler, and he has studied Hitler's speeches, even having a copy of them at his bedside. Several of his social policies are those shared by the far-right. This article touches on his connections to the far-right.

As far as conspiracy theories goes, this article has a whole section about that subject, and it is a summary of a whole article: List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. He has created some and pushed even more, and some of his most ardent supporters and friends are conspiracy theorists (lots of Fox News people, as well as Alex Jones). He really does have some horrible and creepy friends. Birds of a feather.... Thus it has due weight for mention in the lead and inclusion in the category. -- Valjean (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Re your response to the previous message — I think it would be helpful for editors following this discussion if you could copy and paste here one sentence in this article that says Trump was a far-right politician. Bob K31416 (talk) O2:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding "politician" to it creates a straw man. The subject is whether it's accurate to describe Trump as far-right. He is. -- Valjean (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's an edit that shows one of the categories that's being discussed [1]. As you can see the category is "Far-right politicians in the United States". Bob K31416 (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: Support from the far-right doesn't mean he's a far-right politician, in the same way that Louis Farrakhan supporting Obama doesn't make Obama a black supremacist politician. We can only explain Trump as being a far-right politician if it's explicitly in RS. You thinking his policies, supporters, and speeches are far-right and reaching the conclusion that Trump is a far-right politician because of those facts is WP:OR, more specifically WP:SYNTH. The same is true form conspiracy theories, Trump is not described as a conspiracy theorist, and us concluding that his promotion of conspiracy theories makes him a "conspiracy theorist" is also WP:SYNTH. Also PackMecEng does a good analysis of existing consensus on this below. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

We have a whole section about Trump and the conspiracy theories he has created and those he has pushed, and we have a consensus for adding "verbiage to the lead that Trump promotes conspiracy theories", even though that is not under discussion right now. The category should be restored.

Trump's support of far-right/alt-right causes, policies, politicians, and media talking heads is well-known and is mentioned in this article. That's why they all support him. The category should be restored. Both categories were long-standing and consensus content. -- Valjean (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Obama was endorsed by Savage Dragon, among other vigilantes. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

But did Obama actively support and encourage such causes? No. (I don't know what I was thinking and mistook that reference for someone else. See this for context I didn't know about.) Did he have their speeches on his bedside table? Trump had Hitler's speeches there. You're picking an exceptional situation to dis Obama, but with Trump and the alt-right/far-right it's a two-way, mutual admiration society that's consistent. Even when he tries to backtrack after criticism, he equivocates. He knows his base and doesn't want to offend them. He's an alt-right/far-right populist politician. Just look at his friends (oops! he has no real "friends"). Birds of a feather. You can judge a man by his friends. It's no accident he chose Bannon and was close to Hannity, Ingraham, and Alex Jones. They are all far-right and push conspiracy theories, the ones Trump has created and the ones they have created. They feed him conspiracy theories and he pushes them. -- Valjean (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to "dis" The Man. Just elaborating on Checkers' point; being elected president takes millions of votes, and getting those votes means appealing/pandering/relating to millions of wacky characters. Some fictional, some unsavoury, some both. Name any president, he has assholes with opinions to thank. American politics is an absolutely filthy game, whether you're working the franchised crowd who like to hear the traditional lies (no more taxes, a car in every garage, nothing to fear), the untapped deplorables who pop for lockerroom lies (so much pussy, America rules, Mexico drools) or the most marginalized last resort demo of all who only want to see any old white man finally associate with a young black woman as if he had a personal choice. But even filthier than politics is The Unholy Trinity of disgusting fast food, trashy talk TV and killer flying robots. It is there, not in his treasured bedside(?) collection of used Spidey and Conan mags, that Obama lost me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

You still haven't shown any sentence in this article that says Trump is a far-right politician. There may not be such a sentence because there is no RS that says so. You'll need that to justify the category "Far-right politicians in the United States", which is one of the categories being discussed here. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: you haven't addressed my WP:SYNTH concern which is present here. I do not contest that we have a consensus for saying he promotes conspiracy theories, I'm merely saying that does not indicate he is a conspiracy theorist. Almost all your commentary in response to InedibleHulk is WP:OR. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, I started it, what did I expect? Should've linked more clearly, both of us. On that note, I made nothing in my last link up, it was the links who rotted, I tell ya! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, sorry for the delay in spotting your comment here. I have a lot of unanswered notifications right now.

What would it take for you to consider someone a "conspiracy theorist"? Do they have to be a major producer of myriad conspiracy theories, such as Alex Jones, Hannity, Bongino, and Glenn Beck? Does 95% of what they say have to be conspiracy theories, or is 5% enough? Does their constant repetition of conspiracy theories created by others enough? What is your measuring device?

Have you even examined the List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump for the ones created by Trump? What about his Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election, which includes several of his own conspiracy theories? What about his Spygate (conspiracy theory), his Trump Tower wiretapping allegations, and his birtherism against Obama? He doesn't settle for repeating others' conspiracy theories. He has always created fiction, used fake names, the White House was the biggest source of fakes news during his administration, and his creation of conspiracy theories was part of that pattern. -- Valjean (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

There would have to substantial reliable sourcing that very explicitly says "Donald Trump is a conspiracy theorist." That's what would it would take. Saying "promoted a conspiracy theories" or "supported a conspiracy theory" is not enough to label someone using the term conspiracy theorist. Concluding that he is one from his activity without explicit RS support is WP:SYNTH. I hope that is clear. You ask what it would take me to consider someone one to be a conspiracy theorist, and all I will say is my opinion on what makes someone a conspiracy theorist is not relevant to this discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

So the fact that we have several articles here, all based on multiple RS, which describe HIS conspiracy theories, as in the sense that he is the creator/author/whatever, in that sense...that means nothing to you? All of those RS mean nothing to you? We do use common sense here. Even if not a single one said the exact words "Trump is a conspiracy theorist", if the consensus of their descriptions means the same thing, then we say he is a conspiracy theorist. (Mind you, I'm pretty sure there are many RS that describe him as one.) Using common sense isn't always SYNTH or OR. Exact words aren't always required if the meaning is still clear. You could also just AGF that your fellow editors, as in all those myriad editors who have created those articles, many far more experienced than yourself, were maybe on to something you haven't noticed.

"President Donald Trump has been a conspiracy theorist for years."CNN. "Conspiracy Theorist in Chief."[2][3][4]

I suggest you read FactCheck's article, "Trump’s Long History With Conspiracy Theories". -- Valjean (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

They don't mean "nothing to me." We extensively cover these conspiracy theories, and I'm not trying to undermine that. I just believe that we do not have the ability to label someone a conspiracy theorist, that's the business of RS, and for whatever reason they don't call him a conspiracy theorist. It's not our job to pull out a dictionary and decide if Trumps conduct make him a conspiracy theorist, and that's practically what you're advocating here. Labeling the former president of the United States a conspiracy theorist is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and requires vigorous RS support for the label, and as I've said that RS support is nearly nonexistent. It's gonna take more than an Op-ed from the LA Times, Mother Jones (which requires attribution), and 2 CNN articles to label one of the most notable people on earth a conspiracy theorist. There's a reason we don't label him that anywhere else on Wikipedia except this category. A good guideline for you to review is WP:LABEL. Also the FactCheck one only quotes someone else calling Trump a conspiracy theorist, someone who had just had beef with Trump. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You can't discount sources because they disagree with Trump. That's not how Wikipedia works. Also, don't misuse EXCEPTIONAL. Context is important. Stop and think about the type of person we're talking about. If a person were renowned for their honesty, good ethics, high moral values, and unimpeachable moral character, EXCEPTIONAL would indeed apply. In this case, EXCEPTIONAL would only apply if we were trying to say good things in attempts to make him look like a Boy Scout. That would be an exceptionally impossible task because he fails all those points miserably, more than almost any other notable living person. We are not trying to do that. We are just following what RS say and describe, and that's not a pretty picture.

Myriad RS are clear that conspiracy theories and Trump fit each other like a glove. He breathes them and manufactures them on the spot. They just ooze out of his pores. RS not only label him as a conspiracy theorist, they also describe his activities in creating and promoting them so clearly that the meaning is the obvious, without any OR or SYNTH. If a synonym is accurate, we can use the appropriate related synonym(s). To illustrate... A dictionary lists a word, and below it are lots of other words that define it. If we find all those words below it, we know the word. In this case we have the word and all the other words that define it. That is enough for us to label him. This isn't rocket science. It's common sense. Wikilawyering just wastes time. If you can't see that, I give up. You could try to AfD all those articles and see where that gets you, but I can assure you it won't end well for you. We don't take such disruption lightly. -- Valjean (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

All I will say to this is your claim that RS labels him a conspiracy theorist, is simply not true. I'm not discounting sources that disagree with Trump, only following WP:RSP regarding the sources you cited. I think our points have been made pretty clearly, and I see no need to continue this. Also WP:EXCEPTIONAL does not only apply to positive things about Trump.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

There are several very problematic, dare I say disqualifying, statements in your recent remarks here. But for one, please read and make a special effort to understand what WP:SYNTH does and does not say. You've repeatedly misused that term. Your post appears to say that it is a priori "exceptional" to apply the "conspiracy theorist" category to a former president of the US. But that is not at all what's meant by WP:EXCEPTIONAL and the suggestion that Trump or any other elected official inherits a mantle of nobility solely by virtue of having been elected is so far off the mark as to overshadow all your other comments in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 02:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't claim that Trumps status as a former president makes this exceptional, calling anyone a conspiracy theorist is exceptional. I'm not misapplying WP:SYNTH. This is what SYNTH says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. What including this category is doing is reaching a conclusion from RS that is not explicit in the RS. I'm done stating this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

See this previous talk page discussion so we dont rehash. It is settled consensus, and the facts have not changed. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

That discussion involved the term "right-wing populist" which is not being contested in this discussion. This issue is far from "settled consensus." Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• A quick search of the archives says nah on the conspiracy part.[5][6][7] There was also an RFC to talk about conspiracy theorist and consensus was he promoted but did not fit theorist.[8] For far-right I am leaning towards nah, a 5 year old discussion is basically worthless at this point. Here are some more recent ones.[9][10] PackMecEng (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

As always unsure, I think ascribing any lable to Trump is pointless as I am unsure he has any firmly held convictions beyond TRUMP!. But if RS say it so do we. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

How true! -- Valjean (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I have been opposed to many proposals to add labels to article text. They are not descriptive and they are prone to misunderstanding when in article text where specific description is the informative encyclopedic alternative. But here we are talking about category links which are much more general and make no specific factual statement. These two categories are fully consistent with the more specific, descriptive text that is in the article and well sourced. There's no justification whatsoever, either in policy or common sense, to remove these among the dozens of categories that appear in articles of this size and scope. The suggestion that because he voiced conspiracy theories but we can't refer to it because he did not copyright them beforehand -- what? -- that is unworthy of this discussion page. On the 2020 election alone, Trump and his hired entourage promulgated dozens of conspiracy theories. He went on and on in detail about his secret Honolulu team to KO Obama. So, the category does not introduce anything that is not supported by thousands of RS accounts. We are not making the claim, e.g. that Trump's entire life story is a conspiracy theory. There's no such implication. Simply that he is a conspiracy theorist who has voiced and promoted such falsehoods. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

You speak of categories as though they are almost held to a lower content standard since they are supposed to be general. However, this is not the case, see WP:CATPOV. If we are not going to describe Trump as a conspiracy theorist in the text, which we don't and there is no consensus for, then we shouldn't describe him as that in the categories. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Checkers is assuming that the article text must explicitly repeat the categories verbatim, but that's not true. As has been explained above by Valjean and SPECIFICO, these categories are verifiable and neutral for a number of reasons. I'm not seeing any good argument to remove them. ––FormalDude talk 02:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Your partially correct about my viewpoint. I do think it not being in the text is significant, but my main concern is that this claim is not backed by RS and is not in accordiance with MOS:LABEL. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:SEALION posting after all your statements have been rebutted is not constructive. Please review all the responses that other editors have generously contributed before continuing to raise the same points again. SPECIFICO talk 02:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: FormalDude mentioned me by name in a comment and I clarified what he believed my stance to be. I had every right respond, and that is not "disruptive". You have no reason to claim I am civil POV pushing. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I did no such thing. NPA. SPECIFICO talk 03:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: you cited WP:Civil POV pushing to explain my conduct. You did imply I was civil POV pushing. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, where did User:SPECIFICO do that? I can't find that anyone did that. Please provide the diff. -- Valjean (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: SPECIFCICO cites WP:SEALION (same as WP:Civil POV pushing) right above and says what I'm doing is disruptive. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for the clarification. I agree with SPECIFICO's point about "raise the same points again". -- Valjean (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You also aren't in a fair position to decide all his points were "rebutted" and all counterpoints were "generously contributed". You're on your own side here, again. By my biased reading, our points are generally better. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Rebut≠Refute. Yes the were rebutted each time he repeated them. SPECIFICO talk 03:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Were any good ones refuted, from your perspective? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

"or "nationalist" to describe Trump" Hmmm, you do realize that ultranationalism is a main element of both fascism and the far right, correct? The main article describes it as a combination of xenophobia, support for authoritarianism, tendency towards totalitarianism, and the rallying of an "amorphous" political movement behind a charismatic leader. Dimadick (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

That (and all the other descriptions you mention) is also a good description. -- Valjean (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a perennial conversation. The purpose of categories is to allow readers to navigate to articles about their areas of interest, it is not to name and shame politicians from the other party. Certainly Trump has appealed to the far right and promoted conspiracy theories. That's politics. Each side in a two-party system tries to appeal to everyone from the center to the extreme left or right. It's called motivating the base. In reality, few if any concessions are ever made to the extremes of either party. TFD (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's what I'm dropping the mic on (for this rehash). Barack Obama is a comic book character, and anyone who can read basic English knows it. But his article doesn't call him that, in any form. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

From the guideline Wikipedia:Categorization, section Categorizing pages, subsection Articles, second paragraph, "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories."

So far it's the contentious opinion of some editors that Trump belongs in the categories American conspiracy theorists and Far-right politicians in the United States. These conclusions are based on the synthesis of reliable sources and the analysis of some Wikipedia editors. So far, it looks like no reliable source has been presented here that explicitly says that Trump is a conspiracy theorist or a far-right politician. If I missed it, please feel free to correct me with an excerpt from such a source and link. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Then you haven't been paying attention, as I provided a few links above for the conspiracy theory angle. Here is a search you can peruse, where many RS label him (and it makes no difference if some are opinions that should be attributed):

1. trump "Conspiracy Theorist in Chief" 49,500 results

Valjean (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Bob. Enough. That is ridiculous. Read the article and review this talk thread. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Valjean, Did you find anything for "far-right politician"? Bob K31416 (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not a pertinent or relevant question. That sources associate him with the far-right movement is sufficient. Zaathras (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

See my above message of 20:37, 8 March. Bob K31416 (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Status of discussion:

Re category American conspiracy theorists — So far at least one reliable source has been presented that explicitly says that Trump is a conspiracy theorist, "President Donald Trump has been a conspiracy theorist for years."[11]

Re category Far-right politicians in the United States — So far no reliable source has been presented that explicitly says that Trump is a far-right politician.

Bob K31416 (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't be disingenuous. I presented three of many RS which call him "Conspiracy Theorist in Chief."[12][13][14] Also note that the one source you mention is from a fact-check, and they carry more weight than other RS as they are similar to review and metanalyses sources in medical literature. They base their conclusions on many other RS. I also provided you with a search: trump "Conspiracy Theorist in Chief" 49,500 results. There are more RS which use that description.

You also continue to insist on a straw man. There is no requirement that RS have to use the exact words Trump "is a far-right politician". Stop repeating that BS requirement. They just have to describe him as supporting and defending far-right causes and groups, and being supported by them. We have those sources in the article. The same goes for conspiracy theorist. He creates them and pushes them. That's enough, and we have those sources in this article and another article devoted just to that subject. -- Valjean (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Re the category American conspiracy theorists, I essentially wrote that my request for an excerpt from an RS and link was satisfied. That wasn't the case for the other category Far-right politicians in the United States, where no reliable source has been presented that explicitly says that Trump is a far-right politician. If you can find an RS that explicitly uses words to that effect, that would be OK. For example, if the source said, "Trump's political agenda is far-right." Bob K31416 (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

So Bob, would you approve fascist as a category? SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The RS requirement for the category American conspiracy theorists is a necessary condition, to answer the point I think you're trying to make. In other words, not having an RS would eliminate the possibility of using the category. Such appears to be the case for the category Far-right politicians in the United States. Bob K31416 (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source for the claim made. Per WP:NEWSSORG, analysis in newspapers is not rs and of course David Dale is not an expert on conspiracism. (He has a bachelor's degree in business admin, just like Donald Trump.) Also, Trump's notability does not derive from promoting conspiracy theories. Furthermore, one rs does not establish weight. Both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had criminal convictions for impaired driving, but that doesn't mean we put them in the category of American criminals.

The same applies to calling Trump far right or per previous discussions saying that he had another psychological disorder.

TFD (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Fortunately, the conspiracy theorist category is longstanding consensus and since there's no consensus here to remove it, I suggest we not respond to every repetition of specious arguments to remove it. In my experience this category and related text is always vigorously opposed on articles about conspiracy theorists, even long after consensus is clear. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no "longstanding" consensus for that category. I dug around in the archives and found some discussions about this but they were about as conclusive as this one. Just because it's been there a long time doesn't mean there's a consensus. There's never been an RfC on this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Lol, the LA Times and CNN are more than sufficient. There's nothing else to discuss here, the categories are staying. Zaathras (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree with SPECIFICO and Zaathras. TFD, it's Daniel Dale (Toronto Star and now CNN), and he's an expert on fact-checking, on a par with Glenn Kessler (WaPo). The sources are eminently reliable, and there are plenty more. Seriously, have you been hacked? That type of response from you is uncharacteristic, showing a lack of knowledge of how Wikipedia works. I'm very serious. This is weird. -- Valjean (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

You've seen to have a hard time finding these sources. So far you got 1 that call him a conspiracy theorist. Opinion pieces should not be used because they are opinion, and are not best used for statements of fact (WP:RSOPINION). Even if we did include your sources that need attribution, you still only got 3. Also, "google pings" are not a reliable source. Check out the 803,000 google pings for "Barack Obama is an evil dictator who's superman" [15]Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Trump's notability does not derive from promoting conspiracy theories. That's not entirely correct. SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course it's entirely correct. If he had not been a businessman, socialite or at least a wealthy heir, did not have a show and never run for president, he would be indistinguishable from millions of other Americans.

TFD (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

You may not be familiar with his public profile, but those who knew of him 40-50 yrs ago commonly understood that it was, yes, based on tabloid-fodder conspiracy theories. And that was in addition to the early-days lies that are more widely known. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Being written up in tabloids does not make one notable as defined by Wikipedia since they are not reliable sources. Furthermore, the tabloids wrote about him because he was notable. And despite your comments, Dale does not mention any conspiracy theories that Trump promoted 40 or 50 years ago and I doubt the tabloids did either. Can you remember anything? Bear in mind, Trump was a Democrat at the time, so not likely a conspiracy theorist. TFD (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Tabloid is a page format, not a WP proscription. In Trump's early notability, there were at least 4 RS tabloids in New York. Rather than tutor you in Trump's origin story, I'll just refer you to our WP page on the Central Park jogger case, where you can find at least A dozen mentions of Trump and plenty of nice sources. Our Trump conspiracy theory list page has already been recommended. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see what conspiracy theory can be attributed to Trump "40-50 yrs ago" for a case that took place less than 33 years ago. People actually knew who he was before he placed the ad in the paper calling for the death penalty.

The general view at the time was that the boys were guilty, the esteemed long serving Manhattan DA, Robert Morgenthau Jr., approved the prosections and the boys were found guilty or plead guilty. It's not a conspiracy theory to believe they were guilty when they were arrested.

Just as importantly, no one called the official version a conspiracy theory.

Out of curiosity, can you name those reliable four reliable tabloids published in the 1980s? I can only think of the New York Post, but it is banned on Wikipedia, IIRC.

TFD (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course I can. Bob Morgenthau was not particularly long serving in 1989. SPECIFICO talk 02:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you please name them then. And why did you mention that they were tabloids in the first place? Morgenthau had been then DA for 14 years. And of course he had been federal DA for most of the 60s. My point is that rational people would have had confidence in his judgement. And supporting the death penalty doesn't make one a conspiracist either. If it did, you'd have a lot of bios of Democratic and Republican politicians to change. TFD (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I'm having a hard time understanding the quibbling over "conspiracy theorist" when we have an article List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. Birtherism was the start of his current political brand ([16], [17], etc). I think it pedantic to argue if he's theorist or not because he peddles and promotes them but doesn't create them... they seem to be part of the same thing to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem lies within your last clause, ...they seem to be part of the same thing to me. What we think makes someone a conspiracy theorist is not relevant, all that's relevant is if RS is labeling him that. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

There really isn't a valid quibble, given the an abundance of reliable sources that tie the subject to his conspiracy theories, and the list article mentioned. The discussion is essentially over. ValarianB (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

He actually does create them. -- Valjean (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Since we have valid sources, I think the thrust of this long thread is that we simply need to prevent any ambiguity or misunderstanding by adding appropriate article text that uses the term "conspiracy theorist". "Promotes conspiracy theories" is a bit euphemistic, and if even some editors are misunderstanding it, then we should make it clearer for our readers. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

If you would like to violate the neutral point of view of the article by mischaracterizing RS, go ahead and label him a conspiracy theorist. It violates so many wiki policies. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course I know who Daniel Dale is back from when I created the Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal about a story that Dale broke. He is a news reporter, not a professor with a PHD who teaches courses and has written articles and books about conspiracism. Note the wording of the policy: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." He doesn't meet the definition of subject matter expert. If he did, then so would all analysis in news media.

You will notice that textbooks tend to cite experts also. We don't see things like the history of Rome, the chemical composition of proteins, or the size of the universe sourced to articles by newspaper reporters.

This may be an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If we don't know that conspiracism is a subject of academic study or what exactly is a conspiracy theory, then we might see it as something straightforword that non-experts can reliably determine. But the danger here is that Dale is probably using the term in a layman's sense, which may not meet all the criteria. For example, conspiracy theories blame an all powerful, all knowing and totally evil cabal controlling the world and manipulating events. Just saying that your opponents cheated or are corrupt, even without evidence, does not meet the criteria. OTOH, some of what Dale mentions do seem like they do meet the criteria. That's where we could be helped by using expert sources. TFD (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of "conspiracy theorist" category. I don't understand how this one is even up for debate, when we have a section of the article devoted to that and also List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. Oppose inclusion of "far-right" category. Many of his supporters are far-right, that doesn't necessarily make him far-right. We would need several reliable secondary sources explicitly stating that Trump is far-right in order to consider inclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of "conspiracy theorist" category. I don’t see the point of the categories—never asked myself what categories a subject was listed in and who else was in that category. But we have them, and if anyone has earned the label conspiracy theorist, it’s Trump. Why are we even arguing about this? The lead says that Trump made many false and misleading statements ... and promoted conspiracy theories. There is a paragraph in Donald Trump#Investigations of Russian election interference about the debunked theory that Ukraine instead of Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and there is an entire section, Donald Trump#Promotion of conspiracy theories, on various other conspiracy theories he promoted. RS also usually don’t label Trump an "adulterer" although there was plenty of reporting on his adulteries. I have to take another look at "far-right politician". I took a look at the people listed in that category, and I don't see that much difference between Trump and Hawley, Moore, or Witzke, to name a few. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support both Inclusion of conspracy theorist is settled. I think far-right is less well-defined in ordinary use and less directly used in this article. On the other hand, the opposition to "far-right" on this talk page seems to rely on arguments analogous the reasonable argument that not everyone who says "eat your vegetables" can be categorized as a vegetarian. That would be fallacious, but too bad that is not why this page categorizes him as a far-right politician. Trump's statements, actions, and associations are inseparable from his courting of the far-right base, as described on this and many other WP pages. I am generally wary of categorizing BLPs in their bio pages, but this is a WP category and not a descriptive statement, and it seems well enough supported. At any rate I have yet to see a cogent, well-supported argument in opposition. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I thought we were trying to shorten the length of this BLP? GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Relevance to this discussion,? If you mean the length of the category text, let's start with TV Producers from Queens, WWE Hall of Famers, American Christians...any others? SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This BLP's category section must be one of the most bloated on the project. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and it makes sense. There is one thing that Trump is indeed the best at doing, and that is self-promotion. He has succeeded at associating his name, actions, and controversies with just about every conceivable topic, and that is reflected in the number of categories, sub-articles, and size of this article. Someone has to do it, and he gladly does. That's one explanation. -- Valjean (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I just took a look at the two categories "Television producers from Queens, New York" and "Television personalities from Queens, New York", both started on January 1, 2022, both containing one name. Guess which one? That's two categories we can get rid of. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Now you're talking, do it to it! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a minimum number of articles for the creation of a category, maybe 3-4? The whole purpose of categories is to find other related articles, so one entry makes no sense (other than promotion). -- Valjean (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree that these small categories should not exist, since they lack purpose. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

This seems to deal with the issue: Wikipedia:Overcategorization. -- Valjean (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• With mixed opinions is an RfC needed here? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Since people can't seem to drop the stick over what should be a a foregone conclusion, probably. ValarianB (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, no. That would be weaponizing RfC to BLUDGEON the talk page when there's plenty of article improvement work to be done and limited, increasingly scarce editor time and attention. We should not use RfCs that way. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Specifico, Then you should spend more of your time contributing content to the article, instead of being one of the most active editors here on the talk page involved in messages like your above one. If there's an RFC then just make your comment and go back to editing the article. From what I've seen, any edit to the article that you don't like will get reverted if it hasn't gotten consensus in an RFC. So with that in mind, why make it harder on yourself than you have to. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Some editor support the conspiracy theorist category, some don't. Some support the far-right politician category, some don't. There's some who think one is ok, but not the other. That what RfC's are for, when there is no clear consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You might consider having an RFC for the category American conspiracy theorists and a separate RFC for the category Far-right politicians in the United States. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, if you are very concerned about who and what is a conspiracy theory according to our category list, you might consider reviewing the article pages for each name on the Conspiracy Theorist list and see how the category fits with the article text and the language used in the aritcle page. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, my main interest is with the category "Far-right politicians in the United States". Without an RS that says that Trump is a far-right politician, or words to that effect, you really don't have a case for that category so you go back to trying to argue about the conspiracy theorist category. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: We could do separate ones, but imo it would be less burdensome to just have one that asks both questions. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The case against the far-right politician category seems to be better than the one against the conspiracy theorist category, so some editors will try to make it look like any weakness in the case against the conspiracy theorist category is transferable to the case against the far-right politician category, or maybe vice versa if the situation as I see it changes. But do what you feel like. I may just watch in any case. I'm kinda losing interest in having to address fallacious arguments. However, it would be interesting if just once the outcome came out correct, in spite of the rigged conditions. Bob K31416 (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I see your point. Also loaded questions in an RfC could be bad for the consensus making process. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)"

Get rid of both categories-in-question & few more. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Following up on "far-right category" with sources saying that Trump uses far-right discourse, ideas, rhetoric, and that he took them mainstream. That supports the far-right category. Sources: Gale—borrowing significantly and consistently from far and extreme-right discourse and ideas; WaPo Perspective—While Donald Trump’s presidency was the fillip [one of the two great political parties in the United States has been transformed top to bottom into a vehicle for far-right extremism], this fundamental change is the culmination of three decades of dynamic interaction among white supremacists, far-right organizations and populists within the Republican Party.; Brookings—In contrast [to presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush], President Trump often uses the rhetoric of the far right, supports or at least condones its anti-government protests, and has called on it to protect him in response to imaginary threats. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• And it is widely observed that Trump and his allies routinely issue "clarifications" or other denials in order to confuse any discussion of his rhetoric and positions. What puzzles me is why his supporters try to hide or blur the appeals he makes to his far-right supporters. What's the problem with openly appealing to ones far-right supporters? Why does it need to be dulled with equivocation, denials, and claims of sarcasm some unique never-before-seen sense of humor? SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Without an RFC, I don't see the point of the above 3 messages here. I suggest waiting for an RFC. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support both categories. I don't see how we can say that the categories are inappropriate when they are just acknowledging what is contained in the article. The article already describes at great length how Trump has promoted conspiracy theories and supported far-right movements. As long as the article stays the way it is currently written, it would be impossible to justify the removal of either category. Worldlywise (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  A reliable source is needed that says Trump is a far-right politician. Wikipedia OR and synth does not cut it. Here's an example of Trump condemning far-right groups, "Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."[18] I think you've been conned by the way this Wikipedia article has been constructed. The info in the above quote is not in the article. Instead there is, "Trump helped bring far-right fringe ideas, beliefs, and organizations into the mainstream,[193] pandered to white supremacists,[194] retweeted racist Twitter accounts,[195] and repeatedly refused to condemn David Duke, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) or white supremacists." Bob K31416 (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Bob K31416: please stop bludgeoning this discussion. Not every comment needs a response, and your argument is not made stronger by doing so. ––FormalDude talk 01:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Of course that quote makes it stronger! What kind of "far-right politician" publicly condemns the KKK, neo-Nazis and white supremacists? A fictional one, I'm convinced. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• IMO this discussion is not in a closable state. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, let 'em close it and move on. I think it's just delaying the inevitable. I don't see any chance of improving this article. Maybe leaving this article as an example of what can go wrong in Wikipedia might have an effect. I can imagine someone looking at this article and thinking that it's basically an attack ad against Trump and shove it aside. Bob K31416 (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I really hate it when well-sourced RS’s with numerous acts end up making a guy I like look bad. It really sucks for my worldview. Tyrone (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Has anything like that ever actually happened to you, though? If so, I bet you considered those acts for what they were, some haters' implications. If not, I bet you would. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Introduction appears largely unsourced

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.

---

Why is the introduction to this article almost completely devoid of source references? Forgive me for bringing this up if there is some valid reason for this that I should have been aware of but: It's rather jarring to see an article about someone so widely known, start with something that breaks Wikipedia's conventions so conspicuously. 2A02:A443:AF4E:1:7534:8623:996F:EE1B (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Becasue (per wp:lede) it should only contain content that is in the body, and thus sourced there. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Per WP:LEAD it's good practice to avoid citations in the lead as long as it's sourced later on in the article. — Czello 12:12, 19 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2022

I want to edit this page because I am an unbiased person that won't incorporate political views into their edits. AdogTheBeast (talk) 17:41, 24 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed

"Policies have been described as..." By whom? The summarized opinion of the author?

Also if buzzwords such as "racist" and "misogynistic" are going to be used, despite the subject of the article clearly begging to differ - a varied and critically thinking audience needs to see some hyperlinked numbers right there. 2001:5B0:2D07:4278:D5B5:39C:472B:16F8 (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Happy browsing [19] SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Right where? That's not a quote from the article. The cites for "racially charged or racist" and "mysogynistic" are here and here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2022

Add section on Abraham Accords 67.185.226.50 (talk)

Not Done. This has been discussed before, and the consensus is to not mention the Abraham Accords. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Fork article

Anyone notice this fork Donald Trump's foreign policy on Russia....should this not be redirected to Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration.?Moxy- 02:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not the worst idea for an article split, but it needs to be a bit more thought out. Now a redirect. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2022

some grammar changes that needs to be done. Xxirev.gyl (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to say what they are. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 28 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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 a highly lazily crafted sentence, and has no place in this article. Given the presidency is just a year over as well, it is unfathomable to be able to make that claim. The bias on this page, especially the opening paragraphs, is downright scary to witness. Brakeformoose (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Sourced and accurate, I'm afraid. This is a perennial whinge. Move on. ValarianB (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

ValarianB, this has absolutely no place in introductory paragraphs. Lack of substance is startling. If it is in fact a recurring complaint, perhaps reconsider your role in publishing biased content. Brakeformoose (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Asked and answered. ValarianB (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Great, let somebody else handle this inquiry. Thank you. Brakeformoose (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, much as I agree it is too early to judge (though I suspect it is a fair assessment) consensus over multiple threads has said "include". We (therefore) can't keep having this saem discusion every month (see wp:tenditious), and thus it needs to be dropped. Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Considering that Trump was the only president to be impeached twice and was the only president within the history of polling to never have an approval rating of 50% or higher, I would say that it would be quite easy to fathom how that claim would be made. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This rating information is in the article, by repeated consensus, because it is in the article of every past president. The "one of the worst" conclusion is not "because Trump was impeached twice" or "because his approval rating was low" or any particular action of his. It is not based on public opinion or polling or anything of that sort. It is based on a highly respected scholarly survey, which is taken only when a particular presidency is over and the president is out of office. Every time it is taken, it uses the exact same ten criteria by which the respondents are to evaluate (rank) every past president. In other words, this is based on a Reliable Source on a subject that would otherwise be pure opinion. BTW Trump was not rated last; he was rated fourth from last. You can read all about it here. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 6 April 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 was hospitalized

Edit	Summary
edit	→‎Health: Trump was hospitalized
revert	→‎Health: Overlinking. It's a link (via a redirect and another redirect, if I'm not mistaken) to a subsection in White House COVID-19 outbreak. This article already has a link to that page in the Donald Trump#Outbreak at the White House section
unrevert	Undid revision 1079406715 by User:Space4Time3Continuum2x (1) A link to R with possibilities is not considered a duplicate (2) if they were duplicates then delete the link that is later in the article, not later in the edit history (3) link is via a redirect and a pipelink, not "a redirect and another redirect"
rerevert	Undid revision 1079420463 by Jnestorius Please take to Talk page. See 24-hour BRD cycle

So, any substantive responses to (1) (2) (3)? jnestorius^(talk) 15:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

There was really no useful purpose in you creating "Donald Trump's COVID-19 infection" as a standalone article, if that is what you're asking about. Zaathras (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering what they are asking too. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear, it seems I was too cryptic. Here is the substance of my debate with Space4Time3Continuum2x, which is about adding one wikilink to the article.

Trump's contracting COVID-19 is mentioned in two sections of the article, namely section 1.4 [Personal life > Health] and section 5.10.7 [(Presidency (2017–2021) > COVID-19 pandemic > Outbreak at the White House]. Section 1.4 does not wikilink to anything in that regard. Section 5.10.7 has two relevant wikilinks, both hatnotes: {{Main}} to White House COVID-19 outbreak and {{Further}} back to section 1.4. I believe it is beneficial to readers to add a link in section 1.4 to Donald Trump's COVID-19 infection. Space4Time3Continuum2x objects that this creates two links to the same article, whereas there should only be one. The relevant objections I made in my edit summary are

1. A link to R with possibilities is not considered a duplicate The section 1.4 link focuses on the effect on Trump's health; the section 5.10.7 link focuses on the political fallout of the whole outbreak
2. if they were duplicates then delete the link that is later in the article, not later in the edit history. A reader who has reached section 1.4 may not have scanned the Table of Contents closely enough to be sure that further information will be available once they reach section 5.10.7; giving them a direct link now will conform much better with what the reader expects

   To these I might now take the opportunity to add

3. MOS:LINKONCE is not absolute; it says a link "may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead". I think in this case it is helpful for readers, even though it does not fall into the cases enumerated after "such as".
4. the fact that the same incident is mentioned in two different parts of the article is not ideal, but may well be unavoidable; repeating the wikilink is a consequence of that repeating. WP:SUMMARY trumps MOS:LINKONCE.
5. if there are too many links, I would delete {{Further}} Donald Trump#Health from section 5.10.7; it adds no information beyond that {{Main}} White House COVID-19 outbreak

As regards creating "Donald Trump's COVID-19 infection", I did not create as "standalone article"; I created a redirect to an article section. There are at least two purposes for this:

1. {{R with possibilities}} Some day Donald Trump's COVID-19 infection may be refactored out of White House COVID-19 outbreak; e.g. if the section gets disproportionately long, or the whole article gets too long, or it is rewritten in a style less of a breaking-news timeline
2. linking via the redirect ensures that linking to the section will not break if the section header text is changed from "Presidential hospitalization and early release" to something else.

jnestorius^(talk) 23:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I objected to your edit because it added a third link to a half-sentence ("Trump was hospitalized at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center with COVID-19 on October 2, 2020, reportedly due to labored breathing and a fever") with a single word between them. Initially the material about Trump's COVID-19 treatment was in the Donald_Trump#COVID-19_pandemic section but people kept adding it to the "Health and lifestyle" section, as it was called back then. But that section wasn't about Trump's health, it was about his claims (never drank alcohol, never smoked) and weird notions (battery depletion), his doctor's "healthiest president ever" letter, and Trump not releasing the usual reports on the yearly medical check ups during the presidency. I just changed the heading of the "Health" section to "Health habits" and moved the COVID-19 paragraph back into the "Outbreak" section. Seems more relevant for the Trump presidency than for the man's life story. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"Trump was hospitalized with COVID-19 on October 2, 2020, reportedly due to labored breathing and a fever" would have only one link. Regardless, let's see if "Health habits" sticks. jnestorius^(talk) 10:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I added the link to the section but I doubt it's necessary with the "main article" link right above it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations

As mentioned before, the lead of this article does not contain citations. To check whether this is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, I looked at the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Specifically, I looked at the section about citations in the lead [20]. From that guideline, it appears that the lead for this article should contain citations. As an example of that guideline section, here's the first paragraph.

"The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead."

Bob K31416 (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Reply and explanation

Moxy- 15:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The above message by Moxy is a verbatim copy of a section from a page in Wikipedia that is neither a policy or guideline. It is not useful in the case of this article, as can be seen by reading the guideline excerpt in my opening message. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing in the lead of this article that could reasonably be claimed contrary to the weight of RS references. If you think you have spotted anything like that, bring it up. But the current lead -- crafted by scores of editors over many years -- is an NPOV summary of the well-sourced article text. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The guideline refers to items that are "challenged or likely to be challenged". Your point is irrelevant. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I said there is nothing that could reasonably be challenged. SPECIFICO talk 19:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The guideline says "challenged or likely to be challenged". Your point is still irrelevant. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There have been challenges on this talk page to items in the lead. For example, the last sentence of the lead, "Scholars and historians ...". I don't intend to rehash those discussions. To be in compliance with the guideline, a citation will have to be added to that sentence. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Bob, you just said that the quote is irrelevant because it's not a guideline. So let's all agree to move on. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Specifico's message is apparently deliberate obfuscation. See my above opening message of 14:59, 22 March. This article's lead does not comply with the Wikipedia guideline referred to in my opening message and in the title of the talk section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations that I started here. As I quoted before from that guideline, "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead."[21] And that's about all I have to say. Bob K31416 (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It does not seem worthwhile to carpetbomb the lead with citations just to mollify a disgruntled user or two. Bob, you're inching close to WP:POINT disruption here. Zaathras (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The only concern I have with the citations is that it would expand the size of the article, which is something we've been trying to counter for a good while now. Most of the content can not be reasonably challenged because the majority of all the content in the lead has gone through vigorous discussion and much of it is settled consensus at this point. So challenging is not "likely," per se. However, seeing a few citations for the most contentious stuff (racial views, conspiracy theory promotion, etc.) wouldn't make me lose sleep. It could give the reader a sense that this is not just complete bullshit written up by editors, but I think this is a relatively minor issue and has been brought up probably too many times. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Bold edit

I've made an edit to the lede that adds references (which already exist in the body) to the following sentences:

1. Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies. [1]
2. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, [2]
3. and many as misogynistic [3]
4. Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. [4]

These four are some of the most "reasonably challenged" statements from what I've seen in terms of editor consensus and how often it is brought up on the talk page. I am leaning towards the view that adding a few citations for the most contentious content is pretty reasonable and possibly even preferable. ––FormalDude talk 05:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

At one point or another, someone complained—and we had pretty lengthy discussions—about pretty much everything in the lead. Quoting Zaathras, [i]t does not seem worthwhile to carpetbomb the lead with citations just to mollify a disgruntled user or two. These four would just open the floodgates. I don't actually remember a complaint about the 4,000 legal actions and six bankruptcies; how did that make your list of most reasonably challenged? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

1 is a factual statement of numbers. 4 is a fact about a stated opinion. I could see some wiggle room in adding cites for 2 and 3. For comparison btw, Barack Obama has 7 citations, and Joe Biden has none. ValarianB (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

How about adding "no citations in the lead" to the "Current consensus"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the desire to want zero citations in the lede. ––FormalDude talk 15:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Because the article is the citation for the lead. It's a summary/abstract. It basically says "Here's the basics. Want more? Read on." Having citations in the lead seems as ridiculous as having a footnote on the cover of a book. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, because it is a summary/abstract, there are several cites for most sentences. For your first sentence, for example, you selected this Philly magazine article. It's a good source for the Atlantic City bankruptcies but it doesn't mention the 4000+ lawsuits, so then somebody will complain about that. (Or maybe not because how many readers even read the cites?) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I just took a look at the articles on presidents Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama. Bush's lead is without cites (his presidency was hardly uncontroversial), Clinton's had one (a recent addition of an unreliable source + what appeared to be op-ed editing), and Obama's had some cites for stuff that isn't controversial (two of them were cited after the wrong sentence in the lead). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• I completely support FormalDude's edit. Having citations for the most contentious stuff is a worthy compromise, and is probably most consistent with guideline. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought the goal was to shorten the length of this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The edit only adds 103 bytes. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

"Russian propaganda" and others

There are a lot of statements in the lead that either aren't found in the body, or are phrased differently enough that I can't find them. One example is the statement that he has "repeatedly ... promoted Russian propaganda" - the word 'propaganda' only appears once in this article, in the lead, and so it's unclear what this is referring to. A cite would be extremely helpful to let the reader know exactly what the basis of the claim is and what the Russian propaganda was that Trump boosted. It would also be good to use the word "propaganda" again in the body so that you can ctrl-F and find it.

Another example would be the statement that there was "no progress on denuclearization" with North Korea. The body says that no denuclearization agreement was reached, but that sanctions were lifted, missile tests ceased, and Trump was the first president welcomed onto NK soil. It would be helpful to have a cite that said 'no progress' since the body sounds a lot like faltering and potentially futile forms of progress and detente rather than 'no progress'. We could also just say "little progress" or "limited progress" in the lead if that is more accurate.

In general I think that for an article topic as partisan and controversial as this, it's extremely helpful to have cites in the lead for statements that are entirely factually correct but might be perceived as partisan to some readers. And it gets potentially disastrous when the statement in the lead is hard to find in the body (e.g. the word "propaganda" only appearing in the lead). TocMan (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia. I've removed today's addition of (Trump repeatedly praised Vladimir Putin and promoted Russian propaganda) for discussion. We do need to add this to the body first, and I'm not so sure about the promotion of Russian propaganda during the presidency. North Korea. The body does not say that no denuclearization agreement was reached, but. It says they met, Trump lifted some sanctions, however, no denuclearization deal was reached, talks broke down, NK continued to build up arsenal. That's what the lead says—lots of hoopla, no progress. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

"Divert funding"

In the article beginning it says "diverted funding towards building a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border." Divert from what? Either it should say what (the article body doesn't actually say) or just say "began building." It doesn't make sense without more context 2600:1700:1154:3500:CCF:E63B:4DC2:F92 (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It was diverted mostly from military funding. Even the $2.5 billion the article describes as for "anti-drug programs" was military funding taken from the Department of Defense's budget for anti drug smuggling efforts. I agree both that the body of the article should explain this better, and that the lead should either say what it was diverted from or not use the word "diverted" at all, as it reads almost like a kind of news-style omission of info that teases people into reading further (see MOS:DONTTEASE). Endwise (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

If we wish to have a discussion on text changes, that is fine, but the edit request template is meant for specifically-actionable "change ABC to XYZ" requests. And this isn't that. ValarianB (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Historians rank Trump (Consensus item 54.): More ideology than information

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.

---

"Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.": This more or less suggests that, in general, ALL historians rate Trump exclusively poorly. Of course that is not sustainable. The link in this sentence ("rank Trump") is not enough to get the context of the statement, many readers just read the sentence itself. The sentence should be changed to: "Many historians...", "A majority of historians..." etc.

Overall, this sentence seems more ideological than informative. Furthermore, if unchanged as mentioned above, it is too controversial and should not close the first section of the article without classification. The last sentence of an introduction is of paramount importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torsten Birner (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

You can start the ball rolling by providing links to the most distinguished historians who have said they rank him more highly. Bear in mind that "one of the worst" is not "the very worst". SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

An example of a much more positive assessment by an important historian comes from Victor Davis Hanson. He calls him a "tragic hero". His biography of Trump was published in 2019, but I am not aware that subsequent events have made him recant his views. Sources: 1) Interview (https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-classicist-who-sees-donald-trump-as-a-tragic-hero); 2) Book (The Case for Trump, 2019, ISBN-13: 9781541673533)

In addition, I would like to note that there are certainly distinguished historians who credit him with successes in the Israel conflict. I can get sources here if you want. Torsten Birner (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any ideology in the statement that Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. Their entire purpose is impartiality. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any ideology in the statement. His term in office was an unmitigated disaster, the economy suffered and unemployment was high. Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms points out that in 2021 there were about 3 million less jobs in the United States that at the end of Obama's term in 2017. Dimadick (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I am convinced that economic success alone should not determine the success of a presidency. In addition, unemployment figures are subject to cycles that can only be influenced to a limited extent by a government. Torsten Birner (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

We use impartial historians specifically because it's not up to us to determine what makes a successful or unsuccessful presidency. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It does not matter what we think (see wp:or), what matters is what RS think. Also if someone says "He did this good thing" that is not the same as saying "overall he was good". Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned it before & I'll mention it again. Wait ten years or at least four years, after the end of his administration, before we start putting in the scholars & historians opinions. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Be it as it may, there was consensus to add this text. Citing an extremist lone dog Hoover Institution author does not negate the content that was added after labored discussion here. Hanson's opinions are not even to be considered noteworthy. Moreover, a lot happened between 2019 and the end of Trump's term. Many at the Hoover Institution condemned Trump during that time. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Calling Trump a tragic hero is saying he was a poor president. Tragic heroes are great people who fail because of a fatal flaw that prevents them from achieving their goal. While a lot of rankings may be politically motivated, one flaw stands out. Trump's lack of government experience, or knowledge of how it worked, and management skills that did not translate to running the U.S. government meant that he was unable to get much done and then lost the midterms and re-election. Of course his incompetence might have saved him from being rated even lower. I suppose we might find out it he comes back. TFD (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I have to disagree to these 2 replys. The initial question related to whether the sentence (item 54) adequately reflects the opinion of the historians. However, taking Hanson's article/book cited as a basis and considering them as a whole, it seems utterly absurd that Hanson would call Trump one of the worst presidents, even though he calls him a tragic hero. So the sentence in question reflects reality only insufficiently, as it massively suggests that there is a UNIVERSAL consensus among historians regarding an exclusively negative rating - although Hanson is also a respectable historian and apparently has a different opinion. (As noted above, he has never publicly revised his opinions even after 2019, so it's safe to assume he still stands by them...) Torsten Birner (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

True, maybe we need to add "most"? Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Tragic heroes are "flawed individuals who commit, without evil intent, great wrongs or injuries that ultimately lead to their misfortune." How is that inconsistent with calling Trump one of the worst presidents? Sure it is more sympathetic than historians who say Trump presidency was a failure because he was evil. Your defense is that he was only partly evil and we can attribute part of his failure to stubbornness and incompetence. But at the end of the day, the results were the same. TFD (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

As always Wikipedia getting political. This is ridicolous. You should have just informative facts. Not general unclear voluntarily vague judgments on the person. Jozekk97 (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

We do have facts. Your feelings about the facts aren't relevant. Zaathras (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This is settled consensus. Leave it as it is. I don't think a qualifying word like "Most" is really needed considering broader consensus we see with other presidential articles, which don't have qualifying words. This is a re-hash conversation; a procedural close may be needed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

"Washington has been memorialized by monuments, a federal holiday, various media depictions, geographical locations, including the national capital, the State of Washington, stamps, and currency, and MANY scholars and ordinary Americans alike rank him among the greatest U.S. presidents." Here we have a very broad consensus in the C-SPAN poll AND a quantifier like "many". Torsten Birner (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

You are right that is one example supporting a qualification. I looked at Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan. I will note that George H. W. Bush has a qualification. The practice is somewhat sporadic, but it appears as though most modern presidents articles refrain from using a qualification. Again, this exact discussion has already happened in a full on RfC. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I want to ask: What concrete, factual, i.e. content-specific, counter-arguments are there against the suggestion, for example, to put the word "most" before the sentence? Or, if "most" were to be rejected: Which content-related arguments would speak against at least writing: "In a 2021 C-SPAN Survey among presidential historians from US universities Trump was ranked as one of the worst presidents in American history." ?

I thought wikipedia was about relevant, objective information. But I see that the sentence I criticized (item 54) contains less of this relevant, objective information than the variants I suggested, because they put the ranking in context. (And to say that Hanson is not relevant seems not objective, from a scientific point of view.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torsten Birner (talk • contribs) 08:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about reliably sourced information presented in a neutral point of view. We don't try to find some ultimate truth. If you are trying to find some way of presenting your personal opinion that the chaos of the Trump administration was viewed favourably by historians, then find a reliable source that says this. Are there no authorative sources that provide a summary or consensus of scholarly views on Trump's term? --Pete (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't need to show that there is a poll of historians who say differently about Trump's presidency than the 2021 one mentioned. Why should I? But anyone who writes a sentence that suggests universal validity such as "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history." must make a change if there is counter-evidence (=Hanson) of his UNIVERSALITY, since the statement no longer corresponds to objective facts or can be represented more objectively by an improved statement.

Counter question: Why are you trying to present your personal opinion (you talk about "chaos") about Trump's presidency here? Torsten Birner (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Colleges and universities are the natural habitat of historians, and Hanson himself is a professor emeritus of Classics. That does not make him such a foremost expert on U.S. presidents that his opinion outweighs that of 142 presidential historians, and quite a few among them are not teaching at colleges and universities. WP:CONS—Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus ... Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hatting off-topic discussion of Hanson's credentials and merits of book. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see it that way, since a great military power, the Roman Empire, plays a central role in the "Classics" and he is also an expert in military history. Trump as a former ruler of a "military superpower" or one of a "liberal hegemon" was of course an interesting field of activity for him in his field of ​​competence. (Which you can also see from the fact that he wrote an extensive biography about him, in a renowned publishing house by the way) Also: It's not that his opinion is MORE important than that of the historians or "outweighs" it as you suggest, it's just, I repeat, that the claimed universality of the questioned sentence is not given here because an ALSO important opinion is NEGLECTED. Torsten Birner (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC) Because Rome was not a democracy, nor is the US (at least officially) an empire. Nor does the US operate a system of Slavery, nor does it have bread and circuses. In fact, there are very few parallels beyond being major world powers. Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC) Rome was never a democracy but, nonetheless, one of the first REPUBLICS of greater importance, at least until Caesar. And everyone knows that there are differences between Rome and Washington, but that doesn't mean that there are not very relevant similarities from a scientific perspective. I would like to name 3 similarities, there are certainly many others that are just as important: economic superpower, multicultural society, military conflicts with politically different smaller societies. Torsten Birner (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC) Please read wp:or and wp:fringe, you really need RS drawing this parallel. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC) No, I don't have to, because it's kind of common sense. Who, please, would deny that the USA is not an economic superpower, that different cultures live here, that there was a war like Iraq, etc.? The same applies to Rome and its border conflicts. Under the assumption that the principles are obviously not disputed, the conclusion of the similarities is also trivial and does not have to be proven separately in a normal discussion (like here at this point). If I wrote a separate Wikipedia article about it it would be different, but here I just wanted to save Hanson from being ignored. Torsten Birner (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC) Yes, yes you do as they are called polcies. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC) The book was published on March 5, 2019, written halfway through the Trump presidency. Did you miss that some of the New Yorker interviewer’s remarks are dripping sarcasm (Right, people hear a story about someone knocking on your door wanting an ob-gyn and they say that is anecdotal), (History buffs, really.)? Here is a sample of book reviews, and I haven't included the most scathing ones ("historian of ancient Greece turned right-wing hack"): The question of how Hanson got from Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece in 1983 to The Case for Trump has been the subject of much guesswork and hand-wringing among the National Review set, ... much of The Case for Trump is less a case for Trump than an indictment of Trump’s adversaries and antagonists (Los Angeles Review of Books); it’s mostly about why Trump won in 2016, and its analysis, based on old polling and news clips, is interminable, marred by some cable-news-style exaggeration (Trump’s election foes are repeatedly characterized as being for “open borders”) and not particularly original. (New York Times book review); his book focuses less on the case for Trump than on the case against everyone else, i.e., Hillary Clinton (WaPo book review). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC) "Hanson sets out calmly, cogently, urgently a corrective to the anti-Trump hysteria."―The Times (UK) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torsten Birner (talk • contribs) 12:51, 18 April 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 15 April 2022 (2)

I would like to edit this wikipedia page to add some extra information about donald trump. ZhongXina21 (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

That is not what this template is for, and the protection level of this article will almost certainly never be lowered. Make a specific request, like "change this to that", and it will be discussed. Zaathras (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2022

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a US politician, media personality, and Nel8718 (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. That's what the lead sentence already says. Cullen328 (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I think they wanted to change "American" to "US". I don't think that's an improvement though. Endwise (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The word American in theory could apply to anything connected to anything in North America, Central America or South America. But in actual usage, it refers to topics associated with the United States of America. Universities in Canada are not called "American" universities. Historical sites in Mexico are never described as "American" sites. The spectacular Patagonian mountain Fitz Roy in Argentina is never described as an "American" mountain. The word "American" in everyday English language usage refers to topics associated with the United States of America, and attempts to change that common meaning of the word are unacceptable pedantry. Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Lack of citations in opening section

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

---

Can we please introduce citations into the opening section? There are many sentences that came off unencylopedic otherwise. --216.24.45.24 (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The lead statements are a summary of sourced statements within the article itself. CUPIDICAE💕 16:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read wp:lede. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion above on this page about that very issue. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

If somebody can't be bothered to read the article and see where all these things are cited, then I really don't care how they think the lead sounds. It is as silly to complain about an "uncited lead" as it is to judge a book by the blurb on the back cover. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with judging books by their cover.

As to the original question: I know it's against the standard formatting, but also this article's opening section is as long as many articles are in their entirety. As a result it does read like an unsourced wikipedia article. Expecting every Wikipedia user to read all 20,000 words is ridiculous.

I'm not saying to add sources to the lead, but the current implementation is far from perfect. 2001:14BA:A302:E646:0:0:0:1 (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There is an RfC about this going on right now, just a few sections up. #RfC: Should the lead section have any citations?. Discuss it there. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:32, 15 April 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.

2019 Proposal to Purchase Greenland

Proposals for the United States to purchase Greenland contains a large amount of content on Donald Trump’s 2019 attempt. Presently, there are no links and zero mention of Greenland on the page. Foreign Policy : Denmark section seems excessive, any ideas where to put this? Twillisjr (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Did this really get much coverage in the press or in recently published books? It was on cable news for a few days, but I'm not sure it has lasting significance. If the point is to show the reader an example of him acting ignorant or arrogant or whatever, it would be better to find tertiary sources that summarize this and similar actions with an overview of his policies or behavior. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The goal is not to add this as some kind of “blunder.” If you read the article you will see that it was a continuation of other formerly ambitious Americans’ goal as well.Twillisjr (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Since the U.S. seriously considered buying Greenland, international law has changed and the days of countries selling countries to other countries has long past. TFD (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This was kind of a one-week wonder, immediately shot down by the other parties, and subjected to a few days of ridicule in the U.S. It is not worth mentioning in this biography. Presumably there is some brief mention of it in Presidency of Donald Trump. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Not worth mentioning per WP:RECENTISM. Probably has a place at Presidency of Donald Trump. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Consensus item 48 | COVID-19 pandemic

I would like to propose that the current sentence:

[Trump] reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging, and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.

to the following sentence:

[Trump's] response to the COVID-19 pandemic was widely criticized, citing ignoring and contradicting many recommendations from health officials in his messaging, as well as promoting misinformation about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.

Source: [22]

I would like to know your thoughts on this change. If you disagree with this change, please state if you think the current wording of the sentence is fine or if it needs more work. Interstellarity (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think your proposal is better than the current one? Also, citing ignoring and contradicting many recommendations—is this a typo? Doesn't make sense. The current sentence is the summary of the COVID-19 section which has multiple sources. Yours is based on Newsweek's interview of one journalist promoting his new book, i.e. one man's opinion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This, or something very similar, was recently considered and not implemented. I see no reason to change the current text, which was very extensively discussed and adjusted among a large group of editors. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Like Space4Time3Continuum2x, I don't understand how this is an improvement over the status quo. Interstellarity, perhaps you could elaborate? Graham (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Graham11: Sure, the reason why I think this is an improvement is because it shows that his response to COVID was unpopular with members of the public rather than basically what he did to mitigate the pandemic. I think somewhere in the lead, we should include how the general public thought about different points of his presidency. Interstellarity (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

That's not supported by the body of the article (or your cited source, for that matter) which details Trump's actions and failures to act. The only subsection of the long COVID-19 pandemic section dealing with the public's reaction is the very last one, Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I support the revised text (with typo fixed). It's not perfect but it's at least an improvement over the current text which reads very non-NPOV and unencyclopedic. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Not an improvement. ValarianB (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not seeing any improvements here. That's not to say I'm opposed to some sort of rephrasing, but this is just not gonna cut it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed sentence has confusing grammar and seems to change the subject, from what Trump actually did to what some people thought about what he did. I'm not sure "widely criticized" is even accurate. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits around neutrality and bias

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’s opening section was plagued with vague, uncontextualized claims as well as critical language around some of the facts. I have reworded these small instances to align more closely with Wikipedia’s policy on neutrality. Eg – claiming that Trump’s COVID response was “slow” is a subjective statement with no real reference point, I have changed this to clarify that his response was criticised as being slow by the media, as this is actually what happened. Also, the section on the Capitol riots was blatantly misleading. Saying “they” and “attacked” is too vague and implies that all those in attendance were involved. I have clarified this to state that a small cohort of demonstrators at the event breached security measures and were arrested, with a hyperlink to the riot page for further information. Understand that this might be sensitive for some but the new wording is objectively much clearer and more neutral than before. Domiy (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Your watering-down attempt was removed. There's really nothing to discuss here. Zaathras (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

My edits were removed citing that the current wording around these things are "by consensus", however I note that the Consensus section of this page (number 48) clearly states "There is no consensus on specific wording". There is also nothing in the Consensus section about the wording around the Capitol riots, so the basis of this revision is completely unfounded.

I am challenging this removal and plan on reinstating the edits. It's not watering down - my edits contain more specific information than the previous version. By contrast, it's watering down to use simplified language without context as the article currently does, such as failing to clarify that Trump denounced the protests or initiated the vaccine rollout even though these things are later mentioned in the body.

Sorry, but none of the grounds of your comments or those of the revision have any logical basis at all. Feel free to add your input but claiming "there is nothing to discuss" is neither productive nor helpful. Domiy (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC) UPDATE - the removal of my edits is also a brech of rule 43 cited in the Consensus section.

The resolution is to follow collaborative editing principles and avoid edit warring, IOW follow WP:BRD. Your BOLD edit was REVERTED, so now stick to DISCUSSION. Do not try to force your preferred version. We always favor the status quo version until a consensus forms to change it, so discuss your way toward that goal. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. I'm happy to open a discussion on these edits (here or elesewhere?) as I believe they are more informative, neutral, and accurate than the current version, which I would like to point out (again) does not currently have a status quo consensus. This is important to note as my wording does not violate any agreed consensus, so it should not be deemed as a challenge to the "status quo".

Happy to hear any objections from other users, however I find attitudes like that of Zaathras extremely unhelpful.

Thanks again Domiy (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Any longstanding content, especially in the lead, is the de facto consensus version. It cannot be changed in any significant way without discussion.

You need to take an individual part of your edit, one that you REALLY care about, and start a separate section where you discuss your proposed improvement. If we all can then develop an improvement, consider your efforts to move things in a better direction to have been worthwhile. This process usually involves compromise. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The bulk of your changes seem to have been taking factual statements and qualifying them with was criticized for... or words to that effect; this is inappropriate per the WP:NPOV requirement that we must avoid stating facts as opinions. If you feel that those statements are contested by high-quality sources, you need to demonstrate that. Also, you changed promoted misinformation about unproven treatments... to publicly discussing unproven treatments; this makes the article less accurate, since the sources largely emphasize that he actively promoted misinformation about those unproven treatments, rather than just discussing them. Also, your addition of However, his administration eventually oversaw the introduction of the US vaccine rollout has numerous problems; first, there's no indication that this aspect is significant (contrary to what you said above it isn't mentioned in the article that I can see via a quick search for mentions of the vaccine - likely because the amount that his administration actually did was minimal and his own personal involvement was largely confined to the earlier points); and second, the "however" phrasing presents it as a rebuttal / retort to the facts above, which is WP:SYNTHy even if you could justify inclusion. The same goes for your inclusion of Trump later advised his supporters to peacefully disperse, which as far as I can see is not in the article and is, again, likely excluded because it is not treated as meaningful by most sources given the larger timeline and context. --Aquillion (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

1. The neutrality policy also says we should not state opinions as facts -- ..an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." This is exactly what my edits sought to achieve. Stating that Trump's response was "slow" offers no reference point - slow compared to which countries? The US still had a comparatively fast rollout on the world scale, and given that this was the first widespread pandemic in almost 100 years, there are no other domestic responses to compare it to.

As for the statement on misinformation around treatments, I'd be happy to concede that for now to focus on other matters, so lets cross that off the list.

2. I would seriously question your assertion that initiating the vaccine rollout isn't a significant point of interest, especially since the opening section already devotes so much space towards discussing (criticizing) his COVID response. There is no question that vaccines were beginning to be administered while Trump was in office - whether you think he personally had a hand in that is another matter of opinion. I'm happy to add a small statement (with citation) somewhere in the body so this point can be reinstated in the opening section. Let me know your thoughts.

No problem with your point about "however". Happy to remove that word and amend the sentence slightly.

3. Do you have any issues with my wording edits on his zero-tolerance border policy? The article currently states that he "introduced" a family separation policy but this is not accurate - family separation occurred under previous presidents, however Trump did "tighten" the rules which led to more detainees.

4. Ditto on the wording around the Capitol riots, any thoughts?

Thanks! Domiy (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The following edits by User:Domiy are pure whitewashing and should not be accepted. 1) replacing “scores” of unsuccessful legal challenges with “multiple”, a vague and weak adjective that gives no indication of the extent of the challenges. 2) “A small cohort of those in attendance”: This language is not supported by any reliable source. 3) adding “a demonstrator fatally shot by police” without mentioning the other deaths and the multiple attacks on police. 4) removing “and obstructing the presidential transition” which is exactly what did happen and which was the intent. 4) adding “Trump later advised his supporters to peacefully disperse” without mentioning that he waited several hours, as multiple people pleaded with him to make it stop, before eventually issuing a weak statement along the lines of “go home, we love you”. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems like your problems with my edits are emotionally charged rather than grounded in any facts. Eg - multiple deaths occurred at the event, but only ONE was directly attributed to the actions of Trump's supporters (the police shooting). In the context of Trump's blame, how exactly is it relevant to use drug overdoses or "natural deaths" that occurred during the riots? You're trying to inflate the death count with completely bogus pseudocounting.

Also, you're trying to qualify or downplay his calls for peaceful dispersion, which is completely a matter of personal opinion. My edits clearly stated that he "later" told demonstrators to go home. It's not your place to comment on his motives or attach conditional context to them. Domiy (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Not a matter of opinion or interpretation. Here are just a few samples of the overwhelming evidence 1) that his “go home” statement consisted mostly of praising and sympathizing with the rioters and repeating his claims about a stolen election, and 2) that members of Congress and others had been urging him for hours to forcefully condemn the rioting.[23] [24] [25] -- MelanieN (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

So your claim is that Trump, a president renowned for not listening the advice of experts and colleagues (as the article makes perfectly clear), suddenly had a change of heart and decided to call off the protesters purely because of the advice of experts and colleagues? I'm sorry, you're just not making sense. And a side note - assuming my race/skin colour and attributing that as the motive behind my edits is completely inappropriate. There's no room on Wikipedia (or in this world) for that sort of stereotyping. Domiy (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

There's no room on Wikipedia for personal attacks. Where did anyone assume anything about you? Our editing is based on reliable sources, and presenting material with a neutral point of view does not mean that negative information must be whitewashed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Domiy, where on earth did anyone assume motived based on your race and skin color? This is a rather serious accusation which at the moment appears to have no basis in any users' comment above. If this was a deliberate poison-the-conversation maneuver, there will likely repercussions at the appropriate sanctions noticeboard. ValarianB (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Twice now I have been accused of "whitewashing". Lets not ignore this is a covert dog whistle for racists spouting anti-white stereotypes. Domiy (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Domiy, there was never any "sudden" "change of heart". He was beleaguered for hours by myriad notable people, politicians, and officials from both sides of the aisle, urging him to condemn what was happening and to call off his supporters, and he refused to do anything. Instead, he encouraged and praised them. Footage of his activities during the attack showed him standing in front of the TV watching the violence, smiling, and fist-pumping. He loved the violence. From the first time that rioters broke down barricades at the Capitol at about 1 p.m., there went over four hours before the first hint of a "go home" message. He had used all this time to whip them up and sympathize with them.

At 4:22 p.m. he issued a video message on social media that Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube later took down because it was disinformation. In it, he repeated his claims of electoral fraud, praised his supporters and told them to "go home". At 6:25 p.m., Trump tweeted: "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long" and then issued a call: "Go home with love & in peace." That was the second call to go home, 5 1/2 hours after the first breach. He had plenty of time to stop it and was loath to do so. There was never any real "change of heart", only political expediency. During this time, he was phoning and communicating with others. Trump's January 6 call logs show a seven-hour gap. This was his typical destruction of evidence, as well as him using other people's phones to make calls. Fortunately, recipients of the calls have reported what he said. He was busy scheming and conspiring how to overturn the election, how to overturn the will of the people. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah. The important thing is that Domiy's characterization of Trump's 4:17 video as just "telling them to disperse" does not reflect the context most sources give it. For example, in the Washington Post: Trump’s message was ambiguous. He opened his speech by repeating his lie that the election was rigged. He told his supporters to “go home,” but immediately added: “We love you. You’re very special.” During the videotaping, Trump did not stick to the script his speechwriters had composed and had to record at least three takes to get one that his aides felt was palatable enough to share with the public. “That was actually the best one,” a senior White House official said. ... Trump’s video and tweets enraged some Republican members of Congress, even loyal ones like McCarthy and Graham. “That was a bad tweet,” Graham said of Trump’s message excusing what had happened that day. It simply isn't an accurate representation of the sources to present it as a vital moment where he made this uncontroversial or conciliatory statement that changes the stuff that came before - or as something leadworthy. And the source specifically emphasizes how hard his handlers had to work to get even that statement out of him (one that, as it notes, was so insufficient that even Trump's allies were outraged by it.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Destroying evidence, using burner phones? You're a conspiracy theorist. Trump's vitriol is no more direct or violent than those spouting pro-BLM messaging during 7 months of deadly riots which left 21 people dead and hundreds of cities burned to the ground. Should we use this to slander CNN, Biden, and everyone else who sent messages of support during this time? No.

It's blatantly obvious that your editorial stance is a thinly veiled political one. In a discussion around trying to achieve neutrality, there's simply no room for this. Domiy (talk) 00:56, 22 April 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.

Very opinionated

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 is heavily biased and whoever wrote it is very obviously a democrat. As Wikipedia is a supposed to be a source of fact and not opinion, I suggest that this article is edited. 74.195.157.114 (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ above. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. If you have a specific concern with the text, please say. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources have nothing to do with balance. Here are some specifics. Just in the lead alone, it one long personal attack and very unbalanced. This is how the lead reads in summary:

• Paragraph 1. Trump was born. Trump was President
• Paragraph 2. There were 4000 legal actions against Trump’s company and 6 bankruptcy’s
• Paragraph 3. Trump’s views are extreme right. Trump lost the popular vote in 2016. Trump won the election however, thanks to Russia's assistance. Protests broke out in opposition. Trump is a liar. Trump is a racist.
• Paragraph 4. Trump is a racist xenophobe. Trump split up families. Trump shunned climate change. Trump did nothing to resolve talks in Korea. Trump caused COVID-19 suffering. Trump contradicted health officials, promoted bad medicine instead, and of course, Trump is a liar.
• Paragraph 5. Trump lost the election. Trump is a liar (in case you didn't hear it the first several times). Trump told his supporters to seize the Capitol building and kill people.
• Paragraph 6. Trump was impeached twice. Trump is the worst President in history.

How is this balanced? OnePercent (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia operates on facts, not feelings. ValarianB (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Its what RS talk about? Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you actually have multiple thousands of lawsuits against you and your companies, have actually gone through multiple bankruptcies, have been caught constantly speaking untruths, hold political beliefs that are far right, lose the popular vote, make racist comments, deny scientific consensus on the state of the climate, give out dangerous medical advice, encourage people to attack the government, get impeached twice, and have a national survey of historians rank you as a poor president, it shouldn't be a surprise that people will talk and write about those things. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:41, 28 April 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.

• I think it's time to semi-protect this talk page. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
• This has merit. I don't see anywhere on the main page things like the Israel peace plan, nor the achievements of reaching historical low unemployment for racial minorities. In his speech before the Capital Riot, he explicitly called for march to be of a characteristic "Peacefully and Patriotically". Again, that's nowhere on the page. This sub-thread needs to be expanded upon. Titaniumman23 (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2022

Someone needs to talk to both sides and edit this whole page, this is so biased to the left it is not funny. We have donated to Wikipedia in the past but after reading this crap will not again and will not trust what has been posted on your so called Wikipedia. Heharrisco204 (talk) 14:58, 3 May 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Donald Trump

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 unsourced and blatantly POV/OR text should be deleted: "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history." 107.127.46.13 (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

This has already been discussed, and there is broad consensus to retain it, as it is sourced, accurate, and relevant. Zaathras (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not sourced, mentions unnamed scholars and historians, and is blatantly POV/OR. Where is the discussion thread regarding this text? 107.127.46.13 (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Citations are not generally used in the opening of a Wikipedia article. The lead summarizes the body. You will find the citations later on in the article, Donald Trump#Approval ratings and scholar surveys. As for past discussions on the matter, you may look above and find the tools to search past discussion archives yourself. I am not your secretary. Zaathras (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Generally, leads are not sourced because everything in them is sourced in the body. See Donald Trump#Approval ratings and scholar surveys, which includes C-SPAN, which has surveyed presidential historians on presidential leadership each time the administration changed since 2000,[700] ranked Trump fourth–lowest overall in their Presidential Historians Survey 2021, with Trump rated lowest in the leadership characteristics categories for moral authority and administrative skills.[701][702][703] The talk page archives are linked at the top of this page; it contains these discussions. The consensus to include the scholars and historians in the lead is at Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_140#RFC:_Should_we_mention_historical_evaluations_of_Trump's_presidency?. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The consensus is to have the text. This needs to be shut down. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I also think this article is pretty biased (even though I don't like Trump) but I don't dispute the verity of this claim. Here's a compromise - "Trump remains a highly controversial figure in American politics - while many scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history, he still has an avid following in the United States, and many of his followers believe that he will re-run for re-election in 2024." 49.205.84.41 (talk) 14:47, 4 May 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.

Articles shouldn't link to themselves

@SNUGGUMS: You undid the links in the lead I recently placed targeting the respective sections in the body the sentences are summarizing (they replaced links to other WP pages that are linked in the body text). According to your edit summary "articles shouldn't link to themselves like that [not changing sentence, just unlinking and using some better links." Is that your personal opinion or is there a WP policy saying that? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

At least in the cases where I replaced links, MOS:SPECIFICLINK says Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link: it will generally contain more focused information, as well as links to more general topics. Readers aren't helped as much by self-links within pages. That would seem like a circular process. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't links from the lead, which summarizes the body, to the full body text with the links to the main article, further reading, inline links, and citations also "provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that can increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

While we generally do avoid such links, Help:Self link mentions this sort of thing as a useful application of self links.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced self-linking is anywhere near as useful as implementing links to other pages. Readers who see a link would probably expect to be taken to another article entirely. Going elsewhere upon clicking is better at helping them explore details they couldn't previously find. Anybody who wants to know what the current page has beyond its lead section can simply scroll down as far as they'd like. If you feel I could've used better substitute articles when changing links, then feel free to implement those accordingly. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Khajidha. I didn't know about self-links. "A useful application is links from article leads or overview sections to detail sections buried deeper in the same article." Details, citations, ... I just replaced one link to another page with a self-link. Some of the editors in the above RfC about citations in the lead argued that people don't read the table of contents and/or don't want to scroll down to the section, and here we have this nifty tool to avoid all that. What do other editors think? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I honestly was considering the possibility of linking to other sections of the article as an alternate to citations in the lead, but the problem is that ideally such links would look slightly different from links to other articles. I don't want people confused if sometimes they click a link and it goes to another article, and other times they click a link and just jump around in the same article.

Another potential solution I've considered is to use the notes section to add notes to the lead saying something like "references for the proceeding sentence can be found in X section of this article." (Where X section is a link to the appropriate section). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't we bold the links to other articles and add a note above the lead saying something like "bold links go to other articles, other links to sections in this one" or vice versa, or use italics? Your second potential solution would also require a few up to a whole lot of notes, not really an improvement over citation clutter, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

No, that self-link wasn't an improvement. They're pointless when we already have a table of contents that users can click for sections. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I think using the notes section would be a little less clutter than citations though, as for each sentence you'd only have one note where you may need several citations, if there are multiple sources that support the content. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not support self-linking within this article. I have never liked the practice, and most major points about Trump have their own separate spin-off articles anyway... so I'm not really getting what this is about. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Just exploring ways of keeping citation clutter out of the lead while removing the seemingly unsurmountable obstacle for readers having to consult the table of contents and scroll. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that reading is just too hard? I hope that's not what it's come to at Wikipedia.--~TPW 17:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying that at all. I think if readers want to know more about content summarized in the lead, including the sources for it, they'll look at the table of contents and read the article. Other editors don't agree (see the above RfC). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Mrbeastmodeallday, this wasn’t already in the lead because of proposed self-links discussed in this Talk page section. See also recent edit history, for example this edit. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The question of self-linking was recently considered at the MOS. Personally, I'm against it, but the other editors in that discussion disagreed with me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the RfC. (And here I thought I had just invented the wheel - or the square one, judging by some reactions.) I agree with the editor who said that The surprise factor of the reader hitting a self-link when they expect a link to another article can be mitigated by using the § symbol in the visible link text. I don’t remember seeing § used anywhere but that’s probably due to the limited range of articles I edit. Do you know whether there’s been a discussion on inserting § without the section link template, i.e., "#section heading|§ other text"? That would take care of the problem of readers not being able to distinguish between self-links and links to other articles. Ideally, every sentence in the lead should correspond to a heading in the TOC, but that isn’t always the case. E.g.,

Self-links preceded by §. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Trump is the only federal officeholder in American history to have been impeached twice. After he § pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden in 2019, he § was impeached by the House of Representatives for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in December. First impeachment In August 2019, a whistleblower filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community about a July 25 phone call between Trump and President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy, during which Trump had pressured Zelenskyy to investigate CrowdStrike and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, adding that the White House had attempted to cover-up the incident. The whistleblower stated that the call was part of a wider campaign by the Trump administration and Giuliani that may have included withholding financial aid from Ukraine in July 2019 and canceling Pence's May 2019 Ukraine trip. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi initiated a formal impeachment inquiry on September 24. Trump then confirmed that he withheld military aid from Ukraine, offering contradictory reasons for the decision. On September 25, the Trump administration released a memorandum of the phone call which confirmed that, after Zelenskyy mentioned purchasing American anti-tank missiles, Trump asked him to discuss investigating Biden and his son with Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr. The testimony of multiple administration officials and former officials confirmed ... References

Trump pressuring Ukraine to investigate Biden doesn’t have a section of its own. It’s part of the "First impeachment" section because once the whistleblower’s complaint became known it was immediately followed by the impeachment inquiry that led to the first impeachment. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

Height appears to be incorrect, height should be approximately 6ft based on photos 74.83.55.168 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The article currently doesn't mention his height. Just in case I overlooked it, there are two RS saying it is 6'2" (his 1964 selective service draft card, cited in the "Early life" section, and his 2012 driver's license, obtained by POLITICO through a 2016 open-records request concerning his Virginia winery.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Articles don't usually mention the subject's height, do they? Unless it is either or both of the following 1) well outside the general range or 2) relevant to their notability. As for this particular article, his height in 1964 is likely to be quite different from his height now due to wear and tear on the cartilage and bone in his spinal column.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

No, they don't, except for basketball and football players and other athletes. If I remember correctly, it was mentioned in the health section in 2018 after his first official checkup because the extra inch meant that he stayed below the obesity threshold. Got a lot of coverage in the news at the time. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

no way that’s true. trump is CLEARLY flagrantly, violently, morbidly obese. My god, if that’s not obese then what is? 173.77.248.223 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

We go by what wp:rs say. Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Body Mass Index is a nonsense measure anyway. Trump's height is not significant to his bio. It's about average for a POTUS. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

reliable sources do note that Trump is obese, according to his 2019 physical: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/us/politics/trump-obese.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.248.223 (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"flagrantly, violently, morbidly obese" is a relative opinion. OnePercent (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

After Trump's second physical in office (2019), this article mentioned that he was now considered obese. The info was later trimmed because of the size of the article, and, since he's no longer president, who cares about his weight, height, or health. RS had some fun with his easily disproven height of 6'3", along with the fact that growing an inch after age 65, per the 2012 driver's license, was a tad unusual. As far as this article is concerned, where would you suggest putting it, (Donald_Trump#False_statements?), along with the false statements about the Trump family's Swedish descent, Trump graduating at the top of his class, his wealth, etc., which also got dropped along the way due to article size? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

"the Trump family's Swedish descent" How distant is this descent? His paternal ancestors were Germans, part of the Trump family whose German history has been recorded since the early 17th century. His maternal ancestors were the MacLeod family of Scotland, and he may be distantly related to Clan MacLeod, a Scottish clan of Norse descent whose history has been recorded since the 13th century. Dimadick (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The Trumps, including Donald, claimed Swedish descent until the 90s, including in Trump's Art of the Deal. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Trump family

Mrbeastmodeallday, I don't know why that page exists, it should be merged with Family of Donald Trump. While it says at the top that the article is about the ancestral history of the Trump family as a whole, it isn't, at least not in its current iteration. Does a family tree with insufficient citations for verification and containing a bunch of people who are not noteworthy even belong on Wikipedia? Adding the link has been discussed and declined before. I've also removed it from the infobox at least a couple of times, so I'd appreciate it if you would it this time. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I was not aware this has been brought up before. I will undo the edit. In lieu of having both of them listed in the infobox, it would make sense to propose a merge. I have a hunch that there will probably be more disagreement over what the merged page should be named, and less disagreement over whether it should be merged. But we’ll see. Meanwhile, in the early section where it talks about Trump’s early personal life and family (such as his parents) that’s where it would make sense to link “Trump family” as a “see also” hatnote, since it doesn’t appear to be linked anywhere in the page. I will do that too. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Now this is definitely overlinking, IMO. The section says who his family is, and it has links for every family member. It doesn't need a "see also" at the top. Way back before the article got this yuge, the section even included Grandpa Friedrich, who — like Trump's parents, siblings, spouses, children, etc. — is noteworthy only because of Trump. (He's mentioned on and linked from Fred Trump's page). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Post-presidency

ONUnicorn, most of the last paragraph you added today would appear to belong on the page of the Republican Party. They're party politics, and one of the remaining two sources is an opinion by the publisher of The Bulwark (website). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Trump's continued involvement in party politics to this extent is unusual for former presidents, and I feel it is significant to note that in the post-presidency section of his article. If you think my addition gives too much weight to it or is too detailed, feel free to trim it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Highly unusual but it's unclear what it's about. He can't use the money his PACs are raising for another presidential run, AFAIK, he's hardly spending any of it on the candidates he endorsed. It just looks like an addiction to taking baths in adoring crowds. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, a generalization like Trump's actions in endorsing candidates has been likened to his role on The Apprentice from the NYT citing one Trump biographer's opinion is undue, IMO. (I started writing this before you edited.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Active voice

InedibleHulk, but isn't he always the victim? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

If you're joking, I don't get it. If you're serious, no. No woman has accused Trump of being kissed or groped without consent. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to the conservative cult of victimhood. Good catch, though, the sentence switched perspective a couple of times. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, one of those jokes. Should have figured. You tell 'em. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Overlinking

@Mrbeastmodeallday: Sheesh! Are you about done overlinking the article? I can live with 2016 Republican National Convention in place of "Republican National Convention" and Midtown Manhattan but is golf course necessary? Unnecessary, per MOS:OVERLINK: locations (New York City, Singapore), countries (El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras (MOS:SEAOFBLUE should also be avoided)), geographic features ("African nations"). Misleading: German immigrants — German Americans have full or partial German ancestry, i.e, they're not necessarily immigrants, and neither German (country) nor immigrants (everyday word understood by most readers in context) should be linked. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I think in general, WP tends to be under-linked, especially for high-traffic articles because much of what’s happening in terms of edits is based around ideas and not formatting. I looked over the WP:overlinking and I think you have a point. I think most proper nouns would benefit from being linked at first mention, but it’s contextual too. If it’s incidental to a sentence or idea then it’s not necessary. For example, Russian interference in the 2016 election is prominently linked and stated, so it’s not necessary to link “Russia” if it comes up later, I totally understand that. But some proper nouns that are more obscure and are pretty central to understanding the idea may be helpful, particularly if there are no other linked articles directly about them. Some of the smaller countries could benefit from linking. Drop a message on my talk page if you want to discuss more. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It’s important to remember that there are readers who aren’t American and are in other countries, and their first big exposure to some of those terms may be through Donald Trump. And they may think “what’s Boston?” for example. WP tends to have a heavy bias of familiarity based on perspective of Americans, so I try to reduce or eliminate that bias where possible. For example, the article on Putin probably has article links for Russian cities mentioned. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x:Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree about “golf course”. Again golf isn’t exactly a global sport ubiquitous sport. In some countries, it’s rare or non-existent, and even then it’s often only known among the rich elite.

There are a few sports that you can get away with not linking in this type of article due to global ubiquity, such as soccer, swimming, track, gymnastics, maybe basketball and volleyball. Golf isn’t one of them. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I have a made good-faith effort to keep the linking to reasonable appropriate levels, and also removed something I previously added in the spirit of being overlinked, as a courtesy to help you out. I only kept about 3-4 of the links that you removed. If you disagree with any, please bring them here on an individual case-by-case basis to discuss them on their individual merits, before deleting. They are few enough that blanket sweeping/reverting would be unnecessary. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x:Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll add another voice to the "slow down" camp, and bordering on "knock it off". Donald Trump's biography is not a 1st-year college geography class, nothing is served by linking every instance of every nation mentioned as part of a broader topic. Zaathras (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

This is becoming a concern over multiple articles. Is there any thing else we can get you to do over linking? Moxy- 22:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that most readers are familiar with Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Central America, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, or the former world power Soviet Union, and I also think that's what MOS:OVERLINK means by "usually not linked." If readers are not familiar with them - well, they came to WP to look up Trump, so they'll figure out how to look them up without the link. I just eliminated Singapore and Saudi Arabia altogether. The buyers & and the countries they're from aren't important, the reason why Trump had to sell is. I also removed nuclear disarmament and peace in Central America. They were just talking points in advertisements and some stump speeches in New Hampshire in 1987 when he was selling a book. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The entire article is gonna end up in an ocean of blue. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

When adding links we should be mindful of MOS:SEAOFBLUE and MOS:OVERLINK. Stuff like golf course doesn't need a link. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Mrbeastmodeallday, did you notice that Donald_Trump#2021_Capitol_attack has its own section? This link is not needed (MOS:REPEATLINK). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I did notice, but it’s also a very relevant “further” or “see also” article given that there’s a section with the topic of Donald Trump inciting violence. I suppose it could go either way. I don’t feel too strongly either way and I can see both sides. I can see how it’s useful, but I can also see how it can be considered overlinking. We’re just picking the lesser of two evils essentially, and it’s also a problem of abundance, given that the topic sort of hits into two different sections of the article (“public image” and “2020 election”) Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The 2020 election is more about the history of the events of the election. The public image is about Trump’s character. The Capitol attack is relevant to both topics for different reasons, so having it linked in both wouldn’t necessarily be overlinking in the normal sense per se, because it serves a different function and context in each application. @Space4Time3Continuum2x: Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)