Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 147

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 140←Archive 145Archive 146Archive 147Archive 148Archive 149Archive 150

Lead edit

Hey, the most recent edit seems a bit unfair. Andrevan brings up fair points, but I don't think that the whole tail end of the sentence should be deleted. I think it makes it seem like we know that Russia not only interfered in the election, but colluded with members of the Trump organization to do so, which has not been proven yet. I advocate for rewriting of the sentence. 2ple (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The sentence as mention doesn't weigh in on collusion or not - that's why I deleted that portion, because the old revision made it sound like Mueller had found that there was no collusion. That's not what he found - "finding no collusion" versus "did not establish collusion" [to the legal standard required to bring charges]. Perhaps we could instead point out that numerous members of the Trump campaign - Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, etc. - were found guilty on charges of lying to Congress, obstruction of justice and witness tampering before being pardoned. Andrevan@ 01:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
How about adding some text like the following, "the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee found that the Trump campaign chairman’s interactions with Russian intelligence officials during the 2016 election posed a grave counterintelligence threat." Andrevan@ 01:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that works. I think the most sensible option would be to say exactly what you said: did not establish legally but there was plenty of evidence, just not enough by Mueller's estimation to prove in court. I would rewrite the full sentence as: The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign, but it was unable to find a legally substantial amount of evidence proving that members of the Trump campaign colluded with them or something to that effect. 2ple (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I'll buy that. Andrevan@ 01:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
See e.g. "Far from a hoax, as the president so often claimed, the report reveals how the Trump campaign willingly engaged with Russian operatives implementing the influence effort. For instance, the report exposes interactions and information exchanged between Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik and then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. According to the report, campaign figures “presented attractive targets for foreign influence, creating notable counterintelligence vulnerabilities" [1] Andrevan@ 01:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It's too much to pack into a single sentence for easy reading and from easy reading writing yet WP:ONELEVELDOWN. How about,

The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller uncovered evidence of Russian pro-Trumo interference in the 2016 election. The investigation did not find enough evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian operation to (issue an indictment? refer to grand jury? Something else?) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Now you're watering down the message. Mueller didn't just uncover some evidence. He established that the Russians intervened to help Trump, he also had evidence of various members of the campaign willingly engaging with Russian operatives. Andrevan@ 03:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The lede of the Donald Trump article doesn't seem like the place to debate or flesh out the conclusions of the Mueller investigation, especially since the whole report is basically mostly redacted in its current form. The intent of a wikipedia article is to provide a factual account, so someone coming to the page can see everything. Sure, he colluded, we all know he did, but let's not muddy the facts here: Mueller was unable to find any direct links between the trump campaign and the russians responsible for working to change the election in his favor. That's a Time article that goes over it, and says the exact phrase "While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” As of right now, that is what the lede reflects. What you're attempting to do is put the debate over what exactly the report says in the lede of the article. Listen, I hate the guy too, I think he absolutely coordinated with Russia. But those are my person opinions, and they are not supported by the ultimate conclusion of the report, nor is the lede of this article the place to debate that. Fbifriday (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Look at my edit though, I removed a line that implies that Mueller found that Trump did NOT collude. Which is not what he found. I'm not trying to add but actually trying to remove the problematic implication. And most of the report is no longer redacted[2]. Andrevan@ 03:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
That is literally what he found. The time article, again, says "While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians". The lede says "The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign, but not that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia.". He established that Russia interfered, he was unable to establish Trump campaign coordinated, as the Time article says, and as the lede also says. Fbifriday (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
But again, Mueller chose not to charge Trump but he didn't find that there was no evidence either. As written, it implies that Mueller didn't find this evidence. Andrevan@ 03:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Once again, you are injecting debate about what the mueller report says into the lede. Fbifriday (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Not to mention the conclusions of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report: "Bipartisan Senate Report Shows How Trump Colluded With Russia in 2016" [3] In fact we have an article on it Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials Andrevan@ 03:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
That part of the lede is specifically talking about the Mueller investigation and report. Fbifriday (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
It fails to mention the Senate Intelligence report which shows that the Trump campaign did have problematic contact with the Russians. So we're left with an impression of Trump's famous phrase, "NO COLLUSION!" We should come away from the lede understanding that there was plenty of collusion, just not a legal case to be brought by Mueller. Andrevan@ 03:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
That part of the lede is talking solely about the mueller report. We are meant to go away from it with the conclusion of the mueller report, which is listed, factually, in the lede. There is a whole section of this very same article that goes into depth on the extensive evidence of Russian collusion. The place for that is not in the one sentence in the lede about the mueller report. Fbifriday (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I disagree that a section in the lede is supposed to be solely about one thing or another. It's supposed to be an accurate summary of factual events. As written, it implies that Mueller exonerated Trump, which as you point out, he explicitly did not. The lay person doesn't know the legal meaning of "establish." Andrevan@ 03:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, how about a clarification of that sentence, instead of a deletion of a whole part. "The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign, but was unable to establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia."

That is almost the exact working of the Time article. Fbifriday (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Happy to clarify/workshop the sentence. Can we find an article that summarizes it from after 2021. The Time article is I fear, perhaps understating, or is somewhat out of date already. For example, these recent pieces: [4] [5] In fact the Mueller report found that Trump did obstruct justice. [6] He provided ample evidence that the president broke the law, but in the end he would not clearly say as much. His equivocation provided the president room to declare that Mueller found “no collusion and no obstruction.” Currently Wikipedia's treatment is abetting this misapprehension. Andrevan@ 03:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
You mention obstruction; That is discussed, in detail, in the section about the collusion. Wikipedia's treatment is not doing anything, everything is on the article, or another article, in detail. One sentence in the lede is not making Donald Trump look good, and I caution you against letting your personal opinion of someone influence your editing of Wikipedia. Fbifriday (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
You'll note that all I did was remove half a sentence, which was reverted. I stand by the change and the concern. Andrevan@ 04:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
You are, emphatically, in the talk page of Trump's wikipedia page, arguing the conclusions of the Mueller report. After looking through your talk archive, I have serious doubts about your neutrality regarding this subject. This is a concern, and I will be figuring out how to address it. Fbifriday (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
There's nothing to address - I made a bold change, it was reverted, and now here I am discussing it. "Emphaticness" isn't a criticism, where I come from. I'm advocating for a specific change, you're just as emphatic in your defense of the status quo ante. I am not making it personal, and now you are doing so. I took a break from editing for years and I'm here making an argument which you are free to refute and disagree with, without casting aspersions. Andrevan@ 04:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I have been refuting it, and you keep changing the argument. You go from talking about the mueller report, to the Commission report, to talking about Wikipedia's treatment of Trump abetting his ability to say "No collusion", to talking about obstruction. I'm not even sure what you're arguing for in inclusion in the lede anymore, you've brought up 4 different points, not all of which can be included in the lede. Fbifriday (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I've only offered one version of the text which was to remove the 2nd part of the sentence, and I think I offered a couple of constructive ideas of how we could go with it. How about we change it to: Mueller found evidence of, but not sufficient to charge with or something in that vein. Andrevan@ 04:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

To reset and clarify Fbifriday, my contention is that we are implying through our phrasing that Mueller did not find evidence of a conspiracy. In fact he did find such evidence, as stated in the report itself and a number of sources, which I will happily provide if you are challenging that. Andrevan@ 04:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

He did, no one is denying that. The issue is the conclusion of the report. We are also talking about one sentence here, if you want to add more info about the collusion into the lede specifically, I'd believe a lot more people than you or I would want in on this discussion. But you can't just delete the factual statement of the report conclusion because it makes trump look less bad. (Sidebar: If anything, that's a problem with the report, is that it really did very little to make Trump himself look bad.) I still think "The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign, but was unable to establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia." is the most factual way to neutrally describe the report. Says nothing about evidence, just that he was unable to establish the connection. Fbifriday (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
It's factually a true statement that the report failed to establish a criminal conspiracy, but it's not a true statement, nor is it literally written in this article, that such conspiracy wasn't suspected or that evidence pointing to such a conspiracy was found. So I think we should either say that, as 2ple and NewsAndEventsGuy considered/suggested in the discussion so far, above, clarify and/or specify what it means to "establish" since, to a lay person, it sounds like we're giving space to the idea that there wasn't a conspiracy. In fact various sources discuss the existence of the conspiracy, but Mueller simply couldn't prove it to the evidentiary basis required by a prosecutor, an idea we don't need to explicitly unpack here. I just think as written it gives the impression to a non-legally or politically-informed reader that Mueller found no evidence of a conspiracy or found that a conspiracy was unlikely/didn't exist. Again it's the implication that I'm objecting to, not the legal meaning of establish which we both understand, but a lay reader may not. Yes it's a small part of the lede section. You say I'm removing something meaningful, but maybe we should then add another clause or sentence which gives more context that yeah, there was kind of a conspiracy of sorts, but not one that could be pinned down by Mueller. Andrevan@ 04:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Personally, if it were up to me, it would be "The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign, but was unable to establish if members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia, due to deliberate obstruction from the Trump campaign." because THAT'S the truth. If we could source that accurately, I'd even be willing to be bold and see if someone reverts it. Fbifriday (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Just add that phrase: "but was unable to establish". That's more accurate. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree, but the editor who was bold is unhappy with that, and it's just been us debating it, so not much consensus forming. Fbifriday (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
They rightly objected (one edit) to the complete deletion. The solution is a clear and accurate improvement that does not delete anything. Go for it, or I'll do it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I have taken a stab at this. [7] Andrevan@ 06:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The last part about obstruction is likely true but may need a firmer consensus. I'd wait with that. It's worth its own section here. If you don't remove that part right away, you risk the whole edit getting reverted. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
That's kinda the key point about the whole thing, and is supported by the fact that members of Trump's campaign were charged with obstruction related to the investigation Fbifriday (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I mean, this entire article supports the assertion that there was obstruction from the Trump campaign related to the investigation. Fbifriday (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Disagree @ Valjean - if nobody disagrees, don't create a lack of consensus if one is here amongst the present discussing editors. If someone disagrees they may strike the last clause just as I did before I was reverted (which may have had a lack of foundation to begin with?) It's supported by sources that members of the campaign were charges with obstruction as Fbifriday says. And it is relevant to the storyline of Trump's presidency and his life narrative. Trump also granted pardons to these individuals. "You risk the edit being reverted" this misunderstands BOLD, AGF, and core wiki principle, IMHO. Andrevan@ 06:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I fully support what you added, and if this goes through a formal process or anything for addition if it gets removed, please tag me wherever that is happening, I will come and reaffirm that support. Fbifriday (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Also, it is worth pointing out, the person who reverted your edit and said you needed consensus, reverted your edit for a part that did NOT require consensus, which is, in fact, against consensus, number 43. So, if the argument was that you required consensus for that specific part, he triggered BRD inadvertently. Fbifriday (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I must say I am confused by the revert then, but I would support your text, "due to deliberate obstruction from the Trump campaign." I think that addresses my concerns adequately. Andrevan@ 06:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Any WP:BOLD edit to the lede of a high-profile article requires consensus, as the lede reflects years of work by prior contributors. Moreover, the lede is merely a summary of the body, which clearly states: "A redacted version of the report was publicly released in April 2019. It found that Russia interfered in 2016 to favor Trump's candidacy and hinder Clinton's. Despite 'numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign', the prevailing evidence 'did not establish' that Trump campaign members conspired or coordinated with Russian interference. ... The report also detailed multiple acts of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, but opted not to make any 'traditional prosecutorial judgment' on whether Trump broke the law, suggesting that Congress should make such a determination." Neither Mueller, nor the body of our article, nor any other reliable source directly supports Andrevan's caveat that Mueller would have been able to establish conspiracy if not for "deliberate obstruction from the Trump campaign." Such a statement assumes facts not in evidence and is internally inconsistent. Moreover, it is an obvious violation of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:LEDE; it should therefore be promptly reverted.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
"Any WP:BOLD edit to the lede of a high-profile article requires consensus, as the lede reflects years of work by prior contributors."
Cite your policy. Fbifriday (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
" as the lede reflects years of work by prior contributors"
WP:NOTYOURS: Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written. As each edit page clearly states:

Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone

Literally a violation of policy to stop someone from working on something you've worked on, simply because you've worked on it. Your first revert was wrong.
We can discuss the problems addressed above in a moment. Fbifriday (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
"Literally a violation of policy to stop someone from working on something you've worked on ..." Fbifriday, with respect, if your selective quoting of policy has lead you to the remarkable conclusion that no reverts are ever permissible, then you should probably take a step back and reassess your flawed reasoning, as that cannot possibly be correct. If your statement is presumed true based on the conditional qualifier "simply because you've worked on it," then you are assuming facts not in evidence (I have not contributed any text to the lede of this article) and ignoring my clearly-stated objections, which alas does not erase them from the record. If you have not already, take a look at the many prominent notices that display whenever editing this article: e.g., "Please review current established consensus before editing this article, especially the lead section. Changes against established consensus without prior discussion can be reverted on sight."; "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit."; etc. Notably, by making two similar (if not identical) contested edits to the same sentence of the lede ([8], [9]) in considerably less than 24 hours, Andrevan violated the spirit of the latter provision, which could result in discretionary sanctions assuming that the awareness criteria is met (especially if there are any previous infractions). In the interest of caution and collegiality, Andrevan should certainly self-revert.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_113#Consensus-first_in_the_lead I'll just refer you to that discussion, where the consensus was, consensus isn't needed before ALL lead changes. Fbifriday (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
If you violated consensus by reverting his edit, BRD doesn't apply, because your revert wasn't challenging his edit, it was removing it based off a flawed idea he needed consensus first. If we want to be technical, it should go back to what it was before you reverted, and then, if you want to revert it to challenge the removal, you can. Fbifriday (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
(EC): The lede should summarize the body. Neither of Andrevan's edits adequately do that, and they have been challenged accordingly per WP:LEDE (not to mention WP:V with regard to the second, entirely unsupported, edit). Yes, WP:BOLD edits are allowed, but editors should not repeatedly make WP:BOLD edits to the same sentence of the lede after they have been contested and in a 24 hour period, as this runs afoul of discretionary sanctions. (Please do not suggest otherwise or encourage editors to ignore discretionary sanctions—they are quite serious.) More broadly, if you WP:BOLDly change/revert ledes of extraordinarily high-profile articles without prior discussion, then you really should not be surprised if those edits are themselves reverted or otherwise changed. It is, in fact, perfectly reasonable within the bounds of policy to suggest that the long-standing version should remain in place unless or until a new consensus for an alternative lede summary is reached. I hope that clears up your confusion. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Addressing your issues above: I do agree that the assertion that it would have been found if it weren't for the obstruction is flawed. Probably true, but flawed, from a neutral point of view stance. So, for that, I will revert, and we will continue the discussion here. The wording before, while factually true, is still missing the major part of the obstruction of his campaign asssociates into the investigation Fbifriday (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, but once again, you're breaching consensus for this page by reverting simply for not having consensus before, and in fact, it states explicitly that reverts to the lede simply for not having consensus should not be done. Fbifriday (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
That is simply not the only reason for my revert, as I have clarified at length above and in response to your inquiry on my talk page. Sure, my edit summary may have been a bit terse—or lazy—but I am challenging the edit itself. Now, you should assume good faith; please stop insisting that my challenge isn't real or isn't legitimate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I AM assuming good faith, but your insistence that consensus is required doesn't lend itself to that. Your edit statement (Changing the long-established lede requires talk page consensus) wasn't terse or lazy, you literally opened your statement here with "Any WP:BOLD edit to the lede of a high-profile article requires consensus". I am assuming in good faith that you meant to challenge the edit, while also understanding that your actions fully show that you were challenging lack of consensus, not the edit. But, once again, I will assume good faith, and point you to the above thread where I also argued against its removal, emphatically, and assure you I agree with you about the removal. It needs to be reworded, but not removed. Fbifriday (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
"you literally opened your statement here with 'Any WP:BOLD edit to the lede of a high-profile article requires consensus'." Yes, I did—that's not the reason for my revert per se (see the rest of my statement, viz. "Moreover, the lede is merely a summary of the body, which clearly states ... "), but I don't think that you've caught me in a misstatement here. To the contrary, it seems rather axiomatic that "Any WP:BOLD edit to the lede of a high-profile article requires consensus," in that the edit surely won't last long if consensus is against it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Listen, we both agree on the content, and ultimately, that's what matters, no matter what the intent. So, I say we keep it civil, leave it at that, and we can both drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Fbifriday (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Replace "but not" with "but was unable to establish", but wait with the "obstruction" angle.

Current: "but not that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia."
Revised: "but was unable to establish that members of the Trump campaign "conspired" or "coordinated" with Russia."

That change should not be controversial. The "obstruction" aspect is more complicated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I concur, as this was what I suggested last night. The most neutral POV way to word exactly what the conclusion of the report is. Fbifriday (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't concur—see below. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead edit 2

In my bold edit on November 27, 2017, I trimmed the lead content on the Mueller investigation considerably and was partially reverted.

Pre-trim:

The special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign but not that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russian election interference activities. Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice and neither indicted nor exonerated him.

Post-trim:

The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign.

Post-revert:

The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign, but not that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russian election interference activities themselves.

I didn’t follow it up at the time (& didn't notice that the editor added a word), but I still think the second clause does not belong in the lead of Trump’s main bio. It's not about Trump, it's about members of his 2016 campaign. Also, several members of or adjacent to the Trump campaign were sentenced as a result of the investigation, just not for criminal conspiracy. There was plenty of collusion.[1] I also just noticed that we don't mention the less redacted version released in 2020 in the body of the article.[2] The report said that Mueller believed Trump may have lied to him.

TheTimesAreAChanging, your objection was that Changing the long-established lede requires talk page consensus. That's not quite correct, only when a change to the "current consensus" is involved—that's not the case here—or when a bold edit to other content of the lead was reverted. What is your objection to the removal of the clause? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, you wrote: "It's not about Trump, it's about members of his 2016 campaign." Trump is part of his campaign, and all campaign activities were performed for his benefit, and usually with his knowledge and approval. He cannot be divorced from his campaign. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
We don't care whether Mueller believes Trump may have lied to him. That means nothing. 2ple (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
We? I'm not proposing to put that in the lead, just mentioning that there were later developments that didn't make their way into the body. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
You're correct as to the procedural stuff in your last paragraph. That's Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus item 43. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The lede should summarize the body, which clearly states: "A redacted version of the report was publicly released in April 2019. It found that Russia interfered in 2016 to favor Trump's candidacy and hinder Clinton's. Despite 'numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign', the prevailing evidence 'did not establish' that Trump campaign members conspired or coordinated with Russian interference. ... The report also detailed multiple acts of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, but opted not to make any 'traditional prosecutorial judgment' on whether Trump broke the law, suggesting that Congress should make such a determination." It is relevant that no American was charged, much less convicted, of conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election, considering that many people expected Mueller to vindicate the Steele dossier's claims that the "Romanian" hackers were jointly paid by Trump and Putin and that the idea of hacking the DNC originated with Carter Page—especially after Michael Cohen, who was said to have arranged kickback payments in Prague, turned on Trump and began cooperating with the investigation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I will say that, based off the discussion last night, ultimately, while TheTimeAreAChanging may have been unclear about his reason for reverting, he has made it clear now he was reverting to dispute the removal, which is ultimately all that matters now, and thus, we must discuss the ways to improve, or potentially leave untouched, the lede. Fbifriday (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bradlee, Jr., Ben (June 12, 2019). "How Collusion Confusion Helps Trump". The New Yorker. Retrieved July 9, 2022.
  2. ^ Shetz, Sonam (June 20, 2020). "The most explosive revelations from the newly released, less redacted version of the Mueller report". Business Insider. Retrieved July 9, 2022.

How about something like, Mueller was unable to establish criminal conspiracy, but did encounter obstruction. I also think the Senate Intelligence Committee report should be in the lede. Or perhaps the phrase, Despite 'numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign Andrevan@ 20:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The links between the campaign and Russian officials are discussed within the article (Manafort, Stone, Flynn). So, if the lede were a quick summary of the article, the latter would be valid, IMO. Fbifriday (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I caution, strongly, against making bold edits simply because one person agrees with you, in a space where we are working to form consensus, as it is likely to be reverted quickly. Since we are debating it, I would argue that, at this point, strong consensus would be needed for any further changes to that part of the lede, due to the existing disputes around it. Fbifriday (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
See [10] and I want to note about this edit that a) it is a different version of the text from any of my edits so far, and adds the "unable to establish" that seemed to have a good consensus above, as well as this new text. So to all of the disputants and discussers, if you revert this you need a valid reason and not "BOLD edits require consensus on a high profile article" because they DO NOT. That is anti-wiki and is expressly contradicted by point 43. You may revert and challenge with a valid rationale but that rationale cannot be, "DISCUSS FIRST" because a) I AM discussing, b) discussion consensus supports adding "unable to establish" (consensus is not unanimity) and c) so far, discussion supports adding "despite numerous links." You may disagree but consider discussing instead of reverting. Andrevan@ 21:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I know of no source that frames it as "unable to establish". He chose not to assert a violation of law for which he would have needed to meet a very high bar wrt the defined standard for such a claim. Discuss first also includes some resolution or at least convergence in the discussion. Also "encounter" disruption is weird language for a prosecutor. He clearly outlined multiple forms of disruption and obstruction of the investigation in part 1. SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I am indeed following the convergence in the discussion. Could you take a stab then at the text or do you disagree with an earlier point. Andrevan@ 21:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I disagree there was a convergence. You posted something, I agreed with you, you edited it. I also agreed with what you put last night and it was reverted, so maybe my sole opinion shouldn't be what you're seeking. There was no consensus or convergence, and someone is still more than welcome to revert it to challenge the edit. Fbifriday (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I did just say that someone is more than welcome to revert it, which they have, which is fine. Let's do something constructive, then. I disagree that we didn't converge last night and this morning - there was clearly a critical mass of editors last night agreeing with "unable to establish" - about 75% on an n of 5 if I'm counting right. As to the new bit, if 2 editors agree on some text, the process isn't to solicit more consensus. That's what bold is for. The whole lede isn't now in dispute or the whole sentence. It would have been proper to leave "unable to establish" versus "did not establish" since we seemed to agree on that last night. "Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts." Regardless, now, there are several editors disputing that text, so let's move on. Andrevan@ 22:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Andrevan, the way to make sure a good edit gets reverted is to add it, but add more than what was agreed upon. Then the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater, which wastes an otherwise good opportunity. Stop doing that. The ONLY edit to make, and for which there was a pretty good consensus, was to ONLY add "unable to establish" and nothing else. Your edit really messed things up, so here we are with a whole lot more dispute. Stick to small edits that seem to enjoy a consensus. Don't add more than that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that's how it's supposed to work. I think we should be trying to constructively improve the article and folks reverting, should do so constructively. I.e. someone reverting to remove all of what I changed should have instead more selectively removed the part that they objected to, rather than all of it, unless they objected to all of it. At this point, it does seem that they are objecting to all of it or that it should be changed at all, but when I made those edits, I agree with you that the part for "unable to establish" had consensus, and the other parts hadn't been challenged as such as yet. Andrevan@ 01:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree that they "should have instead more selectively removed the part that they objected to, rather than all of it", but that's not what happened, and it's common that the whole edit gets reverted. To be safe, only make the brief edit that seemed to have consensus. Don't add more. Don't add it and hope it won't get challenged. We're dealing with the lead, and such edits are always the subject of much contention, so it's best to avoid it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
And to refocus, the current text is: The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign, but not that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia. I have proposed, removing the last clause, and/or adding obstruction of justice, or the numerous links to Russia, to the lede. These are all well-sourced and well-attested in this and other articles. Andrevan@ 21:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Per my comment immediately above, this is another example of going too far. Good ideas, but not all at once. "removing the last clause" was properly rejected/reverted. We just need to improve the phrase by adding "unable to establish", that's all. The other ideas ("and/or adding obstruction of justice, or the numerous links to Russia") are good, but not in this edit. Each must be discussed separately. Any change to lead is difficult, so resist the temptation to go too far. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I second this wisdom. It may not necessarily be policy, but in terms of getting an edit that people accept and won't pretty much revert on sight, he is correct. Fbifriday (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not against adding something about obstruction, which was, after all, one of the two main focuses of Mueller's investigation. The old lede summarized the matter reasonably well: "Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice and neither indicted nor exonerated him." With that said, Andrevan making a third attempt at tweaking the sentence in question within a 24 hour period seems like a violation of the page-specific discretionary sanctions—I doubt that admins intended for editors to simply reinstate slightly different text shortly after being reverted. As Andrevan had been notified and is hence aware of the sanctions, this is concerning. There is WP:NORUSH and we have no deadline to get things absolutely perfect; therefore, I encourage Andrevan to cool down and take a brief break from WP:BOLD edits (especially to that sentence) while we further hash things out on talk. Additional edits that may potentially violate the page-specific discretionary sanctions could be reported to WP:AE for clarification, and that's really not worth it considering that an agreement here is more than possible.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
There is indeed no rush, and all 3 of my edits are different, are not reverts or edit warring. Therefore, instead of calling me out personally, since you also reverted me with an invalid rationale, let's be constructive and instead build a new consensus on this talk page. Let's talk about how we can add something about obstruction to clarify that in fact, there was likely a conspiracy according to Mueller, but he couldn't prove it, though he did prove obstruction. I don't agree with your phrasing - he didn't neither indict nor exonerate him, that implies he didn't show obstruction clearly in the report, which he did, though he declined to indict him due to the Constitutional question of the President's immunity versus the DOJ etc. Andrevan@ 23:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I unfortunately concur. Pause the edits, let consensus form, then we can edit it. I want this sentence to read differently, but considering the fact that this appears to be the first large discussion about this sentence, I at this point argue that this needs to be a level of consensus that exists beyond the people in the talk right now. I would strongly urge the group of us who want better explanation of the Mueller report in the lede to work together to form a consensus for the sentence, and then put it up for RFC. Fbifriday (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
RFC is a process tool and not a requirement. You are of course free to invoke it - I will not at this juncture. I'd rather discuss the action and text of the sentence instead of the process and mechanism, because that is more productive and in keeping with Wikipedia's policy and spirit. So if you have thoughts on the sentence let's continue discussing it, but there's no requirement that consensus be at a certain level or that we must start a broad RFC to change it. If everyone here can come to an agreement, there isn't some policy that requires other, inactive editors to become active again and weigh in. So returning to the sentence. Do we all agree that obstruction should be included or do some not? Andrevan@ 00:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
You can easily check the archives to see that this is not the first large discussioin of the matter. The existing text is quite fine. I'd also note that Mueller did not "prove obstruction" although he strongly suggested as much with several specifics. There's been extensive reporting on that including a book by Andrew Weissman. SPECIFICO talk 00:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Noted that you consider the existing text quite fine. I don't agree. I think there are others who see the point I am making so maybe we can discuss the possible change to clarify the text. As far as obstruction, how about this: "describes numerous instances in which President Trump may have obstructed justice" Andrevan@ 00:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
The entire argument from the beginning is that it it makes look Trump look less bad. I said a long time ago we don't get to edit Wikipedia based off of something making someone looking less bad if it is the truth. That was the whole thing with the Mueller report: It wasn't as damning as it was thought to be. Fbifriday (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Unless you have sources for that, I think we should not get off track with weasel thoughts. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
My only point was to raise the issue of POV. Reliable sources say exactly what the lede is now. I understand leaving it, and in fact, argued for that last night, but Andrevan has been emphatically asking for change since last night, and other editors supported potential change, so thus, this discussion. The issue at hand is Andrevan making 3 very similar edits to this page in 24 hours, with the same intent, isn't constructive, is potentially a violation of the ArbCom sanctions, and until a consensus is formed on this talk page, of which your "Keep the same" argument is part of, he needs top stop trying to make edits to the page. Fbifriday (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
The 3 edits were entirely different and I've already stopped editing the page but have made many edits to the talk. The issue at hand is not me but the text of the lede section in the article, so let's discuss that. Andrevan@ 00:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
That's where I disagree and what I'm advocating for - that the Mueller report was quite damning objectively, but it was spun by Barr and Trump. Our present text creates the implication that there wasn't much there there. There was a LOT of there there and it was quite damning but we aren't presenting that as such. E.g. [11] Andrevan@ 00:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

New proposal

I propose we add an additional sentence to the lede section. As follows: The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign. Mueller found numerous instances of contact between Russian agents, Wikileaks, and the Trump campaign, and evidence of obstruction of justice, but declined to charge Trump, and convicted members of his campaign for crimes. Andrevan@ 02:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

That's too much detail for the lead. It's also not correct—Mueller had been directed to limit his investigation to Russian interference and potential collaboration with the Trump campaign. Charging a sitting president was expressly not an option (BBC], CNN, USA Today, WaPo, NYT). The third paragraph is about the 2016 campaign—Trump's positions and rhetoric, the protests against them, and his victory, including the Russian interference on his behalf. IMO, mention of the Mueller investigation should be replaced by a neutral sentence such as Investigations showed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The lede of the Donald Trump article is not the place to debate or flesh out the conclusions of the Mueller report. That is entirely too long for a lede, and is clearly starting to lose nuetrality. It's supposed to be a statement of fact, we're trying to garner consensus, and suddenly out of absolutely nowhere, you add a reference to Wikileaks, which has not been discussed, at all, anywhere in this discussion. No. Fbifriday (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
A lot of the mentions in recent RS are of Wikileaks, e.g. [12] [13] [14] "Mueller investigated -- but didn't charge -- Stone, WikiLeaks and Assange for Russian hack of Democrats in 2016, less-redacted report shows" Andrevan@ 17:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Not one single time does the work "Wikileaks" appear on the article. Especially not the part of the article that part of the lede is supposed to be summarizing. That is why, as I am saying, the addition of wikileaks is out of nowhere.
FOR CLARIFICATION: Wikimedia just approved a username change for me. I am the same person you were talking to. Sorry for any confusion FrederalBacon (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
That's fair, maybe we should think about updating it in the section below and not the lede instead of having it in the lede. Andrevan@ 18:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, the body of the article is where MOST of the changes you've proposed so far should go. There was pretty good consensus for adding "but was unable to establish" to the lede (with some in favor of status quo) to make the mueller report more accurately reflected. That might survive in the lede. Reliable sources have said "but were unable to establish".
The rest of it, the fleshing out of the report, the talking of the obstruction, the newer updates, the wikileaks thing, all of it should go in the body. I understand the desire to more accurately describe the conclusions of the Mueller report in the lede, but now it's become an argument about what exactly the mueller report even means. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm open to updating the body and adding "unable to establish" in the lede. However, I will wait until others can comment so we can get a working consensus. Andrevan@ 18:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I have added "unable to establish" to the lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Just pointing out that this article is VERY large. Consensus item 37 states that content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. Donald_Trump#Investigations_of_Russian_election_interference lists the main article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections where there is plenty of mention of the tools the Russian officials used to leak their stolen emails, WikiLeaks featuring prominently among them. There are also other articles such as the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak which are linked in the Russian interference article. Currently the body of this article doesn't even mention the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference, other than as further reading. (Did I mention that this article is VERY large?) We've had to condense and cut a lot of content to be able to give short overviews of the "highlights" of Trump's life and career. WikiLeaks does not qualify. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Recommend it be placed in the Trump administration page. We should be careful, not to let his tenure as US president, dominate his BLP. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, IMO it's natural that much of his BLP will also be about his presidency since that's by far his most notable event/role. Andrevan@ 03:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The facts are that Mueller charged several members of the Trump campaign with crimes and laid out a number of instances of contact with Russian agents/Wikileaks, and obstruction of justice. I think that the sentence in the lede as written now, omits the narrative that Mueller actually did come close to establishing a criminal conspiracy and computer crimes/fraud etc. Andrevan@ 17:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure we should be referring to or talking about including or omitting "narratives." That seems decidedly against the idea of a encyclopedia. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Every article in every work of reference has a narrative. A narrative is simply a a storyline. Everything has a beginning, a middle, and an end. The Mueller saga has an arc. The ending may have been anticlimactic but it's an arc none the less. Andrevan@ 17:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I quite agree, which is why I also think removing the "but" clause would be better. The proposed sentence makes things worse. We shouldn't quote or paraphrase a legal opinion. McQuade and Vance go on to explain what it takes to establish "without a doubt", "willfulness", "thing of value", etc. That doesn't belong in a bio, and it doesn't belong in the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
As you know that was my original edit - removing the clause. Since editors reverted and disagreed, we should think about an alternative on how we could clarify the clause without stepping over any BLP lines. Andrevan@ 18:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Fascism Note

I saw the discussion was closed but I added a further information for Further information: Fascism in North America#Donald Trump and allegations of fascism Andrevan@ 01:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

aaaand it was reverted... but I would like to link to that somewhere from this article. I also think there's merit in mentioning the Proud Boys and "stand back, stand by" and the Oath Keepers as it's a major topic of the Jan 6 committee which is getting a lot of relevant coverage in RS right now. Andrevan@ 17:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
It's a relevant, well sourced section, so I think it makes sense to include a link from somewhere appropriate within this article. Jr8825 • Talk 17:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
It was removed by @Space4Time3Continuum2x:. I don't want to get into an edit war with this user but I'm interested in having a link from Trump's biography to a page where reader can read about the debate amongst scholars whether Trump can be called a fascist. The section on the page Fascism in North America#Donald Trump and allegations of fascism does not call Trump a fascist, it merely describes the debate in reliable sources. The reason why I think it is DUE weight in this bio is because the debate over whether Trump is a fascist is a large part of the coverage of Trump's life and career in reliable sources. We don't want to delve into it in depth, that's why I'm proposing a link. Andrevan@ 21:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Per the above, I added it to the "Allegations of inciting violence" section since that seems relevant to the text that's on the other page. Andrevan@ 22:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Add to lede

Can we summarize the post-presidency section? There's nothing about it in the lede, almost making it seem like nothing ended. 

"Following his presidency, Trump remained heavily involved in national politics, including fundraisers and over 140 political endorsements. He is widely expected to run for president in 2024."

-- ɱ (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

"He is widely expected to run in 2024" is WP:CRYSTAL and not in that section of the article. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • He's still the "American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021", as the first paragraph of the lead says. Fundraisers and endorsements of candidates are not leadworthy, and "widely expected" is WP:CRYSTAL and also unsourced. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Lol, it's all over the news that he's running and just scheming when to announce. If it's that well-known and confirmed by so much of his staff and close relations, it's no longer conjecture. ɱ (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
It's all speculation and conjecture until he files as a candidate with the FEC. The last time around, he filed five hours after he was sworn in as president. All over what news? Sources? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
How about we wait until early 2023 'or' when he announces his '24 bid. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
How about a framing that's a little more qualified to follow RS and avoid weasel words. Instead of many are expecting etc. We could talk about the endorsements and say something like, "he currently polls highly for the nomination" or something to that effect. Andrevan@ 17:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Reporting on polls is routine news coverage. WP:NOTNEWS applies. BTW, the latest poll says that more than half of Republicans would prefer a different candidate. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support all but the last sentence Right now it is WP:CRYSTAL, but I would support inclusion of the first half now and inclusion of the second half when he actually declares. Because lets be honest it's just a matter of time Anon0098 (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
You're supporting inclusion of "heavily involved, 140 endorsements" because he might run? How does one follow from the other? "'I feel very confident that, if I decide to run, I’ll win.'" … "'Well, in my own mind, I’ve already made that decision, so nothing factors in anymore. In my own mind, I’ve already made that decision,’ he said." …"'I would say my big decision will be whether I go before or after,' he said." (before or after he midterm elections - NY Mag Jul 2022). Sounds a lot like "My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with the markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings, but I try." (NY Mag, Apr 2011) He had just been to a rally in Alaska where "his fans were adoring" (NY Mag, Apr 2011). The Saudi LIV Golf Series will hold a tournament at Bedminster at the end of the month and another one at Doral in October. So, on "Monday, July 11, he was in a fantastic mood."(NY Mag Jul 2022) What does "in his own mind, he’s made up his mind" even mean for someone who's mind is as changeable as a weather vane? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd support the first part because it's true. He'e been involved in politics since he left office to an extent that past presidents usually dont get involved in. Not because he is likely to run. Those are two separate sentences. The latter of which I dont support until he declares. Anon0098 (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Before we touch the lead, we'd need to update the fourth paragraph of the post-presidency section. It's based mostly on a NY Times article from April. Trump didn't just endorse 140 candidates, he endorsed mostly candidates who supported his Big Lie. Most of them won their primaries, and the WaPo article doesn't even include the June primaries (NYT primaries calendar). Also Trump conducted numerous fundraisers at Mar-a-Lago, benefiting the Trump Organization, i.e., himself. The proposed sentence gives a false impression. "Heavily involved in national politics"—nah, just in GOP politicking, and the number of endorsements without context is a factoid. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: would you prefer "Heavily involved in the Republican Party"? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I mean I'd still describe everything you said as heavily involved in national politics. But if you want to specify it to be "GOP politicking", whatever that means, I'd support Iamreallygoodatcheckers's compromise of "Heavily involved in the Republican Party" Anon0098 (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Bold edit

I've WP:BOLDly added a modification of the original proposition above that I believe there is some common ground on. Here is that addition:

Following his presidency, Trump remained heavily involved in the Republican Party, including fundraisers and over 140 political endorsements.

Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what the importance is to the political endorsements. There's no real reason the amount of political endorsements he's given should be in the lede, IMO. But that's just me, and if people are fine with it, I'm not gonna pull it down. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Subject is Controversial

Added {{controversial}} to talk page header templates. Andrevan@ 01:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

Trump has Had Many Controversies BUT Wikipedia Does NOT Say his Article is Controversial, It would be Greatfull to Have The Article Fully Protected 216.87.230.71 (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It currently does have Extended confirmed protection. Andrevan@ 00:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I think the anon editor meant to add the {{controversial}} tag to the talk page. Andrevan@ 01:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
It probably needs to be added Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 01:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to it but it's been a while since I've added it to a page, so I'm not sure what criteria we use. Looks like it's used on pages like Karl Marx, J. Edgar Hoover, Margaret Thatcher, Jerry Falwell, etc., so I guess it does fit. Andrevan@ 01:24, 30 July 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.

Talk:Donald J. Trump

I became aware of this page from the Teahouse archives. Is there some procedure that would redirect that page to this one? There is one three year old section which directs people to a move discussion here but that surely has been archived by now.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Since there is no meaningful content there or in the edit history, I redirected the page to here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Donald Trump is on the left.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Donald Trump passed two stimulas checks which makes him the most liberal President in USA history spending over 2 trillion dollars on the welfare of the American people - more than Barack Obama - more than Joe Biden. Each Republican including Mitch Mcconnel secretly wants Trump to never run again! 2603:7000:B901:8500:A470:2AFD:D495:ABDE (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

While you may or may not be right, the purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. Is there anything you want the article to say? Also, any material you wish to add must be backed up by good sources. They must say that Trump is on the left, not just that he provided more stimulus. TFD (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Right, we just follow what reliable sources say. No original research or original opinion. I doubt any reliable source considers Trump on the left, stimulus packages don't determine one's entire ideology. Regardless, my opinion is not relevant. Andrevan@ 16:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"Reformed Church" is too general

In the short paragraph titled "Religion", mention in made of "Reformed Church". It is correctly linked to "Reformed Church in America" which is the official denomination designation. Since there are many 'Reformed Churches' (more properly Reformed Denominations') in North America, (see: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Reformed_denominations) I recommend changing the text of the link to "Reformed Church in America" to remove ambiguity. Wigbold (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

seems fair. Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Since I can't edit the page, how do I request this minor change? Wigbold (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Done. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Wigbold (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Residence(s) in infobox

It's been changed a few times, currently to Mar-a-Lago. I've looked at the Manual of Style and quite a few guides on templates but haven't found any guidance on whether it's supposed to be the name of the building or the location of the official residence or whether it's needed at all. It doesn't seem to be used at all except for biographies of current and former U.S. presidents and senators (no residence listed for Queen Elizabeth II, for example). Does anyone know what it refers to or why it is needed? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I support including a reference to his residence in Mar-a-Lago since the "Winter White House" was a huge part of his life and presidency. Not everyone has a residence - Monticello might be a good example of a historical case. Andrevan@ 17:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Leave it out, it has changed, it will change. We should not overburden the infobox with Trivia. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother with including a residency. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I didn't think we typically included current cities where people currently live in infoboxes. And per Merriam-Webster the definition for the type of "Residence" people are referring to is "the act or fact of living or regularly staying at or in some place for the discharge of a duty or the enjoyment of a benefit" and Trump is neither discharging any duties, nor enjoying any benefit of living there, since he owns it, so I think the idea of an "Residence" doesn't fit here. It's only a "residence" because he lives there. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Coming back to this, apparently, every living former POTUS has their "Residence" listed. For Obama, it's his specific DC neighborhood, but for some, like Carter, it's just his town. Same thing with Bush, his town. IDK, maybe there is a standard here for this. FrederalBacon (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I checked the edit histories of the two presidents who preceded Trump. This is the edit that added a residence to the Bush 43 infobox in 2015 (wrong city, it seems); and this is the edit that added a residence to Obama’s infobox in 2019, in this case the Kalorama neighborhood in D.C. where the house is located. No edit summary in either case. Bush’s BLP got along without a residence for seven years after he left office, Obama’s for two years. Nobody appears to have objected in either case, so it seems to be up to editors’ consensus. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Then I revert back to my "I thought we didn't include current cities where people live" comment. Is that a recentism, thing? Seems like it would fall under that category, since it's not like we are listing every place he's lived, it's just putting a fact in for present time. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I think it should be listed as Mar-a-Lago. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Dump it. And slash it from the articles of other former presidents. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

"Far-right politicians in the United States"

Only a few recent politicians who are widely stated to be "far-right" are on this list, and it is mentioned in their articles. Why is Trump on here if this is far more controversial and it is not mentioned a single time in his article? Bill Williams 23:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't know why it's not in the article. Maybe you should add it, instead of removing the category. Andrevan@ 23:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I removed an unsourced category, which you added back without justification. He is not widely referred to as far-right, unlike the other current politicians on the list, such as MTG, Boebert, and Gosar. Trump does not share their positions on various issues and does not belong on the list without significant sourcing. Bill Williams 23:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
If you want to add a category not currently supported by article content, it is your prerogative to justify it by adding sources to and altering the article. The onus is on you, not on those removing unsourced material from a BLP. Endwise (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
He's such a good example of the far-right that if you read articles about Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, and Jair Bolsonaro, they are often referred to as the "Donald Trump" of France, Netherlands and Brazil. The article already says "Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist," which are far-right positions in the US. See The Tea party and the Occupy movements were symptomatic of the legitimacy crisis of both parties, and the former provided a milieu for mainstreaming of the far-right and conspiracy-driven politics of Donald Trump (Winter & Groll, 2017) [15] Do we find this source agreeable to start with? Andrevan@ 23:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
You can find one random article calling any politician far-right, that does not mean it is well sourced and belongs on the article for one of the most influential American politicians of the 21st century. It needs to be widely sourced in an uncontroversial manner , and it is quite controversial to single out Trump as "far-right". Almost every European country is ruled by someone more nationalist than Donald Trump, while isolationism and protectionism are common among far-left groups as well, not unique to the far-right. Comparisons to other countries like in Europe are irrelevant because their standards are completely different, since under your view they'd all be far-right based on their minimal immigration relative to the United States due to their nationalist tendencies. Relative to the U.S. he is not far-right. Bill Williams 23:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Sourcing is uniquitous. Readily available. Thanks for pointing out the article text needs an update. SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Then update the article. Remove the category that currently has zero sources in the article, which is the largest of almost any U.S. politician, yet still can't have a single line that calls Trump "far-right". Bill Williams 23:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes sir! SPECIFICO talk 00:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
This issue has been discussed in the past. As recently as March 2022. No need to re-hash anything. If this is going anywhere, it should go to an RfC to settle this. Otherwise, I don't see the discussion ever ending. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree we should not rehash, but that discussion doesn't look like it came to a consensus. So, editors may propose new text or introduce new text provided it is properly sourced and follows policy and guidelines. Other edits may revert with valid rationale if they disagree and then we will be back here before too long. Andrevan@ 01:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Your correct in the fact that there was no consensus, and thats the problem. Since we are now starting another big discussion on the same issue, I think it's best to just go ahead with an RfC. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Actually that was the thread where there was consensus for the labels but you kept sealioning and I pointed to the wrong link. That thread affirms use of far-right conspiracy theorist. SPECIFICO talk 01:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think you as an involved editor in that discussion should have the authority to say there was a consensus. There was certainly never a close by an uninvolved editor. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
For heaven's sake, don't resume the bludgeoning. Please. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to engage with this discussion on what should be done about this category. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
If the consensus was very clear, even an involved editor could close the discussion. Rather than starting an RFC, though of course you may start one, maybe we should just discuss the arguments and come to a consensus ourselves. Iamreallygoodatcheckers, could you summarize why you don't believe there is sufficient reliable evidence to call Trump a "far-right conspiracy theorist?" SPECIFICO, could you summarize the main evidence that he is? Andrevan@ 01:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Just to be clear, this discussion is about category "Far-right politicians in the United States". It does not appear category "Far-right conspiracy theorist" exist. Ultimately, the WP:ONUS is with those in support of inclusion to provide the ample amount of sourcing that describes Trumps ideology as far-right for the category to be included. Additionally, I don't the the consensus was "very clear" in the last discussion. You yourself, Andrevan, said right above "that the discussion doesn't look like it came to a consensus." Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I took a quick look at it and wasn't clear to me what the consensus was, but I am open to hear what SPECIFICO thinks. I am also fine to let it lie and let him add some new text to the article and we can see how we like it in a productive, creative way. That's the wiki way. Andrevan@ 02:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
It would be best to leave right wing/left wing labels out of these BLPs. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Disagree. Describing well-referenced, commonly cited political views and characterizations are not incendiary. They are factual descriptions of categorization in politics. We just saw an RFC close that it was DUE weight that Marjorie Taylor Greene is a far-right conspiracy theorist, and I wonder if there's a similar amount of support to say the same about Trump. BLP does not say that we can't hurt the subject's feelings. Andrevan@ 01:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Biden is also right-wing, as he's certainly not left-wing. Sanders is left-wing, though. Best to avoid labels. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Dont post nonsense. SPECIFICO talk 02:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
@Bill Williams:, @Andrevan:. Best to open an RFC on this matter, as it would be better to bring in outsiders' input. GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I do not plan to open an RFC, as I do not think that is a productive way forward at present, but that doesn't stop any other user from doing it. Voting and canvassing broad participation should be an escalation if we are at an impasse. Andrevan@ 02:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
You really should re-consider. Having roughly the same editors deciding on what's included & excluded from this BLP, just won't do. GoodDay (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
RfC is not needed. Just beef up the sourcing, place in the text and lead, and move on. Or have the previous thread closed. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
It would be nice to see those recommendations get done. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

See Trumpism SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Best we not leave these issues in the hands of a few (same) editors. I would recommend the same at Joe Biden, if such a discussion were occurring. RFC is the better route. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly that an RFC is merited, you may prepare one. Andrevan@ 03:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
An RFC asking "Should the terminology 'Far-right' be added to this BLP. I just may do that. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding news and other reliable sources in the Donald Trump page

In which a couple of editors rail against RS, Wikipedia sourcing and verification policies, etc. etc.. SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is the wrong venue. If you have concerns about source reliability, please raise them at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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.


It seems to me that a few editors believe mainstream news sources like CNN and others are completely reliable sources, shouldn't be questioned, and as such their content can be used to back up any info in the page at hand. But these editors seemingly ignore Wikipedia's own guideline about this practice. The reliable sources guideline states under WP:NEWSORG, "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors [...] Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." Thinker78 (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

True, but for us to seriously think they are not accurate we need good quality sources saying so. Slatersteven (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Which source are you referring to specifically? Generally, news stories from certain mainstream outlets like CNN or BBC or NPR are generally considered to be default reliable unless some specific issue is raised with a story. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
EvergreenFir "Which source are you referring to specifically?" Not any one in particular. I just observed a few comments taking news organizations as unquestionable. Personally, in some instances I do not know how reliable they can be if their journalists are political opponents of Trump. I understand that sources being biased don't prevent them from being reliable, but still, generates doubts about their reliability in some statements they may make. Thinker78 (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Journalists are not "political opponents" of any politician. Commentators, other politicians, advocates, etc. can all be political opponents, but journalists' job is to report. Those journalists personal views might be what you're referring to, but even then a good editor would ensure that a neutral tone is maintained. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH, people who come in and say "all mainstream/corporate media is biased," I understand that's a common view on the right-wing including denying anthropogenic climate change or the 2020 election results. We don't lend credence to WP:FRINGE theories, they are properly labeled and treated as conspiracy theory. We believe in science and facts and consensus reality here. Andrevan@ 20:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Unless there are specific objections to specific sources where can discuss this is a waste of time, this is not a forum for general discussions about wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No one has said that CNN and the like are "completely reliable sources" or "shouldn't be questioned", you're making up strawmen that do not exist. If there is a citation in the present article that you feel is problematic, then bring it here for evaluation. Otherwise, this is not a very useful use of people's time. ValarianB (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Holy cookie bars. Thank goodness I'm not the only one who has concerns about mainstream news media, as reliable sources. Will never forget CNN's poisoned backpack story, in Syria. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
How is that your takeaway from this conversation? The point is that it's disruptive to repeatedly push right-wing talking points and continually raise issues of bias on articles without any substantiation. It's clear that conservatives think Wikipedia is biased because it doesn't affirm their prior views and cognitive biases. Andrevan@ 20:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
GoodDay, the fact that CNN self-corrects and admits fault when they get a story wrong are positive points towards them. That is why they are unquestioned as a RS, while Fox News is in a dubious category because they double down, triple down, and quadruple down on their slanted reporting. Zaathras (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
CNN, hasn't been fully reliable (IMHO) since the Bernard Shaw days. MSNBC news & Fox news are respectively pro-Democrat & pro-Republican. But, last time I checked, the 'pedia declares two of them 'reliable' via consensus reached at (forget what it's called) some board or page. So not much can been done about it. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
It's WP:RSP and that's why it's disruptive to go around casting doubt on CNN and MSNBC instead of accepting the consensus. This isn't the place or the right venue to debate this. Andrevan@ 21:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
If one's not using Fox to edit political pages (they're going with the consensus), there's no problems. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd agree in the sense that CNN is not as rock solid as other sources might be. If there's something contentious, I'd use another source when possible. But they are adequate for most uses. (The board you're thinking of is WP:RSP) EvergreenFir (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Which is clearly stated on that page: There is consensus that news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable. However, iReport consists solely of user-generated content, and talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces. Some editors consider CNN biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability. Andrevan@ 21:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
"Generally reliable", meaning not 100%. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
"Generally reliable" is entirely different from "the media are all biased and out to get my preferred candidate." Andrevan@ 21:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't have a preferred candidate. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I was talking about the anon IP editors who pop by to claim the article is biased because "the donald rulz!" Andrevan@ 21:59, 26 July 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.

Better source

The article says "... making him the first U.S. officeholder to be impeached twice." This is true, however the New York Times source only says that he was the first president who was impeached twice, not federal officeholder in general. Please replace this source with a source which supports the stronger statement, such as [16]. 2600:1700:1154:3500:BC88:E673:1C5B:D9A8 (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Reviewed sources and added cite. Did not replace since the source provided did not give vote totals or date which the NYT article provides. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
TulsaPoliticsFan, sorry about putting the wrong section title in the edit summary. It should have been this one. Still, I objected to your edit, and the page is under discretionary sanctions (24-hr BRD cycle), so please self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
We use reliable secondary sources, and the reliable secondary source says "president". I just fixed that. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
The additional citation is definitely not necessary if the article reads "making him the first U.S. president to be impeached twice" so I'll go ahead and remove it. If you look at the edit history, I didn't change "president" to "officeholder". That was done prior. If it reads "making him the first U.S. officeholder to be impeached twice", then I think the second cite is necessary since the NYT piece does not make that claim, but the other source does. I understand that WP:RS has a preference for secondary sources, but providing a primary source from the US house records archive to supplement a claim is hardly a WP:RS violation. I do not have a strong preference on how we word it, but I think the original commenter is correct to point out if we go with "officeholder" we need the supplementary citation. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree, the House.gov source is a reliable primary source usable for simple facts, and since it is being used in conjunction with the secondary source, everything's looking ok. I don't think you needed to remove it. Andrevan@ 20:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Went ahead and listed the proposed change below. I don't have a strong preference on either wording.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
He also has the distinction of being the first U.S. president to be acquitted twice. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Current Wording:The House voted 232–197 to impeach Trump on January 13, making him the first U.S. president to be impeached twice.[17]

Proposed Change:The House voted 232–197 to impeach Trump on January 13, making him the first U.S. federal officeholder to be impeached twice.[18][19]

  • Trump never held any other public service office, whether federal, state, county, city, or boy scouts. I doubt that any readers care about other federal officeholders, and IMO using the two sources to justify "federal officeholder" is WP:SYNTH, combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." We don't need the second source to say "first/only president to be impeached twice". The number of necessary cites in this article (currently 822) is already a problem, and the size has been increasing again to the point where the article is reacting more sluggishly than usual. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
As the original commenter I am neutral on the issue. It is an easily verifiable statement of fact, though it is noteworthy that there does not seem to be a secondary source which makes this point. Many readers will not know which members of the federal government are eligible for impeachment, maybe that is why. 2600:1700:1154:3500:54A3:E5DD:E73B:8E1C (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2022

At the end of the lead where it says "Trump has remained heavily involved in the Republican Party, including through fundraisers and by making over 140 political endorsements" add a hyperlink for "making over 140 political endorsements" to the page List of endorsements by Donald Trump IntoTheNightSky (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done But I only linked "political endorsements" to not make the link too long. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Left leaning bias

See close comment by ValarianB below. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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.


Re-closing as unhelpful. A generalized complaint of bias from an IP is unproductive. ValarianB (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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 description of Donald trump is horribly biased and left leaning, painting Trump as some evil racist lunatic. It is obvious what the tone of this page is and it is not neutral 96.33.68.169 (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"some evil racist lunatic" This aptly summarizes his moral code. Dimadick (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
And care to provide some examples? Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
IMHO, IP. The only way we might be able to bring this BLP to NPoV status. Would be to have us regularly attending editors, step back from the article & allow outsiders to 'edit/propose/deny' changes. This would be a solution that should also be put into practice on other high-profile American politician BLPs. If every discussion held on this BLP's talkpage, keeps including the same 10 or so editors? The results will be roughly the same. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The page isn't biased. Andrevan@ 13:59, 26 July 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.
Closing these discussions only provides the sense to right-wing people that their criticism is silenced. This, in my opinion, is the one thing that is unhelpful and probably harms or can harm the project very much. [20] Thinker78 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
So? Sorry but this (if anything) is what they want, vague assertions of bias to be visible so as to undermine our credibility. It is why they never actualy ask a real question or suggest a real edit. Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
What part of "closed" do you not get, Thinker? Start a new thread or comment in an appropriate venue, if you have new thoughts to add on the meta-topic. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Specifico, the same part that you didn't get. I remember you like to close discussions where you are an involved editor, btw. Why didn't you write me to my talk page instead? I haven't banned you from there. Let's continue this conversation in my talk page or in yours if you want so this thread remains closed from these observations. Thinker78 (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Larry Sanger is not a co-founder of the Wikipedia, he has overblown and milked his role for decades and has failed spectacularly (ha ha Citizendium)) trying to make his own version. The fact that you cite him speaks volumes about you. ValarianB (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I saw a FAQ-style permanent pinned discussion on another talk page. Considering redundant criticisms get thrown about constantly, perhaps we can construct an FAQ page for this Talk Page in order to limit the amount of circular discussion? Tyrone (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Tylerf2022, the criticism in this closed discussion was the usual "biased, left-leaning" drive-by comment. This page has an FAQ subpage, accessed in the 'Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" box above the WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES box. It contains a link to another subpage, Talk:Donald_Trump/Response_to_claims_of_bias. Unfortunately, editors closing these vague accusations of bias don't always reference the FAQ. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:18, 6 August 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.

Recent edit revert

CLOSED
DeaconShotFire indef blocked. ––FormalDude talk 23:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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.


Paging @Jr8825 -- the only neutrality concern I had was about an editor's comment which uses the phrase "Muslim travel ban", not a part of the article itself. I interpret this as an opinionated term. As for the rest of the changes, I think they were more accurate. -Adam (DeaconShotFire)TALK 16:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  • For starters, "illegal aliens" is a loaded term associated with anti-immigration policies and advocates, and "several" is quite the undercount for more than 60 lawsuits. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    'Illegal aliens' is not a loaded term associated with anti-immigration policies and advocates. It was the term used until last year by ICE. My mistake was my not realising they had ceased use of it. "Illegal migrants" would be a more apt term, no?
    As for the word 'scores', it seems vaguely emotive to me. I can't quite determine why. I think either 'several' or approximating a number would be more suitable. -Adam (DeaconShotFire)TALK 16:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    Of course "illegal aliens" is a term associated with anti-immigration. Considering people to be "illegal" for travelling to or residing in a certain country is decidedly not neutral, it is a point of view. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    Adam, In the Ny Times ref [21] given for the item there is, "Children would be separated from their parents if the families had been apprehended entering the country illegally..." After I saw your comment, I tried this edit [22] and it was reverted [23]. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:48, 7 August 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.

Health care section, opioid epidemic

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, here is the complete edit summary for my revert of your edit. The original wording Widely criticized as ineffectual and harmful seems exactly right. You seem to be fascinated by Trump signing ceremonies, whether it’s the Abraham Accords Declaration on the WH south lawn or this edit with the misleading edit summary. NPR wrote that significant accomplishments followed the declaration of a public health emergency, such as H.R.6 - SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act and pushing China to slow their fentanyl exports. Did you stop reading the source at this point? You appear to have overlooked the big BUT and the wide criticism (by NPR, the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Health and Human Services, various researchers and experts) that follows. "But while some progress was made, critics point to serious missteps behind the scenes that hampered federal efforts, including the decision to sideline and defund the Office of National Drug Control Policy." "Drug policy experts say things could grow even worse in the months ahead if Trump is successful in dismantling the Affordable Care Act." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate you quoting it. NPR says critics point to... Trump's response to the opioid epidemic was criticized by his critics. If we had a sentence for every time his critics criticized him this article would be a trillion times longer. There's not support for the claim it was "widely criticized". That does not appear in the NPR source. Also your taking the the "the decision to sideline and defund the Office of National Drug Control Policy" out of context. A few sentences later it says, "That decision was later reversed". It was just speculation from a leaked internal memo, and never happened.
How about this In response to the opioid epidemic, Trump signed legislation in 2018 to increase funding for drug treatments, but received criticism for failing to make a concrete strategy. U.S. opioid overdose deaths declined slightly in 2018, but surged to a record 50,052 deaths in 2019. This balances sums both parts of the NPR article. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 16:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Huh? "Widely critized" is the WP editor reading the source wherein journalists cite, quote, and paraphrase experts praising and criticizing Trump's "fumbled response" (that's in the headline), and there are more criticisms than praises. During a panel discussion in late July, Giroir [assistant secretary for health and an opioid policy expert at the Department of Health and Human Services in the Trump administration] described recent increases in opioid overdoses as "a nightmare," adding that "all the progress that we made has been reversed and this is even before the pandemic." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
OK. So what is wrong with he proposition I made? It's starts with action made and then how he blows it, and then explains the crisis worsened. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 23:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

This all might be better in the article about his presidency, I suggest removing all mention of it. It tells us noth9ng about him Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Criticizing Trump for the opioid epidemic is complete nonsense when Biden and Obama's articles make no mention of it, as if somehow Trump is the one who personally created it? Not even close to notable enough for this article, it had nothing to do with him. Bill Williams 01:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, you went ahead once again and reinserted challenged material (the Trump-signing-stuff bit) while a discussion is going on. I haven’t reverted (yet) because I’m still waiting for your explanation why Trump signing a bipartisan bill that was passed by the Senate 99-1 and by the House 396-14 is so important that it needs to "balance (?)" the criticism of the bungled execution. If he had vetoed the bill, Congress had the necessary two-thirds majority to override the veto, and the bill would have become law without his signature. The bill is the legislature's accomplishment, the bungled execution the executive's—uh—"achievement". We all know how he liked to show off his signing skills—there must be hundreds of photographs of him signing documents surrounded by cabinet members, other officials, random members of the public, then showing his signature to the press while the proud parents beam at Junior’s accomplishments crowd applauds (here are just a few published by NBC, Guardian, Alamy, and Salon). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: It's significant because NPR said so (NPR: Significant accomplishments followed. Trump signed legislation in 2018 that boosted federal funding for drug treatment.) Would you rather mention him declaring a state of emergency in 2017? That's also mentioned in the NPR article, and is obviously an action of Trump himself and not congress. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 17:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Bad sentence structure in lead

> He won the 2016 United States presidential election as the Republican nominee against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton >but lost the popular vote,[a] becoming The focus is now on what happens because he lost the popular vote >the first U.S. president with no prior military or government service. This is not a consequence of that, and it relates back to the first chunk.

Put the popular vote part elsewhere; it doesn’t fit here 193.6.168.232 (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Why not? Also that has nothing to do with bad sentence structure. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Well he did lose the popular vote (technically, nobody won that vote, as nobody got over 50%) & he was the first US prez, to enter office without prior government or military experience. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
That is not what's meant by "win the popular vote." SPECIFICO talk 14:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
IP, the sentence's structure doesn't require changes. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
No, the IP right; it's a poorly written sentence. Trump did not become the first U.S. president with no prior military or government service because he lost the popular vote. They should be two separate sentences. Station1 (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
You can't just isolate on the last 4 words of the first clause like that and pretend the first part is invisible, not how English works. Strip the adjectives for a moment, we get ---- He won the election but lost the popular vote, becoming the first U.S. president with no prior military or government service. It discusses electoral vs. popular vote, and being the firs president with no experience. Clear and concise. Those who are protesting here are essentially inferring there is a "thus" (which denotes causality) where none actually exists. Zaathras (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
It’s a technically sound sentence that makes no sense conventionally, ie bad writing. You can put a “despite” in there if you’d like. Otherwise, keeping it as one sentence is middle-school tier handiwork. Goblintear (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense, it is why the sentence is split. Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand. People make the strangest mountains out of molehills here. Zaathras (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
One sentence is fine.Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with IP that this sentence needs to be re-written. It is notable that Trump is someone who was elected President without winning the popular vote however the way the sentence is written ties it so closely to his election that it makes it sound like a pot shot from writers who dislike Trump: "Well, he was elected President, BUT he didn't win the popular vote, so there!" I think George W. Bush's article handles this better where the language is simply "He became the fourth person to be elected president without a popular vote victory." The current language in the Trump lead seems to imply that there is something unusual or systematically abnormal about winning a U.S. presidential election without winning the popular vote, which is not the case as winning the popular vote is not the goal of a U.S. presidential campaign and never has been. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
seems to imply that there is something unusual or systematically abnormal about..., well yes, it is unusual, which is why many reliable sources took note of it. The sentence is fine as-is. Zaathras (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree that this comes across as a potshot.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
How does "but did not win the popular vote" compare to "but lost the..."? Jr8825 • Talk 09:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I like Basil’s suggestion. Keeping the wording consistent with other presidents who find themselves elected without winning the popular vote is a good way to go about things. Tyrone (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE

It seems like the intro clearly violates WP:LEADCITE: "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." Many of the statements in the lead have been challenged, just look at the talk page. Why is this article allowed to violate this guideline by having no citations in the lead? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

There's extensive negotiation and consensus. See Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias and the FAQ at the top or check out the talk history. Everything is well-established and cited in the article body and simply summarized in the lede. Challenges were resolved through discussion and consensus. Do you have something in particular that you wanted to discuss or can the FAQ and notes cover it? Andrevan@ 20:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's biased, I'm just saying it violates this guideline. Many people have disagreed with some statements, so it must have citations in the lead. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a consensus to use in line citations in the lead for contentious claims (see item 58). I would encourage you to be BOLD and add a citation to a claim you see as contentious. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I would highly discourage your encouraging an editor to unilaterally make changes to the lede, as we all know how that will wind up. There will always be a handful of complainers who groan about every line in the opening section, we do not need to achieve 100% happiness here. Zaathras (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I also encourage you to either be bold and add a citation, writing in the edit summary about item 58 of the consensus, or start a thread about an edit you would like. If they revert when being bold, start a talk page thread explaining your rationale backed up by consensus. Just ignore uncivil comments by some editors, because some are rude and willfully ignore the civility policy. Maybe they have a tough time in their personal lives and don't have the strength to be cordial. I don't know. --Thinker78 (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Just ignore uncivil comments by some editors is a very interesting comment, my friend Thinker78. Because I certainly see you casting aspersions (Maybe they have a tough time in their personal lives) on unnamed editors personal lives. So shall we ignore you? Zaathras (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thinker, can you not high road everyone and pretend we aren’t trying to make Wikipedia a better place? The vast majority of regular editors here do it in good faith. No need to passive aggressively undermine the intent of your collaborators. Tyrone (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Bad sentence structure in lead 2

This sentence: In foreign policy, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal, and he initiated a trade war with China—needs to be separated. It doesn't flow well at all. I can't think of a way that doesn't either a) split the sentence weirdly or b) add an imaginary thus or instead between the Iran nuclear deal and he initiated a trade war with China—any help? 2ple (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Might help to flip the sentence around to avoid repeating ands if I'm understanding correctly. In foreign policy, Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. Anon0098 (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Done - switching the order should be uncontroversial. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this done? Tyrone (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggested re-write for lead's fifth paragraph

The opening sentence of the fifth paragraph in the lead is rather lengthy. It could be trimmed as such:

"After losing the 2020 United States presidential election to Joe Biden, Trump falsely claimed widespread electoral fraud and attempted to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition."

The second sentence could also be rewritten - it's missing context about why Trump urged his supporters to March to the Capitol (the electoral vote count is mentioned, but a clear correlation between the attack and the vote count isn't established). My proposal is:

"These efforts culminated in Trump urging his supporters to protest the electoral vote count by marching to the Capitol, which many of them attacked, resulting in multiple deaths."

Thoughts? Bluerules (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Your edit is just 22 characters shorter than the current text. It removes important material ("refused to concede defeat", the date of the attack by which it is mostly known), and adds your opinion/synth ("culminated in"). You also added text that’s not from the sources because Trump did not tell his supporters "to protest the vote count". That’s whitewashing of what he actually said. After saying "we fight like hell", he said, "So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country." That’s exactly what our current version says. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • A trim is a trim. Redundant information should be removed whenever possible.
  • "refused to concede defeat" is redundant and far less important than Trump's efforts to overturn the election. If it's established Trump was falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud and attempting to overturn the results, then it is obvious he did not concede defeat.
  • Putting a full date in the lead is incredibly awkward, especially when it's the only full date in the lead. The exact date is far less important than what happened on that date.
  • The reason why the attack took place on that date is far more important than the exact date. You had no response towards the omission of this key detail - the attack was directly linked to the electoral vote count. The current version makes it sound like Jan. 6 was randomly picked by Trump.
  • It is not an opinion; it is a fact Trump's efforts to overturn the election culminated in the Capitol attack. I am open to using a different word to establish what resulted from his efforts to stay in office, but that is what the efforts led to while he was still in office.
  • "Protest" is "whitewashing", but "march" is not? Like I mentioned above, the current version doesn't establish why he urged his supporters to march to the Capitol. We are missing key information. Trump telling his supporters to "fight like hell" is him literally telling them to protest. But we have to use formal language when describing events and statements. The current version doesn't have the full events. Bluerules (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The two versions in question for the convenience of other editors/readers:
Current text

Trump lost the 2020 United States presidential election to Joe Biden but refused to concede defeat, falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud and attempting to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition. On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count.

Your proposal

After losing the 2020 United States presidential election to Joe Biden, Trump falsely claimed widespread electoral fraud and attempted to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition. These efforts culminated in Trump urging his supporters to protest the electoral vote count by marching to the Capitol, which many of them attacked, resulting in multiple deaths.

  • Trim. The material you trimmed is not redundant.
  • "refused to concede defeat" is redundant. Obvious or not - there’s a difference between slouching off to Mar-a-Lago and quietly fading into the woodwork without uttering the words "I concede"/congratulating Biden on his win and and saying, "We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved."
  • awkwardness of date in the lead. Eye of the beholder? Mention January 6 to any American and a whole lot of other people and they’ll know what you are referring to.
  • The reason why the attack took place. Where do the secondary sources (and the transcript of Trump’s speech, for that matter) say something that amounts to "urg[ed] his supporters to protest the electoral vote count by marching to the Capitol"? As in, walk up there and peacefully picket? That’s the spin aka whitewash certain people are putting on it. It’s up to you to provide the reliable sources supporting the text you propose, and you haven’t.
  • efforts culminated in. Cap, climax, conclude, complete, finish, end up, round off, terminate, wind up, wrap up - do you have reliable sources that say something along those lines? I think at one point we tinkered with "resulted" but then just stuck to the facts.
  • protest. Formal language for "fight like hell" is "protest" like Great Dane is another name for Chihuahua. It’s not a neutral characterization of what he said (fails NPOV), and the reliable sources do not say that he told the crowd to go to the Capitol and protest the electoral vote count. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The material is redundant. Again, it is stated Trump was "falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud and attempting to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition". It is impossible for Trump to have conceded defeat if he was trying to overturn his defeat. Note the article on the attempts to overturn the election doesn't feel the need to spell out Trump wouldn't concede. Also note the article is not about Trump refusing to concede; it's about Trump attempting to overturn the election. Speaking of which...
  • There is also a difference between saying you're not going to concede defeat and taking action to change said defeat. The latter is what's important - it was unprecedented and threatened to undermine the election process. The latter is what generated its own article. To spell out Trump not conceding defeat when the article already says he tried to overturn the defeat serves no purpose other than to bloat the wording.
  • Speaking of "eye of the beholder", it's telling you said, "January 6" instead of "January 6, 2021". This demonstrates at the very least, "January 6" could be used instead of "January 6, 2021". But that still doesn't establish the background of that date:
  • You continue to ignore how the current text is missing the background of the January 6 date. The current text makes it sound like January 6 was randomly selected because it is not established January 6 was the date of the electoral vote count. You've already provided the reliable source for Trump urging his supporters to protest with the "fight like hell" quote. "Protest" does not automatically translate to "peacefully picket" and to suggest otherwise is a complete strawman. The current text says he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol, but doesn't establish why he wanted them to march on the Capitol. That's missing key information. To say "protest" is not whitewash, especially when it's immediately established Trump's supporters attacked the Capitol. Protests are not always peacefully. We can't outright say Trump urged his supporters to attack the Capitol because he didn't directly say it, but we need to establish why he urged his supporters to march.
  • "During the first hearing, the committee described in vivid detail what it characterized as an attempted coup orchestrated by the former president that culminated in the assault on the Capitol." Incidentally, the article on the attempts to overturn the election also says, "These efforts culminated in the 2021 United States Capitol attack by Trump supporters" and lists the Capitol attack as one the results of the attempts. Those editors must have found even more sources.
  • Except "fight like hell" is synonymous with "protest", while a Great Dane is not a chihuahua. As demonstrated above, you've equated "protest" with "peacefully picket". That is not a neutral characterization. "Protest" is a blanket term. It could mean "peacefully protest" - or it could mean "fight like hell", which is supported by reliable sources. He is referring to the electoral vote count in his comments. The fact the current text says Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, but fails to establish why he urged them to march is a problem. It's missing context. I have offered solutions to the problems in the current text. You have offered no solutions. You criticize "protest" as being formal language for "fight like hell", but don't provide what would be formal language for "fight like hell". You only chose to criticize. Bluerules (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think the suggested re-write is overall better, and the characters shaved off by such a trim are negligible, even for a crowded lead such as this one. Responding to specific points, I disagree that "refused to concede defeat" is entirely redundant - while it definitely overlaps slightly, it's a fact that by itself stands as a significant occurrence in US democratic history. In terms of space saved by removing vs. information lost, I quite strongly prefer to keep "refused to concede defeat". I have no preference regarding the rejigging of the second sentence, no space is saved and both seem fine, so it seems like six of one, half a dozen of the other. I'd opt for the status-quo myself, largely because it ain't broke. Jr8825 • Talk 09:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    If other editors support the current version, I won't argue against the consensus; that's why I brought this to the talk page before editing the paragraph. Thanks for the feedback. Bluerules (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the trim does not enhance the article and potentially leaves out important facts surrounding the peripherals of an integral part of the conclusion of the Trump presidency. I oppose. (I do agree in theory that we need to make the article more navigable if possible) Tyrone (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand recognizing Trump's refusal to concede, even if I believe more focus should be brought towards his efforts to overturn the election. However, I still believe the connection between the Capitol attack and the electoral vote count needs to be better established. The current text doesn't explain why Jan. 6 was the date he urged his supporters to march to the Capitol. It may acknowledge the electoral vote count, but it doesn't explain the Capitol attack was because of the electoral vote count. Bluerules (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Newly added lead sentence "Following his presidency..."

The previous discussion involved few editors and resulted in Iamreallygoodatcheckers adding this bold sentence to the last paragraph of the lead, with one editor agreeing and one editor disagreeing. I would have also disagreed and reverted but was unable to respond at the time. The sentence:

Following his presidency, Trump remained heavily involved in the Republican Party, including fundraisers and over 140 political endorsements.

I rephrased and moved the sentence into the first paragraph with the edit summary "Move from last paragraph which deals with past events and historical evaluations. The first paragraph says who the subject is and what he is doing now. Bold rephrase; if this sentence is lead-worthy, then it's" (I seem to have lost the rest of the sentence, meant to say "needs to go into the first paragraph with his current occupation(s)":

Unlike other former presidents, Trump continues to dominate his party, hinting at a third presidential campaign and endorsing Republican primary candidates who mostly support his claim of a stolen election.

My edit was reverted with the edit summary "Restoring more encyclopedic wording, adjusting location to avoid confusing the chronology". Bluerules, which words/phrases of the sentence you restored are more encyclopedic than which words/phrases of my sentence? And what is chronologically confusing about placing Trump's current occupation (revenging, hinting at a third run, supporting MAGAots for office) in the first paragraph that begins with "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is"? My first choice still is WP:NOTNEWS—just pointing out that the current tally of candidates endorsed by Trump stands at 200 and counting. But if we do add something, it should be current and to the point. The current sentence is neither, as it also doesn't contain the most important information about the endorsements, i.e., that Trump endorsed candidates who support his claim of a stolen election. (The source says "almost all" but so far I haven't found a single one who hasn't or alternatively supported "making elections more secure", i.e., making voting more restrictive and difficult, and we know where those 8-hour lines will and won't be.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

This isn't about what the current sentence contains; it's about what it doesn't contain that makes it more encyclopedic wording. Your proposal features bold statements and rumors ("Unlike other former presidents", "hinting at a third presidential campaign"), as well as improper capitalization ("Republican party"). My main issue, however, is not the wording - it's the location of the sentence. By making it the second sentence of the first paragraph, we're jumping back and forth between events. We reference "claims of a stolen election" without establishing what election he claims was "stolen". We're also referencing the Republican Party without establishing Trump is a member of the Republican Party.
The first paragraph is not always about what the subject is "doing now". The first paragraph is about notability. We establish the occupations and roles held by the subject. If Trump really did have a "current occupation", then that could work as a second sentence in the first paragraph. But he doesn't have a current occupation. Your proposal is discussing actions and events. Actions and events should be chronological in the lead to avoid confusion.
I am open to changing the sentence to remove the number of candidates supported by Trump. I am also open to adding information to note Trump's endorsed candidates mostly support his stolen election claims. And I am open to removing this sentence altogether. My opposition just derives from putting it at the beginning of the lead. The opening sentence is perfectly effective at establishing who Trump is and why he's notable. Bluerules (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Space4Times's edit to the first paragraph introduced speculative, poorly written, and UNDUE content. Bluerules made the right call to reverse it. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 16:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
"Poorly written", oh, well, I'm crushed. "Dominate", "hinting" at third run, and endorsing candidates who support the Big Lie are supported by the cited sources and neither speculative nor undue. Also, there was no consensus to add your proposed sentence to the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
"Hinting at a third run" is speculative - even if we're focusing on Trump creating that speculation, we're still discussing speculation. Putting this sentence in the opening paragraph is undue because it draws more attention to this material - material that doesn't have the same weight as his actual presidency. If there's a consensus opposition to the current sentence, then it should be removed, but I don't see that here. I think it could be rewritten, but I see the value in having it and it should be in the final paragraph, not the opening one. Bluerules (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Mentioning endorsing candidates who support the Big Lie as the second sentence of the article is UNDUE. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 18:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I suggest you change the heading of this thread because MOS:LEADSENTENCE is generally understood as the first sentence of the lead. Maybe change it to "sentence in the lead". Also, headings are better if they are a bit shorter. Thinker78 (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I reckon the content of the sentence will certainly change, depending on whether or not Trump seeks the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is fun—not. Please, read the body with the RS, people. 140 endorsements—that was the status back in April. The LA Times (I just added the cite to the body) on August 5 and the NY Times on August 2 updated the tally to "more than 200". For inquiring minds who want to know, Ballotpedia has compiled all 233 Trump endorsees for the 2022 midterms and special elections. Ballotpedia also provides the RS for each name on the list, so, if anyone has the time and energy to add those 233 names and cites to List of endorsements by Donald Trump, go for it. In its current state, the list contains only a small number (43 out of 233) of the GOP hopefuls Trump endorsed in 2022 plus a hodgepodge of "endorsements" Trump made over the years, from Hillary Clinton on a Trump University blog post in 2008 (CBS 2015) to Brexit in 2016 (Guardian) to Brazil's president Bolsonaro in a statement a Trump surrogate tweeted in October 2021 (Harrington). The link does not lead to further or in-depth information on Trump's endorsements in 2022. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

If the current sentence has problems, then we should work on improving that sentence, not completely overhauling it and moving a new sentence to the very beginning of the article. I don't have an issue with updating the number or removing the number altogether. Bluerules (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Dealing with complaints of bias

IMO there are too many replies by experienced editors, each time an IP or newcomer complains that the page is biased, anti-Trump, etc. without specific examples, requests, or recommendations.

I suggest we all adopt a first response to refer such queries and complaints to our FAQ and the link that will explain why the article content may appear POV to a reader. It wastes valuable editor resources for one or more editors to engage in repetitive threads that explain these issues to newcomers (good faith or not) when we've already taken the time and effort to write a general reply as a first step. Then any follow-up should address the specific concerns that the newcomer may articulate after having read the FAQ and explanation linked there.

I'd like to see us all give this an extended trial and free up editor time for article improvements. SPECIFICO talk 13:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and I think this also helps avoid the occasionally snarky replies from experienced editors which might push away well-meaning newcomers. — Czello 13:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
See my suggestion in the preceding discussion. We Wiki-vets on this BLP, need to step back & allow outsiders or new editors to step in. Having the same roughly 10 editors show up for nearly every discussion, makes any changes to this BLP a struggle of sorts. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, the editing pool can become a bit stagnant and consensus can be difficult to overturn. Sometimes articles this contentious can enter oligarchical WP:OWN territory which is a roadblock for newer editors. That said, how can we encourage vets to step back and newer editors to step up? — Czello 14:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
A group pledge would be required from us editors-in-question, to step back away from this BLP & other high profile American politician BLPs. We would of course, be allowed to revert vandalism or fix spelling mistakes & other gnome requirements. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Which (of course) would be the problem, what would constitute vandalism, the deliberate insert9ion of (for example) fluff or cruft? Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
What we need is for uses who think this page is bias to actually give examples, and not vague assertions, that we can assess.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
That's a recipe for disaster, to invite the least experienced, aggrieved advocates to take over while those of us who have researched the RS, collaborated among experienced editors with various alternative approaches and proposals, quit sharing what we've learned over many years' work. To see the absurdity of that proposal, @GoodDay:, consider that these newcomers evidently do not even read the talk page headers and the guidance there -- let alone our editorial PAG's. They need to be pointed to these resources and return with constructive input after having done so. SPECIFICO talk 14:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Lets also not leave out, the page is protected, so they can't edit it (there is a reason for this), so they still have to come here, and ask experienced editors to make a change. The problem is this is never done, they never make actionable suggestions. So what do we do, just allow "this page is biased" discussion if violation of wp:soap or wp:forum? Ot is the suggestion to remove PP? Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC).
There's many other established editors who can handle such requests, concerns on these BLPs. I'd like to think that it's not only roughly 10 established editors, who monitor these articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I have seen far too many good editors driven away from these types of pages because of the amount of work they have to put in just fielding "why is this page biased" questions, which can go nowhere other than "because RS are". But sure lets all agree to stay off this page for 48 hours, and lets see who will step up and answer those questions. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
There's many a reason why other established editors choose not to participate on pages like this, but I seriously doubt that the existing participation of editors is one. ––FormalDude talk 14:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Give it try (48 hr-break) & if it doesn't work? Then give Specifico's idea a go. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
"Lets also not leave out, the page is protected [...] So what do we do". @Slatersteven, for starters, be more welcoming of ips and new users and recognize their criticism properly, instead of try to shut them down immediately. Thinker78 (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
If they make valid well thought out criticism fine, if they say "here is what is wrong and here is why" fine. But if it is just "you are biased" or "this is left-wing propaganda" (or whatever) that is not helpful, as it does not identify a real issue, it makes a judgment based upon the user's own bias. We can't answer every "this page is biased" (and that is all they in effect say" with "Please explain how", as it is a waste of time, as they never seem to go anywhere beyond "well you should stop using solely MSN" (or some such crap). See the thread below for what I am talking about, we can't action that as it goes against any number of policies (or come to that the one above). Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
"See my suggestion in the preceding discussion". I do agree that there is a group of editors who have a certain view and are not necessarily welcoming of ips or new users who lobe criticism. Thinker78 (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The FAQ could say something like, "Wikipedia's policy requires that articles reflect how someone is portrayed in reliable sources. Trump is seen by experts as one of the worst presidents in U.S., history, using a demagogic appeal to racism, misogyny and xenophobia, who was an ineffective administrator and incited his followers to attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to his successor. The article however must maintain a neutral tone and not portray Trump in a worse light than reliable sources do. If you have any specific examples of where this has happened, please provide them." TFD (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@TFD, if anything there should be in the pinned consensus thread a concise explanation of the NPOV and RS policies addressing accusations or concerns of bias and separately in a different item, individual controversial portions of the article can be included. Because including all those negative things to explain away bias criticism wouldn't be helpful. They should be included if there is consensus, in a line that simply points out it is the consensus that info is included. Thinker78 (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I actually do like this suggestion @TFD. Andrevan@ 01:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • It seems exceedingly rare that IP and newcomers ever have good-faith complaints about this article, and I agree with SPECIFICO that it is a waste of editor time to entertain such clearly disruptive comments. ––FormalDude talk 14:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
That I went through multiple-consecutive 'edit conflicts' to make my previous post, is another sign that we ourselves, might be a part of the problem. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
No, the edit conflicts were caused by the immediate rush of longtime editors responding to your suggestion we empower the Trumpist POV arrivals. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Not every IP or newbie that shows up here on the talkpage, is a Trump lover & we shouldn't always assume that they are. Just like not every IP or newbie who shows up at Joe Biden's talkpage, is a Biden hater. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I think this thread should be closed. The suggestion is not one we need to entertain. Andrevan@ 15:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Strawman. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
48-hrs, that's all I'm asking. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
There's another part of the problem. Closing (i.e. hatting) threads we don't like. It happens far too often & can be quite frustrating for editors (IP, newbie & established), who bring forward proposals. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum, people who come on here spouting whatever uninformed, not-supported-by-RS POV will find their threads closed. Popping in to say you think Wikipedia is left-bias isn't a valid comment, or doubting reliable source news from CNN which is a green source. If someone had valid, substantive concerns they would be addressed. Otherwise, disruptive and POV-pushing editing will not be encouraged. Andrevan@ 15:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Ah an example, below. Let's all try to not respond or hat that IP's proposal. Let another established editor (outside of us) handle it. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
OK. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
GoodDay, have you read our FAQ and the link provided inside it? SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
48-hours trial basis. That's all that's being asked. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
So you have not read what's linked -- i.e. the subject that we are discussing? SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@Andrevan. "Popping in to say you think Wikipedia is left-bias isn't a valid comment, or doubting reliable source news from CNN". In my opinion, I don't think your statement reflects Wikipedia guidance. Per WP:NEWSORG, "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors [...] Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." Thinker78 (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:RSN and WP:RSP exist, but to more directly address [w]hether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis, simply chiming in with "CNN sux!!!", "Hannity wuz right!!!" or some variation thereof is decidedly not an examination nor even the compelling start of one. Holding newer editors to a standard we'd expect from regular editors is in no way bad, and honestly tolerating those types of discussions just leads to people thinking it is acceptable and potentially doing it themselves. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH, repeatedly questioning CNN or claiming that Fox News should be reliable is a form of disruptive editing and POV pushing. Andrevan@ 20:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@GoodDay: I don't think every newcomer concern should be shut down, but the ones that are clearly going to lead no where should. For example, the one right above us wasn't going to lead to any meaningful change in this article. Now it's different if a new comer expresses a particular concern. We should treat those differently. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
All I'm suggesting is that we tend to group own this BLP. It's a human trait, that we all have. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I would agree sometimes more experienced editors form nearly an oligarchy. We as Wikipedia's should try to be welcoming to newcomers. Not hostile. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Straw man. SPECIFICO talk 22:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@GoodDay. "Closing (i.e. hatting) threads we don't like. It happens far too often". I absolutely agree this is a huge problem. In my opinion it reflects the society at-large where wearing a political logo in the wrong neighborhood can get one insulted, assaulted, or worse. Thinker78 (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM please. This is for discussing the article not your own opinions on politics. Andrevan@ 20:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Andrevan, I've been around this old 'pedia longer then most (if not) all of you. I know what can happen if/when an article comes under group ownership. It creates the impression that there is a bias, to IPs & Newbies who aren't trolling. Some do troll, but some don't. I'm just pointing out, let's be careful that we don't put up a figurative wall. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I created my account in 2003, I became an admin in 2004, a year before you created your account. WP:OWN is clear that nobody owns articles. And we don't OWN this one. We are simply following policy. Andrevan@ 20:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@FormalDude, "it is a waste of editor time to entertain such clearly disruptive comments". I think each editor can decide for themselves how they spend their time or who they want to reply to. Thinker78 (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with SPECIFICO. These threads complaining about bias never have and never will go anywhere. They just waste editors time. In fact, once the editor is directed to the FAQ and the link is provided, I think the whole thread should just be shut down to prevent anymore time wasted. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I concur. Andrevan@ 16:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
So your "trial balloon" thread is the "trump is actually a liberal" one? Egads... ValarianB (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I would say it is perfect, as it would nicely demonstrate why this is a bad idea. Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Support, with condition. I think it is a good proposal, only if it is not used to provide more censorship. I would agree with it being a first reply, followed by an invitation to ask questions if there are any doubts, and maybe collect a FAQ for those doubts as well to add it to the standard response. But something that shouldn't be done is just provide the standard response and close the discussion. Thinker78 (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC) Edited 15:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
No one is being censored but everyone has to obey policy, and that includes not using this talk page as a wp:forum or wp:soapbox to tell us how crap we are (for example). If people are just saying "You are biased fix it", that is not helpful, and it gets pretty tiresome every few days (in some cases) having to say (over and over again) "you need to point out the bias, we cannot guess what you mean". Suck talk page comments are not helpful. Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@Slatersteven, "and it gets pretty tiresome every few days (in some cases) having to say (over and over again) "you need to point out the bias", so why don't you just ignore those threads instead of replying the same thing over and over or taking the time to close those threads? You are not making sense. Thinker78 (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Becasue they still take time to read. And we can't allow vague random accusations to go unanswered as that means people might then think they are valid points, so we have to say why they are not. Nor can we allow accusations of bias to go unchallenged. Personally, it would just save time to just delete any of these one "you are biased" threads. And I am now leaning towards that, as you are correct, why shous we waste time dealing with disingenuous comments that violate wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
@Thinker78: Re why don't you just ignore those threads Have you seen Poseidon (film)? Wikipedia is the boat. If we did as you suggest an exponentially rising wave of screeching bullshit would sink us. But by all means, head to village pump and propose the WP:TPG have the part about removing harmful posts deleted. That will be entertaining. I'll bring popcorn. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Nothing good ever comes from those who cry "censorship" in the talk pages of political articles. Nor do such editors tend to last very long in the topic area. Zaathras (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, considering the number of articles we have like Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, Hunter Biden laptop controversy, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, most WP:FRINGE right-wing advocacy content gets way more airtime on Wikipedia than it does elsewhere. Sure, it's all delineated as conspiracy theory and explained as such, but censorship? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. Andrevan@ 21:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm assuming that the "Hunter Biden laptop controversy" page (which is a current/recent event) is being guarded around the clock, by a small number of editors. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
You would need to go there and ask. Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Do not use this talk page as a platform to accuse editors of paid actors of a propaganda ministry. Seriously... ValarianB (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@GoodDay Probably so. I wouldn't be surprised if political articles like Donald Trump in fact have some government or otherwise political gatekeepers to push a narrative. It is a common practice in Guatemala (where I live) by politicians to hire entire call centers to comment online to disparage opponents or to keep a certain narrative. Information is power and those who control the information have power. Wikipedia is seen by millions and millions of people and it is one of the first sources of information online. Therefore it would be naive to think all editors, specially in certain topics like politics and the Donald Trump page, only come to edit because they like Wikipedia, they like editing, or they like to contribute to free knowledge, among other neutral or altruistic reasons. Thinker78 (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Speculating on this will probably run afoul of WP:AGF unless you have something specific. Andrevan@ 19:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I stand by my comment, with the clarification that I was not accusing editors of just a particular ideology or political leaning, even though my reply was in response to mentioning an article, it is something that happens in any political spectrum or ideology, among other situations and all over the world. For more information please read the article Censorship of Wikipedia and Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Thinker78 (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Concur with SPECIFICO. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Support plus besides that, let's create a subpage with its own archive and relocate these to the subpage then let auto archiving take over. If we do what I first suggested we would create a problem regarding when these threads should be archived. For example, say a new one pops up right before the monthly or quarterly batch were due to be archived. If we do them all on a subpage it will help us keep a clean house without simply deleting them.let's also do a monthly or quarterly section heading, and each time one of these pops up, relocate to a subsubsection under that heading. We can easily preserve linking using the template for that purpose, which I can't seem to find right now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Support plus Yes, we should just have one header and move all such "questions" there. What we should not do is ignore them. Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Please see the markup showing changes I made to the initial Support Plus idea. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Seems fine, kudos for being creative. Andrevan@ 15:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I think that's a big step, to fork the archive. And its not clear to me how it would be sorted. Since there's some software implementation needed, it seems to me better to accelerate the auto-archiving of closed edit requests and IP gripes, but maintining a single archive structure. SPECIFICO talk 15:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Actually there is a process to request a special notice to appear before someone starts editing. That could be one way to deal with this. Thinker78 (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
That'd be editnotices. Unfortunately they have a few limitations. They do not appear at all for mobile web and iOS editors, and many editors flat out won't read em. I had a quick look at the 500 most recent edits to this talk page. Not counting revdelled/suppressed edits, 19 edits were new sections, of which six were tagged with mobile web edit, meaning they would not get the edit notice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

There is bias. Currently on this talk page there is an example that I gave above. [24] Bob K31416 (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

"Bias" isn't a synonym for "people keep disagreeing with me and I don't like it". Zaathras (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
There's already a discussion about the Abraham Accords in a different section. It can continue. It is not "bias." There's an open discussion on the matter that can be continued. Andre🚐 21:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

And here's another example of bias that I gave before. [25] So there's the article saying, "Trump ... repeatedly refused to condemn David Duke, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) or white supremacists." And what is not in the article is that Trump said, "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." Bob K31416 (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a well-attested fact that Trump repeatedly refused to condemn white supremacists. He told the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by. He could barely tell them to go home after invading the Capitol, he said he loved them and that they should remember this day forever. What's the source for the 2nd statement? We can take a look and consider whether that is due weight versus the hundreds of sources that have covered his other statements. Andre🚐 02:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Nah, we're good. The "David Duke, KKK" quote is from our section on the rhetoric and political positions during the 2016 campaign. The "racism is evil" quote is from Trump's second statement after the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. That's the one he read off the teleprompter. Then came the third statement (the "infrastructure statement") at Trump Tower where he reverted to "blame on both sides" and defended the Tiki torch marchers shouting e.g. "Jews will not replace us" as "protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The above responses to the examples of bias are false or inadequate and are examples themselves of how the bias is maintained, as is the response to this recent previous comment of mine [26] by closing the discussion. This biased article is an example of how Wikipedia should not be edited. Good editors are driven away by the systemic bias and behavior here. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The revert you complained about removed POV, i.e., WP saying s.th. in Wiki voice that was based not on the opinion/analysis of the reliable source but on the RS citing then-WH Chief of Staff Kelly. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, do you get the impression that your suggestion resulted in freeing up editor time for article improvement? As one of the barnacle-covered old-timers splashing about in this stagnant pool (and not about to take a group or whatever pledge), I'd say this discussion has descended into the usual general, "let's dredge up all our old grievances", bias complaint fest. Time to close? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It's the gift that keeps on giving. More or less proving its own point, I think. But before you close it, let's wait and see whether it can keep on growing and take up the entire page. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Until ya'll come up with a solution? The complaints from other editors (established & ips), will likely continue. Particularly if Trump chooses to seek the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Then we need concrete ideas from those claiming bias, ones that are in keeping with our policies. As many of us do not see a bias issue here. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
This is a problem that arises in many political articles and it is probably best to discuss at the Village Pump, rather than repeat the discussion over multiple articles. Bear in mind that not all complaints of bias are unfounded. Currently for example, Hunter Biden laptop controversy begins, "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer that conservative media outlets claimed (without evidence) had belonged to Hunter Biden."[27] While that might hae been true, mainstream news sources now treat the laptop as genuine. See for example, "Analysis of Hunter Biden's hard drive shows he, his firm took in about $11 million from 2013 to 2018, spent it fast." (NBC News May 19, 2022) There should be a middle ground between conservative conspiracism and liberal hyper-partisanship. TFD (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The Village Pump would indeed, be the proper place. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
That laptop sure got around, and now it's here on the Donald Trump talk page, joining the bias complaint fest! I'm the "liberal hyper-partisan" who corrected (first edit, second edit) the "conservative conspiracism" misrepresenting the NBC report which says, "according to an NBC News analysis of a copy of Biden’s hard drive and iCloud account and documents released by Republicans on two Senate committees. ... NBC News obtained a copy of Biden’s laptop hard drive from a representative of Rudy Giuliani and examined Biden’s business dealings from 2013 to 2018 based on the information available on the hard drive and the scope of the documents released by the Senate." That's middle ground, sticking close to the source, and, AFAIK, the FBI hasn't released their analysis. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
RS policy means using mainstream media as sources for stories, not police analysis, except as it is filtered through news reporting. Facts, incidentally, are established by courts, not by police. But it would take us a long time to wait for final decisions. TFD (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Specific proposals

Proposal 1: Start a new thread to discuss and determine by consensus what the standard response should be. Also, whether to pin it in the consensus list and when it should be used. Need to have in mind that Donald Trump is an evolving article modified all the time and at one point there may be legitimate complaints. Thinker78 (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to Syria section under Foreign Policy

Should Trump killing the global head of ISIS at a time when they were terrorizing the Middle East be included in the "Foreign Policy in Syria" section of the article? I contend it should be given that it is a major event in global Foreign Policy and was a direct result of Trump's order, with great public interest and relevance. He even gave a televised speech about it to the nation and took questions from reports for over thirty minutes. In addition, many high level counter terrorism raids are mentioned in other Presidents foreign policy pages (Obama, Biden) thus it would provide some consistency between foreign policy information on Presidents' pages. Thoughts?? Agent123456789 (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Secondary and tertiary sources, please? SPECIFICO talk 12:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Was it, as it seems to me the US keeps "killing the global head of ISIS", and each time they are just replaced. Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I remember that WH statement fondly. "As you know, last month we announced that we recently killed Hamza Bin Laden, the very violent son of Osama Bin Laden, who was saying very bad things." "Baghdadi and the losers who worked with him" "He died like a dog." We're not bound by the editing decisions editors make on other pages, this page is larger than those of Obama and Biden, and Trump's go-ahead on something that made no or little difference isn't that important for his life's biography. The Pentagon said that Al-Bhagdadi's death "did not disrupt the group’s command structure or operations" and that "ISIS remained cohesive, with an intact command and control structure, urban clandestine networks, and an insurgent presence in much of rural Syria." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The televised speech and press availabilty? I believe it was computed that, including en route to golf trips in the presidential chopper, Trump averaged 2.4 press gaggles per day of his term in office. So that's not an indicator of significance. Nor is the self-promoting announcement, etc. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_147&oldid=1107254376"