Talk:Donald Trump

Current consensus

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

04. Superseded by #15

Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

07. Superseded by #35

Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

10. Canceled

Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)

11. Superseded by #17

The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. Superseded by #50

Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)

18. Superseded by #63

The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)

19. Obsolete

Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

23. Superseded by #52

The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

35. Superseded by #49

Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)

36. Superseded by #39

Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

37. Resolved: 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. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48

There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (RfC October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health habits" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

Racially charged

Hello all, I see Consensus #30, based particularly on this Request for Comment says: "The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist."" I can also see that this is the only mention of "racially charged" in the article. Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? Not this one, per process. We're not going to amend #30 until the body is fixed, then reverse the amendment. "Racially charged" appears to have enough RS support, so just find a way to work it into the body. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What does "reverse the amendment" mean? Go back to Consensus 24? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC) I understand. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I see the grammatical ambiguity. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems backwards. Lead follows body. We shouldn't treat the consensus list as sacrosanct, it's merely there to keep track of RfCs. If the article has moved on, I'd support a new RfC to challenge the previous one. Riposte97 (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Riposte97 I think an RfC should be avoided if it can be. Do you think you could WP:FIXIT? I'll have a go as well in a bit. If we don't have luck we can look at overturning Consensus #30.

Given it's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, high-quality sources will be needed. I wouldn't accept journalists being arbitrators of whether his comments were "racially charged", political scientists will have written on it and we shouldn't accept inferior sourcing. This is the standard that was applied for "cult of personality". Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Your reasoning seems consistent with WP:NEWSORG. A departure, probably more impactful (disruptive?) than you realize, but maybe ultimately good for the article. No strong opinion provided we adhere to the established consensus process. If that means revisiting #30, I suppose you pass the "significant new argument(s)" test. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave, apologies that I've not had the time to properly devote to this. I'll see what I can add to your page in the coming days. Riposte97 (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yep definitely. 92.30.105.204 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I have created a page User:Rollinginhisgrave/Trump racism descriptor as a space for research on this article. I intended to use academic sources in Racial views of Donald Trump as the basis to follow summary style, but extremely disappointingly, only six of the almost 500 sources are academic.

This is collaborative so please help! If this can be pinned to the top of this page for a short while it would be valuable. Remember, for WP:WEIGHT, we are not merely looking for multiple sources describing him or his comments/actions as racist/racially charged, but for the weighted response of high-quality academic sources to these questions. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

SusanLesch Pinging you in case this effort is of interest. Been working mostly on collating books right now as journals are daunting for finding discussion of general scholarly consensus. If you find other useful texts along the way providing a scholarly retrospective assessment on aspects, I'm currently dropping them in User:Rollinginhisgrave/sandbox_2. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Will do. Sorry if I'm slow today with journals but I will catch up. On this topic per MOS:LEADNO, not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text, however this statement absolutely should be cited per MOS:CITELEAD. Seems like a good place for a perfectly cited footnote. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :) Yes the key issue is definitely it being uncited. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we add some positive things about his presidency to this article?

I’m not a fan of Trump but this article is so biased. Can we add some positive things to the first portion of this article? At least mention forcing NATO countries into paying, positive economic growth, or fairly fast economic COVID recovery compared to other first world nations, or something neutral like tax cuts or recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. There are positives and negatives to even the worst presidents, but the first portion of this article reads like something straight out of Mother Jones. Don’t pretend like Trump hasn’t done like one or two good things. C9crab (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? If you can share some examples, perhaps it will gain consensus to be added. DN (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I can help C9Crab a bit with an example. Currently on this talk page there's a proposed positive thing that needs help getting in the article. It was previously put in the article and reverted. It's in the talk page section Support for Trump's missile strike in Syria. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I notice the founding of the space force isn't mentioned anywhere in the article despite being significant. The Abraham Accords could have a mention in the lead. Increased funding for NASA, the Artemis program, and the Artemis accords are significant things that could be mentioned in the article but aren't. Anotherperson123 (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I second this. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 18:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I tried to add this, but the whole edit got reverted, with the reverter saying its not due. Some part of this edit is probably due. We shouldn't just omit any significant things that could contribute to a positive view of Trump in the article. Anotherperson123 (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

We do mention the Abraham accords. Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Appointed the first Indian American to his cabinet (who happened to be a woman), Nimarata (Niki) Randhawa Haley, a first generation Indian American, who's parents where Sikh immigrants from Punjab India, you have her in Wiki.

I agree, this is so blatantly skewed, especially the racism and misogynistic comments and the interpretation of Jan 6 There is a more logical way to reference things, including the information surrounding the silencing on social media of an alternate view, that even Zuckerburg admitted to. Many falsifications about Russia interference as well as the whole laptop thing, which eroded alot of his credibility right before the 2020 election. We are now becoming all too aware of the media biased, and lawfare as anyone with a grain of knowledge and a bit of investigation into the charges would see. A lot of this is quite frankly, what overwhelmingly put Trump over the top... in a landslide.

To obtain credibility, many of your assertions need a counterpart.

There are many other firsts and accomplishments. Deborahlivermore (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no issue with adding the line "Appointed the first Indian American to his cabinet". Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Indian American implies Native Indian Kowal2701 (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You may be thinking of the term "American Indian". Anotherperson123 (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want to add something "positive" to the lead, I'm not sure that recognition of Jerusalem as the capital city really fits the bill. The move was highly controversial, and widely condemned by world leaders.

What some may consider positive, others may see as negative, and vice versa. Either way, this sounds like a call for WP:FALSEBALANCE which goes against policy. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you're mistaking false balance with NPOV?

WP:FALSEBALANCE states that "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized." For example, we shouldn't try to legitimize the Flat Earth conspiracy theory by giving it equal weight through comparison to widely accepted science. However, Donald Trump does not fit any criteria listed on WP:FALSEBALANCE -- he's a candidate for the presidency of the U.S who is widely disliked, but is also equally liked, based on the fact that he and Kamala Harris are basically tied in the polls. His presidency from 2017-2021 included positive and negative aspects, as with practically every presidency, and this article should reflect that in accordance with NPOV. C9crab (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

FALSEBALANCE is a part of NPOV. It leads with While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. Balancing negatives with positives to make it less negative is FALSEBALANCE. We go by WP:DUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

If you think Donald Trump is a “ minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim” then prepare to be amazed that 70,000,000+ people thought that Donald Trump aligned with their beliefs and voted for him in 2020. Making his article reflect both the good and bad of his presidency isn’t FALSEBALANCE, FALSEBALANCE is meant to be applied to actual “minority” or “fringe” views that go against widely refuted ideas, among those being flat earth. C9crab (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Beliefs and opinions, may or may not be DUE. DN (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Higher-educated people lean Democratic, which hinders the inclusion of pro-Trump views in WP:RS, even if they are popular with the public. The fact that Trump was elected with millions of votes is already in the article. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Having a lower degree of education isn't the same thing as being uninformed or stupid. Trump's greater appeal to blue-collar workers (who tend to be less educated than white-collar workers) can also have something to do with their economic interests regarding trade policy, for example. Farmdudler (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

nnnnn 207.174.237.68 (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

"Equally-liked" and "tied in the polls" are not the criteria by which we judge inclusion or exclusion of material in a Wikipedia article. If you approach this as a popularity contest, prepare to be disappointed when your suggestions for article additions go nowhere. Zaathras (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This isn’t about a popularity contest, it’s about making an article fair and balanced in alignment with NPOV. Not sure what you’re not understanding. C9crab (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Trying to make Wikipedia an objective and bipartisan website is like trying to boil the ocean. Freespeech2024 (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Especially if they deny climate change. DN (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The climate is and always has been changing, could you please elaborate more than describing what's been occurring on Earth since it was formed approximately 4+ billion years ago. Thank you comrade. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

No. DN (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you strike "comrade". WP:PA O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@C9crab: I will quote what another user said in a similar conversation about a request to add more positive statements to the Laura Loomer Wikipedia article.

In that discussion, Aquillion wrote: Your argument above seems to misunderstand how balance on Wikipedia works - our job is to reflect the overall tone, focus, and weight of the highest-quality sources available. If those sources are overwhelmingly negative, then a balanced lead will also be overwhelmingly negative ...

For the most part, it seems that the things that get considerable and persistent coverage by the press are also the things that will get more weight and coverage here on Wikipedia. That's what I meant when talking about false balance in a previous comment. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

1) "forcing NATO countries into paying" - this is based on Trump's own mischaracterization of how NATO is funded. The actual payments (direct funding) have always been made. What some countries are failing to do is meet the military budget targets. There is no "payment" here, it is their own investment in their national militaries. 2) "positive economic growth" - Trump assumed office in the middle of a long term economic growth cycle, he can hardly claim this as his accomplishment. 3) "fast economic COVID recovery" - ummmm, the recovery came after he left office. 4) "tax cuts" - which were heavily skewed towards the top 1% with little lasting impact on the majority of the population 5)"recognizing Jerusalem" - thereby stirring up more trouble in the Middle East. I'm still waiting on you to mention something positive. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

He didn't participate in any wars during his presidency, making it one of the only ones in US history; this should be added, it's very positive. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you serious? So who do you think nearly doubled the US forces in Afghanistan from January 2017 to January 2018? Who deployed 3000 US troops to Saudi Arabia in 2019? Etc, etc, etc. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Trump leaves office and a year later Russia invades Ukraine and starts a continuing war, and 2 1/2 years after Trump left office Hamas makes a major attack on Israel with hostage taking which starts the continuing Gaza War that is currently being picked up by Hezbolloh from Lebanon with the beginnings of another war in progress. This wasn't happening when Trump was in office. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Russia had no need to invade Ukraine when Trump was appeasing Putin. And if you want to connect October 7 to Trump not being in office, there's a tag for you. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

LOL, really? Also no, let's not mock. Russia was in occupation of Crimea (that is an invasion of Ukraine), 11 terror attacks in 2017 (alone) in Israel what peace do you want us to add? Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

plus i found a newsela article saying biden headed to inauguration in city scarred by last days of trump so he wasnt positive 206.57.152.111 (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Congress has a budget on all entertainment. The internet is full of biased opinions 🙄 wiki leaks is sold out like every other lawyer. Guess what trump did that no other electoral did... which was go vote in person. He didn't do the mail ballot, or any other fraudulent way to gain dead votes. Americans has spoke 👏 👌🏻 2601:5CF:8581:10:B48C:CC4D:B4A:3A7A (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this article lists nothing but negative things that occurred during his administration and seems incredibly biased. Fxncy (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this article is so biased it makes me sick. 73.207.114.168 (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:TRUMPRCB. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Vios of WP:NOTFORUM, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Nah there is no way, Wikipedia says ONE good thing about Trump? No way. This place is inherently biased and is essentially a leftist propaganda arm. Yet Biden has been "sharp as a tack" until Kamala was declared the latest great thing and Biden was quickly forgotten. Fsckwiki (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NPA vios. At least. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is bias, so it’s fair to write negative speculative opinion based narrative, he was not impeached twice if it was thrown out, Covid he was right about knowing the numbers were inflated and the vaccine was not created by Pfizer or maderna it was NIH. So perhaps as president at the time he knew or knows more than you and the media. The so called J6 insurrection is a hoax and not once did he say to do any of the things that happened that day by patriots prior military personnel who love and fought for this country. The election was stolen with Covid to create mail in ballots to pad the numbers add in the dominion voting machines and how does Joe Biden get the most votes ever 81,000,000 is ridiculous when clearly you can see the votes being counted and all votes going to Biden when Trump was leading. Wikipedia is just more fake news narrative how about stick to the facts!! 2603:6080:D000:5688:E496:7D49:1F68:8C8B (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's a positive that was rejected. Trump scores a long-awaited coronavirus win with vaccines on the way Regarding the question, "Can we add some positive things about his presidency to this article?" I guess the answer is no. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess the answer is no. Please WP:AGF. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

AGF? This is Donald Trump we're talking about. There are no good things that came from his presidency, and that's supported by so many sources. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

One good thing came from the Trump presidency: the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022, which we can indirectly credit to Trump and his attempts to steal the election. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

No it isn't. He made 4 peace deals, no new wars, expansion of economy, illegal immigration down, etc.

Biden on the otherhand.....numerous new waes, chaos in the world, russia is winning the war in Ukraine, cultural destruction, open borders of migrants, violent crime at multi decade highs, etc. 149.62.206.91 (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

No new wars does not mean no wars, and which peace deals did he make? Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Reply to 149.62. The US crime rate has trended downward for decades, and recent data confirms this pattern. However, while the national violent crime rate decreased by 1.6% in 2022 compared to 2021, the property crime rate rose by 6.7%. Rates vary by region due to factors including urbanization levels, economic conditions, and law enforcement effectiveness. From usafacts.org--Updated on Fri, February 23, 2024 by the USAFacts Team Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Lies as usual. The ABC tried to "fact check" Trump on that during the debate, and they lied.

The FBI recently revised data on violent crime from 2022 upwards. Original reporting had shown a 2.1 decrease in violent crime from 2021 to 2022. The new numbers show a 4.5 percent increase

So they waiting until well after past the debates and released the "corrected" report in the last moment before the election to cover up for the previous lies. Fsckwiki (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I support mentioning Operation Warp Speed. Not sure why others don't, but I know it's been discussed. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

That tale does not tell anything "positive about Trump." What's positive is his unprecedented political skill - holding the GOP captive even while destroying what remained of it after the Bushes. Also, though it was not on his initiative, he continues the Republican corruption of the Federal judiciary, remarkably to his personal benefit. Most Americans may dislike those outcomes, but the are extraordinary personal achievements. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I would support mentioning it (despite the fact that his involvement was basically just signing his name) if he hadn't spent the entire time flouting the suggetions of actual doctors, hosting what amounted to spreader events, and saying mind-numbingly stupid things like the idea of putting bleach into people. You don't get to claim credit for the science when you spend so much time denigrating it. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Odd things about Operation Warp Speed were that, IIRC, Pfizer, who developed the first usable Covid vaccine, was not a part of Operation Warp Speed. And the true genius who spent decades researching the concept of mRNA vaccines, winning the Nobel Prize for doing so, was an immigrant to the US but left due to lack of funds to complete the research. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It was branding. See Katalin Karikó (the genius O3000 mentioned), BioNTech, Pfizer–BioNTech, and "America first". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Warp Speed should be mentioned. R. G. Checkers ^talk 18:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If you have some examples, than I suppose you may add them (with consensus) in. Should Trump return to the White House on 20 January 2025. I suppose his second term, would gradually change the info in his bio. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

agreed. This is crazy biased and the more I see everything against him, the more I like him honestly (I've never been a big fan of his) this is pretty ridiculous 2605:A601:AF64:8000:A6CF:B505:D9F5:DE32 (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I might agree with you if I understood little to nothing about Wikipedia policies and the underlying principles. I suggest you start at: Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Users can take that on board, or not, as they please. But we are not going to have yet another time-wasting extended discussion about this on this page. Avoidance of that is why the response page was created in the first place—after literally years of time-wasting extended discussions about this. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Another positive not in the article is that the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, died in a raid by U.S. forces during Trump's presidency. From CNN,[1]

"Esper told CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning that the President approved the raid 'late last week' after being presented with different options. The objective, Esper said, was capturing Baghdadi or if necessary, killing him.

'He reviewed them, asked some great questions, chose the option that we thought gave us the highest probability of success and confirmation that the head of ISIS would be there and either captured and killed and then we executed from there,' Esper said."

Bob K31416 (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Did this change anything, was it a positive? Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, he aced the cognitive test. Man, camera, chicken, TV. SPECIFICO talk 07:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

He was "top in his class" at the Wharton School too, right? But I think that claim has been debunked. He didn't even make the Dean's List? We could at least put in the lead that he falsely claimed to be first in his class. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Jokes aside, would it make sense to mention the First Step Act? That wasn't a Trump accomplishment really, but it was something he signed. VQuakr (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the problem, people are asking for positive achievements, not just signing something. Some he actually did, worked for. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

People seem to be forgetting that we can add in what he has accomplished already as being president-elect in 2024. Such as the four major leaders in the war (Russia, Ukraine, Israel, and Palestine) reaching out to Trump to negotiate peace, keeping men out of women's sports, etc. We don't only have to add in things he did in 2016-2020. And also, this is supposed to be a NON-BIASED article. That means that it doesn't even matter if you state mainly negative things, it just has to be COLD HARD FACTS cited with reliable sources that are not left or right leaning in their agenda. 73.207.114.168 (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:TRUMPRCB. Per WP:AGF, please refrain from accusing Wikipedia editors of bad faith motives unless there is "clear evidence" of that. Adhering to Wikipedia policy is not "clear evidence" of bad faith motives. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

All I am saying is that you may want to look over your sources again and make sure that the company publishing them isn't leaning either left or right in their agenda, because you may be getting false information and putting it into this Wikipedia page. 73.207.114.168 (talk) 05:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

But that isn't how this works. We are already doing the best we can in good faith. There is a rewrite of the WP:TRUMPRCB page currently underway, and I believe it does a better job of explaining things. This can be found at User:Rollinginhisgrave/sandbox. But using information from a biased source is not a policy vio provided it's used correctly. So there's that. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I just think you should be careful is all. but thank you for getting back to me. 73.207.114.168 (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

We are as careful as humanly possible, while not being perfect. Feel free to make specific, policy-based suggestions for improvement to the article. I honestly don't think vague reminders like this help anything, but they have consumed roughly an hour of my time that could have been better spent on other things. This is the whole point of the TRUMPRCB page. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, we could add that to Donald Trump#Social issues right after mentioning that Trump supports the use of interrogation torture methods such as waterboarding, the Trump administration executed 13 prisoners, more than in the previous 56 years combined and after a 17-year moratorium, and Trump’s anti-marijuana actions. Or not. Bipartisan bill, and after Trump signed it, his DOJ was working hard not to release people and to put parolees back in prison. For example, a former inmate was singing Trump's praises at a WH presser while Trump’s DOJ was trying to send the man back to prison. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Not in the article is Trump orders strike on Syria in response to chemical attack, which begins with,

"President Donald Trump ordered a strike on Syria Friday in response to last weekend's chemical weapons attack.

Addressing the nation Friday evening, Trump said the strike was a joint operation with France and the United Kingdom.

'A short time ago, I ordered the United States Armed Forces to launch precision strikes on targets associated with the chemical weapons capabilities of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad,' Trump said.

Trump said that the 'massacre' last weekend in Syria 'was a significant escalation in a pattern of chemical weapons use by that very terrible regime.'

'The evil and the despicable attack left mothers and fathers, infants and children thrashing in pain and gasping for air. These are not the actions of a man,' Trump said, referring to Assad. 'They are crimes of a monster instead.' "

Bob K31416 (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If this belongs anywhere, it would be in the presidential article. But it's mostly quotes from Trump. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the missile strike is already in the article. My mistake. It's any mention of the support it got that is missing from the article whereas the article mentions criticism for Trump's other actions in Syria. See the Talk section Support for Trump's missile strike in Syria. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Just a general impression. This is an article, and it is in Wikipedia, but I don't think calling it a Wikipedia article would be appropriate. It's something else. Too much of an attack orientation. Just my opinion. And with that, I think I've spent enough time in this section. Best regards. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Are we talking about positive things or just things that have gotten support from somewhere? Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

IMO the more we talk about adding "positive things" the more it appears to look like a misinterpretation of policy. For example, it's not any editor's fault Trump chooses to promote conspiracies for his supporters who also appear to believe in them.

"When reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." Where is the contradiction, AKA the positive perspective, among reliable sources? Wikipedia doesn't rely on sources that promote conspiracies, so in a way our hands are somewhat tied. DN (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• "forcing NATO countries into paying" is just plain wrong and demonstrates you don't know how NATO works, recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital is highly controversial and not followed by any major ally, and tax cuts for the rich is not "neutral". Don't pretend you're being neutral point of view with rubbish like this. AusLondonder (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Get ready to update this to "President Trump is the 45th and 47th President of the United States with the largest Electoral College victory in the entire history of the United States while also electing more Supreme Court Justices than any other President in US history." Enjoy champ. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  What has this to do with adding passive things? Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It really is so biased. If people can't agree on anything positive, at the very least the extreme negative hyperbole needs to be removed. The phrase "and unlike anything a political candidate has ever said in American history" regarding his public statements in his 2024 campaign made me laugh. Whoever added this to the article, are you aware that the US had presidents who were openly advocating for slavery and the KKK? RedrickSchu (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You're citing the clause out of its context (His embrace of far-right extremism[713][714] and harsher rhetoric against his political enemies have been described by historians and scholars as populist, authoritarian, fascist,[b] and unlike anything a political candidate has ever said in the recent American history.[715][708][723]) You can easily look up "whoever" in the revision history, and they backed up the clause with three reliable sources that say "Never before has a presidential nominee openly suggested turning the military on Americans simply because they oppose his candidacy", "No major American presidential candidate has talked like he now does at his rallies — not Richard Nixon, not George Wallace, not even Donald Trump himself", and "Trump Is Speaking Like Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini ... Until recently, this kind of language was not a normal part of American presidential politics." If you have any sources saying that this has been the norm or even happened before, please present them. If not, we have nothing to discuss here. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

While there's nothing wrong with that section, I think the "unlike anything a political candidate..." part could be improved. The longer an unquoted sentence goes on, the more it sounds like an opinion, even though it isn't. I tried to write a version which addresses this, but didn't have much luck. But I do think the word 'ever' can be removed, as it just adds confusion (between the whole of American history and recent American history).

The only real problem with it is people mistaking it for an opinion, which is what's happened here, right? This seems to be something which happens frequently in this article. 300AD (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

"His embrace of far-right extremism[713][714] and harsher rhetoric against his political enemies have been described by historians and scholars as populist, authoritarian, fascist"??? YOU'RE TELLING ME RIGHT NOW THAT THAT IS 'NOT BIASED AT ALL?' FIRST OFF, USING THE WORDS "Extremism", "fascist", and "authoritarian" are just plain wrong, second off, source [713] is written by Ann. E. Marrimow for the Washington Post, and she graduated from Harvard University. Both Harvard and Washington are far-left propagandized sources, that cannot be valued as a non-biased, reliable source. So that source is worth nothing and that claim of far-right extremism is nothing but political biased in this article. Third, source [714], which is also cited in that claim of far-right extremism, is written by NBC news, which, can you guess it? Is far-left and anti-Trump, making them a biased source and a non-reliable source. That is just ONE part of a sentence that needs to be fixed. I recommend an extremist take to this article to create it non-biased. It needs to be completely erased and rewritten by a voter of one of the independent runners, that way it is not biased towards Biden or Trump. 73.207.114.168 (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

We should at least explain why people vote for him.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• My 2 cents: The article, and especially the lead, are indeed driven by negative views of Trump, that reach an umprecedented level. That much is ackowledged but justified by those defending the current version -- which is enough to clarify that we should no longer be referring to this article as fair coverage of its subject (even though he is a living person.

It caught my eye that much of the text focuses on a supposed scholarly consensus that he is a fascist. Now even if this were the supposed consensus, it is easy to find scholarly views who, even when critical of Trump, dispute the fascist label as inane, and have been doing so for years (at random: Harris, Jerry and Davidson, Carl and Fletcher, Bill and Harris, Paul, 2017-12, 1-17, Trump and American Fascism}, vol 7 of International Critical Thought, DOI 10.1080/21598282.2017.1357491. Let alone that this preemptive allegation of fascism is now squarely in the "aged like milk" category -- not even the wildest theories about what Trump did on Jan 6 corroborate or substantiate the label, whereas "stood down amd won a second term, in coalition with dissatisfied libertarians and democrats, and survived assassonation attempts by disgruntled left-wing militiamen" scream out as the exact opposite of fascism. Let alone that there are actual authoritarian rulers in the world who don't get this much harping about fascist analogies in their articles. (And that even for many such regimes, the openly authoritarian ones, the label of fascism does not automatically take hold when simply vented by more or less levelheaded academics.)

In addition: unless you're waiting out on a third and successful assassination, this article, and the lead above all, is overfocused on past events. There must be a path forward to where we at least agree on adding and subtracting elements that aren't/are part of a 2017 scare (or scaremongering). Dahn (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

this is why I take Wikipedia with a "grain of salt". The article, whether the editorial consensus wants to admit it or not, is heavily biased with overwhelming left-leaning views of Trump. I can think of one good thing Trump did while in office, he spear headed the "missing and murdered Indigenous women ". So to say there isn't any positive aspects of the Trump presidency is just outright intellectual dishonesty. This is one of many reasons I voted for him for the very first time for his run in 2024. JBurris123 (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)]

He did, as far as I can tell this initiative was started in Canada, and it was in fact the Democratic House passed H.R. 1585 (Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019) by a vote of 263–158, which aimed to increase tribes' prosecution rights much further. This act was stalled in the Republican Senate up until 2022, when Biden stepped in. Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, he pushed for it and he signed it into law. Yes, it began in Canada and if i remember correctly it was a bipartisan bill because there were Republicans that voted for it. I get though, orange man bad. God I'm so freaking glad he won. JBurris123 (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Significant, important and positive are not synonyms. This is about positives, we would need RS (in the long term) saying it was positive. Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Religion in Donald Trump's life

Hi. I added 57 words to the thin content of the Religion section. Since these words were reverted with concern about length and mentions elsewhere in article, please discuss the added content here and the quality of the Reliable sources involved:

1. Added that his family's church was "led by Norman Vincent Peale." -- This point is made by Kelsey Dallas, an award-winning religion journalist (Deseret News), in her article, "What has Donald Trump said about religion?" (7-18-24) and elaborated by the NYT article "Overlooked Influences on Donald Trump: A Famous Minister and His Church" (9-5-16) -- 5 words
2. "During his childhood, he also went to the First Presbyterian Church in Brooklyn and donated to it in 2012." -- This church affiliation is completely missing from the article. It is supported by the Kelsey Dallas piece and this article in The Atlantic: Green, Emma (July 24, 2016). "Donald Trump Grew Up at a Church That's Now Full of Immigrants" -- 19 words
3. Added that his new identification as a non-denominational Christian is "an unusual shift in religious affiliation for a sitting president." Source: Admin, C. (October 27, 2020). "Trump Becomes the First President Since Eisenhower to Change Faiths in Office". Christianity Today. More can be said about this salient shift, of course, but here adding only -- 10 words
4. "Trump appeals to Christian nationalists, according to a 2022 study" -- This key point is missing from the article. There are numerous sources that discuss his relationship to Christian nationalism, please Google News to confirm. Here I suggest an academic paper by leading scholars: Perry, Samuel L.; Whitehead, Andrew L.; Grubbs, Joshua B. (June 2022). "The Devil That You Know: Christian Nationalism and Intent to Change One's Voting Behavior For or Against Trump in 2020". Politics and Religion. 15 (2): 229–246. doi:10.1017/S175504832100002X. p.243 -- 10 words
5. "and in March 2024 he began to sell copies of a Christian Bible." -- Not elsewhere in the article. Source: Willingham, A. J. (March 28, 2024). "Why some Christians are angry about Trump's 'God Bless the USA' Bible". CNN. -- 13 words

Religion is a major issue in Trump's personal life, especially because the personal is political for his relationship with Christian constituencies. In the current version, the word "Christian" only appears once in the article. I believe these 5 changes are written from a Neutral point of view, clearly Verified, and involve due Weight to a significant aspect of the subject's life. @Space4Time3Continuum2x, thanks in advance for comments. ProfGray (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

There is an argument for 2, 4, and 5 to be added. 1 and 3 are relatively trivial IMO. Cessaune [talk] 20:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe 1 is not trivial. The "power of positive thinking" is at the heart of Trump's philosophy. I believe it used to be in the article, but has been edited out at some point.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

1, 2, 3 are silly trivia. Ambivalent on the rest. Zaathras (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

4 seems more relevant. DN (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

There is too much religion material in the article. There should be something about his pandering to fundamentalist Christians , his strange messages to the Jews, and his attempts to monetize and brand himself with the Bible. Well, actually we do have the photo-op. SPECIFICO talk 01:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe the Bible is included in an article on Trump products.Jack Upland (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You can now get the “The Day God Intervened” edition (custom embossed to in remembrance of the day that God intervened during President Donald J. Trump`s assassination attempt — English isn't the website's forte) of "the only Bible endorsed by" Trump, using his "name, likeness and image" under a license agreement with one of Trump's organizations, CIC Ventures LLC; $59.99, or $1,000 with President Donald J. Trump's Hand-Signed Signature. It's not a Trump-branded product, so it's mentioned in the last paragraph of The Trump Organization#Other ventures and investments. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Hi there. Based on your suggestion more content about Christians, messages to Jews, etc., it looks like a typo and that you meant to write, "There is not too much religion..." -- is that right? ProfGray (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I meant there's too much insignificant content about church etc and not enough about his use of religion in efforts to pander to various groups. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x Thank you for the link to the godblesstheusabible website ... my brain just exploded.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This edit moved Trump’s Sunday school confirmation from Religion to Early Life, and this edit removed Peale. Religion is a major issue in Trump's personal life — he was and is unable to name a favorite or cite a single verse or passage from the Bible. I just moved Sunday school back into the section. I assume Sunday school was mentioned only because of contradictory Trump claims about his religion/religiosity. I can't think of any other bio mentioning it as part of early life and education, not even Mike Pence's. Was tempted to remove it but didn't because of this discussion.

• this edit in May removed Peale. The Trumps started attending Marble Collegiate Church because of Peale's fame and feel-good-about-being-rich sermons. Seems trivial to me.
• Donation to Brooklyn church: It was apparently only reported by one source, The Atlantic, at the time which also reported that As far as Patrick O’Connor, the pastor, knows, the Republican presidential nominee has never tried to visit the church where he grew up—or, at least, not in several decades. Who knows why he sent a check in 2012, and was it a personal check or a Trump Foundation check?
• Christian nationalism. There's one sentence in Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign#Campaign events: The Associated Press noted that "Trump's rallies take on the symbols, rhetoric and agenda of Christian nationalism." It's part of his rhetoric to please a subset of his supporters, so it would belong in Donald Trump#2024 presidential campaign.
• "an unusual shift in religious affiliation for a sitting president" — trivial statistic. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems like Peale was an important influence on the Donald’s life, so I would strongly urge the reinstatement of that text. Jack Upland (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. @Space4Time3Continuum2x, Thanks for your collaborative comments and for explaining your take to each of these points, which I appreciate, plus you looked up past edits. You also moved the Sunday school thing, even though you feel that it's unimportant. Your point (higher up) about the bible is clear and well-explained, so I get that (#5). If the donation is only one RS, then I can see leaving out of this article, though it may belong in a sub-article (#2).

• On Christian nationalism (#4), or Christian right / conservatism -- you suggest a different section, that's very helpful. There are numerous RS sources on his relationship to Christian movements, e.g., Trumpism article long section. It is deeper and earlier than the current campaign, so it might go under earlier under political career. But I'm puzzled because this article doesn't mention the political movement-building he has done, e.g., MAGA, Trumpism. and Christian conservatism. What's your sense of that? (FWIW, my #3 is related to all this, but less important than showing readers his evangelical coalition-building.)
• On Norman Vincent Peale -- Ok, it might sound trivial at first glance. But there are many sources that report, analyze, and opine about the relevance of Peale to Trump. Is it helpful if I give some links, or would that be off-putting here? CNBC 2020,NYT 2016, a Christian POV, biographer in Politico, WaPo 2016, evangelical POV, linking to his COVID approach (one of several), First Things conservative POV, and more.

Thanks for your consideration. ProfGray (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

A consensus appears to be forming for adding Trump's support of Christian nationality somewhere in the article. Peale influence: in an interview [Trump] described Dr. Peale as “a great preacher and a great public speaker” but said nothing about any religious beliefs he had imparted. (New York Times) Trump, in a telephone interview, ... said he was a young man when he first heard Norman Vincent Peale preach. “He would give the best sermons of anyone; he was an amazing public speaker,” Trump said. “He could speak for 90 minutes and people were upset when it was over.” Trump said he was drawn to stories the minister told in the pulpit about successful business executives “overcoming difficulties.” “I found that very interesting,” the billionaire said, adding that he and Peale became friends. “He thought I was his greatest student of all time.” (Washington Post) Sounds more transactional than faith-based. Also, are there any witnesses for Trump attending church every Sunday for 50 years? He has been known to lie ... Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Peale was a far-right Christian nationalist charlatan and a bigot whose model is reflected in much of Trump's present-day rhetoric. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I think his relationship with Peale was transactional, but that's no reason not to include it!Jack Upland (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No, Peale was a hero and role model - like Roy Cohn, Putin, and Lechter. These icons impregnated the imagination of what would become today's Trump-2024. SPECIFICO talk 12:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Based on responses, I will aim to write something brief in the article about Trump's work with Christian conservatives and (arguable) support for Christian nationalism. Might be next week. It's fine, of course, if somebody else writes this into the article, please let me know via ping.

On Peale, it seems that he deserves at least limited mention as an inspiration (or other term) for Trump. I think this is easiest to put into Religion section, since Trump encountered hiim through church, but other suggested placements are welcome. Thanks for all your responses and finding further sources. ProfGray (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Space4Time3Continuum2x, in my comment above (Oct 9), I expressed what I took to be a suitable handling for Peale. While some users assumed Peale was trivial, I cited 8 different sources, including articles devoted to Peale's influence on Trump. Your comment mentioned NYT and WaPo. Specifico and Jack Upland affirmed the relevance of Peale. Please clarify your concerns, e.g., is Peale's influence not discussed by credible sources, should Peale's influenced be mentioned elsewhere in the article? Something else? Thanks. ProfGray (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no consensus to add Peale. Only eight people participated in this discussion. Four opposed mentioning Peale, and one acquiesced to the opposed faction. Peale's page mentions Donald Trump, and Fred Trump's page mentions Peale's influence on Fred. Fred Trump was raised Lutheran, his children were raised in his wife's Presbyterian beliefs, became a member of the Norman Vincent Peale church of "positive thinking". Trump, who went back to living with his parents after he finished college, went along but seems to have come away with "assume the worst". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Factoid #2 needs to be removed and I'll acquiesce to those above who say that #1 and #3 should go. In general, it's more important how Trump is perceived by the religious right than trivialities about the few times he actually attended church. _pbp 20:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Based on discussion above, I'm adding a Christian nationalism sentence to a subsection on Trump's campaign rhetoric: "Without being conventionally religious, Trump used Christian nationalist rhetoric that portrayed Christians under siege in America and that promised its renewal as a Christian nation." This is based on the most cited authors on Christian nationalism in contemporary American politics (this article has been cited 500+ times): Whitehead, Andrew L., Samuel L. Perry, and Joseph O. Baker. "Make America Christian again: Christian nationalism and voting for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election." Sociology of religion 79, no. 2 (2018): 147-171. esp pages 150-153. It'd be good to have at least one sentence on his coalition building with evangelical / conservative Christians. ProfGray (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

In line with the above discussion, I also added a sentence on Norman Vincent Peale in the "Religion" subsection. There are various sources, noted above, so I chose the liberal NY Times and the conservative First Things, which both give a pretty reasonable account of how Trump was influenced by Peale. ProfGray (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of Peale since there is no consensus for it, and I replaced the material you added with the material we discussed here. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

I don't care to take on uninvolved closure here, but the last comment of any substance was on 30 October. What do the participants think? Close as resolved or no? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the closure. More discussion needed. Elaborating shortly. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Justifications for inclusion here are very thin. Relative importance of facts to the topic Trump and religion is assessed by editors applying editorial judgement as to whether facts are trivial, which is one of the weakest ways of ensuring NPOV. The first article linked makes an effort to contextualize facts in how important they are to Trump's religion overall, but it is a weak source, given "there is no consensus on whether the Deseret News is independent of the LDS Church." Better sources exist to assess what facts are significant re Trump and religion, the key one being [2] which "Provides a scholarly retrospective on the presidential legacies of... Trump [re; religion].Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

reverted edit

@Zaathras What I wrote is not a mandyism, as it is the context of what he said, as stated by the source. I will note, as discussed on that essays' talk page, that it is an often misused essay. My edit is not even the type of edit that the essay is about, as it is not a denial of an allegation. I also cite WP:NOTMANDY. Anotherperson123 (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Thus far your entire history of editing attempts here have been to water down verbiage in the article that you find disagreeable. Not a good start. Zaathras (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What is your argument for why it is a mandyism, and also for why the essay should apply in this case? Anotherperson123 (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:MANDY applies. After Heather Heyer was killed on August 12, Trump tweeted a four-minute statement blaming the "display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides". After two days of backlash he he called mmembers of the KKK, neo-Nazis and white supremacists "criminals and thugs" on August 14. On August 15, he reverted to blaming both sides. Later he and his supporters claimed that "his fine people on both sides" didn't mean the white supremacists but the (invisible) people peacefully protesting the removal of Lee's statue. Quoting Mandy: Well, he would, wouldn't he? MOS:EDITORIAL also applies. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Except NPR ran a story contemporaneous to this event wherein one of these (invisible) statue protestors was actually interviewed. He talked about how they were all very upset about the skinheads coming in and wrecking things when their concerns were much more bland, about preservation of history, etc. *NPR mind you* -- not exactly known for right wing propaganda. The sources are out there; you folks are just so blinded by hatred that you don't care. (I'm not a Trump fan btw, but I am concerned about the breakdown of our institutions including media that was in progress before he came along but which his presence has seemed to accelerate.) 136.49.59.154 (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The article talks about the comments at the unite the right rally. We should mention all the essential details about what he said. Even if it was about some other time he said something, the biography of living persons policy says that articles must state when an allegation is denied. As WP:NOTMANDY notes

'The validity or invalidity of MANDY has been debated extensively by Wikipedia editors. Among their concerns is that MANDY contradicts part of our BLP policy which currently states that when allegations are sourced well enough to be included in a BLP article, then "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too."' Anotherperson123 (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

What allegation? Description is not allegation. SPECIFICO talk 01:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

If it isn't an allegation, WP:MANDY does not apply. If it is an allegation, then WP:NOTMANDY applies. Anotherperson123 (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Please just answer my question so your concern can be resolved directly and constructively. SPECIFICO talk 03:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The allegation that he was referring to white supremacists/supported white supremacists with this statement. This claim is even apparently subject to a fact check ([3]). Anotherperson123 (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

So should we say then "but his characterization was wrong as it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

If that's what the sources say, and no sources are found that say something else, that would probably be good, except I would replace "it" with "the rally". Anotherperson123 (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

If no one objects, I will put the proposed change into the article. Anotherperson123 (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras Please read the diff thoroughly before reverting. My edit addressed the concerns about the previous edit while keeping the talk page consensus. See this talk page section for details. Anotherperson123 (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we do need to include the context that Trump explicitly denounced white supremacists in the same statement he said 'very fine people'. The Unite the Right page deals with this better. We are misleading by omission as things stand. MANDY doesn't seem to apply. Riposte97 (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not that simple. DN (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

How not? Riposte97 (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

For one, the phrasing "although he said he was referring to people who were not white supremacists when talking about "fine people on both sides" uses "although". See MOS:OFCOURSE...There are other factors in regard to how Trump's statements on the matter are already dealt with in the article, so IMO, it doesn't seem so cut and dried. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

This is just a criticism of a particular wording, not of the content itself. Anotherperson123 (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. We could easily put the fact in a new sentence. "In the same speech, Trump disavowed…" Riposte97 (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You are making the assumption that's all it is. I would advise against further attempts to keep adding it in without EXPLICIT consensus...

Let's look at it.

• Trump's comments on the 2017 Unite the Right rally, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protestors.

There is a question of WEIGHT to adding something along the lines of "he was referring to people who were not white supremacists"...because AFAICT, according to sources, there did not seem to be many people there that were not considered white supremacists. It may have been Trump's view that there were, and that makes it more complex.

If you weren't part of that original discussion I highly suggest you check the ARCHIVE first. How it is currently explained in the article may have been the best way forward after much discussion and consideration over prominence in sources. There may even have been a consensus. Did you check the FAQ?

I would also keep in mind that it was reverted more than once by two other (highly experienced IMO) editors [4] [5] despite a WP:CTOP, WP:ARB enforced 24hr BRD boundary, instead of just getting an admin involved. So, for the sake of clarity, I suggest you WP:AGF and DO NOT reinsert it a third time without EXPLICT consensus, because this article gets harder to manage the closer to the election we get. Patience is a necessity here. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The edit summary of the first revert read: "Results in a 95-word sentence. Please try again", so I edited again, splitting it into separate sentences. That was reverted by Zaathras who wrote in the edit summary "same word salas as reverted minutes ago", despite it addressing the concerns of the user who reverted it. Zaathras has not yet clarified the meaning of this edit summary.

It seems the way to move forward is this: 1. mention that Trump was not referring to white supremacists/condemned white supremacists in the same sentence 2. mention that there probably weren't many people at the protest who were not white supremacists. What remains is how exactly to word this. Anotherperson123 (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Both appear to be your personal opinion, and not supported by sources, which brings us back to whitewashing. You aren't the first account to try this, and likely will not be the last account. Zaathras (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Not helpful, focus on content not editors. PackMecEng (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Both are supported by sources and are part of the compromise of this talk page section. Anotherperson123 (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

What you consider to be a compromise, I do not agree with. Again, just your opinion. Not factual. Zaathras (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The first thing is definitely supported by sources and is even subject to a fact check, as stated above. Anotherperson123 (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It has been a week and still nobody has brought any argument against this. Anotherperson123 (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I see lots of arguments against it aLready made, we do not have to repeat them. Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

These "lots of arguments" consist of variations of "you're wrong", arguments stemming from a misunderstanding of what is proposed, and arguments against particular wordings. Anotherperson123 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:CON. Unless I overlooked or misunderstood someone, there are two editors supporting your POV and seven opposing it after two weeks since you opened this thread. Time to step away from this discussion? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY There has been little discussion other than editors saying "I disagree" and then never explaining why. Anotherperson123 (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing more is really needed other than disagreement. You're making repeated sub-par edits to a variety of political articles, from this to others. most of which appear to have been reverted. Perhaps it is time to consider another topic area. Zaathras (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

In practice, NOTDEMOCRACY basically just means you can't just vote yea or nay; you have to make an argument with it; pretty much any argument will suffice. In practice, it doesn't mean you can just say your arguments are stronger and expect others to submit; many have tried and failed, including me. Nor can you force others to improve their games, which you appear to be trying to do.

When (1) there is an uninvolved closer, (2) the minority has stronger policy-based arguments, (3) the closer knows the policy, and (4) the closer is prepared to risk having to defend their decision in a closure review (that's a lot of "ifs"), they will close in favor of the minority. Otherwise, we do our best to sway other editors to our viewpoint, and, if we fail in that after some reasonable amount of time (multiple editors are saying we're there now), we take a metaphorical pill and move on. I've done that, say, a thousand times and I can attest that it gets much easier with practice. I can't even remember the last time I lost. My motto: In the end, it's only Wikipedia.

More generally, when you have multiple editors with 30+ times your experience telling you you're wrong, odds are they're right; go along now, understand later. I think that's the first thing I would tell any relatively new editor. For a rough idea of an editor's experience, go to their contribs page, scroll to the bottom, and click "Edit count". That gives you a lot more information than edit count, so the link is misleading. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I've previously said that I thought Anotherperson123's original reverted edit was a good edit, and I think I have a decent amount of experience on Wikipedia, if that matters as you say. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to process, not content. The user is wrong as to process. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

In any case, you might tone it down and not comment on the editor personally. Thanks.

Getting back to the discussion, what do you think is the best objection to the edit? Bob K31416 (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

No, my tone was about right, though in hindsight some of my little essay probably would've been better placed at their UTP. Getting back to the discussion, I have no opinion as to this content. First clue: I haven't commented about content. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Nearly every thread of this talk page topic has ended with someone appearing to concede that this is a good edit, but not posting anything after that. Anotherperson123 (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm relying mostly on this comment. Space4T doesn't miss much in my experience. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

For reference, here's the revert in question [6].
Here's an article that has the transcript of the press conference that contains Trump's original "both sides" comment [7]. Trump clarified in that same press conference what he meant, "And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists." Bob K31416 (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There was more than one statement — see Unite_the_Right_rally#President_Trump's_response, including the infrastructure press conference at Trump Tower with Chao and Mnuchin smiling awkwardly in the background. Trump backtracked and then backtracked from the backtrack and then backtracked from the backtrack of the backtrack. We've been over this several times in the past seven years. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's the third paragraph of the lead of that Wikipedia article you referred to [8].

"US President Donald Trump's remarks about the rally generated negative responses. In his initial statement following the rally, Trump condemned the "display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides."[33] This first statement and his subsequent defenses of it, in which he also referred to "very fine people on both sides", were criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist protesters and the counter-protesters.[7][34][35][36][37] Trump later stated (in the same statement) that "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally–but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists".[38][39]"

For comparison, here's the corresponding part in our article, including the reverted part.

"Trump's comments on the 2017 Unite the Right rally, condemning 'this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides' and stating that there were 'very fine people on both sides', were widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters, although he said he was referring to people who were not white supremacists when talking about 'fine people on both sides'".

It looks like a good edit. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It also twice as long. Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes paragraphs need to be longer than they are to include the essential information. If a shorter version can be found that includes the essential information, good. If not, then we need the extra length. Anotherperson123 (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

And sometimes it adds nothing, then the place for this is the article about the rally, not him. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

If we're going to include information about the rally, we shouldn't selectively exclude essential details. Anotherperson123 (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

We include the claim he did not mean white supremacists. Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the Unite the Right article in a while. The last sentence in the lead paragraph about Trump's statements is cherry-picked whitewashing.

Lead paragraph in 2021

U.S. President Donald Trump's remarks on Charlottesville generated negative responses. In his initial statement following the rally, Trump "condemned hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides". While Trump condemned both neo-Nazis and white nationalists,[31] his first statement and subsequent defenses of it, in which he also referred to "very fine people on both sides", were seen by critics as implying moral equivalence between the white supremacist marchers and those who protested against them. Critics interpreted his remarks as sympathetic to white supremacists,[8] while supporters characterized this interpretation as a hoax,[32] because Trump's "fine people" statement explicitly denounced white nationalists.[33][34]

Also not great but at least not WP:MANDY in Wikivoice with the intro "Trump later stated (in the same statement) that". That's a problem that needs to be taken care of in that article, and it's not a mistake we should be repeating in this one. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

If you are on a side that is supported by neo-Nazis and you don't go out of your way to beat the living tar out of them and run them off... then you are not a very fine person. You are, in fact, a neo-Nazi.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Anotherperson123 (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a lot worse than WP:NOTFORUM, it's advocating violence. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a philosophical debate around such a thing. Zaathras (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Advocating violence is expressly prohibited by the Wikimedia Code of Conduct. Also, Wikipedia is still not a forum. Anotherperson123 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Its just an academic discussion or point on the ethics of opposing fascism and hatred ,and the lengths one can or should go. Not everyone is capable of such a discourse though, so, all good. Zaathras (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

As much as I despise Nazis and Nazi apologists, beating the living tar out of people is something Nazis are also well known for, among other things. DN (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS, and Wikipedia is still not a forum. Anotherperson123 (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It might be construed as a general comment, they did not specify a name. Off-topic either way, but I've said my piece. DN (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There were no personal attacks made, so your link is irrelevant. Zaathras (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Y'all are REALLY overreacting to a simple colorful idiom. By tolerating the presence of the neo-Nazis, the other protesters on that side reveal themselves to not be "very fine people". Very fine people do not allow themselves to be associated with neo-Nazis.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There were no "other protesters on that side" at the Unite the Right Rally. That was just Trump's spin. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Fast forward to a future where there is a Wikipedia article [[Khajidha]] about a Wikipedia editor who is running in a close race for U. S. president. Editors who are anti-Khajidha have taken control of the article and it is filled with one-sided information. For example there is, "Khajidha has been criticized for advocating violence with the comment 'beat the living tar out of them and run them off'". An editor has tried to include Khajidha's explanation by adding, "although Khajidha said it was just 'a simple colorful idiom '", but couldn't get consensus for the edit. Bob K31416 (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Would the "one-sided information" in this hypothetical article include (as this article on Trump actually does) the fact that said comment was made in reference to neo-Nazis? If so, I think I'd be fine with it.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 10:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think what's happening here can be summed up as another case where only one-sided information is allowed in the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

We do mention it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Anotherperson123: It appears you're not going to get a consensus for your proposed changes. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There remains no consensus for this suggestion, and no one has to respond if they have already objected. Silence is not acquiescence. So if it is made, it will be reverted. THis is my last word on this, any further comments will be made in any reversion edit summery. Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

How do you propose to deal with the fact that the latest sources acknowledge Trump explicitly wasn't talking about neo-Nazis and white supremacists? We need to address that. Omitting it is fundamentally POV. Also, saying 'there were no non-white-supremacists at the rally' as you have done above is OR. Riposte97 (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The two sides were those who wanted to keep the statue of Robert E. Lee (which included the mayor of Charlottesville) and those who were against it. As I recall, Trump said something like, if you get rid of that statue then what about the monuments for slave owners George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Requesting uninvolved close because an editor objected to a previous attempt to close. The editor who started this discussion didn't say which edits/reverts are being challenged, so here's the recap. Longstanding text:

Trump's comments on the 2017 Unite the Right rally, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters.

Two edits on October 9, edit 1 and edit 2, added this clause:

although he said he was referring to people who were not white supremacists when talking about "fine people on both sides".

without adding any new sources and were reverted.

My opinion: the added clause is editorializing (MOS:OP-ED) and should be excluded per WP:BLPPUBLIC as there are "a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say". Our page cites three sources, dated August 12 and August 15, 2017, and May 8, 2020, confirming our text. Trump hasn’t denied that he said what was reported. He kept making contradictory remarks which is mentioned in the main article but not on this page. The three editors supporting the additional text have cited one latest source[] among the three of them, the Snopes fact-check of this claim: On Aug. 15, 2017, then-President Donald Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists who attended the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, "very fine people." That’s not a claim our text makes. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources

I don't think it should be closed because there is an active discussion, including the comment opposing the edit, which was just made by Space4Time3Continuum2x who wants to close. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has been open for three weeks. It had been dormant for a week when Anotherperson123 reopened it by saying basically "I don't accept any of the arguments opposing my opinion", entering WP:DEADHORSE territory, in my opinion. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That was meant to be an invitation for others to bring objections so that their concerns can be taken into account to adjust the edit. It probably should have been worded differently. I am still open to changing the wording if anyone wants to help adjust it. There is probably some way to include this without wording issues. Anotherperson123 (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus

A claim has been made that nearly everyone has agreed to this edit, I am unsure this is true so lets see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 12:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not, and I don't think that was the claim. I counted, and I didn't even need to take off my socks to do it. Sorry, the proposer and the two supporting editors each saying multiple times that it's a good edit doesn't increase the "support" count. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That is how I read "Nearly every thread of this talk page topic has ended with someone appearing to concede that this is a good edit,", not just this thread, every thread. Thuys I thought "lets clear that claim up". Yes, I agree, the consensus is clear, they disagree. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to the ambiguousness of the last comments of most of the threads, which I had interpreted as conditionally affirmative, such as this comment. Given Slatersteven's apparent views, it doesn't seem that is the case. Anotherperson123 (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I have tried counting multiple times and cannot duplicate your number. I see that there are 4 people against and 3 for, far from an overwhelming majority. Anotherperson123 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Even if you're right, which remains to be seen, that merely changes it from "consensus to omit" to "no consensus". The default in case of "no consensus" is to omit, so your point is pointless. At some point we say enough time has been spent trying to reach a consensus, and efforts to keep discussion going until the desired result has been achieved become disruptive to the overall operation of this page. This is not the only important issue under consideration. (Reminder: This is from an editor who has no dog in this content fight.) ―Mandruss ☎ 00:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I counted on November 1. This section was added two days later, and when I added the above edit only SlaterSteven had voted in the "Questions" section. Seems I misinterpreted GoodDay's contribution, and one contributor has since been T-banned. Current count 6 no, 4 yes. And what Mandruss said. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Get ready to update this to "President Trump is the 45th and 47th President of the United States with the largest Electoral College victory in the entire history of the United States while also electing more Supreme Court Justices than any other President in US history." Enjoy champ. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC) What has this to do with the question? Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I need a refresher. What again, is the disputed edit? GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

See this recap. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

What I proposed is some version of including that Donald Trump condemned white supremacists/said he was not referring to white supremacists in the same sentence as the "fine people on both sides" claim, combining this with whatever other clarification is necessary to ensure NPOV. The editors for cite WP:BLP, a Snopes fact check, and the transcript. It seems that the editors against are arguing against individual iterations of this, although I'm not certain. They cite MOS:EDITORIALISE. Anotherperson123 (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a tough one, if the former US president did explain himself, later. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be a source of confusion for many of the editors. It wasn't on some other day or even later in the speech. It was in the same sentence, juxtaposed with the "fine people on both sides" phrase. Anotherperson123 (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

For reference, in the following continuous part of the transcript of the press conference [9], I underlined and bolded two parts that had the fine people remark and clarifications in the same press conference.

Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."

Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same."

Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?"

Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson."

Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue? "So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem I see is that no-one; neither Trump nor anyone else, has presented any actual evidence of the otherwise imaginary 'very fine people' on the side that had been wholly organized and led by overt and inarguable white supremists. Without such evidence his 'clarification' is just on-the-fly CYA to cover up his pandering. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I've changed to support. But, I'm just one individual. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

We can mention that there were probably no people who were not white supremacists too. I think this would help eliminate the concerns of those who oppose the edit on those grounds. Anotherperson123 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, they were in the same group as the White Supremacists and did not disavow their association. That makes them White Supremacists as well. And therefore NOT very fine people. In any case, if you have to specify that "of course I didn't mean the White Supremacists", then you are either too stupid to be allowed in public, or you are a White Supremacist who is trying to hide your views after being called out. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

And Trump's attempted equation of a statue to Lee (a traitor) to statues of Washington and Jefferson (founding fathers) is laughable. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Anotherperson123 (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Association fallacy Anotherperson123 (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You seem to get awfully upset by people calling out neo-Nazis.....--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

For the record: you're citing the third statement on August 15. Trump's tweet at 1:19 p.m., August 12:

We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!

Trump's first statement two hours later (Heather Heyer had been killed at 1:45 p.m):

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides.” He then added for emphasis: “On many sides".

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Please note that the fine people quote in our article is from the Aug 15 press conference and its transcript that I gave. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Let me also say that the "very fine people" remark out of the context that it wasn't referring to Neo-Nazis, etc, is misinformation. I think an edit along the lines of the proposed edit helps address that problem. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, lets put it another way, while this discussion is ongoing it is not going to get added per policy. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Can we stop wp:soapboxing. Slatersteven (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Question

Do you support this change, just say yes or no, we can see all of the arguments above? Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Real quick, there were a bunch of changes back and forth. So which change? PackMecEng (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: [10] ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about any other related threads, but participants in this one should be notified. Can't assume people are still paying attention. @Anotherperson123, Zaathras, Riposte9, Darknipples, PackMecEng, Bob K31416, Khajidha, and GoodDay: ―Mandruss ☎ 19:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC) @Riposte97: Fix typo. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Notifying. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely TBANned from all things Donald Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• No Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• No Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Space4Time3Continuum2x we all would agree consensus is not merely about vote count, but if this is about what I think, the change presented issues to which I was also opposed. DN (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. Riposte97 (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• No Largely Legible Layman (talk)
• No Zaathras (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes GoodDay (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• No DN (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Ok, let's see if we can expedite this. Three of the participants have yet to vote here:
  • Anotherperson123: I think it's safe to assume they are not going to suddenly switch to "No", so let's give them a "Yes".
  • Bob K31416: Same.
  • PackMecEng, whose only comment was: "Not helpful, focus on content not editors." Like me, they did not participate in the content discussion, and I hesitated to even notify them. Let's give them a "Neutral".

  Tally: "Yes": Anotherperson123, Bob K31416, Riposte97, GoodDay. "No": Slatersteven, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Largely Legible Layman, Zaathras, Darknipples.

  Result: 5–4 in favor of omit. This poll has served its purpose.

  Conclusion: No consensus to include this disputed content.

  Recommendation: Close and move on. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Gooday voted Neutral then yes, so let's not assume how people will vote. Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I was under the impression this edit meant that GoodDay opposed adding the clause. Oh well, I stand corrected. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• What, I don't count? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• No --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• No - O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

So (it seems to me) that no, not only did most users not agree with this suggestion, but most users in fact said no. As such consensus is clear and this should be closed. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

A simple counting of yes or no is not determining consensus, which is based on the strength of the arguments. Currently this is an active discussion and shouldn't be closed. Note that in the above discussion I just put in the transcript of the part of the press conference that has the context for the "very fine people" quote in our article and I think this is the first time that it has been on this page. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

We already know, the issue is (and was, and will be) is that needed when we already said he denied it. We are (yet again) going over the same arguments. And that is why this needs closing, as it is not going anywhere. If you think you have consensus you would not be afraid to have a close. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

A simple counting of yes or no is not determining consensus, which is based on the strength of the arguments. You are correct, and the mechanism for determining that the minority has stronger arguments is called "uninvolved closure". You may request an uninvolved closer at WP:RFCL (you may have difficulty finding a closer willing to take on this one, and your request could easily sit there for months). You either submit that request, or you accept the numbers; you have done neither.

But you can't force people to continue discussion until you're satisfied (common newbie mistake). If others continue commenting, I suppose the disruption is as much their fault as yours. Seems to me most people have had enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes it takes awhile to correct a mistake on a Wikipedia page and it can be an evolving process. As I recall, around the time I came on Wikipedia 16 years ago, maybe later, I suggested the removal of a phrase that prominently appeared in the lead of a policy page, WP:V, although as I found out I wasn't the first one who wanted it removed. That phrase was "verifiability, not truth". Be well, Bob K31416 (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

OK. Here's my proposal: that a section be added that reports the public discussion of concerns about his health, which are now a major part of public discourse. It should obviously not itself speculate on Trump's mental fitness, only report on the comments of WP:RS according to the WP:NPOV guidelines. This would not violate WP:MEDRS, because it would not express an opinion on his mental state, only report on the opinions of others. Opinions, please? — The Anome (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

A consensus/new consensus can be established without an RfC. You've already started the discussion on this page. Opening an RfC at this point would be improper, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If you insist on going that route, this is the procedure: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Just to start off: support as proposer, per comments above. — The Anome (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Anome, I suggest you notify the talk page of the article from which your proposed content originated. That page is 6 years old, so the editors there are likely knowledgeable. SPECIFICO talk 20:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Best 'not' to hand out such a notification at another talkpage, Anome. Less that be construed as canvassing for support. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• No, it is media speculation, not a clinical diagnosis, and this is a BLP. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• yes it is time, esp after the 39 minute dance this week the topic has received quite a bit of coverage. whether it is a 'diagnosis' or not is not an issue, a encyclopedia is not drawing a medically-based conclusion it is just reflecting the preponderance of the sources. ValarianB (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• No or at best, very limited yes. I know we don't cite other wiki pages. But just for comparison, the Joe Biden main page only gives it about a vague sentence or two, and that's for a figure who's cognitive decline has been much more prominent and widely discussed by RS. Also, that section is titled much more neutrally simply as "Age and health." So overall, this is a "no" unless significantly scaled back. Just10A (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• No It looks like they are not sincere age and health concerns but political attacks with no consensus of medical professionals. In the last stages of an election campaign, I think it's just part of an expected full court press. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's a straw man. The topic is concerns, which have been found NOTABLE on the abundantly sourced wiki page from which the recent content and deletion originated. If it were a medical diagnosis, the lead of this page would simply state "Donald Trump is the demented former POTUS and the demented candidate for 2024." But it isn't a diagnosis and nobody's suggested it is. There should not be a formal poll of any sort here. It's already under discussion and @GoodDay: has provided no policy or content-based rationale not to include this summary of a relevant article, similar to many others on this page. Lacking any such rationale, the removal appears meddlesome and destructive. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting editors who oppose the addition, are disruptive? GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• No - as he hasn't been diagnosed with having any such medical issues. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• No - We are not going to use non-MEDRS soucres to speculated on someone's mental or physical health. We wouldn't do it with Joe or anyone else. It's also laughable un-encyclopedic. Also it should probably be an RFC to overturn two RFCs and a bunch of previous discussions that all found the same thing. PackMecEng (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Kinda seems like we did do that with Joe [11]. DN (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ugh, well we shouldn't. PackMecEng (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see a way to "unring" that bell. DN (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Not to point fingers or drag this out even further (see below), but this (correction, see comment by Just10A above) seems to be where comparisons to the Biden article actually started. Cheers. DN (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes See Joe Biden#2024 presidential campaign. "After the debate raised questions about his health and age, Biden faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Democrats and the editorial boards of several major news outlets". I understand BLP's require extra care, but "concern" doesn't seem to be weasely enough, as long as it's attributed in a verifiable context outside of VOICE. If the same rules that apply to Biden also apply to Trump, "Refuses to release medical records" with "attributed concerns" is where the bar currently sits. See "More than 230 doctors and health care providers, most of whom are backing Vice President Kamala Harris, call on Trump to release medical records" ABC NYT, Independent, CBS. Also see Age and health concerns about Donald Trump Cheers. DN (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  And Biden did step down, is there any indication of similar pressure on Trump from within the GOP? Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's not a qualifier as far as I know. Was the "raised questions about Biden's health" only allowed to be added AFTER he stepped down? Cheers. DN (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well I recall making the same arguments there as here, and it all changed when it actually had an impact on the election. Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Let's look at the tape. Looks like concerns about Biden's health were added on the 4th of July "After the debate raised questions about his health, Biden faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Democrats and the editorial boards of several major news outlets"[12] and Biden didn't resign until July 21st. Did I miss something? DN (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  NO, but I did, as I had opposed that in the past, and did not see the addition. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  I can see wanting to err on the side of caution, but the cat is out of the bag and fairness is the name of the game, and other such idioms... DN (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  So we could say then "After a series of rallies raised questions about his health, Trump faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Republicana and the editorial boards of several major news outlets", would this be supported by RS? Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  AFAIK There is no policy stipulating the statements must be similar. Only that it must be based on what the sources say. DN (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  1.) Do not substantively edit your comments after editors have already replied to them without indicating it. That is against guidelines.

  2.) I don't know how you can argue "There is no policy stipulating the statements must be similar" when just above that you argued "Kinda seems like we did do that with Joe" and "fairness is the name of the game."

  I agree that policy doesn't mandate they match, but you gotta pick a side. You can't argue "Policy says they don't need to be similar" and then simultaneously say "They gotta similar or else it's unfair." Just10A (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Just10A If I acted improperly I apologize, as it wasn't my intent to mislead anyone, hence the clarification. I wasn't aware adding afaik is considered a substantive change.

  I believe my yes vote implies that I have picked a side. TMK I'm allowed to make observations and express views on the appearance of possible inconsistencies in the application of policy in good faith. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  No problem. I was referring to you adding the ABC source in your earlier comment though just to be clear. I agree that adding AFAIK is more minor. Just10A (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, then I was way off on what I thought you were referring to. I was about to start adding TMK and AFAIK to all of my sentences. I meant to add the ABC source in my original edit, but I goofed. Truly sorry if that screwed something up, I've had similar experiences so I empathize. DN (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Just10A I would briefly add that, TMK the application of policy and the substance of the context being proposed do not represent two conflicting interpretations of the same policies AFAIK. DN (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  True, but it also means they are not the same situation, which was my point, that they are not analogous. Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'd like to see someone confirm what sort of secondary coverage is here, but WP:MEDRS is irrelevant here because biographical information is not biomedical information: we should almost never include things like how a disease works or how it is diagnosed (except insofar to mention the subject isn't, when that's the case) on a biographical article in the first place. That is not to say we should not ask for the absolute best quality sources, but MEDRS is an inappropriate guideline here. Also, discussion on this topic will also need to consider how and where primary sources are used on the subarticle. Due weight concerns don't go away simply because the content happens to be on another article, and not mentioning something we have an entire subarticle on even once in the main article is close to essentially forcing the subarticle to be a POV fork, an outcome I'd expect neither those supporting nor opposing inclusion should want. Alpha3031 (t • c) 22:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I also don't see how WP:MEDRS (identifying reliable third-party published secondary sources accurately reflecting current knowledge on biomedical information (information relating to or could reasonably be perceived as relating to human health)) applies. If a majority of reliable sources describes the candidate's speech as increasingly incoherent and his behavior as increasingly bizarre, it's not a medical diagnosis. Consensus 39: This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

No. This is still a BLP. Riposte97 (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment For anyone interested in additional details about "Age and health concerns about Joe Biden" being added to the LEAD of Joe Biden's BLP, they appeared about nine days before he bowed out of the 2024 presidential race. It made it onto the LEAD on July 12, [13]. On the 18th a CFN tag was added [14], then removed [15], then re-added and removed again on the 19th [16], back on the 20th [17], removed same day [18], then again re-added by FMSky on the 20th [19], then removed again same day [20], re-added same day [21], and finally within the next 8-24 hours he dropped out [22]. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify 2 more things then I'm outta here. First, I goofed again when I pinged FMSky, total brain fart that might be perceived as intentional CANVAS or sabotage, I'm just tired from editing all day and got distracted putting diffs together. It's no excuse it's just being honest, you can check my contribs. I doubt they would agree with my vote anyway. Second, I'm not saying this is a good reason to do the same thing here, I just think it's relevant somehow. Sorry if I screwed up, it wont happen again (here at least). Cheers. DN (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Include. In the last 5-14 days since Harris released her "excellent health" report, there has been renewed coverage in RS about Trump's refusal to release his medical records[23][24][25] and the recent town hall that was even beyond the usual performance standard.[26] Even after Biden it was mentioned [27][28][29][30] Andre🚐 05:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• Yes, there is polling and Trump hasn't disclosed his medical records.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. People say that it should not be included because there is no MEDRS-level source that lists Trump's health. However, this did not stop concerns about Biden's health being added to the Joe Biden page, nor did it stop the creation of the Age and health concerns about Joe Biden Wikipedia page. There is also an Age and health concerns about Donald Trump page. Wikipedia is governed by the consensus of reliable sources, and multiple reliable sources have brought up this topic to the extent that an entire individual page on the wiki exists to cover it, thus the content is WP:DUE. To not at least mention it on this page would be a violation of WP:NPOV and I don't like it through the introduction of editorial bias by having Wikipedia editors decide that the issue is "not important" enough to mention on this page, despite multiple RS clearly making the case that this issue is worth mentioning. BootsED (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Regarding the rally in Oaks, PA that's been mentioned in this section and in various news media sources, here's the full video of it from C-SPAN [31]. I think it's been mischaracterized as age and health concerns for Trump. Bob K31416 (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes! Its absurd having a long article Age_and_health_concerns_about_Donald_Trump with 120 references but trying to hide that in the main article. This is really a hot topic in the media (US and abroad) so deleting it here is really ridiculous. Especially with the Joe Biden entry featuring such an paragraph. Andol (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Amen to this. Biden has never been diagnosed with dementia, so it would be wildly improper to suggest that he does, per WP:MEDRS, but we can and should report the widely WP:RS-reported public political controversy regarding the possibility of dementia, per WP:NPOV, as it is politically significant. Trump should not be treated as a special case who is somehow privileged over others. — The Anome (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes for basically the reason Andol gave. There's a long article on these concerns, so we clearly have ample sourcing for them, so it's weird we're not mentioning them much here. Loki (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The decline may not have been as obvious as Biden's because it started from a much lower baseline, but it was noticeable and noticed. Just this week, there was the 39-minute musical interlude at the Oaks, PA, town hall; the non-responsive rambling during the Bloomberg interview; on Friday, a 10-year old asked Trump on [Fox&Fiends (at 34:26) who his favorite president was when he was little. Trump said "Reagan", then rambled on about Lincoln, the Civil War, Ukraine, Russia, October 7, buying oil from Iran, etc.; and at yesterday's rally in Latrobe, PA, where he "spewed crude and vulgar remarks" and regaled the crowd with tales of Arnold Palmer being "strong and tough" and "unbelievable" in the shower, adding to the "impression of [Trump] as increasingly unfiltered and undisciplined". Quoting the AP headline: Trump kicks off a Pennsylvania rally by talking about Arnold Palmer’s genitalia. NPR called it "an unusually energetic rally for the former president, who has looked and sounded tired of late while doing multiple events and interviews a day across multiple swing states".Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• Oaks Town Hall — (Good-faith refactoring of distracting side issue was reverted. The following posts were in response to this. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC) )

It wasn't a rally. It was a "town hall" staged by the Trump campaign, with Republican operatives posing as "constituents" and reading off cue cards. One of them, "Angelina who had voted Democrat all my life and was from a Democrat union household" had to correct herself because she forgot to say "union household"; she's Angelina Banks who was the Republican nominee for Township Commissioner and State Representative in Pennsylvania's 154th and lost with 19.3% to Nelson's 80.7%. Mischaracterized? The campaign had prepared 10 Q&As but after five the Q&A turned into a bizarre musical event with Trump giving a minion a playlist and then standing on stage not even dancing. Just standing, occasionally swaying, jerking his arms, finger-pointing at the audience, and making faces/smiling(?). And, in keeping with the musical theme, two days later Fox unearthed the set of Hee Haw for an all-women town hall with an audience of MAGA supporters asking curated puff questions. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

I think it's been mischaracterized... You personal analysis of reliable sources is of no concern to this page. If the sources cover this as an example of the subject's mental decline, then so shall we. Not necessarily in the proverbial "WikiVoice" but as "sources say." For now. Zaathras (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• No There are no reliable secondary sources reporting that Trump has age-related cognitive decline, just speculation from his opponents. One editor mentioned that we covered this for Biden, but it was in the article about his recent presidential campaign. That's where this informtion belongs. It isn't possible to list every accusation made by his opponents in this article, so there is a high bar for inclusion. TFD (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Speculation from his opponents? You mean denial of his supporters? I think it is obvious to everyone except is supporters that he has massive issues. This is not a political campaign. It is a topic reported in international media all over the world, even making headlines. And everyone can see it. The only news outlets that don't report on this are the conservative media in US! Think about that. Greetings from Germany, where Trumps decline seems to be better covered than in (the conservative) parts of the US media. Andol (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there something askew with these sources? They seem to be speculating at the very least.

NYT: Trump’s Speeches, Increasingly Angry and Rambling, Reignite the Question of Age

Independent: Trump’s rambling and angry speeches raise questions about his age and fitness to serve four years

Independent: Experts say Trump’s speaking style shows ‘potential indications of cognitive decline’

New Republic: Watch: Embarrassing Video Reveals Trump’s Alarming Cognitive Decline

The Atlantic: Trump’s Repetitive Speech Is a Bad Sign

WaPo: What science tells us about Biden, Trump and evaluating an aging brain

LA Times: Trump’s rhetorical walkabouts: A sign of ‘genius’ or cognitive decline?

Cheers. DN (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources lose their reliability when they express politically motivated opinion and manipulation during a heated election campaign. Buried in one of those sources is a glimmer of rational journalistic integrity, "...the experts in memory, psychology, and linguistics who spoke to STAT noted that they couldn’t give a diagnosis without conducting an examination...". Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Not according to policy, bias it not a justification for rejecting a source, only lack of factual accuracy. Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't fall for the bias claim. It doesn't make you biased if you report on those glaring issues. They are obvious. Rather the opposite is true. It takes willful denial, i.e. bias, to not see it. The whole point here is that Trump as a whole is such an abnormal person that he has shifted the goalposts to such a distance that there is no standard to measure him and thus he can get away with anything. And that is a problem for Wikipedia, because Biden is compared to normal people (making him look old), while Trump is compared to himself. Add the near-total polarization in the US, which has his supporters deny everything, even the possibility that there could be anything. Please step back and look up, how the Rest of the world looks at Trump and this election. It's not how the US see it. Trust me. 80 % of the population is in utter disbelieve how Trump with all of his glaring issues even got there, lest how someone who is right in his mind can even think a second of voting for him. And we do really debate if he has issues? Claiming he hasn't is biased, not the other way round. This is a clear situation where the truth is not halfway in the middle. Look at this. Just imagine Joe Biden or Kamala Harris being on stage bragging about the size of some dudes dick. The outcry would be thermonuclear and it would be broadly covered in his or her article in literally five seconds. Here? Thats Trump, normal day in the office, so what. Irrelevant, he made a thousand similar remarks. And that creates a systematic bias pro Trump, because there is no standard he doesn't fall short of, and therefore nothing is noteworthy, no matter how egregious. Andol (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• No - If it was to be included, it would have to be introduced as mere speculation because of MEDRS, but I do not believe there has been any particulary significant RS reporting of speculation about cognitive decline as there was about Biden nor any substantive reason (like a drop out over it) to include it. Trump's speculated cognitive decline has only been popping in the news for the past couple months because he's now the old guy on the ticket, and Dems naturally want to capitalize on that. Not WP:DUE at this time. R. G. Checkers ^talk 14:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @R. G. Checkers: And yet we have all the cites from mainstream media WP:RS cited above. Mysteriously, this sort of reporting is regarded as WP:NPOV when it comes to Biden, yet not for Trump. As Elon Musk would say, "Interesting." Is there any point at which you might regarded the public debate about Trump's mental competence noteworthy enough to mention here, or are you just waiting for the election to be over? — The Anome (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, and it won’t be because he danced at a rally. It would be if there was sustained coverage over months long periods with concerns of cognitive decline or if he literally had drop out of the race because of it. But do I think that 3 weeks before an election with politics flaring and a sudden emphasis on his alleged mental decline is a good reason for inclusion? I answer no. R. G. Checkers ^talk 19:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    In other words, WP:DUE but not before the election? I didn't know WP had to adhere to DOJ guidelines. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    Is there some policy I'm not aware of that gives a waiting period, especially if your name isn't Joe Biden? DN (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    That's not exactly what Mr. Checkers said. I agree that we should ensure the content is WP:DUE by waiting to see if it's a blip, or something carried through by the sources for more than a few days. Space4Time3Continuum2x, you are usually a stalwart adherent of both established consensus and conservative application of policy - what gives? Riposte97 (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    Last week happened. (I'm still trying to unimagine the unbelievable Arnold Palmer in the shower — a few extra nipples, a rudimentary third leg, a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back? Although that one is on Roger Stone, I believe, another Trump friend.) This isn't new. NYT in 2018: "Trump's self-absorption, impulsiveness, lack of empathy, obsessive focus on slights, tenuous grasp of facts and penchant for sometimes far-fetched conspiracy theories have generated endless op-ed columns, magazine articles, books, professional panel discussions and cable television speculation." Now we have a flood of reporting on what was obvious for months for everyone who watched Trump rallys on C-SPAN. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

    Your personal analysis or perceived opinion on what's "obvious" about political candidates is irrelevant to the discussion at issue. You're getting seriously close to WP:NOTFORUM. Quit rambling and stick to neutral discussion about the topic at hand to improve the encyclopedia. Just10A (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

    WP:NOPA. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

    Asking you to stop violating policy is not a personal attack. Just10A (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

    This has been reported on maybe as far back as 2017.

    2017

    2017

    2017

    2017

    2017

    Jan 2024

    No one seems to be suggesting this goes into the lead sentence, and as far as policy goes, eerily similar material to Age and health concerns about Donald Trump made it into the the Biden article as far back as July 4th, and it's STILL there. DN (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

    As is frequently pointed out to new users of this page, the fact that some other page on Wikipedia has a different consensus has no bearing on this one. That is usually understood when we are resisting putting something positive in, but seems all to quickly jettisoned when convenient. Regarding the Oaks Town Hall which precipitated this thread, neutral RS seem to offer an explanation that is inconsistent with the line pushed by more partisan sources that Trump had some kind of mental episode. See for example: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-town-hall-derailed-after-medical-emergencies-crowd/story?id=114796716. I remain unconvinced that the content should be added. Riposte97 (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

    "neutral RS seem to offer an explanation that is inconsistent with the line pushed by more partisan sources"

    These threads get so long it's hard to keep track. Please link or cite examples of partisan and neutral sources to which you're referring if you get the chance, it would be very helpful. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

    Judging by the headlines, we shouldn't use the 2017 sources per the Goldwater rule (psychiatrists/psychologists diagnosing people they haven't seen as patients). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

    Also, I may a bit confused as to where this thread begins and ends. I may be unintentionally conflating the Oaks town hall and the Proposal: Age and health concerns...Cheers. DN (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• The 39 minute weird man-dancing (partly to YMCA, a song about gay hookups of all things) may actually be the worst example of his cognitive decline as he was quiet instead of rambling nonsense. Indeed, it could be an example of something not at all recent. It certainly doesn't belong in this article. Perhaps elsewhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure if you've seen the unbiased raw video of the Oaks, PA event. On the webpage of C-SPAN's presentation of the full video [32], to the right there is a list of the points of interest in the video: Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) Remarks, Fmr. President Trump Remarks, Affordable Homeownership, Family Request Congressional Hearing, Cost of Living, Immigration, Russia-Ukraine War, Immigration & Deportation, Medical Emergency. Notably missing from C-SPAN's list is "weird man-dancing". Bob K31416 (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  What's your point? The C-SPAN video shows the entire event. The music starts at 45:00 and continues until the end. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  For context, note that the first medical emergency began at 39:00, 6 minutes before your start time. Viewing the video starting at 39:00 will give a better idea of what's going on. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  I've seen the video and I don't see your point either. Trump just said that he is ahead in every one of the 50 states in the polls. Every state. His goofy, silent dancing was far more rational. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What particularly irritates me here is the double standard of invoking WP:MEDRS in regard to this. No-one is asking for Wikipedia to state that Trump has dementia, or that he has suffered a medical cognitive decline; the issue here is that his increasingly erratic behavior has become a significant news story, and is being reported in reputable MSM sources such as the NYT and WP, who have bent over backwards to be fair to Trump, wouldn't have dreamed of doing eveen a few months ago. Yet for some reason, we're not allowed to use these WP:RS to report these events and the public concern about them in the MSM. This is a profoundly un-encyclopedic things to do that breaks the fundamental WP:NPOV policy. Rejecting any mention of significant major MSM coverage because you don't like it is just another form of WP:OR, — The Anome (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

But that is the consensus on this article. That MEDRS sources are required, even to have the conversation technically. PackMecEng (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If this is absolute, then it could not be in the Biden article. But it is. Therefore there is no way to deny the pro Trump bias. MEDRS cannot only protect Trump, but ignore Biden. To me the deletion sounds politically motivated. And that is a major problem. Andol (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Andol Look at the top of the page in current consensus #39. Nothing is politically motived. PackMecEng (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I made a WP:BOLD edit to see how this plays out [33]. Maybe there is consensus? DN (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm good with it and hope it sticks. PackMecEng (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry DN, could you link to your change? I can't seem to find it. Riposte97 (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

He changed it on the Joe Biden page, not the Trump one. I had the same confusion initially. Just10A (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you. Riposte97 (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do NOT refer to me as "he". They or them is fine. DN (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree MEDRS applies there any more than it does here, but I don't particularly care if it's in the lead or how much weight to give to it, so long as it's there. I will revert if someone tries to remove all three paragraphs about it in the other article though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

An editor has now re-added Age and health concerns about Joe Biden back into the lead on Joe Biden's BLP. I am not going to remove it, and agree that we should leave it. IMO Age and health concerns about Donald Trump now seems over-DUE here. DN (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Mx. Nipples, the existence of a section on another page has absolutely zero bearing on what should be on this one. None. We go by consensus, not by precedent. Riposte97 (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic about gender pronouns. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not refer to me as "Mx." or "Mr." as that appears to be your intent. They/them is accurate. DN (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC) (Given that "x" is nowhere near "r" on a keyboard, I'm guessing "Mx." was not a typo but an attempt to be gender neutral. It can be read as a convenient shorthand for "Mr., Ms., or M-other, as you please". It's the best attempt available, since "They/them Nipples" would be nonsensical. Maybe we don't need to go any further down this rabbit hole, at least not on this page.) ―Mandruss ☎ 06:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC) I simply asked for them not to call me that, I did not get upset or make a personal attack, I just made a simple request. I'm aware of what Mx. means and I simply do not wish be referred to in that manner. I do not care why you think it's any of your business or why you feel the need to intervene here, and that is a rabbit hole that certainly does not belong here. DN (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC) I read "Mr." as that appears to be your intent to mean you thought they meant (intended) "Mr.". Sorry if I misread easily-misread writing. I do not care why you think it's any of your business or why you feel the need to intervene here - Now you're gettin' me riled. Look, you comment on this page, regardless of the topic, and you open yourself up to replies from anybody. There are no "private" conversations here or almost anywhere else at Wikipedia. You want a "private" conversation, use email. That's how it works, like it or not. End. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC) You're the one that brought it up here, and I have since moved it to a personal talk page, where it belongs. DN (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

↑↑↑↑ Agree as to process. Other articles never affect this article unless a community consensus says they do for a specific discrete situation. This is a common misconception, understandable given the human desire for consistency, but you won't find it anywhere in policy, and not for lack of attempts to make it so. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That was more of an aside. See Riposte's removal of cited content on the current subject, referring to a now seemingly dormant discussion. DN (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. It's been covered extensively in media reports, which is the only criteria that really matters here. Cessaune [talk] 17:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Question Riposte97 See edit - There has been no further discussion here for the last few days. What is still being discussed? BTW, "age and health concerns for Joe Biden" was added back into his BLP in the lead, and I see no further arguments over MEDRS. DN (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  If you have a problem with the Biden page, take it to the Biden page. There is currently no consensus to add the disputed material to this page. Riposte97 (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I never had a problem with the Biden BLP, but I asked you what is left to discuss here. DN (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'll ask again. What is left to discuss? DN (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you that there isn't a ton left to discuss. But the discussion did not end with your proposed addition achieving consensus. As already outlined in this thread: (1) wikipedia is not a source, what occurs on a totally different page has no bearing on this one; and (2) Even if it did, the situations are clearly distinguishable. It's included on Biden's page as relevant primarily because it's the reason Biden dropped out of the race. The same is not true for Trump. Thus, since the situations are distinguishable and consensus has not adopted it, it's unlikely to be added. Just10A (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, it wasn't my proposal, and the primary argument against the addition seemed to be that it violated MEDRS, not because this BLP needed to be like the Biden BLP. The Biden BLP was only used as an example of how the MEDRS argument didn't seem to hold water. DN (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  "It's included on Biden's page as relevant primarily because it's the reason Biden dropped out of the race."

  I thought we weren't using edits from one BLP as an example to justify similar edits to the other?

  Anyway, that content was added BEFORE Biden dropped out.

  So, there goes that excuse. DN (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I thought we weren't using edits from one BLP as an example to justify similar edits to the other? We aren't. That's why I explicitly began the point with "Even if it did". We don't use another page as a source, but even if we did, the situations are clearly distinguishable for the reasons already outlined throughout the post. The addition doesn't have consensus, so it's not going to be added at this time. Just10A (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for the Oaks Town Hall to be used as evidence for concerns about age and health, especially in VOICE. Far from it. I simply disagree that there is any clear violation of MEDRS to include something like (below)

  • Trump, if he served his full second term, would become the oldest President of the United States ever. Since his emergence as a politician, Trump has provided less information about his health than is normal for presidential candidates WaPo

  Cheers. DN (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, that's not really what this thread entitled 'Oaks Town Hall' is about. Perhaps start a new one with your suggested text. Riposte97 (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Why start yet another thread? Seems like an additional time sink. DN (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - sorry, I missed this on the talk page. Now extensive and increasing sourcing on the topic. Blythwood (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Seems like the Harris campaign and news media have moved from age and health concerns to fascism. Do you have any new links that came out this week for age and health concerns? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Seems there was a YouGov poll and pieces in Time magazine and the New Yorker, recently...

  "As the calls grow for Donald Trump to release his medical records, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris called out her opponent once more during a rally in Houston, Texas, on Friday. She pointed towards the legal battle of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and other Texas right wing leaders to access the private medical records of patients who seek out-of-state abortions." Time 10-27-24

  "Over half of Americans, 56 percent, said they believe that Trump’s age and health would impact his ability to serve as commander-in-chief at least a little bit, according to another YouGov poll conducted earlier this month.

  Over one-third, 36 percent, said the former president will be “severely” undercut by his age and health. Another one-third, 33 percent, said those factors will not impact the Republican nominee.

  Inversely, 62 percent of Americans said Harris’s health and age will not affect her work in the White House if she is elected president, according to the survey." The Hill 10-26-24

  "couple of weeks ago, Donald Trump turned in one of his strangest performances in a campaign with no shortage of them—part of a series of oddities that may or may not constitute an October surprise but has certainly made for a surprising October. 'Who the hell wants to hear questions?' he hollered at a town hall in Pennsylvania, after two attendees had suffered medical emergencies. Then he wandered the stage for nearly forty minutes, swaying to music from his playlist—'Ave Maria,' 'Y.M.C.A.,' 'Hallelujah.'" The New Yorker 10-27-24

  "An increasing number of Americans say Donald Trump is too old to be president — but not as many as when President Joe Biden faced similar concerns about his age over the summer.

  A new poll from YouGov found that 44 percent said Trump, at age 78, is too old to lead the executive branch. That figure is up from 35 percent who said the same in a similar February survey." The Independent 10-27-24

  Cheers. DN (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Respectfully, there is no way this is going to get consensus here. If you feel really strongly, maybe start an RfC. That would probably be the most appropriate way to displace the existing RfCs. Riposte97 (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I was replying to Bob K3416's recent request..."Do you have any new links that came out this week for age and health concerns?"

  Your declarative statement may be a bit out of place in this context, and brings up what appears to be an inconsistency.

  [34] As you also stated in your recent removal of cited content that is months old (clarify - irl - not the article itself)... "This is still being discussed on the talk page"

  What are the means by which to reconcile "this is still being discussed", at the same time as, "there is no way this is going to get consensus here"?

  Cheers. DN (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for your response with the links.

  Regarding the rest of your message, the logic isn't clear. Various messages here are evidence that it is still being discussed and the point that you are trying to make with your sentence, "What is the means..." is unclear. For one thing, note that you are comparing an edit summary on the article page with a message on this talk page. Seems like apples and oranges. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Darknipples has now edited their comment, although the argument isn't any more compelling imo. Riposte97 (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I was about to add (Btw I corrected my grammar slip) Reverting under the auspices of "it's under discussion", gives the appearance of contradiction to the recent declaration that "there is no way to achieve consensus"

  Granted, I wouldn't completely disagree with Riposte97's removal of some of the context, but the rest seems like it could be DUE. (below)

  • Trump, if he served his full second term, would become the oldest President of the United States ever. Since his emergence as a politician, Trump has provided less information about his health than is normal for presidential candidates.

  A partial revert leaving this portion would seem fine. DN (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  The second sentence wasn't in the given source. The insinuation of being in poor health since becoming a politician is contradicted by the fact that he served 4 years as president without any apparent chronic health problem or physical weakness, and he is currently vigorously campaigning for president. Be careful of age discrimination where healthy people are presumed weak and unhealthy because they are old. If you were elderly, healthy and strong, I don't think you would like people insinuating that you were unhealthy and weak because you were chronologically old. Be well. Bob K31416 (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  "The second sentence wasn't in the given source."

  Good catch, I pulled it from the edit that was reverted so maybe the citation might have been placed further in.

  As far as "insinuating he is in poor health", that is not what the proposal is about. The proposal was for reports regarding public concern for his age and health, that does not involve speculation or "insinuate" anything specific as to violate MEDRS.

  • "The age of presidential candidates has been a key issue for voters this year. A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll, conducted before last week’s Republican convention, found that 60 percent of Americans said Trump is too old for another term as president, including 82 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of independents and 29 percent of Republicans."

  DN (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  His age is already in the article. Riposte97 (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Water is wet. DN (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. There is overwhelming and WP:SUSTAINED coverage of it at this point; the fact that it is speculative (which some people object to above) doesn't matter, since we do cover speculation when it has sufficient coverage and is clearly relevant to the subject. As WP:BLP says, If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it, emphasis mine. For recent coverage, which someone requested above, see eg. ; for older coverage, there's a massive number of sources on Age and health concerns about Donald Trump. --Aquillion (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. See Public image of Donald Trump#Temperament. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• I think it's time to close this discussion. Bob K31416 (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  What rationale? Stale? Consensus? We need a rationale or we just let things fall off the page naturally. Of course we've just added another 14 days by merely saying this. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  There is at least consensus to change Consensus item #39 (last modified July 2021) to allow discussion regarding Trump's mental health or fitness for office even without diagnosis. Biden's cognitive health has been in his article since 9/2023: Special:Diff/1175184377 Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Uninvolved close sounds prudent. Cheers. DN (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was confusing "close with consensus assessment" with "close to get stuff off the page per consensus 13". Sorry Bob. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Another reverted edit

@Zaathras My edit was not whitewashing. It clarifies the view of the source, that "research suggests Trump's rhetoric may have caused an increased incidence of hate crimes": a correlation, while not the opinion of the experts quoted in the source that it necessarily involves causation. As concerns the other edit, the "clunky needless wording" is a necessary detail. As it is now, it sounds like its saying that Trump dictated the letter to some secretary or whatnot, without the doctor present. In reality, he dictated it to the doctor, who told him what he couldn't put in it. Anotherperson123 (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras Anotherperson123 (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with @Zaathras’ assertion that your edit is whitewashing, but your edit is written in an argumentative matter. The previous statement states that the Trump comments highlighted were widely criticized, a plain true/false statement. Your “this is despite” implies your addition of text is a rebuttal to the general consensus. It is far from neutral and needs improvement. There should be more discussion on whether Trump’s implied clarification made soon after the comments in question as well. Do NOT edit until there is consensus. Hope this is helpful Slothwizard (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing two reverts. This diff is the revert I'm talking about in this talk page section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1251380654&oldid=1251370072. The edit to the section about the allegations of white supremacy (which was also reverted) is discussed in Talk:Donald_Trump#reverted edit. Anotherperson123 (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

My bad. Your addition of Bornstein clarifying what he could not add was grammatically incorrect and unnecessary. Your second edit with adding “may” was not whitewashing; unfortunately the citations are not related to the claim, so I am not sure why that sentence is there in the first place. New sources or remove sentence; unless someone clarifies to me about this section. No editing until more discussion is made, would like to hear more opinions. Slothwizard (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

(Do we need to salute and shout "Sir, yes, sir!"?, or am I misreading telegram style?) Assuming that the edits in question are this and this one, reverted here, I agree with the revert. Bornstein: clunky & needless. Trump rhetoric verified by the AP and WaPo cites: "suggests" says that the rhetoric may be the cause. If the sentence had read that "research said that Trump's rhetoric caused ...", we'd have to say "may have caused". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The detail is a necessary detail, citing what I have said above, but improvements to the grammar of the phrase can be made. Anotherperson123 (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I assume the repetition of Bornstein's name is what you are referring to when you say "clunky". If it's the repetition of his name then which of these two do you think work?

"to him while Bornstein said what couldn't be put in it"

"to him while Bornstein informed him what couldn't be put in it" Anotherperson123 (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts? Anotherperson123 (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x @Slothwizard @Zaathras Anotherperson123 (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven't changed my mind. None of the proposed changes is an improvement. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts on the proposed ways to improve the problems with the proposed edit?Anotherperson123 (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

My thoughts are that this happened a month ago and no one really cares. Your suggested edit did not gain consensus so, drop it and move on. Zaathras (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

fascist in lead

is attributed to ten sources in the body, Zenomonoz soibangla (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Fascism is an radical extreme nationalist ideology controlled by a dictator, this does not describe Trump or his ideologies, he is a nationalist, populist, and protectionist republican politician, as mentioned in the lead, “fascist” in this case is being used to describe someone you dislike. Big Mocc (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1252842766

I’m actually having trouble finding your statement, that some of the people who used to work for him said he's a fascist, in the body. Riposte97 (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Milley, Mattis and Kelly. I can add those. soibangla (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I think your sentence is too trivial to constitute a mention in the lead. It wouldn't make sense to include mention of positive characterisation by his former colleagues, either. What am I missing? Zenomonoz (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I contend that (now) 13 references to fascist in the body is not trivial, but rather a very significant matter that is worthy of lead inclusion for a man who seeks the presidency. soibangla (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I now added them to the body, so there are now 13 attributions, which I believe is adequate for lead inclusion, and the inclusion is not up top.[35][36][37] soibangla (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:LEAD isn't about number of cites. Per current article content on "fascist", it clearly fails inclusion in the lead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

please would you cite the specific verbiage of LEAD to which you refer? soibangla (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. Mentioned once in a series (described by historians and scholars as populist, authoritarian, fascist) in 2024 presidential campaign is not enough IMO; populist and authoritarian are also mentioned in Campaign rhetoric and political positions. However, it wasn't just historians and scholars, it was also people ("my generals") who worked for him during his term in office (Defense Secretary Mattis, Chief of Staff Kelly) and Milley, who was handpicked by Trump for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top military job — hardly the kind of people that can be smeared as far-left radical-left lunatics. If that is added to the body, then IMO we should add "fascist" to the lead. I haven't read Woodward's book yet, and I still have to go through the numerous sources that were added recently. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm ultimately against the 'fascist' label being included as it's been a subject of contention and debate for 8 years now. The debate is more nuanced than how many citations we can find with the word being included – which is why we should link to Trumpism where this nuance can be explored in-depth. — Czello ^(music) 07:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

yes, fascist has been discussed for years, and many have been reluctant and resistant to speak the word, but we now have three senior generals who served him speaking the word, yet the word remains buried in 13 references in the body. I am not persuaded that at this point exclusion from the lead would persist in any other person's BLP under similar circumstances. The sentence does not say he is a fascist, but rather that some historians, scholars and generals have characterized him as such, which is consistent with the body. soibangla (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Isn't Trump the de facto leader of a neo-fascist party? The main article on the ideology describes it as including "nativism, xenophobia, and anti-immigration sentiment" Dimadick (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't describe the GOP as being a neo-fascist party on Wikipedia. There are far-right elements to the party, for sure, but again that's why we can't extrapolate and say the whole party is neo-fascist and that Trump is their leader, therefore he is fascist.

The topic of whether Trumpism is fascist is still hotly debated, hence why a link to the article where that debate takes place is more appropriate. — Czello ^(music) 07:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd also reiterate Czello's point that the lead follows the text of the body. Unless something stated in the body, it should be in the lead. Riposte97 (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

waaay down there, the body says "fascist" with 13 references soibangla (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Trumpism would not exist without Trump. soibangla (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what argument you're making here. — Czello ^(music) 08:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I see no cause to deflect to Trumpism when its source is Trump, so it belongs here soibangla (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Because the Trumpism article is where we can dedicate more space to the nuance of the discussion. — Czello ^(music) 08:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see nuance of discussion there and a short conclusive sentence here as mutually exclusive soibangla (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The article is nuanced discussion from beginning to end. It's pretty solely dedicated to exploring the intricacies of the ideoloy and its leanings. The whole point of having splinter articles is so that we can dedicate more space to exploring these topics more fully without overburdening the parent article – and, in this case, an article that is already much too big. — Czello ^(music) 09:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I would be disinclined at the moment. If we're counting sources, 10 (or 13?) sources out of about 850 is worth maybe about a third of a sentence? I don't think it would be easy to appropriately contextualise that. Relative to the body, we have short paragraph, not entirely about fascism, mentioning it briefly. I see a narrow possibility for adding authoritarian though, assuming the wording is worked out carefully. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems notable according to Steven Levitsky and the NYT..."never before has a presidential nominee — let alone a former president — openly suggested turning the military on American citizens simply because they oppose his candidacy." NYT 10-15-2024. Cheers. DN (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

So notable I do not see the word "fascist" there. Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

DN, Do you believe Trump said that as depicted by that excerpt? Bob K31416 (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Bob, SS, I was replying to Alpha's statement - "I see a narrow possibility for adding authoritarian though, assuming the wording is worked out carefully." I have not commented on the fascist label as of yet, so please hold your horses. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Bob. I have started a couple talk page sections with sources on authoritarian rhetoric. See Talk:Donald Trump#2024 campaign rhetoric "The enemy within" & Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign#Rhetoric Section Fails NPOV subsection ("The enemy within" rhetoric). Cheers. DN (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Two minds this is a BLP, but it is an accusation that is out there, but does this take up a significant part of our article? Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

My estimate is that less than 1% of the current article body can be said to address fascism or topics directly adjacent. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this analysis. As pointed out by @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, it's the content of the article , not number or variety of sources that determine what's in the lead, and the amount of the article that is actually about fascism or fascist-adjacent is low. I think most people on both sides of the aisle understand that this is primarily just a mudslinging pejorative term used in the course of politics. Just10A (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, and that's precisely why it's UNDUE for the lead. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Putting "fascist" in the lead, would be quite problematic. Indeed, attempts to add such a label shortly before the US prez election, doesn't look too good as it's likely to stir up emotions. In other words, the timing stinks. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Arguments on DUE vs UNDUE aside, I agree that the stability of the article is concerning, and while these issues are separate, they are in no way mutually exclusive. This is the crux of Wikipedia's "Achilles heel" which puts a huge strain on admin and editors alike during elections. IMO though, it is an important discussion that should be held elsewhere, perhaps at the Village Pump. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Historians and academics should be removed..... just American Media..... zero peer-reviewed academic journals listed as sources. Moxy🍁 23:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What leads you to believe the two are mutually exclusive? DN (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd usually agree, but with the assertions by the former Chief of Staff being the latest, this may be inching towards an actual, genuine descriptor of his actions and beliefs, rater than just a political pejorative. Zaathras (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

this is no longer about randos calling people they hate fascists and communists and terrorists and pedophiles and any other perjorative they can imagine. it's about Milley, Mattis and Kelly, top military officers he hired and they served under, in the Oval Office. soibangla (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Call me a stuffy academic, but I don't believe "top military officer" is a qualification that is of any use (expert opinion) for distinguishing what is fascism and what is merely other forms of far-right authoritarian populism. Leaving weight concerns aside, the attribution required would be entirely too unwieldy in my opinion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Well everyone knows people who get fired arent bias. Plus its on msnbc, cnn, and others. It must be true. I really had to see if it is true. I voted for the evil orange man. Versus the hyena. 2600:1009:B1C0:E89F:B806:558E:13B5:FD2B (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

According to NPR,Kamala Harris said it,and Historians are debating UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 21:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NPA vios. At least. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Soibangla Ironic that the very fascism taking root in America, expressed by the fascist sympathizers and enablers here (now echoed in Musk’s tantrum in on Twitler, I meant, Twitter…sorry, typo) IS the only reasonable explanation for excluding well-sourced and documented Trump’s fascism in the lead where it is MORE than WP:NOTABLE. If Trump’s own chief of staff, who was a General no less, says that Trump is the very definition of fascism, then what more do we need? Wikipedia remains broken as MAGA marches on. 2601:282:8980:C0F0:5446:2E0:549A:3FD3 (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Trumps felon status should be added to his intro summary

This is literally done for everyone on Wikipedia except for Trump. This is a wilful hiding of information that is favorable to Trump and hides this important information from his google search summary. Please add, convicted felon to his intro to show an unbiased article. 2600:1700:5240:E50:549D:94AA:51E0:CB3 (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

is it? Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It is in the lead, in the final paragraph. A recent discussion concluded it shouldn't be in the first sentence. — Czello ^(music) 15:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

no, per MOS:CRIMINAL. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

^ 2601:280:5D01:D010:ADA6:3506:15FF:D881 (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

yes it should be added plus president 45 and 47 :) 2600:1009:B1C0:E89F:B806:558E:13B5:FD2B (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Please remove any terms referring to Trump as a "felon" or "convicted felon" from the lede and anywhere else throughout this page. Trump is not a "felon" or even a "convicted felon" until the JUDGE that is actually overseeing the case CONVICTS him and SENTENCES him. THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET. This is how the legal system actually works for those who do not know.

Any publication, news outlet or otherwise, is actually guilty of LIBEL for referring to someone who hasn't been convicted and sentenced BY THE JUDGE as such. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect, per Wikipedia content policy. See WP:TRUMPRCB for elaboration on this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

More specifically, the policy at WP:BLPCRIME addresses this. It says nothing about sentencing. He has been convicted. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

And please refer to WP:SHOUT. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Adding links to the lead

I am seeking a consensus to add these links to the lead:

1. populist, protectionist, and nationalist --> populist, protectionist and nationalist
   • These are specific enough terms that the average Jane probably isn't going to know a lot about.
   • I have wanted to click on these before and couldn't. Why not just link them?
2. building a wall --> building a wall
   • This was a major part of Trump's 2016 rhetoric.
   • There is an article on it.
3. initiated a trade war --> initiated a trade war
   • It's a specific and very important moment in his presidency.
   • There is an article on it.

What do y'all think? Cessaune [talk] 20:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Blanket-oppose new links in the lead, per my opposition to steering readers from the lead to other articles, bypassing the related body content. Lead-to-body links are a potential major improvement over no links in the lead, but that effort has stalled. That said, a trade war with China, not initiated a trade war. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Support, as these are useful and relevant links to the average reader which don't make the lead too bloated and provide value for those who want to read more about it. I'd also suggest linking "his political positions". If we'd want to take a more restrictive approach to keep the lead clean, we could leave the links to "populist, protectionist, and nationalist" out, as these are links to general articles not directly related to Trump or his actions. However, the argument that we should try to avoid "steering readers from the lead to other articles" seems rather patronizing and not very rational to me. Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Support - helps the reader further understand the topic of the article per MOS:BUILD. The mentioned links are all important concepts for the article which the general reader will not be familiar with. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - We've enough links in the lead. Keep adding more & we'll end up with a WP:SEAOFBLUE situation. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a good argument, either logically or based on precedent. For starters, "we've enough" isn't argument, just a statement that means nothing without reasoning to back it up. Why do you believe we already have enough?

And do you truly think the slope is that slippery? On this page? What is being proposed will not create any SEAOFBLUE issues, and this page will likely never contain any SEAOFBLUE issues in the lead for any lengthy period of time. Cessaune [talk] 03:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

On this page? Oh yes, the slope can be that slippery. PS - I still oppose your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. See consensus 60, which, incidentally, resulted from the RfC in which you proposed ten other links. Seems to me that we've been heading down the slippery slope ever since because we already have several Wikilinks that violate the consensus (i.e., items that were in the lead at the time of the RfC, e.g., "many false and misleading statements" and others). And, obviously, items that were added later (e.g. felony convictions). Helps the reader further understand the topic of the article per MOS:BUILD — reading the article and not just the lead would help. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

All you do is essentially referring to an old RfC and arguing that adding more links would violate the consensus reached back then, which is not an argument in itself. We gave valid arguments for why we think that adding further links would be an improvement. Like I already wrote, I think trying to force users to read the article by deliberately not adding links is quite patronizing and not very rational. Maxeto0910 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that "old RfC" is part of the current consensus, whether you consider it "patronizing and irrational" or not. WP:LEAD says The lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents, not a collection of links to other pages. Nobody is forcing anybody to read anything on WP. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I know that this is the current consensus, and Cessaune and I are challenging it, arguing that adding the proposed links would be an improvement. So far, there has not been a single argument against including the proposed links; simply noting that adding further links would violate the current consensus is a mere observation, and citing this as a reason against the proposal is circular reasoning. Maxeto0910 (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

1) I would tend to disagree that the RfC precluded the addition of new links. But let's assume it does. People such as yourself should've been jumping over themselves to revert. If people didn't/don't care to, then it couldn't have been all that important, or—my preferred theory—editors recognize the utility and don't see a problem with it. If, according to you, the outcome of the RfC has been effectively ignored by a lot of different people (including YOU, the author of a tenth of the text on this page and a quarter of the edits—someone who must've been very aware of this) that means... what exactly? Help me out here, because I'm genuinely confused.

2) If the consensus suggests that we are only allowed to add those links, I'm challenging the consensus directly here. So the outcome of the RfC is irrelevant.

3) Do you have an actual argument against adding the links? Cessaune [talk] 17:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

As to process, we have usually required significant new argument(s) or a significant change in the external situation to revisit an existing consensus. Otherwise, it's a simple roll of the dice that depends on who happens to show up; we could reverse the existing consensus only to have it restored in a few months after a change in the editor mix, back and forth indefinitely (make that make sense). Otherwise, it's a settled issue and time-limited volunteers have better ways to contribute than putting the same ingredients through the same machinery to see if we get a different product. It is not constructive to allow repeated bites at the same apple, and consensuses don't require periodic "refresh". Unless you meet one of those criteria for revisitation, you and Cessaune challenging the existing consensus is no different from you and Cessaune having opposed it and ended up on the losing side. Do you meet either of them? (In this case, there doesn't appear to be any "external situation" [external to Wikipedia] that could change, significantly or otherwise. So that leaves significant new argument(s).)

By the by, the above reasoning is supported at WP:CCC (policy) in language about as strong as language ever gets in Wikipedia PAGs outside of WP:BLP: "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances." My emphasis. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say that the Abraham Accords RfC is where I stopped agreeing with this kind of philosophy. There were random, relatively frequent discussions all the time as to whether the Abraham Accords were DUE in the article, and all of them ended in 'consensus against' for literal YEARS. Until one of them didn't. I was very certain that an RfC wasn't warranted, and when one happened, I was somewhat certain that the outcome was going to come out as no consensus or consensus against. Yet here we are. This is a very similar situation.

What if I were to suggest that the want to lead readers to information trumps the want to steer readers to the body? Cessaune [talk] 20:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Until one of them didn't. Did that one consider significant new arguments? I don't know much about the situation; had there been a significant change in the external situation that increased the DUEness? If either is true, that revisitation was warranted under this "philosophy". If neither is true, the consensus change was solely due to a change in editor mix, which is precisely what we seek to avoid.

What if somebody comes along who disagrees with the current Abraham Accords consensus? Would you support yet another revisitation, actively countering "AGAIN??" complaints, or do you assert "settled issue" when the current consensus is to your liking? Logically, those are the only two options if you reject this "philosophy".

What if I were to suggest that the want to lead readers to information trumps the want to steer readers to the body? I was hoping to avoid this. If you were to suggest that to me, I would respond that you should pick up the ball you dropped in April and get us moving on lead-to-body links again. They would serve both goals, leading readers to information while steering them to the body, and are the ultimate solution to this perennial problem.

All of your three proposed items should be supported in this article's body—else it's a bright red flag that the lead does not properly summarize the body—so lead-to-body links could be used for those items. The link might need to be structured differently in some cases; for example the current sandboxing includes: "During the campaign, his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist." If we think links to Populist, Protectionist, and Nationalist are warranted, they could and should be provided inline in the body prose.

Thus, lead-to-body links would both encourage and facilitate what are already widely-supported best practices.

Too often forgotten or dismissed: The level of detail in this article's body will meet the needs and desires of many readers, who are not served by facilitating, even encouraging them to bypass our body. Steer readers to the body first, then let them decide whether to drill deeper. Some will and others won't, and everybody will be well-served and happy.

Even if they choose not to read the body content, it's usually only one more click to reach the relevant other article. That effort may be compared to the effort of searching this massive table of contents for the body content elaborating on (and supporting) something you read in the lead. You think that's easy? Pretend you're new to the article and its ToC, forget everything you know about them, and try it for a few cases (no cherry picking). I think you'll find it's much harder than clicking a link in a hatnote at the top of a section you were just directed to. This equation may be different in shorter articles, which is why lead-to-body links should be nothing more than a local option; but they are sorely needed at at least one article—this one—and very likely others.

We offer a hierarchy of detail—lead→body→other articles—and lead-to-body links merely make it as accessible as possible—all of it, not just the first, third, and subsequent levels of detail. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

1) I actually tried to resume working on lead-to-body links, but I kept getting shut down by more experienced template editors and I still don't know how to solve the issue of switching text colors from white to black depending on the user's chosen theme.

2) If lead-to-body links aren't an option, then what? Cessaune [talk] 03:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

1a) "Shut down" how and on what basis? 1b) Doesn't sound insurmountable to me.

2) Premature question. As far as I'm concerned, they're an option until our best shot fails. We can cross that bridge if and when we come to it. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll ask again to see if anyone knows how to solve the theme issue. Cessaune [talk] 04:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cessaune: I suggest vagueness, leaving the reason for asking out of it if at all possible. Regrettably, many editors will find reasons why "it can't be done" (or will merely be less helpful than they could be) if they oppose the underlying goal/proposal. And this is not an issue to be resolved in template space, WP:VPT, etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I'd be willing to suggest that pushing this is functionally the same as pushing for more links in the lead, considering that efforts of this sort have been shut down before... Cessaune [talk] 16:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

In my view, what we're proposing now is significantly superior to what has been shut down before (that's a whole other discussion). We've had more experience articulating the argument, so we do it better now. We've seen some of the major opposition arguments, so we can counter them before they're made. And it's had time to attract a larger support base, including Khajidha below. So I wouldn't let the past predict the future in this case. Otherwise I'm not sure what you mean by "functionally the same". ―Mandruss ☎ 21:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose any and all links in lead. Full stop. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Clarification, "links" here refers to links to other articles. I still think the experiment we had with links to the relevant sections of this article was a good idea. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a justification for this? Cessaune [talk] 16:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose 132.147.140.229 (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. This is what wikilinks are for. Arguments that adding links to the lead cause the article to be underdeveloped are quite unconvincing. — Goszei (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose,we have a policy on this,Citations not needed in the lead UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 18:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

A citation and a link are completely different things. Cessaune [talk] 19:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutral ,then,in that case UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 21:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

something feels missing on lead

By reading the lead, this is an exceptionally different read than other politican pages on wikipedia. It is almost exclusivelly composed of criticism. It feels extremelly strange that there is almost no direct analysis of how Trump won the US election. This is the only phrase that refers to it:

"During the campaign, his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, and nationalist."

It feels so underdeveloped, indirect, as if it was avoiding the topic entirelly. Am I the only one feeling that this is an issue? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

No as the lede is a summery, the body is for more detailed reading into the subject. Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

There are dozens if not hundreds of Wikipedia articles about Trump. His single-page, top-level biography is not the place to fully address things like direct analysis of how Trump won the US election. Interested readers need to drill a little deeper than this article—a task made very easy by the in-context links found in the article.

As for almost exclusivelly composed of criticism, read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Since your comment has a little specificity, I'm opting not to close this thread per current consensus item 61. Other editors are free to disagree, as always. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Nothing against the criticism. Also I am asking, not even touched the edit button, so it would be kind of aggressive to shut the topic down immediatelly.

I am not talking about fully adress, with "direct analysis" I still meant a summarization, same as it is done with criticism.

I've read the link you are providing. It states "Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires us to report the bad (negative) with the good (positive), and the neither-bad-nor-good, in rough proportion to what's said in reliable sources, which in this case are largely major news outlets."

I just remember that Trump victory was not an easy prediction, that it was very notable and widely analised by major news outlet. Just that. This is the main reason why the lead sounds weird to me. Like I said there is that phrase that at least refers to why he could have won, but it is very much indirect. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but this can't go anywhere unless you propose specific change(s), supported by reliable sources. It's fairly uncommon for someone else to take up your banner just because you brought up the topic. If you ask, "Who supports me on this?", the common response will be "I don't know, that depends on the specifics. I don't support or oppose vague generalities." ―Mandruss ☎ 02:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I couldn't edit in the past week.

I think it is a reasonable path to ask for other editors opinions before having a fully formed one myself to propose an edit.

I don't know what the best formulation would be to add a phrase about why and how Trump won his first election. But, like I said, I feel that it is a crucial piece of info currently missing. This feeling is supported by reading reliable sources at the time obviously. The fact that Trump won was arguably the most notable event of his life, full of social insights.

Also note, and that's what I found strange, that there is (as it should) a whole paragraph about that election already. Russian interference is noted, him losing the popular vote is noted, protests are noted, his campaign tone is noted yet... No direct mention or why/how he won.

Again, how do you, and other editors, feel about this? I am not asking anybody to take my banner, feel free to disagree. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The Electoral College. He won because of the Electoral College. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Khajidha thank you for coming to the discussion. That is already presented on the paragraph! It is clearly written that he lost the popular vote.

Don't you think that one phrase with analysis of why he won could be helpful? Note that the lead for 2016 United States presidential election is attempting to do something like that, with poor results in my opinion. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

No. The mechanics of the win is relevant to the election article and the article about his presidency, but not really to this article. Especially not to the lead. This is the article about Trump (the person), the fact that he won the 2016 election is the important part for the intro here. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, is should be more developed on those two pages' leads.

But there already are broader social informations on the election paragraph in this lead. It mentions that Russia interfered to favor Trump, despite not being an action of Trump (the person), and the subsequent protests. How is a single phrase that directly refers to why he won less relevant than those two elements? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to further develop the very strange approach of this lead I want to point out how the very high quality lead of Hitler reads out. I am obviously choosing this lead NOT as a comparison of Hitler and Trump, but to showcase how even for an highly negative biography's lead there should always be room for social analysis.

He was decorated during his service in the German Army in World War I, receiving the Iron Cross. In 1919, he joined the German Workers' Party (DAP), the precursor of the Nazi Party, and in 1921 was appointed leader of the Nazi Party.

This helps readers understand his rise to power. You could argue Trump's lead does the same, but I don't think it does. The references to his business empire don't connect at all to his political activities.

After his early release in 1924, Hitler gained popular support by attacking the Treaty of Versailles and promoting pan-Germanism, antisemitism, and anti-communism with charismatic oratory and Nazi propaganda.

This directly connects his policies and style to popular support.

Domestically, Hitler implemented numerous racist policies and sought to deport or kill German Jews. His first six years in power resulted in rapid economic recovery from the Great Depression, the abrogation of restrictions imposed on Germany after World War I, and the annexation of territories inhabited by millions of ethnic Germans, which initially gave him significant popular support.

This again connects his most negative actions to a complex set of economic and social relationships.

It would be very naive to frame lead writing as positive vs negative. The Trump's lead is currently avoiding any high quality summarization, shielding itself behind a fact checked style. I understand the difficulty of improving it, since this is a BLP and it will be challenged down to the comma. Still, the issue is there. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cinemaandpolitics,Agreed,Wikipedia has to not take sides UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 18:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

this isn't that much about sides, criticism on lead are a good thing (per MOS) and are actually a big improvement on other politician pages. The issue is not having context (also required by MOS lead) to make sense of the info, even for the most notable facts as winning the election. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Replacing the caption of Trump's 1964 yearbook picture

I changed the caption from "Trump at the New York Military Academy, 1964" to read "Trump 1964 yearbook picture with medals borrowed from a classmate", with cite, and was reverted with the editsum "Unnecessary and conveys less information". (I've since corrected the caption; New York Military Academy is a name like Whittier High School.) My proposed caption needs to be corrected, too: "Trump's 1964 yearbook picture with medals borrowed from a classmate". It conveys more information than the current one which doesn't say that it's a yearbook picture; the name of the school is unnecessary since you can read it in Early life. Borrowed medals: if Trump had been a member of the military, that would have been called "stolen valor".

Buettner/Craig text

If Donald resented taking orders from a contemporary like Witek, he still craved the tokens of status conferred by the system. Like most cadets, he had earned a few medals for good conduct and being neat and orderly. But his friend, Michael Scadron, had a full dozen by their senior year. On the day yearbook portraits were being taken, Donald showed up in Scadron’s barracks room and asked to borrow his dress jacket with the medals attached, Scandron told us. Donald wore those medals for the portrait, perplexing some of his fellow cadets. “He’s wearing my medals on his uniform,” Scadron later recalled. “I didn’t care one way or the other.”

Vanity Fair published a longer excerpt. It's the earliest example we have for Trump lying about his accomplishments/successes, illusion rather than reality. IMO that's less trivial than the yearbook picture itself. Opinions? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Either remove the picture or make it clear these are not his medals. Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The detail about the medals (as reprehensible as it is) is not something that belongs in the caption. The whole affair should be covered in the article text.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Better covered in prose, subject to DUE as always. I'm not convinced it clears the bar, but that's really a separate issue that could be handled separately for the sake of organization. I'm confident you don't need to be informed that as reprehensible as it is is irrelevant for our purposes; moral judgments are never a factor. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I was just trying to make it plain that I am not trying to hide unflattering facts.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

We should never need to explain ourselves like that, in my book. It's essentially apologizing for being a good editor. If someone suspects you of trying to hide unflattering facts, that's on them. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

How about the caption "Trump's 1964 yearbook picture"? I don't think the name of the boarding school is more important than the fact that it's a yearbook picture. And for the uninitiated it sounds as though Trump was a cadet at an actual military academy. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the name of the boarding school is more important than the fact that it's a yearbook picture. Omit the almost-obvious. Sure, he could've had the portrait made just so he could carry it in his wallet and gaze upon it from time to time, but that's not going to be a reader's first guess. And for the uninitiated it sounds as though Trump was a cadet at an actual military academy. The adjacent prose says NYMA is "a private boarding school". We're not catering to readers who just look at the pretty pictures and read their captions. And the only "1964" currently in the prose is about entering Fordham. So your proposal would be confusing, requiring readers to know that Fordham students don't wear uniforms. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NPOV, and not relevant to what is being discussed. Eg224 (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Wording of sentence on Trump attending New York Military Academy

@Zaathras you appear to have violated the contentious topics procedure by reverting the restoration of longstanding content. Please self-revert immediately.

I note that the New York Military Academy uses a definite article when referring to itself. Riposte97 (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems you have invented a designation that appears nowhere in WP:CTOP, and even if it did, it would not apply to simple grammatical tweaks. Zaathras (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a 1RR violation. The content is clearly disputed, so it should be dealt with on the talk page. Again, please self revert while we discuss it here. Riposte97 (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

One revert is not a 1RR violation. Please do not bandy about terms which you appear to be unfamiliar with. Zaathras (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Take it to AN. DN (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've now reverted the text to the longstanding version which wasn't the one I edited yesterday — another editor edited part of the sentence on October 16, so IMO 1RR wouldn't apply. The wording of the sentence is a separate issue from the caption. As for the school using the definite article when referring to itself, they do and they don't. (And does it matter? See Trump University.) Here are three examples for the school referring to itself and another private school the correct way: "At NYMA, we’re dedicated to preparing you for the future"; "At NYMA, our partnership with Canterbury Brook Academy (CBA) significantly enriches students’ holistic development"; "The mission of New York Military Academy is to develop the cadets in mind, body, and character". And an example of the incorrect way: "The mission of the New York Military Academy is to develop the cadets in mind, body, and character". (Not a typo, same sentence, once with "the" and once without.) Names of colleges, universities, and other schools. Use "the" if the school’s title includes "of" or "for" (University of Maryland, Perkins School for the Blind). Don't use "the" if the school is named for a person or place (Baylor University, Harvard University).

• Longstanding content: At age 13, he entered the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school.
• Proposed wording: At age 13, his father sent him to New York Military Academy, a private boarding school.

Reason: Trump didn't enter of his own volition, his parents entered him at NYMA. Kranish/Fisher: "Near the end of seventh grade, Fred discovered Donald’s knives and was infuriated to learn about his trips into the city. He decided his son’s behavior warranted a radical change. In the months before eighth grade, Fred Trump enrolled Donald at the New York Military Academy, a boarding school 70 miles from Jamaica Estates." Gwenda Blair: "In 1959, when he was thirteen, Donald Trump went off to New York Military Academy (NYMA) ... an institution that in the fall of 1959 resembled a child's toy soldier set". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Re the "the", can we agree that site-wide consistency as to the NYMA case is a worthy goal? If so, we need a single venue to discuss and decide the issue, which can then be easily found and referenced by editors of other articles containing references to NYMA. I would suggest the NYMA article, which currently omits the "the". In other words, any discussion of guidelines and other factors should occur there, not here. The discussion here should be: "The NYMA article omits the 'the'. End."

This is one of the very few situations where a different article should influence this one. Can I articulate the difference? Probably not. But it would be hard to assert "other stuff exists" about this; the "the" should be universally present or universally omitted for NYMA. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC) Edited 23:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Although this is a minor point, the school itself uses 'the' when referring to itself using its full name, but omits the 'the' when using the acronym NYMA. Sources > Wikipedia imo. See: https://www.nyma.org Riposte97 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

any discussion of guidelines and other factors should occur there, not here. Anyway, this article does not currently use the NYMA acronym. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Not true. The school also doesn't use "the" when referring to itself by the full name, e.g., NYMA website, "Leadership training" section: "The mission of New York Military Academy is to develop our cadets in mind, body, and character"; NYMA website/about: "New York Military Academy (NYMA) was founded by Colonel Charles Jefferson Wright", "The mission of New York Military Academy is to develop the cadets in mind, body, and character". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Would anyone really expect a 13-year-old to have entered any school of their own volition? My opinion was neither sought nor desired when it came time for me to begin high school. I just can't see anyone interpreting the longstanding version the way you are worried about. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The classmate he borrowed the medals from did, according to Buettner/Craig. I did, too, come to think of it (at 15, and not military school, though:). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you extrapolating overall reader behavior from a sample size of 2? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes! I'm considering a career change — Rasmussen pollster. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Where is the DUE case for "his father sent him to"? How much RS has discussed this issue? Key word: discussed, which does not mean merely saying that his father sent him. To the author of the source, that could be an arbitrary alternative to "he entered", a matter of writing style. Beware of WP:OR and avoid reading between the lines in sources.

I don't think two or three good sources would do it for me. Even ignoring the article bloat. Maybe four good sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

How about removing kindergarten and just mentioning that he attended school X through grade 7 and school Y from grade 8 to 12? Current version:

He grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert in the Jamaica Estates neighborhood of Queens, and attended the private Kew-Forest School from kindergarten through seventh grade. At age 13, he entered the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school.

Proposed version:

He grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert in the Jamaica Estates neighborhood of Queens. He attended the private Kew-Forest School through seventh grade and New York Military Academy, a private boarding school, from eighth through twelfth grade.

This may be my bias talking, but "entered the New York Military Academy" has just a whiff of achievement, such as being admitted to West Point. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't detect any such sense of achievement. Entering a school seems to me to be completely equvalent to "began attending". I also don't see it as distinguishing the manner of entry (personal choice, parental choice, or simply iving in the district).--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but your interpretation is irrelevant here, bias talking or otherwise. You are going beyond "editorial judgment" in my opinion. Show me the requested DUE case if you want my support. At this moment, I'd be happy with merely removing the "the" per above. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

For at least seven years, the sentence read (bolding added by me): At age 13, he was enrolled at the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school,[6] and in 1964, he enrolled at Fordham University. This edit on March 15, 2024, changed it with the editsum "ce". IMO, it changed the meaning. I didn’t notice it among all the other edits at the time. I only noticed it now because I’m reading Buettner/Craig’s "Lucky Loser". OR? Sure, if reading RS and forming an opinion is the definition of OR. It’s a tad annoying when every source I found says "he was sent" or similar wording, and there doesn’t seem to be a single source for "he entered" (annoying enough for me to take my mind off next Tuesday and spend half an hour tracking the sentence on the Wayback Machine).

• Kranish/Fisher: "When Donald was 13, his father abruptly sent him to a military boarding school, where instructors struck him if he misbehaved and the requirements included daily inspections and strict ­curfews. 'He was essentially banished from the family home,' said his biographer, Michael D’Antonio."
• Buettner/Craig, pg. 63: "But Fred had reached his limit with Donald. He sent him to a boarding school, a military academy north of the city."
• PBD: "His family eventually sent him to military school in upstate New York".
• NYT: "Mr. Trump said his experience at the New York Military Academy, an expensive prep school where his parents had sent him to correct poor behavior, gave him 'more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military'."
• WaPo: "Trump spent five years at the military academy, starting in the fall of 1959, after his father — having concluded that his son, then in the seventh grade, needed a more discipline-focused setting — removed him from his Queens private school and sent him Upstate to NYMA." Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

OR? Sure, if reading RS and forming an opinion is the definition of OR. 'Twas OR before you presented this DUE case. Now it isn't. I must be from Missouri. Ok, you have my support for "his father sent him to". And remove that damned "the" in the prose, per above, pending a change at New York Military Academy. Please and thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Making sure this isn't archived — someone started another discussion (Inclusion of release of grades). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Conservatism template reverted

I take issue with @Space4Time3Continuum2x's revert[38] on the grounds that: "Conservatism" isn't the first ( or second or tenth) thing that comes to mind when talking about Trump. The template adds clutter to an article that's already very big.

I don't think the article was particularly cluttered by my edit and, for better or for worse, Trumpism is a key aspect of the conservatism movement in the US today. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

You may have a point. We've come a long way from The Apprentice. DN (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Even if Trump loses, we'll probably see US conservative figures try to imitate him for decades.

If nobody objects, I'll restore it now that the 24h window closed. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The template belongs. The article size is too large, but there are many things we should cut before this super-relevant navigational aid. From a visual perspective, inclusion where BH15 put it is comfortable and not too cluttered. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

We can include a template on the far-right, but not a template on conservatism. He is far-right, not conservative. --Tataral (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I can only think of Template:Neo-fascism instead. @Tataral, I did delete Trump from its "people" section a few weeks ago though and for a good reason. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Please re-write the entire first section.

I have read more than 10,000 biographical articles in Wikipedia, and I haven't seen a single article which is written in a more biased, and pessimistic tone than Donald Trump. Please be professional and at least re-write the entire first section again in a more neutral tone. The entire world is reading this article and it must be written professionally. Thank you. Nir007H (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Its important to mention these things, but the bias on both this page and the election page as well as his campaign page, is widespread. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

How? Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Because all of them have paragraphs upon paragraphs regarding many allegations, many of which Trump himself has denied. They also excessively refer him to Fascism, and provide far-left and often non-reliable sources for these. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have their fair bit of criticism, but this is rarely mentioned on their pages and when it is, its usually reverted or downplayed due to 'non reliable sourcing'. Keeping in mind Fox and the like should be considered as reliable as CNN and the like. Its overall quite biased. Dont get me wrong, these things need to be mentioned, but their absolutely has to be more weighting as to criticism of Trump and his Democrat opponents. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Also to quickly add to this, it needs to be mentioned more that Trump has denied Project 2025. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:MANDY. The sources are what we go with, not Trump's own claims. — Czello ^(music) 10:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Left sources that go against what the topic at hand himself said? Wikipedia can be interesting sometimes. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, WP:MANDY and WP:PRIMARY are why we prioritise independent sources. — Czello ^(music) 13:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree with these criticisms of the article. Please see my added topic which includes three edit requests, for some proposed changes to the opening section. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that based on current consensus number 61, that you should review this link: Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. (Not 100% sure though, so I will leave this thread open.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. I hate Trump and am sad that he won, but this lead is just too much. It discredits Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone for the regular user. At least add a few positive things. Lucafrehley (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Find some. We can't include things that don't exist.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Jesus you are literally a wikipedia editor. Your bias is what we do not need on wikipedia.

For example we could add things like:

The First Step Act, signed in 2018, aimed to reform the federal prison system by reducing sentences for non-violent offenders, increasing funding for rehabilitation programs, and reducing the three-strike rule’s penalty.

the VA MISSION Act, allowing veterans more access to private healthcare and aimed at improving the VA's efficiency and accountability.

Operation Warp Speed facilitated the rapid development, manufacturing, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, which reached the public in record time.

just to name a few DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my own topic, this is not about adding "positive things". Trump won an election in 2016 which was widely reported from reliable sources as a complete surprise. Those reliable sources tried to understand why people voted for him. The lead has no direct mention of why he won. While having mention of Russian interference and protests.

This has nothing to do with things being positive or negative, there is a lack of social analysis that doesn't help to present a complex BLP. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I have never seen an article of this scale be so obviously biased and favored against its subject. This bias becomes even more distinguishable when you compare it to other articles such as Joe Biden, who has been heavily criticized even by people on the left. For example, he faced a ton of criticism for the withdrawal from Afganistan (CNN, MSNBC, MSNBC again, CBS, NPR, Associative Press, NYT, etc), yet that is nowhere to be found in the lead. Meanwhile, Trump's lead section will mention every bad thing he did, as well as the opinions of his non-supporters. The opinions of those who support him are not even mentioned. It just comes across as completely lacking integrity. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 17:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I would not define it as "biased", those info could be considered notable. But it is surelly tone deaf in trying to give social context to Trump success. Poor writing that actually doesn't even give a change to complex social criticism, for which there are many reliable reportings even from the same major US newspapers used in the current "fact checked" style. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Nobody rewrites entire first sections (leads). That isn't how Wikipedia works, and Trump would be dead long before we reached a consensus on such a rewrite. See Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

yea, I agree on that, a substantial rewrite is not happening soon. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

This entire article needs re-written, but the introduction is a total disaster. Even aside from the partisan hackery, it is a hodgepodge of incoherent sentences that look like (and probably were) added disjointedly as time went on with little to no continuity with each other. Most of them are factoids that are irrelevant to a high altitude summary of the man's life and achievements. Embarrassing. The Pittsburgher (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Specific suggestions, please. It's nigh impossible to rewrite an entire lead section to everyone's liking. Simple saying 'rewrite the entire lead' isn't going to get us anywhere. Cessaune [talk] 15:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The idea that a mythical "unbiased" lead section could exist that literally every Wikipedia would agree upon for such a polarizing political figure is absurd and preposterous. People act like shouting "bias"! is some kind of objective statement when it is essentially entirely subjective opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nir007H: There's only one way to get a re-write. You gotta put forward a proposal & see if it will get a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I may be drawn and quartered for speaking this heresy. I've long felt Wikipedia content policies are sufficiently vague, complex, nuanced, and self-contradictory as to be extremely vulnerable to the biases that we all have (anybody who claims to be without bias is either lying or completely lacking in self-awareness). That the policies prevent the effects of those biases is largely an illusion and a mass self-delusion. I've advocated massive overhaul of policy to simplify and streamline, and the silence has been deafening. Wikipedia's system of self-selected self-governance simply lacks the capacity for such massive change, and the Wikimedia Foundation will never intervene while Wikipedia is the most popular free encyclopedia on the web.

If this article has been dominated by anti-Trump editors, the solution is more pro-Trump editors, people who are prepared to take the time to learn the policies and how to use them. WP:CONSENSUS is everything at Wikipedia. I've been saying this for many years and it seems to me a large majority of pro-Trumpers lack the energy for anything but arm-waving rants about fake news and the resulting fake encyclopedia encyclopedia (a lazy intellectual cop-out)—merely following their leader's example. I say quit whining whining, put on your big boy pants, and do something that might have some effect. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC) Edited after replies 23:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

"It seems to me a large majority of pro-Trumpers lack the energy for anything but arm-waving rants about fake news and the resulting fake encyclopedia—merely following their leader's example." An astute observation that actually reveals the root of the problem: That's all they do because that's all there is to back up their POV. The lead is a dry restatement of dull facts, it only appears unflattering because the man's behavior has been consistently and objectively unflattering. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I’d say it’s more to do with the polarisation of the American media, and one end/side being deprecated on Wikipedia. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment I generally stay far away from Trump related articles because of my extremely strong prejudices against the man. But as much as it pains me to say this, I think the lead is problematic. It reads like it was written by the DNC. Most of what is in there belongs in the article. But not all of it belongs in the lead. Clearly I'm not the only one with these concerns as there are multiple editors, in multiple threads on this page raising similar concerns. If the article wasn't linked on the main page right now, I'd seriously consider slapping an NPOV tag on it. Tone matters. The lead reads like an indictment. The laundry list of everything the man has ever been accused of is UNDUE and should be condensed into more general statement noting his controversial history, statements, legal issues etc. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

the problem is not the list of "negative" actions, which could maybe be condensed just to achieve a better lenght, the problem is that the lead completelly fails to convey why Trump is popular, how he got to power etc etc. It sounds tone deaf and devoided of social analysis. Look at the Hitler lead (not a comparison between individuals) and you can see how it can be done properly. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a very good analysis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that the lead as it is in part resulted from having too many cooks in the kitchen. Is there one person who can draft a lead for Trump based on the structure of Hitler's lead for others to review? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The current structure seems decent to me for the time being, @Goszei is pointing out a good and clear path forward regarding content that should be added. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It’d be so good if this article were actually educational Kowal2701 (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree that this is the best step forward. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Castlemore7 (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Serious issues with the impartiality of the article - Edit Requests due

The opening section is a series of subjective and opinionated anti-Trump talking points, such as focusing on "the only U.S. President to have been impeached twice" (with an extensive decription of the dismissed allegations, yet only a brief mention that both impeachments against Trump resulted in acquittals on all counts), making similarly charged yet one-sidedly worded mentions about other (dismissed) lawsuits, discussing how an arbitrary pool of "scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst Presidents in American history" (arbitrary, vague weasel wording and ignoring the growing discussion around left-leaning bias in academia) and a band of partisan editors preventing any mention of notorious Trump Administration achievements such as the Abraham Accords or establishment of the US Space Force. The US Space Force is not even mentioned once in the article.

Evidently, by today's (5th Nov 2024) election results, the majority of American society is at odds with the biases of the partisan editors and arbitrary vague cited "scholars and historians" of this article. This majority consensus of American society includes industry leaders such as Elon Musk, Peter Thiel and Bill Ackman. Serious discussions and arbitration processes need to take place, as to how this article became so biased and politically weaponized.

Edit requests:

1) I make a formal edit request and suggest that positive Trump Administration achievements are immediately included in the opening section - appropriate ones may include the Abraham Accords, establishment of the US Space Force and increased funding of NASA.

2) Also remove the charged wording of "the first U.S. President to have been impeached twice" and add greater emphasis on the allegations having been "alleged" and dismissed by fair legal process. Change "the first U.S. President to have been impeached twice" to: "Trump faced two impeachments during office as U.S. President, but was acquitted by the Senate on both counts. The first impeachment attempt was in 2019, for alleged abuse of power and obstruction of Congress relating to the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, while the second was in 2021, for alleged incitement of insurrection."

3) Also change "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history" to: "Trump has attracted controversy and polarized levels of support from academia and industry leaders".

There are other impartiality issues in the article, but I will leave it here with these three edit requests. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this follows 61 enough, but I will note per your first request that no President has been convicted following an impeachment trial/vote. The text in parenthesis implies that a former President has been convicted. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

You are correct in your criticism about impeachment convictions - I will edit my contribution to reflect this. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Everybody would be better off with one thread per proposed change. Combining them never works very well and consensus is hard enough to assess without combining them. Also, bring sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

False information regarding Russian collusion

“The Mueller investigation determined that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to favor Trump.”

This statement constitutes false information. There is no apparent direct source cited and if you click on the link within the statement it directs you to a page that says this near the end:

“The 448-page Mueller Report, made public in April 2019, examined over 200 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates.”

Thus, not only is the former statement false and a general misrepresentation of the facts of the report, it’s also contradictory to the embedded link.

If the goal is impartiality and to represent the facts as they are, then I should think there would be no issue with my strong recommendation that this statement be removed. 2600:1014:A021:A239:C4A2:F30D:B193:59A7 (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Well apart from the report itself you mean? Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

can I ask, without knowing the sources enough myself, was that report that notable to get a spot in the lead despite not prooving any collusion of Trump and Russian officials? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

In short: definitely. Cessaune [talk] 15:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

allright, strange to have that but not a single direct reference to the other reasons why he won the 2016 election, which seems obviously the most notable event that has been reported by reliable sources. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What would you add? Cessaune [talk] 20:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose having this in the lead. There is no suggestion that it was at all determinative, and reads like sour grapes. Riposte97 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Cessaune Look at the Hitler lead (no comparison between the two characters, I am refering to how to describe a complex rise to power). What matters is making the connection direct. RS reported extensivelly about everything regarding Trump win: from economical insatisfaction, perception of Trump as an outsider, anti immigration sentiments etc It is up to editors to not be shy and put social analysis on lead.

Since I am not the most knowledgable about the topic I prefer to discuss it here first, I will not do a bold edit myself unless there is consensus about it.

Regarding Russia interference, it was clearly not determinative as other have pointed out, but I now understand the social relevance of it that grants it a spot on lead. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

lead is too long

lead is too long as it contains more than 4 para. Can we make it short ? Astropulse (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

this is by editorial design. the reality is that when everything is important, nothing is important. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

there are lot of other presidents and prominent article - where we have managed to put most important things in 4 para. 4 para is more than enough and everything else should be in body Astropulse (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

if you've a suggestion for something to cut then do so. waving arms and saying 'its too long, make it shorter' is a useless comment. ValarianB (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I cut the last para. someone reverted it. Lets start by removing it Astropulse (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Why that? Why remove that he has won the election and is president elect? How does that accomplish anything? Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@ValarianB Reporting a problem and discussing it on the talk page is far from "useless". Please WP:Assume good faith. If you want another editor to elaborate, a question could be asked without dismissing their contribution as useless. For example, "if you've a suggestion for something to cut then do so. Which part(s) of the lead in particular do you think should be trimmed?" That would be a more constructive rather than dismissive contribution. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Valarian did not say that discussing the problem is "useless". They said that not being specific is "useless". This lead clearly needs to be cut severely, and we need specific proposals for how to do it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

You agree that the lead is too long. So saying 'its too long, make it shorter' was a correct analysis of the situation and the start of a discussion, not a "useless" comment. Other editors were actively adding to the bloated lead instead of doing what Astropulse did and attempting to discuss the problem on the talk page. Again, if another editor wants an editor to elaborate, that can be requested in a constructive rather than dismissive way. Calling other editors' comments "useless" without reason is not WP:Civil. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree the lead is overly long. Already 7 paragraphs and he hasn't even been inaugurated for his second term yet. Checking other US presidents' articles, they generally have 4, at a push 5, paragraphs. Overloading the lead for Trump's article is an example of WP:Recentism. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I have attempted a bold restructuring of the lead, including some additions and removals of information, in these edits: Special:Diff/1255792425/1255793186. I understand that some elements of it may conflict with prior consensus, but as editors point out above this lead is a severe example of recentism. A lot more material is sure to come with his second term in office, which will expand the lead even further, so we should try to cut it down along the general lines of my edit. What do other editors think? — Goszei (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the lead is disgracefully bloated. Compare it to our article for Joe Biden, which has a neat and concise lead of four paragraphs. What makes Trump any different? WP:Summary style seems to have been chucked out the window. ~ HAL333 (VOTE!) 18:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

With you on summary style, and you're far from the first person to say that (although usually applied to the body). Stick around and help make it so! ―Mandruss ☎ 18:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It feels already much better than before. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems an attempt was made to shorten the lead and the template was removed, then the content was restored to bloat the lead again but the template was not restored.

The documentation of Template:Lead too long speaks of a 250 to 400 word standard. The lead section of this article is currently over 650 words! Trying to fix the problem of too many paragraphs by combining the excess paragraphs into gigantic paragraphs doesn't address the issue. Trump still hasn't even been inaugurated for his second term but the lead is substantially longer than other presidents. By my count, Trump's lead currently contains almost 1,000 more characters than FDR's lead, a man who was in office for 12 YEARS and is one of the most influential presidents in American history! This is purely recentism, we need to apply the WP:20YEARTEST.

• For a start, the lead mentions "After a series of business failures in the late 1990s ... He and his [...] six business bankruptcies." Are these separate events, or were some the bankruptcies during the 1990s? Couldn't these lines be combined in some way? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There are two sentences in the lead in particular which are not "protected" by standing consensus, and which editors have expressed an interest in cutting in various threads on this talk page:

• "He and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 legal actions, including six business bankruptcies."
• "The Mueller investigation later determined that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump."

There is also room for trimming in other areas (why say "racially charged" when it is just a soft euphemism for "racist", for instance), though I have seen some editors reverting these efforts for unknown reasons. — Goszei (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that those two are the two phrases that feels most out of place on lead. But to remove them there is surelly a need for two separates RfC. I also have a feeling the Russian interference will be preserved by an RfC, but it is interesting to see motivations for it. I guess that for american politics that is a major fact.

I also agree on the racist part. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

To be even more clear, I find the paragraph about his presidency (4th) and about his trials and attempt to overturn (5th) satysfying.

The issues are on second paragraph (not making a clear connection between his business empire and his shift to politic, or a misleading connection with his business legal actions) and on third paragraph (being extremelly vague and indirect to why he won) Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The lead's scope in general still hasn't adjusted to the election results.

Consensus on this talk page seems to be that he was a failed, nepotistic businessman turned reality TV host, who won the 2016 election by fluke and Russian hacking. Then he became a failed insurrectionist in 2020 and found guilty of various crimes, generally an unelectable madman. Whether that's a right or wrong summary, the lead should adjust to the new development that he was elected for a second term as president. Most prior events become less leadworthy in the face of this expanding scope.

@Goszei Has there been a specific reason in edit summaries as to why we need repetition of the business failures in the second paragraph? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Add both terms to the starting infobox.

He was the 45th President and is the 47th President(elect) of the United States. The infobox currently suggests he is only the 47th. ActualOswinOswald (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not of the opinion that it should list him as the 47th yet. That is predicting the future. He's won the election and probably has enough Republicans in Congress to turn back any attempt to declare him ineligible under the 14th Amendment, but you never know. And even if he takes office on January 20, it's predicting the future that he would be the 47th. Again, it's unlikely, but Biden might not serve out his term. We don't know and shouldn't predict. Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

That's why I clarified President-Elect which he is. If Biden died Kamala wouldn't be President-Elect but rather President, there are no cases he does not remain the 47th President-Elect. ActualOswinOswald (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

See my comments just above. Tyler, Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Ford were never president-elect, unless you count a situation where an incumbent has won but has not yet been inaugurated for four more years as "president-elect", in which case it still isn't working out to 47 because, for example, FDR would have held the status four times. Suggest "president elect" and "45th president" be separate entries in the infobox and then on January 20, we do whatever has been done for Grover Cleveland. Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Write him as 37th then. ActualOswinOswald (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

No wait, 38th. Miscount, my fault. ActualOswinOswald (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I was at first glipse thinking that it might violate WP:CRYSTALBALL but now that you clarify it is the term, "president(elect)" this makes more sense. I'm for it. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump isn't president-elect yet. The electoral college meets on December 17 to vote. And we still have consensus #50 for the first sentence in place. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

consensus #50 Yeah, see last night's page history for my futile attempts to enforce that, as well as order in general. Help in that was in very short supply. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Our own article on president-elects says that There is no explicit indication in the U.S. Constitution as to when that person actually becomes president-elect. More importantly, reliable sources like the AP are referring to Trump as the president-elect. I agree that #50 prevents this from being in the first sentence without an amendment (which would be pointless in just about 74 days), but I do think that we should mention it somewhere else in the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Do we need two threads on the same topic? Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

My goodness. The infobox is alright as is. Are we really gonna fuss over his not officially being the president-elect? From now until the EC actually elects him (in mid-December) or until a joint session of Congress certifies him (in early January 2025)? I appreciate accuracy, but come on. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Experience

In the lede it talks about Trump having no military or political experience. That was true Jan 20 2017 but of course for his second term he now has political experience. I suggest rewording GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

of course for his second term he now has political experience. You said it. We don't need to state the obvious. I promise you, no reader is going to be misled by the current content. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The lede paragraph needs cleaning up

We had an RfC on whether to include the felony conviction in the first sentence of the article and that discussion resulted in "no consensus". The fact that he was convicted of a felony is currently in the lede, and while the result of that RfC didn't say this can't be included in the first paragraph, there ideally should be an RfC before that becomes an accepted part of the lede paragraph. The same goes for "the only without prior military or government experience" and "the second to be elected to non-consecutive terms." The first sentence is also hard to read and should be split into two sentences one you decide whether his status as president-elect should come before or after his years served as president. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Re convicted felon: Step 1: Somebody needs to challenge it by reversion. Step 2: Attempt to reach a consensus. Step 3: Failing step 2, consider RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe I've already made one revert on this article today so for now that somebody can't be me. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

If reverts to different content are a violation, I'm in big trouble and better skip town. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:EW: "an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material" which also applies to articles under 1RR (including this one). So if it has to be me, it's going to be a while. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of 1RR at this article. But I'm well over three so I guess I'm in big trouble. I throw myself on the mercy of the court. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Loo, @Mandruss, pay better attention from here on out. We've got bigger fish to fry than to be pitiful about some petty negligence to policy. If you do it again, yeah, you'll probably get blocked, but for all intensive purposes, just watch this kind of policy carefully. BarntToust 21:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I won't do it again, I promise. I so rarely revert in the article, generally leaving that for others, that I forgot the rules there. Still don't see any 1RR notice at the top, though, and I'd like to clear that up so I actually know the rules. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Step 1 done, next comment section. Eg224 (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree it reads clunky right now. The felon stuff could be mentioned in one of the following paragraphs. Not sure the political experience stuff is important enough to justify a mention in the lead at all, let alone the first paragraph. At this point, the first paragraph should stick to why he's notable. That's being president, losing, and now being re-elected. Nemov (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the felon point should be mentioned lower down, and commend BarntToust for moving it to the paragraph about his felony convictions. — Goszei (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

absolutelly agree with you that there are is no reason to have the following part on opening paragraph, they add almost nothing. I would skip them entirelly tbh.

Trump became the only U.S. president elected without prior military or government experience in 2016, and is the second elected to non-consecutive terms, after Grover Cleveland. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic about the lead/lede controversy, and associated drama. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It's spelled lead Anonymous8206 (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Please educate yourself before attempting to correct others on issues of grammar. Thanks. Zaathras (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC) This is not as black-and-white as you claim, and I suspect you know that. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and the newspaper meaning of "lede" does not apply here. That's why many editors say "lead", and see MOS:NOTLEDE. More importantly, please stop trying to bully people on this page. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC) The user above attempted to be snarky and correct someone's perceived typo. I corrected them, as people with a more formal education and writing background tend to use lede. The rest of your commentary is meritless. Zaathras (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC) Lol. You, criticizing another editor for their tone. Baselessly. That's funny. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

“First convicted felon as president” placement.

The Felony thing in like the opening sentence or second sentence I think is excessive, where it was before was next to the stuff about Stormy Daniel’s/Insirrection/etc. that is more logical, but someone reverted it and added it back to the first part. It’s one of those things where we gotta figure out how to level the weight, there’s a whole part in the lead right now addressing all the stuff so I think that’s fine but I would like to hear some unbiased consensus. Eg224 (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Editors can argue DUE or UNDUE all day long, but the policy is sufficiently vague that, in reality, it comes down to how much one hates/loves Trump and how much they let that affect their Wikipedia editing. I hate Trump immensely (making me just a terrible person, probably possessed by demons) but I don't let it affect my editing. And this just feels like POV-pushing that high in the lead. I'm happy with it where it is at this moment, in what is currently the fourth paragraph of the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it’s perfect. definitely feels biased to have it in the opening, the first president without prior experience isn’t as much so. I think that’s alright since it compares him to past Presidents in the next part too, and is talking about being the 45th/47th president Eg224 (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe you are making a mistake. He can not be labeled a "convicted felon" as long as his appeals processes are unconcluded. The fact that courts have granted the appeals indicates that they believe he has a chance of having the rulings reversed. 99.33.126.209 (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. WP:BLPCRIME: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." NOT: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law and all available appeals have been exhausted." ―Mandruss ☎ 06:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Look, the facts are that Trumpty-Dumpty being convicted on felony counts will never be as important as his presidencies. His political career will be the most important thing to impart, not the tax evasion or fraud or whatever the hell it was NY prosecuted him for. Not to say that it isn't important enough to be mentioned in like the fourth paragraph, but his political career is the most important thing to note. Hate to get all Orwell on ya'll, but some animals are more equal than others. BarntToust 02:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

A person becomes a convicted felon the instant the conviction is handed down. Sentencing does not matter. Appeals do not matter. The only criterion for "convicted" is the conviction itself. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The weight and emphasis given to facts in the lede should reflect that given in the body. Given the weighting currently seen in the body, a high placement is appropriate. If editors want to move it down, they should contest the weighting given in the body. That is the place to evaluate DUE/UNDUE. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thought experiment, not an actual proposal: (1) Go through the lead and make a list of the discrete topics therein. (2) Find the related body content for each item and count the words therein (i.e., weight), updating your list with those numbers. (3) Sort the list by descending word count. (4) Restructure the lead according to your sorted list.

I think you'll find that your new lead lacks all structure and organization. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It's true that the lede serves functions beyond being a weighted summary (e.g. contextualizing the subject, establishing notability) which gives it some structure and organization. I did intend to sidestep the wordcount weighting critique by mentioning emphasis, e.g. whether a topic is given its own heading, how high in the article/section it is, whether it is a summary or example as well as just the importance the article ascribes.

On my broader point, what do you understand as the relationship between the lede and body re; WP:DUE? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't. Frankly I think you're putting too fine a point on it, considering all the other issues going unaddressed, such as article length. We've been discussing that for years without significant progress. We need to get the body into summary style, gutting much of it, and we need more smart guys like you to help with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that length is a very big issue. I also think if editors want to focus on other issues, such as emphasis, they should do it in a different way.

I'm working on Public image of Donald Trump at the moment before summarizing it in this article, I'll be interested to see how that goes before taking on a meatier section. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't need 'current'

Please folks. We don't need the descriptive "current" in front of "president-elect".AFAIK, there's no US bios using "former president-elect". Therefore no chance of confusion, between bios. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

actually, that makes sense. thx for the logic-ing! BarntToust 22:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Now, to get editors to stop adding the useless description or variation of it. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Tell them about MOS:CURRENTLY. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump and fascism in the lead

The lead should include a link to the Donald Trump and fascism article that we agreed to keep. This is a very significant viewpoint, as the article explains, with half the electorate holding that position. It has its own lengthy article, is a very serious discussion, is covered in the body, and should be included as a link to the in-depth article in the lead. --Tataral (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It is a rather highly charged opinion which really does not have a place in a biography, especially in the lede. Zaathras (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not, and such WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments were roundly rejected in the AfD. It's a highly significant, serious position that half the electorate and countless experts hold, covered in the body and in an extensive in-depth article (underscoring its significance, as something that should be summarized in the lead per WP:LEAD). It's not a "a rather highly charged opinion" to discuss fascism, in the case of politicians who actually espouse fascist politics. --Tataral (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in a BLP. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure it does, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The questions are whether it belongs in this biography and, if so, where. Don't ask me for my opinions, I'm semi-retired. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not a policy-based argument and it is already included in the article and its own in-depth article, so this is only a question of summarizing a topic already deemed significant enough for a stand-alone article, and which is already covered in this article. Per WP:LEAD the topic should obviously be summarized in the lead. --Tataral (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Tone it down a tad there, Mr. Conclusion Jumper. In regards to the topic of Trump and fascism, I personally enjoy seeing the two terms together. Very much so. But Donald Trump and fascism (an article I was unaware of until now) is not a WP:BLP, while this one is. Different standards. Zaathras (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Nope, that is a complete misunderstanding of the BLP policy, and it's also your own responsibility to familiarize yourself with the topic and article under discussion. It's telling that you admit that you didn't. BLP is not some magic wand editors can throw around. --Tataral (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Disagree all you wish. It's not going to be linked. GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes it is. Whether you agree or not. --Tataral (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It's been removed multiple times. Please do not restore it. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

that is a complete misunderstanding of the BLP policy. Lol, it literally isn't. But you seem hellbent on some sort of Lewis Black-like performance art here, so, good luck with that. Zaathras (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The same as we should at least mention Age and health concerns about Donald Trump somewhere in the page, we should also mention Donald Trump and fascism. I just don't think it should be in the lead as previously stated. If there is an entirely separate Wikipedia page about it, I think it's safe to say it has enough reliable, verifiable sources to pass BLP. BootsED (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump and fascism is a much more significant topic than his age and health concerns, since it's about policy and affects society at large, it's about how his policies impact society, the country, and the world. --Tataral (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What is your opinion on the lack of a link to birtherism in Barack Obama ? Zaathras (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Not a relevant comparison. --Tataral (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It most certainly is. It is a well-sourced and referenced (albeit debunked) criticism of the former president. Recall your criteria for inclusion of the fascism link in your very first posit of this section, "This is a very significant viewpoint, as the article explains, with half the electorate holding that position." Birtherism was rampant in the lead-up to the 2008 election, held by a comparable half of the electorate. Zaathras (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What's with all the characterization of editors, versus arguments? DN (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It's an ideological position that more than half the electorate and numerous experts do NOT hold. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, much less a BLP, much less the lead of a BLP. BrianH123 (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Violation of BLP, undue weight and an obvious attempt yet again to push a political agenda. Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda Artem P75 (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't belong in the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No policy-based reasons have been cited for that. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy-based reason.

To reiterate. It has an in-depth article that was kept at AfD, the close by User:Amakuru pointed out that There is a strong numerical majority in favour of keeping, and furthermore there is evidence in those !votes showing that this is a topic that is widely covered in sources, it is already covered in the body of this article, and as the in-depth article explains it is a highly significant viewpoint held by experts and half the electorate. Per WP:LEAD, The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. There is really no serious policy-based argument against summarizing the topic. All we see here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Unless sound policy-based arguments are presented, we have consensus for inclusion in the lead.

Vaguely throwing around "BLP" as some kind of trump card without understanding the policy and how it relates to public figures (WP:PUBLICFIGURE) and without actually demonstrating how it supposedly violates BLP is not a policy-based argument; that was rejected at AfD when we discussed the thoroughly referenced article and the topic is already included in this article too, so the discussion can not focus on whether the topic can be included or covered in Wikipedia or this article for "BLP" reasons. What Mandruss said above about WP:PUBLICFIGURE and the question really being whether it belongs in this biography and, if so, where, is correct (it is already included in the biography).

It's therefore solely a matter of interpreting WP:LEAD and the weight the topic—that is covered here already—deserves in light of that. The existence of a dedicated in-depth article is already a very strong argument in favor of the topic's importance; the content and many references too clearly indicate the topic's importance. Many—experts and voters—view this as a defining characteristic of his political style and the way he impacts the world—in the same way their political style and ideology are for any other political leaders. If there are enough references describing a politician's ideology as fascist or far-right, the normal thing to do on Wikipedia is to cover that in their articles, even when we don't have dedicated in-depth articles describing their relationship with fascism(!). For most articles a couple of references are usually enough.

Again, an argument that you don't like the assessment—when we have an in-depth article that treats it as and demonstrates that it is a very serious, very significant viewpoint—is not an argument. --Tataral (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The fact that it exists and has an article is why it is in the body, that does not mean it automatically belongs in the lead. Several people have disagreed with you on this and the continued bludgeoning accusations of IDONTLIKEIT are not very convincing on why we should go along with your claims. PackMecEng (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You have not offered any policy-based reasons against including it in the lead. "Doesn't belong in the lead" without any kind of rationale grounded in policy is not a policy-based reason, especially considering the detailed policy-based argument in favor. --Tataral (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The policy based reason everyone is giving is essentially that it is undue for the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the article that is being linked to in general and I voted for its deletion - but as it is an active article which apparently conforms to Wikipedia policies, I personally cannot see why it should not be linked to, as bias and full of weight issues as I believe it is.

Looking at this article in general I think the main issue to be discussed is the length and content of the lead itself, which I think has already been discussed? Not sure if there has been an RfC on this issue, but maybe one should be started. The lead is very long and contains in my opinion an excessive amount of content, the majority of which is negative which I feel creates a weight issue and pushes an NPOV.

So maybe this should be discussed, and whether the mention of "fascism" should be included in the lead - if it is decided to stay in the lead then there really is no reason not to link to it, as that is the entire discussion of the article Artem P75 (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: No, that is not true. People were throwing around unsubstantiated, generic, vague claims about "BLP" even as that "argument" was being thoroughly debunked—even with reference to the BLP policy itself—or merely their personal opinions, like "Doesn't belong in the lead" without any rationale at all. Now, when these "arguments" have been debunked, you are suddenly claiming "undue", an entirely different argument from the "BLP" claims made so far, but yet again completely unsubstantiated, as a very detailed policy-based argument for why it is due has been made and that no editor has offered any kind of counterarguments against. --Tataral (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't belong in the lead = undue for the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Without any rationale grounded in policy, it’s merely an assertion that holds no weight. --Tataral (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is policy. Specifically part of WP:NPOV. PackMecEng (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That says absolutely nothing about how that policy applies here or why the material isn't WP:DUE, particularly as a detailed policy-based rationale for why the material is WP:DUE has already been given, with no response or counterargument of any kind. As with BLP, WP:UNDUE isn't some trump card or magic wand you can throw around – if you want your argument to hold any weight – without explaining how and why it actually applies to the specific situation, in light of the sources and other circumstances – in this case, for example a lengthy in-depth article with countless sources explaining that the topic is highly significant and a very widely held assessment and mainstream analysis – and why it doesn't meet the requirements set out in WP:LEAD – particularly when it has already been explained why it does. --Tataral (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

In agreement with others here. It doesn't belong in the lead & indeed, the entire page. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Since no editor has offered any kind of rationale against inclusion of this topic—already deemed significant enough for a stand-alone article at AfD—there seems to be Wikipedia:Consensus for inclusion. All we've seen so far are "doesn't belong" without any kind of policy-based rationale. Here on Wikipedia such expressions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT don't really hold any weight. --Tataral (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You don't get to declare what is & isn't a consensus & why, though. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This is merely an observation based on what a consensus is—under Wikipedia policy. If you refuse to offer a rationale (grounded in policy), that is your choice, but you cannot expect that opinion to be taken into consideration when determining consensus. --Tataral (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

That's only your interpretation. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

We gave rationale repeatedly, consensus here is to exclude from the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You have not given any kind of rationale or policy-based argument, even when asked repeatedly (per above). There is a clear consensus for including the content. --Tataral (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

If there was consensus, you would have others agreeing with you instead of everyone disagreeing with you. Perhaps check out WP:1AM. PackMecEng (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works. Wikipedia is based on policy. If you're not able or willing to engage with policy, and make a policy-based argument, then you have not really made an argument that others need to take into consideration. The nonsensical claims about "BLP" were rejected by multiple editors, but your assertions have also been thoroughly rejected at AfD, and this is not the right place to relitigate the AfD. --Tataral (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're so confident about your position, then open an RFC on the matter being disputed. Though I do advice you in an RFC, pushing that you're right & others are wrong, won't get you very far. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we might have an RFC. --Tataral (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump and fascism in the body – link in a body section already covering the topic

This is blatant vandalism. The discussion above concerns inclusion in the lead. Removing, out of spite, a link in the body to an article directly covering the topic being discussed there (the content had already been in the body of the article for a while) that was kept in the AfD discussion because you disagree with the AfD result is vandalism. Also, it's a blatant lie that any editor has opposed the link being included there, not to mention presented any policy-based reason to censor an article it was decided to keep on AfD by omitting the link to it when the topic is directly mentioned. --Tataral (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I see that an edit war is developing over trying to keep the link to the other page. I don't see a consensus for the page linkage. I'm not interested in such an edit war, so yas can work it out yourselves. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The only edit-warring is done by User:Zaathras. There is consensus for including the link because AfD decided we were going to keep the article, and there is no legitimate, good-faith, policy-based reason to censor the article when the topic is directly mentioned in another article (which it is in the body of this article). The removal is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is disruptive. --Tataral (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This is just a link to another page on the topic in a section within the body of the page that deals with the topic. I don't see why there is opposition to including this. Interested readers will click on the link to the page and learn more about the topic at hand. Again, an AfD decided to keep the page, so there isn't really a reason to argue that linking to the page should wait until the AfD is concluded. BootsED (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes I apologize, I misread the talk page and have self-reverted my edit Artem P75 (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok! No worries. BootsED (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@BootsED what policy states we must include a link to the said article in the BLP? This seems like a BLP issue straight out of MOS:LABEL and it's really up to editors to argue why it's WP:DUE. Additionally, per WP:V While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

We're not putting it in the lead. This is about a link in the body in a section that already talks about it. BootsED (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Although I disagree with the article being on Wikipedia to begin with - since it is an active article, and the comparison between Trump and fascism is made within the Donald Trump article, I don't really see a reason why linking to the Trump and Fascism page is in breach of any policy. I'm not sure about it in the lead, but I don't see any issues with it being in the body Artem P75 (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't have consensus for putting in the lead of a BLP, and assuming bad faith is disruptive. BrianH123 (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

business on lead - curiosity

Editor @Goszei added back details about Trump business career on lead. I found it interesting the new world "pivoted". I've read a bit of the story on body, but I can't really grasp a more general social analysis of it. Why did he pivot? Why did he fail so many times? How did he get refinanced again and again? How did that influence his friendships in the political world he would join later on?

If @Goszei or other editors know a bit more that I could read, I am interested. Maybe the lead could benefit from one or two extra words to make those info about hotel and golf courses meaningful. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The word "shifted" or similar could also be used here. It's worth mentioning in the lead because building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses is how Trump became famous within New York (consider the Grand Hyatt New York, Trump Tower, his Atlantic City casinos, 40 Wall Street, Trump International Hotel and Tower, etc.), made his billions, and gained much of his name recognition. If he didn't pivot his father's company away from its previous business of houses and apartments, he wouldn't be the prominent figure he is today and most probably wouldn't know who he was. — Goszei (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, this is the info that should be added on lead. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Mention of political movement and cult of personality in lead

I recently added mention of Trumpism, the political movement created by Donald Trump and his cult of personality to the page with an abundance of reliable sources (I know the term can be contentious). I recently added it to the lead but there was discussion from @3Kingdoms who stated that "I do not see consenus or RFC for this. The source certainly warrant merit, but I think we should discuss first."

As the lead has recently changed, I would request that the following sentence (highlighted in green) have the bolded parts added to the lead with the following references per Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus, item 20.

1: (Add a period here and split the sentence from the section in #2.)

Many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, or misogynistic.

2:

and hHis election and policies sparked numerous protests and led to the creation of a political movement and cult of personality.

References

BootsED (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

1) Bad revert per consensus #43. 2) I don't think it's lead worthy. We have enough in there already. Cessaune [talk] 04:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cessaune: Then challenge it by reversion. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Expansion on "Health Habits"

Health Habits states "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs." This is generally thought to be a falsehood in regards to alcohol. While there is no concrete proof of cigarettes or drugs, there are eye-witness testimonies over the years in regards to alcohol. There are also photos from the late 90's of him drinking champagne, a photo in 2017 drinking wine at an UN luncheon, and claims from the book "The Methods of Madness" with first hand accounts from NYC bartenders that he would drink beer, liquor, and wine in order to impress women. src: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7189873/Life-long-teetotaer-Trump-drank-Miller-Lite-liquor-champagne-90s-New-York-clubs.html https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-donald-trumps-one-stop-parties-attendees-recall-cocaine-and-very-young-models/ 2603:6000:B300:1B29:D878:D6B4:3869:BD4E (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're proposing the article should debunk that "lie" based on one or three sources, I'll oppose per WP:UNDUE. As Trump lies go, that one isn't worth the space. And WP:DAILYMAIL gets you down to two sources (including a book whose reliability is impossible to assess), and WP:DAILYBEAST gets you almost down to one. Looking a lot like a non-starter. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

54. "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history."

A brief consideration:

The sentence should clarify who these "historians and scholars" are by identifying the institution that represents them collectively or at least their nationality, per WP:WIKIVOICE, WP:GLOBALIZE, and WP:GLOBAL. We might also consider adding a footnote to mention the historians...

Additionally, the sentence should also specify that this is an assessment of the first presidency, rather than the incoming one, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Pantarch (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This is discussed in the body of the article along with links to additional info. Too much detail for the lead. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Better to have many details than inaccurate ones. The sentence make an absolute claim, which is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies. Whereas, regarding my other point, specifying 'first presidency' requires only two words. Pantarch (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Trump is in a bit of a unique situation (two non-consecutive terms in a period that is contemporary with Wikipedia). I think this sentence in the lede should be rewritten to clarify that the surveys and assessments so far so far were purely based on his first term as president. That of course can be changed again when there's a new ranking that explicitly considers his second term.

Compare also to the Joe Biden article, where it has been generally considered too early to include the survey rankings until the end of his presidency. I don't think leaving them out here completely is the right way to handle it, but at the very least that part of the lede needs clarification.

If that would be too much detail, I would even argue to remove it from the lede altogether for now until the end of his second term instead of keeping the current wording. 2003:CD:EF0D:4800:DD0E:6701:F480:1B8B (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree this is an uncited comment and should be removed , but since it is under strict protection that can not be done by anyone outside of a very small group, so it will remain until someone with this ability decides to do it. Washusama (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

If we're removing "uncited comments" from the lead, we're deleting the lead. We cite in the body and summarize the body in the lead. See Donald Trump#Scholarly. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

When his second term starts we can change it to specify that it was his first term being evaluated. Until then, it is blatantly obvious due to the fact that it is the only term he has had. Your assumption that readers are too stupid to understand this is insulting. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

we can change it Am I missing something, or is "After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history." sufficiently clear on that point? The first four words were just added the other day, after a discussion which is linked in current consensus item 54, per established process. How could the assessments apply to his second term if they were made after his first term? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I just think this sentence should just be removed entirely. Master106 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:I just don't like it applies. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Losing the popular vote

The lead in the past mentioned that he lost the popular vote in 2016; is that still something lead worthy or is it unnecessary due to the length that the lead already is? I know this article in particular some stuff is written a little more concise since there’s a lot to say. Before I added that in I wanted to get consensus. Eg224 (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Given stop the steal, yes. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Hayes, Harrison, and Bush all include mention of losing the popular vote, so I believe it should remain. Plus, this is frequently brought up when discussing the election.3Kingdoms (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

hearing “yes” doesn’t answer my question when there were two questions I posed back to back Eg224 (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

luckiest man in the world

According to Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/06/how-trump-won-us-election-president

Does it have a place in this article? 46.103.47.184 (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No per wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it does. From the page you mentioned:

Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source).

The Guardian is a noteworthy source and an outspoken Trump critic. 46.103.47.184 (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No, The Guardian is considered a reliable source, not a noteworthy one. What evidence do you have to support such a claim? Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

According to its wikipedia article, The Guardian is considered a Newspaper of record in the UK. 46.103.47.184 (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

So? it is one newspaper, it is not a journal of luckology (which does not, in fact, exist anyway, there is no scientific measure of luck). Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You are not supposed to take this remark in face value. It is only rhetorical. 46.103.47.184 (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

So then you have no valid argument for inclusion. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aren't a reliable source. Newspapers, no matter how prestigious, do not magically impart noteworthiness. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: My argument for inclusion is that it can be used to highlight that Trump got elected inspite of a long list of events that should have tarnished his public image beyond repair. Inside quotes, obviously.

@Kcmastrpc: here are the sources given in said article: 46.103.47.184 (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

A, that is not what you said. B, This is an article about him, not his election. C, We already list much of this anyway. Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I already raised this concern on another topic and yes, there should definetelly be a hint of analysis of why he won the election, not this one though, but the 2016 one, which was extremelly notable, probably the most notable event of his own life. Realiable sources reported on it extensively. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

And we discuss it at length in at leat two articles. Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

If it’s known as a Trump critic that makes it sound like they have media bias so I don’t think it would fit WP:NPOV but that’s just my opinion. Eg224 (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Proposal to Address Implications of Pending Legal Cases on a Potential Trump Presidency

In light of Donald Trump’s pending criminal cases, we may consider including a neutral section on how his legal proceedings could impact a presidency if he were re-elected. Specifically, legal analysts suggest that while charges would remain active, any sentencing might be deferred until the end of his term. This could be relevant to discuss in terms of historical context and how it might influence both governance and legal precedent. Input on maintaining neutrality and accuracy here would be valued. Shencypeter (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

NO we need to wait until they have an impact, we do not speculate. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Sentence on lawsuits and bankruptcies in lead

It is natural that a large-scale real estate developer in the industry for decades would face a high number of lawsuits. It is worth mentioning in the body, but not worth mentioning in the lead. In the lead, the apparent purpose of this sentence is to portray Trump as a bad businessman, despite him becoming a billionaire and acquiring some of the most iconic properties in NYC. We already mention his "business failures" in the 1990s and shift to side ventures; I recommend removing the sentence on lawsuits, and then changing "business failures" to "bankruptcies" to be more clear. — Goszei (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Source for any other land developer who has faced this number, and kind of lawsuit please? Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking into it, according to [39] close to half of the 4,000 suits were related to his casino, most of which were "suits against gamblers who had credit at Trump-connected casinos and failed to pay their debts". Trump was the plaintiff in these (not the defendant), and won most of them according to the data. Another big chunk, larger than those related to his real estate, was personal injury, which is again expected when running a large number of commercial properties. He had about 600 real estate suits over a period of 40 years. — Goszei (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Not what I asked, and does not support what you said. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

His involvement in litigation is a key part of Trump's biography. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

From what I posted above, a lot of the suits just seem like the cost of doing business in a litigious industry for 40 years; our article on it, Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump, acknowledges that Trump won 92% of the suits. We have a lot in the lead about his later legal problems, but we shouldn't generalize that backwards to his business career. He was much better known for his Atlantic City casino bankruptcies than something like Trump University before 2015. — Goszei (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Before 2015, Trump wasn't publicly known as "that guy who got sued a lot", but as a fairly successful real estate developer who faced high-profile bankruptcies and later built a brand around his name. This is what we should convey to the reader. — Goszei (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I completelly agree with Goszei here, it's a repetition that is misleading, unnecessary, and, even more important, take up space that could be used to describe how his real estate work connects to his rise to power. Goszei explained it to me in another discussion and is not conveyed properly in the current lead. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

But his dishonesty also helps explain his rise to power. Again we need sources saying this is not unusual, not editors OR. Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You interpreting that sentence as "Trump gained his wealth through dishonesty" is complete POV and exactly what I am referring to when I said the figure alone misleads readers. As I showed above, the reality is more complex (the vast majority of the suits weren't related to any kind of fraud on Trump's part, and he won 92% of them). — Goszei (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. That should definitely go. The whole business part of the lead is full of useless trivia. Riposte97 (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

We have a whole page on it: Business career of Donald Trump. It is only appropriate for it to be at least a sentence in the lead of his bio. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

We should include details on his business career insofar as it explains to readers how Trump became rich ("building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses") and became a household name (licensing his name and hosting The Apprentice), which are directly relevant to his rise to political power. Mentioning the number of lawsuits he had is not relevant to this purpose. — Goszei (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree this sentence in the lead should be removed. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

When I talk about an edit, I am implying by default it coming from RS.

I just think that the connection between him building businnes in NY and his rise to power should be made more explicit, in the case that it is supported by RS. Just talking about golf courses and hotel doesn't make it clear enough. And the number of lawsuits further make it more misleading because it seems like he went to politics because he was poor and failing. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed this discussion — two days after the election, all hell breaking loose in the article and on this talk page. Trump's business failures, including the bankruptcies, are a defining part of his biography and lead-worthy. Since you mentioned casinos and gamblers: it's not a sign of great business acumen when you build a casino next door to your own casino and poach patrons from yourself or when you give credit to patrons so that they gamble with our own money. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

when you give credit to patrons so that they gamble with our own money. This is established practice in the gambling industry, anyone who has tried to watch a sporting event recently has been bombarded with 'free bet' ads. The calculation being that most people are losers and getting them in the door is more valuable to the casino/sportsbook than the value of the credit/'free bet'. Regardless, declaring a casino or other business bankrupt isn't that relevant to the article that it should have multiple lines in the lead of an article about a two-term president. We can surely summarise that business failure/bankruptcies content in one line. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

To the uninitiated reader, this sentence suggests that Trump by the time of his first presidential run was a failed businessman who was absolutely drowning in lawsuits. However, a good chunk of Trump's popularity in 2016 came from the widespread view that he was a successful real estate mogul, and an icon of the "glory days" of American capitalism in the 1980s. The truth of course is more nuanced (we have many, many words in the article on questions about his true net worth, for example), and I understand the impulse to hint that his business career wasn't as spotless as people perceived, but this specific fact just misleads the reader. We don't even mention his billionaire status in the lead, or have a few words about his changing political affiliations, both of which are far more relevant to understanding his "pitch" to the American public and rise. — Goszei (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Broader critique of the lead and article

To be honest, I believe content like this in this lead, as well as a continued focus on it within the article, represents us sticking our heads in the sand as editors. We are now far beyond the 2016 election, when points like this were used to attack Trump by his political opponents, and have entered a stage where he is bringing about a generational re-alignment in American politics. This lead, this article, and this encyclopedia should seek to clearly explain why Trump appealed to the electorate in 2016 and why he continues to do so, and explain the roots of his movement, which has only grown over the last 8 years. In many places, we miss the forest for the trees: as many political scientists and historians have concluded, Trump won not because he was racist and his voters were too, but because his message exploited an absence within the political establishment of anyone speaking to the interests of the population. We need to weave his ascendancy together with the facts of 40 years of stagnant wages, the financial crash of 2008, the abandonment of the Rust Belt, and the declining living standards of the working class. I write a lot of this up to WP:RECENTISM, but now that he was elected a second time, it is clear that he isn't an aberration but a key figure in U.S. history, and our encyclopedia should reflect this. Perhaps I am asking too much for the nature of this project, but I think this is important, and hope this article improves along these lines in the years of chaos to come. Rant over. — Goszei (talk)

That clarifies this for me. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and we are not (despite what some believe) his political opponents. We are taking a holistic view of Trump's life and career. He received significant coverage going back to the 1970s. We don't stop talking about past events just because of WP:RECENTISM. That includes his lawsuits and business failures, as well as the successes. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

A necessary element of taking a holistic view on someone's life is that the view changes with new events, which open new perspectives on what in their life is relevant and what is not. In the narrow sense of editing this article's lead, in my opinion this means focusing on why he gained power in 2016 and now in 2024 and the bases of his mass movement. To me, wasting words on the comparatively trivial matter of his business lawsuits is not part of that overarching goal. If he was just a businessman, yes, but not for who he has become. — Goszei (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. I do believe that the political activities from 2015 on need to be rewritten because of the unavoidable RECENTISM. But, any proper biography of Trump will include his business career, which was substantial and covered in the press and has led him to where he is. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

More and more RS on the deeper, long-term socio-economic and political trends which I described above are sure to be released and get added to this article. I only ask that editors keep an open mind and adapt to changing conditions within the RS. Much of this article's trivial content, almost all based on nearsighted and shallow analysis of contemporaneous news coverage, will need to be aggressively cut and replaced by the good stuff. Again, this is RECENTISM and will be fixed over time, hopefully sooner rather than later. — Goszei (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I could not agree more with Goszei. I have been trying to say the same for a few days. Glad I am not the only one noticing the need for improvement. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

"Lead too long" banner

Inclusion of {{Lead too long}} has been disputed of late. Last two edits:[40][41] See similar current consensus item 64, which is about article length. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

If we want to avoid users placing the banner, we need to trim the lead. I just made an effort for the fourth paragraph here. Further cutting likely needs to take place to the enormous second paragraph (which some editors keep trying to split into two paragraphs, which does not solve the problem). However, that paragraph contains more contentious material which has been recently removed and added back (legal actions, Mueller investigation, and cult of personality, in particular). — Goszei (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that's off-topic. This is about the banner, not about the lead's length and what to do about it. They are completely independent issues, as shown in consensus 64. We don't need the banner to address lead length (evidence of that: we are addressing lead length as we speak, separately on this page, without the banner). ―Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I oppose the banner as unnecessary clutter. Exactly the same rationale as with #64. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong in including this banner for a limited period of time. The purpose of a tag is to draw attention to a problem. If there is wide agreement that a problem exists, include a tag until the problem has been solved or the discussion dissipates. We do not need a formal discussion that prevents us from using the tag for months or years. Politrukki (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This is why I've been pointing to consensus 64 as a similar situation; I believe we can and should learn from experience. {{Very long}} had been in the article long enough for editors to determine that it had no effect on the amount of attention given to the article's length. But it did add clutter that every reader had to see as soon as they arrived at the article—clutter that meant exactly nothing to them. Hence, we decided, cost exceeded benefit.

Both banners may provide some benefit for articles that need more eyes on the respective length problems. That's hardly the case at one of the most active articles in the encyclopedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Tariffs and farmer bailouts

Would it be due to cover the Trump administration farmer bailouts, following his tariffs? Zenomonoz (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

No, as they are not about him. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Public Image#Incitement of Violence

I am unsure what any of the text of this section has to do with "Public Image". Could someone clarify this for me? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: perhaps for January 6 United States Capitol attack? JacktheBrown (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

JacktheBrown the text should be reworded and sourced to reflect that. As it stands, placement in the Public Image section implies he is known publically for causing hate crimes etc, which fails WP:V at this time. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: feel free to make the change, in the worst case it will be cancelled. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Jack, it seems to be a broader issue than just this part, reflecting a failure of summary style. I'm going to start a new thread on this broader issue below. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest section

"During Trump's term in office, he visited a Trump Organization property on 428 days, one visit for every 3.4 days of his presidency" This includes his private residences, such as Mar-a-lago. This does not necessarily equate to a conflict of interest and should not be in the section. This might be substantial evidence enough for political op-eds, but not Wikipedia. It could be phrased like 'Trump recieved criticism for often visiting his private properties'. In-fact, alot of this article could be written in a manner similar to this.

2A00:23C5:6433:4301:C71C:6946:4971:705C (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The source does not say "Trump recieved criticism for often visiting his private properties". It does, however, exactly say "Trump has visited a Trump Organization property on 428 days of his presidency, or one visit every 3.4 days. That means that he has visited on about two days of every week of his presidency." What you are saying it should be changed to is WP:OR and potentially WP:SYNTH. Unless, of course, you can provide a source that directly states it. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 07:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I am having some difficulty parsing this source. The main thrust of mentioning his visits to the private properties is that it was leisure when he said he would be busy, and that it was costly to the taxpayer to have him travel there. It seems to be a slightly unnatural reading to say him visiting a property every 3.4 days constitutes a conflict of interest. Tell me if I'm wrong. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It relates to earlier in the paragraph, talking about how he was sued for violation of the Domestic Emoluments Clause and Foreign Emoluments Clause. It does read a bit strange when you only read that specific part of the source; it does go on later to explain more about this, so if anything, it should be expanded to include that as opposed to removed. I will however leave that to someone more experienced than me. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 08:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's too SYNTHY to use it as evidence of him violating those clauses unless a RS makes that connection. What do you think? Or just slap on a and leave it at that? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That's probably the best option for now, if it weren't as late I'd probably go in and rework that section myself. But it seems sufficient to me. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 08:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Added it in Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, he significantly overcharged the Secret Service for using his properties when they had no choice but to be there.[42][43] – Muboshgu (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this context. It does seem a bit small-fry compared to the other controversies listed. Why do you think a mention would not be UNDUE? You're more familiar with this page than I. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump overcharging the Secret Service demonstrates his attempts to enrich himself off of the presidency, and there are sources for this throughout the time of his first campaign, presidency, and Biden's presidency. Above I provided a source from 2022 and one from 2024. Here's one from 2016, one from 2017, and one from 2018. It's certainly DUE for a sentence in the body. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Unless I've missed it, none of those sources allege Trump was overcharging. Each just notes that the USSS reimburses private entities for the cost of bringing them around, but the difference in the Trump case is that he typically owns the private planes, hotels, etc, to which the reimbursements are paid. A storm in a teacup. Riposte97 (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Would you kindly briefly summarise the sources you mention and explain how you would use them? Thank you, Politrukki (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Deceptive claim and deceptive edit. The 2022 source is about allegations in a letter by House oversight committee chair, a Democrat. The 2024 source is about a House oversight committee minority report. The minority of Democrats does not represent the committee as a whole. Politrukki (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Deception is not my intent, nor is it an assumption of good faith in your part to suggest I am trying to deceive anyone. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I made no such suggestion. By "deceptive" I mean "misleading". I have not ascribed any motive, just stated the obvious. AGF works both ways. Politrukki (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

"Deception" implies intent. There's no AGF on vocabulary, unless English is not your first language. That I do not know. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Please just stop. Politrukki (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

When you're more careful in the language you use, I'll stop. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I do think the content you tagged should be removed as improper synthesis, as explained. Removing the tag certainly was not helpful. Politrukki (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Removal seems in order.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

What's the synthesis? Is that sources don't use the phrase "conflict of interest"? The Democratic minority report called it "the world’s greatest get-rich-quick scheme" and discusses the emoluments issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

We are talking about Bump's column. I do not see a hook for "conflict of interest" in that source – either explicit or implicit. Politrukki (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's a Time magazine piece that directly uses the term "conflict of interest" to describe the Trump presidency use of Trump Organization properties. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Where are you going with this? This sub thread is solely about Bump's column, about the content removed in this edit. Politrukki (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak to what was in the Bump column as it's paywalled, but I added sourced content about Trump properties being a conflict of interest and it was removed without an explanation, or at least I can't find it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I did insert a link to an archived version without the paywall, but it was removed. I understand the page is near the WP:PEIS limit, but the solution is surely using #invoke or such rather than creating accessibility issues? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

2nd assassination attempt

The Pennsylvania attempt is featured in the article and a link to the page about it is included, but the absence of anything about the 2nd attempt in Florida, including a link to the page for it, is strikingly absent. I'm sure authorized editors will quickly correct this honest oversight. 216.168.91.102 (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

We don't mention the 2016 incident where someone tried to kill Trump, so I don't see why we need to mention the Florida incident. The only one where Trump was harmed was the Pennsylvania one, so that one seems like the most important one to include. The Florida incident can be mentioned at the article for the 2024 campaign. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Assassination attempts in lede?

Why not a brief mention of the two assassination attempts against Trump in the lede? Surely it's up there in notability with him serving two non-consecutive terms. Evaporation123 (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

There have been more then 2 John Bois (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking this earlier today. Feels odd that this is not mentioned. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 15:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Related article may need attention

I think Political career of Donald Trump, which is prominently linked from this article, could use some attention.

I have started a discussion on the talk page over there. Commander Keane (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Popular vote win or loss?

“winning both the popular and electoral vote” this is from the newest section of the lead he did win the electoral vote but the popular vote is still being counted as of 11/8 11:20 EST he has only a 2.6% lead with millions of votes left to count particularly from California

this is assumption and there isn’t any vaild source claiming he did this needs to be removed immediately John Bois (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

From the cursory research I've just done, including NBC and NYT, it does appear a popvote loss is within the realm of possibility, so there may be a bit of WP:CRYSTAL there. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn’t it be removed until then? John Bois (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone may have to do that just to get some eyes on the issue. You don't need prior agreement for a bold edit that does not violate an existing consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Leave it be, until/if Harris passes him. PS - @John Bois: It would be best to first bring this up at 2024 United States presidential election, where Trump's pop-vote total is currently bolden, in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@John Bois WP:THEHILL has reported a popular vote win for Trump; however, if it’s not already covered in the body it probably should be added. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

NBC NYT and AP have not declared it yet John Bois (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I've opened up a discussion at the 2024 election page, about your concerns. Honestly though, most of the networks must have confirmed that there's not enough (currently uncounted) votes left for Harris to overtake Trump, going by the percentage track. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! John Bois (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose it’s up to editor consensus since we have some reliable sources reporting popular vote victory and some are not. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

If there are a few reliable sources claiming it, we should have it in until proven otherwise. There is pretty good confidence/credible info that points that direction. I think WP:CRYSTALBALL is more of unsubstantiated claims. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

There's no harm in waiting for it to be official. California only has 63% reporting at the moment, there are more votes to come that at the very least will make it a narrow margin either way. Zaathras (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Public image summary style

I mentioned in a thread above that some of the content in #Public image has nothing to do with public image and creates verifiability issues. Having now read the main article, Public image of Donald Trump, I can see this stems from a failure to use WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. To conform, the lvl3 headings in #Public image should be the lvl2 headings in the main article, not just a spot to throw miscellanea. Such a rewrite would remove discussion of Trump's use of social media and racism, which are likely DUE for this article. I want to discuss where they should go. Keeping them in #Public image isn't an option given the violation of WP:Verifiability. Best, Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Here the previous thread. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the organization per the above. The article was previously structured:

7 Public Image 7.1 Scholarly assessment and public approval surveys 7.2 False or misleading statements 7.3 Promotion of conspiracy theories 7.4 Incitement of violence 7.5 Social media 7.6 Relationship with the press 7.7 Racial views 7.8 Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct 7.9 Popular culture

It is now structured:

7 Assessments 7.1 Public 7.2 Scholarly

8 Political practice 8.1 False or misleading statements 8.2 Rhetoric 8.3 Promotion of conspiracy theories 8.4 Social media 8.5 Relationship with the press

9 Prejudice 9.1 Racial views 9.2 Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct

I have also started a discussion at Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump#Changing the title which will impact the subheading "Racial views" Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Too many words together, in blue

Forgive me folks. But "His inauguration as the 47th president", looks terrible. It's a long blue sentence, basically. I attempted to fix this with "His inauguration as the 47th president". But was reverted. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: in my opinion it's necessary. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Your edit created an MOS:EGG problem. The article has many links of that length or longer, and the length of the linktext is not our first priority. You might as well change hush money payment to Stormy Daniels to hush money payment to Stormy Daniels because there's "too much blue", and I think most editors would oppose that as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not gonna push this too much, as the lead will change 500+ more times, between now & January 20, 2025. On inauguration day, the whole sentence will be extinct by then. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: the Donald Trump discussion page is already too long, in my opinion this thread is unnecessary (in my opinion). JacktheBrown (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Concluded discussions tend to get archived, after twenty-four hours. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: damn, excuse me. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Only after closure, per consensus 13. Are you withdrawing this? If so, I'll close. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic, borderline bullying. Be better. Zaathras (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Awesome. Please don't start discussions about things that you are not going to push very much. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC) Please don't tell me what to do. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC) Please don't tell me what to do. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Fascism

Donald Trump is a fascist.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/27/us/politics/trump-fascism.html

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-fascist-meme-returns-donald-trump-election-voters-5e513359

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/literally-hitler-or-reminiscent-of-lincoln-trump-election-72c9a194

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/10/24/politics/fascism-trump-what-matters

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/10/12/mark-milley-donald-trump-fascist/

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/22/us/politics/john-kelly-trump-fitness-character.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4948511-john-bolton-donald-trump-fascism-2024/amp/ 193.154.125.9 (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Read wp:blp. Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, there are enough sources for an article, so BLP concerns are right out. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there an editing suggestion you'd like to make? Zaathras (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Saying many controversial phrases doesn't mean being fascist. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

We know. The article on Trumpism notes its neo-fascist and fascist elements in its first paragraph. This is not new information. Dimadick (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I would argue adding a sentence after mentioning his 2024 campaign. Something like, "His second campaign was widely described as using authoritarian and dehumanizing rhetoric, which some said featured parallels to fascism." BootsED (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@193.154.125.9 Not surprised you used every left wing media to cite your sources. KnoSpaces (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

All of those are from reliable sources (though some are opinion pieces). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of release of grades

I removed "In 2015, Trump's lawyer threatened Trump's colleges, his high school, and the College Board with legal action if they released his academic records" from the early life section saying it was "undue for this section". A few hours later, Farkle Griffen added it back in with the description "Explained why his academic performance is not known", not addressing the concern about whether it was giving it too much emphasis. Before I removed the text, I did a search of coverage, and found that the issue was very rarely mentioned after it was discovered, and only in passing. Giving it a relatively high amount of attention in the early life section therefore seems inappropriate. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree Anonymous8206 (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Didn't see that it was previously removed, but mentioning academic performance in school is relatively common in Wikipedia articles on biographies of political figures, and it's certainly relevant in a section about academic history; mentioning why this information is not available seems just as relevant. I don't see how a single sentence is too much emphasis. Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Farkle Griffen Could you respond to the issue of coverage not being lasting (applying WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM)? I do believe the Early life section should be expanded; if that happened I would be more likely to support inclusion. Right now however, "one sentence" makes up 20% of Wikipedia's coverage of Trump's early life. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not that much in favor of keeping it, it just feels like a strange argument to say: "This section is too short... so we should make it shorter." But to respond to your first sentence, this news went viral around February 2019, which was five (nearly six) years ago; I could be wrong, but I don't think WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM apply here. Farkle Griffen (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Re Farkle Griffen; it is a strange argument, but the idea is that the article is already very unbalanced against the Early life section, and this would make a negligible change to that imbalance, while the Early life section is very unbalanced towards this event, and removing it would make a significant change to that imbalance. See my reply below for RECENTISM in particular. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

coverage not being lasting You seem to be saying we shouldn't keep the content because RS is not still talking about it. That doesn't seem workable, since RS has other things to talk about. RECENTISM? What's recent about something that happened nine years ago? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The second sentence of RECENTISM says "It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view," which is how I'm assessing DUE. The best sources for assessing whether biographical details are DUE in this sense are, obviously, biographies, as they are assessing how details fit into a life as a whole. On the other end of the spectrum, the absolute worst sources for this assessment are breaking news sources about a revelation about a biographical detail. As an example, Trump's eligibility for the draft received a lot more coverage than this over a longer time period. But biographies published after the fact treat it as a small issue in his early life overall. These sources are therefore insufficient to show it is DUE. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm struggling to imagine writing this article primarily based on published biographies, in which content can't be written or verified without a trip to the library or a book store. Are we to limit editing to editors who are prepared to do that (which would exclude me), or should the rest of us just take the word of those who are?

As a practical matter, you're not going to get consensus for reasoning that departs from how editors have operated here for eight years—unless you have uninvolved closure in which the closer is convinced by your arguments. You may be in the unfortunate position of being far superior to your colleagues. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I won't press this any further, there doesn't seem to be momentum. For my own benefit in determining if material is DUE on this page in the future, would "Coverage across multiple RS is sufficient to suggest inclusion is DUE" be an accurate summary of this discussion?

I will note that high-quality sources that are doing overall evaluations are most beneficial for DUE in creating the bones of the article. Editors still have to put meat on them. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article has been dysfunctional in the DUE area for eight years. Some content has been added on the basis of one or two sources and accompanying "editorial judgment" that it's DUE. Other content has been omitted on the basis of 15 sources and accompanying "editorial judgment" that it's UNDUE. It seemed to me that DUE has been more about "editorial judgment" than anything else, which left the article wide open to editor biases. Thankfully, one of the main culprits was recently indefinitely banned from all things Donald Trump (not for that reason but for bad behavior), but they were only one. I can't fix the world. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Based on your experience here, what do you think should be done to help with NPOV? In a similar vein, you mention below that you are looking for arguments beyond editorial judgement, and you later indicated this was met. What was it that convinced you that DUE was met? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Based on your experience here, what do you think should be done to help with NPOV? In a better encyclopedia, ArbCom or WMF would intervene here. That's fantasy at this point, so I don't know what could be done. It's part of why I'm semi-retired. I'm just here for the mental stimulation, for interaction with other smart people (I don't do social media), because I have a talent for efficiency and organization that makes me a good facilitator on this page, and because I have nothing better to do with my time. What was it that convinced you that DUE was met? Six linked sources and the promise of about a dozen others, which I took at face value. We can talk about "larger issues" all day long, but we also have to get some work done. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

There's too much "editorial judgment" going on here. Somebody please present a persuasive DUE case for inclusion, based on RS coverage. Absent that, I support the removal. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what DUE has to do with this since this doesn't seem to be a NPOV issue, however, for RS coverage, just going going off the first results on Google, this is mentioned by: Time Magazine , AP News, CNN, PBS News, NY Times, and WP, among about a dozen others. Granted, these are news stories, not biographies. Farkle Griffen (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, DUE has everything to do with all content. Granted, these are news stories, not biographies. I'd say 90%+ of the article is based on news stories; that's the nature of the beast. (As I interpret it, NOTNEWS mostly means we don't (or shouldn't) rush to publish breaking news.) Now, since I don't move goalposts, you have persuaded me unless someone can persuasively counter your case by showing how those sources don't support the content. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK, "DUE" only refers to WP:DUE, which is a subsection of WP:Neutral Point of View, and only really talks about the due weight of a viewpoint. Am I wrong? Farkle Griffen (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You're right, although DUE tends to be used as a shorthand for all weighting issues. WP:PROPORTION is more accurate. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I'm no policy guru; much of it moggles my bind. All I know is that, in practice at this article and others where I've spent significant time, "viewpoint" is a very broad term loosely applied. Why don't you take this specific case to WP:NPOVN and (with any luck) educate all of us? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

We need room for obvious reasons. Stuff like this should probably be on the chopping block. R. G. Checkers ^talk 05:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

R. G. Checkers Why do you think this is undue? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

We are never going to make significant progress on article size one sentence at a time; might as well try to significantly shrink Lake Erie using buckets while others are pouring water into it with other buckets </hyperbolic metaphor>. Progress on article size will require gutting large parts of the article, such as much of the detail in "Foreign policy", moving to summary style. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Related discussion at "Wording of sentence on Trump attending New York Military Academy" with more sources, above. Trump has claimed since the 1970s that he graduated at the top of his class at Wharton and that you had to be a super genius to be admitted to Wharton in 1966. Both claims were debunked, despite Trump not releasing his records. And in 2019 Michael Cohen turned over the threatening letters Trump had him send to Wharton and his high school. It wasn't just the news of the day, it's been mentioned in probably every Trump biography published since then. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

As for need[ing] room for obvious reasons, that's [[WP:CRYSTALBALL]. My crystal ball thinks we'll end up with comparisons between his first and second presidency, resulting in fewer details for the first one. We'll have to wait and see what RS report about the second one. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Space4Time3Continuum2x. I've got my copy of Trump Revealed to see the weighting they place. Their discussion of Trump's grades are quite limited, and only really discussed in the context of Wharton, which makes sense given that was a focus to establish credibility as a businessman. In their discussion of Trump at Wharton, they give an equal amount of value Trump ascribed to the degree, to his draft exemption, his later alumni contributions and how relatively wealth he was compared to the cohort. His education at Wharton covers four pages of the 20 dedicated to his early life.

A lot more of the text is spent discussing his aggression as a child and teen; this should be included before his grades are. If his Early life were expanded to the size of Barack Obama's, it should certainly be included. I'll check other biographies later to see how their emphases compare. The needing room comment may refer to the article's size already being very long. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The book was published in 2016, three years before Cohen told the NYT about Trump's efforts to keep his grades secret after harping about Obama's academic record for years. As if anyone but Trump would care about high school grades 50 years later. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply it was published after this came out. In your estimation, how much more of the early life section would have been taken up by it if it had? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No idea. Pre-presidency content that went to character kept getting trimmed because of the avalanche of presidency events. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Statistic and Grover Cleveland in the lead

Becoming only the second President in history to serve non-consecutive terms, the first being Grover Cleveland. Is the statistic leadworthy? Is Grover Cleveland leadworthy? (Also, MOS:EDITORIAL, MOS:OFFICE, and missing subject and verb.) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I personally think that something that has only happened twice in over 200 years of U.S. presidency is lead worthy, but others may disagree, that's just my two cents Artem P75 (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This indicates support for the first sentence. Do you support the second? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the second is proposing, I had a look at those policies but have obviously missed / overlooked something when trying to understand Artem P75 (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Artem P75 apologies if I was unclear. The second sentence is Is Grover Cleveland leadworthy? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess maybe not? as he isn't the subject matter? Maybe we could mention Trump being only the second without mentioning Grover... but I also do agree with @Muboshgu that the lead is too long and could use some culling Artem P75 (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but he hasn't served his second term, yet. The sentence would be more accurate, after he assumes office in January 2025. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah yeah, I agree with that, I think the policy is WP:CRYSTALBALL? Or something that I have seen used for this? Maybe could say elected to serve a second term instead? Otherwise may as well just wait until the 20th of Jan to make the decision Artem P75 (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Our lead is too long as it is. Throwing in this tidbit about Grover Cleveland doesn't help matters. It's WP:TRIVIA. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Removed Grover Cleveland reference Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Not trivia by any means; pulling a Grover Cleveland by winning the 2024 Presidential race after losing a bid for re-election in 2020 is something Donald here has lately been getting lots of attention for, with the press making comparisons between both men following this highly unusual achievement. The 132 years elapsing before that happening on the other hand is an expendable count. We definitely should have some mention of doing something only Grover did before. Let's not downplay the significance of it. The first paragraph doesn't necessarily have to be the place to discuss that, and I'm fine with the last one doing so. In the linked diff showing removal, Rollinginhisgrave also carelessly ignored how the ambiguity of just saying Donald is the second to win non-consecutive election will leave readers asking "Who was the first to do so?" and we shouldn't assume everyone will already know the answer. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Highly unusual because parties usually have the good sense not to nominate the loser a second time, but good sense goes out the window after a political party has transformed itself into a cult. Cleveland's misogyny (sensible and responsible women do not want to vote. The relative positions to be assumed by men and women in the working out of our civilization were assigned long ago by a higher intelligence) and anti-labor stance would have fit right in but how many readers come to this page to read about him. Also, "second"? Trump has a few — uh — achievements all to himself: first felon, first man found liable by a court for sexual assault, first nominee/president-elect to be promoting merch from shoes to Bibles Made in China branded with his name. If we want to cite stats in the lead, these are the ones we should select. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS Much of the lede invites questions: why did his businesses fail? How did Russia interfere? What did he do that was racist, sexist etc? So on. To answer those questions a reader may read on to see what the lede is summarizing. It's the nature of summary style. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You're presuming all viewers would have enough time to read the page beyond its lead section and that's not a guarantee. To elaborate on rarity, what I'm getting at is that non-consecutive wins are an almost unprecedented occurrence that many folks once believed would never be repeated. The closest anybody came before last week was Theodore Roosevelt during the 1912 election. This is far less common than things like businesses failing or someone being racist/sexist. While I can't yet say for sure that it'll be the most prominent trait of his Presidential statistics like it appears to be for Grover, people either way would expect a straightforward mention of names when discussing only one of two in history who broke longstanding patterns. It wouldn't exactly be a big bloat to simply identify him. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that something that has happened only twice in over 200 years is lead worthy... I think the lead in general needs a very thorough cleanup, for example the entire third paragraph, starting with:

"In his first term, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, funded expansion of the Mexico–United States border wall..."

Should probably just be moved to the "First Presidency" section... These are things he did while he was in office for his first term so I would think that is the section where they belong rather than contributing to the bloat in the lead... but I will not expand the subject matter here and will raise another talk page post on this Artem...^Talk 22:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Leads convey the most important parts of the person's bio. There are a number of sources about Grover Cleveland's presidency now that we have a second non-consecutive term president, but this press will die out before Thanksgiving and it will be mostly forgotten. Cleveland is meaningless to Trump's biography aside from that one trivial commonality. I do agree about the need for a thorough rewrite though. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

We need to reflect the emphasis that RS put on this. Our discussion of the comparison to Cleveland is sourced to this NPR article. Those who support including the comparison in the lede: do you think this sourcing verifies that inclusion in the lede would be WP:PROPORTIONATE, and that it's inclusion (from WP:MOS/LEAD) reflect[s] its importance to the topic? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not think there is a weight issue here per WP:PROPORTIONATE, it currently only makes up a single sentence of the lead, its not as though it goes in to depth or discussion, it just mentions it as a single line tagged on to the mentioning of his second victory, which was a non-consecutive victory, so I believe is worth mentioning as it is only the second in history. Although this is also mentioned at the end of the first paragraph: "In November 2024, he was re-elected to a second, non-consecutive term as president" so we could add mention of the fact that this is only the second time this has happened in that section and remove mention of it in the last paragraph? Artem...^Talk 23:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, that NPR link isn't the only piece to make comparisons between these guys, and Artem has a good point on weight/proportionate concerns. I see no violation per the importance of these unconventional winning stats. Muboshgu also got overly hasty with remarks on people forgetting it before Thanksgiving. That's purely speculation and we have no way of telling for certain how many will remember the similarities. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks SNUGGUMS and Artem for these replies. I agree that Muboshgu's comment likely fell too far into WP:CRYSTALBALL, but we do need to account for WP:RECENTISM. Including one sentence on something of course can give too much weight, even if it's not in depth. I'm sure you can think of many examples. Proportion therefore applies, as does MOS:LEAD.

so I believe is worth mentioning as it is only the second in history I understand you believe that, but we are to reflect the importance placed by RS. Do you think that is demonstrated by the source provided?

that NPR link isn't the only piece to make comparisons If you think other sources are able/better able to verify the importance, please provide them.

I want to reassure you both that I'm not opposed to including the comparison, I just want to ensure it's inclusion doesn't violate WP:NPOV by verifying that importance placed reflects that of RS. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess if giving appropriate weight to the RS is the concern it would be beneficial to locate other sources that report on this so as to not give an undue balance. I'm sure this will not be difficult as it does seem like something noteworthy, but then again it may not be as noteworthy as I perceive and there very may well not be much RS on it. I will see if I can locate some good reliable sources in my free time this afternoon and propose them here Artem...^Talk 01:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there's pieces from The Daily Telegraph, The Hill, The New York Times, USA Today Miami Herald, WBC-TV (aka NBC Washington), etc. that discuss differences and similarities between the men. If you want other samples, then I could provide those as well. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 06:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

That's okay for now. This goes some way to establishing WP:WEIGHT, although insufficiently (it's unclear how this goes beyond simple verifiability, and verifiability does not guarantee inclusion). To avoid Wikipedia:Bring me a rock, if you'll permit me a few hours I'll have a look through sourcing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, Artem P75 I had a go at evaluating the weighting RS put on claims to importance. I used a sample of sources; a different sample may generate different results.

I searched "donald trump win" (not in quotes) on Google. I opened every result for a few pages and closed pages that were attributed as an individual's opinion or analysis. I closed some that didn't discuss what the election meant. I closed some that were about a subtopic, such as the election win in Arizona, and talked about the importance to Arizona etc. Excluded articles were: [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56]. I then crudely coded the results and even more crudely numerically described the emphasis the source was placing (1 being in the title, 0 being not mentioned).

Extended content

Crude Coding of news articles Title Outlet + Latino shift + votes on border + Urban votes No change in suburban vote Rural vote Swing state sweep Political comeback Won frustrated voters Validated coarse rhetoric Outperformed 2020 + US stock market + BTC Non-consecutive Grover Cleveland First convicted felon Oldest elected Prices Crime Migrants Kamala unpopular Biden Consumer sentiment Inflation Young voters Suburban movement Not a huge win Shocked Democrats Women voters Black voters College degree voters Kamala time-short Trump's Continuing dominance of politics Blue wall defeated COVID considered history Tim Walz bad White voters Economy Decisive Popular vote, first Republican in 20 years Religious Trans Deportation Anti-elite Not shocking 2nd time beating woman Not seen as fascist Female president Protests Men White without college degree Direction of country Trump’s 2024 victory revealed voter shifts that could reshape America’s political landscape CNN 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Election 2024: Trump sweeps all 7 battleground states, CBS News projects CBS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trump wins the White House in a political comeback rooted in appeals to frustrated voters AP 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.9 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Donald Trump’s Election Victory, in 6 Charts U.S. News 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2024 US Election: Donald Trump wins Arizona in swing state sweep Le Monde 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 How Trump Won Time 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 US election results: How did Donald Trump break the ‘blue wall’ – again? Al Jazeera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.4 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Donald Trump wins election in historic comeback after 2020 loss, indictments and bruising campaign CBS 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Donald Trump wins 2024 US election in historic comeback BBC 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Election takeaways: Trump’s decisive victory in a deeply divided nation AP 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.25 0 0.3 0.5 0 0 0 0.1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Donald Trump Returns to Power, Ushering in New Era of Uncertainty NY Times 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0.75 0.7 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.4 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 The view from countries where Trump's win really matters BBC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Donald Trump wins 2nd term in historic return to White House ABC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 What Donald Trump’s Win Means for Inflation Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trump wins Arizona to clinch sweep of seven battleground states The Guardian 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 Donald Trump wins presidential election, defeating Harris to retake White House Washington Post 0.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.35 0 0.4 0.25 0 0 0.6 0 0 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0.75 0.75 0.75 Sum 3.55 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 3 5.25 3.1 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 1.15 1.1 0.75 1.65 0.9 0.25 1.65 1.6 0.5 2.65 1.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 1.55 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.65 0.5 1.75 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.8 0 0.25 0.65 0.25 1 0 0.75 0.75 0.75

Takeaways:

• From this sample, for RS, the most significant thing about this election was it being a political comeback.
• The increase in Trump's vote among Latinos was also seen as significant, for example:
  • "A trend with the potential to remake the American political landscape is the huge shift in Latino voters toward Trump."
  • "As has been extensively noted, exit polls show that Latino men went from backing Biden by 23 points to backing Trump by 12 points, a stunning result.")
• It was seen as less historic that Trump was the second president to have non-consecutive terms than that he was the oldest.
• When sources did mention the historicity of Trump's non-consecutive terms, they gave equal emphasis of the achievement with a discussion of Grover Cleveland.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

With all of those results in mind, I don't see any problems with due weight for the part regarding non-consecutive wins. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I actually think the opposite having now done the review. Could you clarify why including the fact in the lead at all would be giving due weight, when it was not given such weight by RS? Surely the appropriate outcome here given would be to replace it with the characterization as a political comeback? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

"...replace it with the characterization as a political comeback" I would support this. To me it is significant that he was the second in history to win non-consecutive terms and I find it quite interesting, but from the above it seems like there has been next to no coverage on it, and Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the weight given by WP:RS, so unfortunately I don't see a reason to include this fact in the lead Artem...^Talk 21:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

By your own admission, Rollinginhisgrave, it was equal emphasis of the achievement with a discussion of Grover Cleveland. That suggests any mention of the non-consecutive wins would be an appropriate place to name the other guy. It's unreasonable to now assert otherwise and the way you did so sounds like a cheap cop-out. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Please assume good faith of me, I have no preferences beyond reflecting the weight of RS, and I 100% agree that the results above suggests any mention of the non-consecutive wins would be an appropriate place to name the other guy; if included in the body, it should be represented as such. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

In that case, keep a watch for any other pieces that come up covering both men, and those can be assessed for further calculations on weight. It wouldn't surprise me to see more pop up, but only time will tell how many others will talk about their similarities and differences. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS It wouldn't surprise me either. When/if we get there, we can make those alterations. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Russia was a hoax

Mueller’s results found nothing so that part is 100% INACCURATE. 71.205.198.48 (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you be more specific in what you're referring to / proposing?

...To me, this makes no sense Artem...^Talk 02:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

In our biographical article on Trump, we spend a lot of space on possible collusion by Trump's 2016 campaign with Russia interference, although Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 173: "Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities." Bob K31416 (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding a lot of space, see the section Investigations. Also, I looked in the subsection Mueller Investigation and I couldn't find any mention of the ultimate result mentioned in my above message. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Do we say there was collusion? Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No, but the report not finding any evidence of collusion resulted in it being a political debacle for the Democrats, basically vindicated Trump's charges of a "Russiagate witchhunt", and embarrassed the news media (notably the NYT, who pumped the story day after day for years in a manner which is honestly comparable to the false stories about alleged WMDs before the Iraq War). What this article says is correct, but these circumstances should make us rethink its mention within the lead. — Goszei (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Another sensible point. The landscape has shifted beneath our feet here, and we haven't been responsive to the latest RS. A lot of the Russia stuff is legacy text from a time when RS were much more comfortable speculating about a link between Trump and the Kremlin. That's now largely stopped as more information has come out. Riposte97 (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I also agree on this. The lead is too long, and ultimately the Russia-Muller angle petered out. Even if something was regularly on the news at the time, it probably shouldn't be in the lead if it had little lasting significance. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Parents, children, and spouses links in the infobox

Re: [57]

This keeps getting added and removed with no resolution in sight. As I understand it, the rationale for omission has been that the parents are covered by the "Trump family" link. On the other hand, so are the children and they remain linked in the infobox. I'm thinking it's parents and children, or neither. In any case, let's settle this once and, hopefully, for all. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at other U.S. politician's pages, specifically Barack Obama and George W. Bush, they both have their parents listed, and then a separate section for "relatives" with Obama Family and Bush Family respectively being linked. The same applies to John F. Kennedy and Kamala Harris to name some other examples, so I would think we should follow suit on the Trump article Artem...^Talk 05:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I was about to make almost the same post, except that "Spouses" is also thoroughly covered by the link, so I would say it's either include parents or remove children and spouses.

The current infobox is somewhat long already, but information like Children/Spouses/Parents is extremely common in biographies on Wikipedia, and usually considered "pertinent information", so I can see reasoning in either direction.

I don't really care which direction is chosen, but for consistency with other articles, I'd lean more toward adding the parents. Farkle Griffen (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOX identifies the purpose of inboxes as allowing the reader to "identify key facts at a glance". Given this, the link to Family of Donald Trump should be removed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily disagreeing, but it appears to be an argument against the |relatives= parameter of {{Infobox officeholder}}. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, I'm not sure how it is applied/intended. If it is intended to list notable individual relatives, then it's not an argument against. Probably best to assume that's the intent as it is the assumption that aligns with the guidelines. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so all of the cited precedents are just wrong, and I could live with that. "The existence of bad stuff does not justify or excuse the addition or retention of other bad stuff of the same kind. Not all consistency is good consistency." On my user page since January 2018. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If we were to agree to remove these fields and lump it all into Trump Family would we then have to go to the other politician pages to also change this? I'm not opposed to this, it just seems like a lot of work for a change that seems like a matter of semantics Artem...^Talk 06:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Remove the fields of both parents/children? I don't think anyone's making the case for that. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Apologies Mandruss, I don't seem to be carefully reading at the moment, I will take a break. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

We could, but we wouldn't have to. That kind of thing always turns little issues into gigantic issues, and other articles are not affected by decisions made at this one. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't this same reasoning apply to the Awards section? Farkle Griffen (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Avoid topic expansion. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand Mandruss' comment above, but yes I would say so. Could be worth asking for clarity on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking ahead to a consensus item about Parents, children, and spouses links in the infobox, which would link to this discussion, which would contain stuff about other issues. Not good organization. Address separate topics separately. Start linking issues like that, and things quickly grow too large to deal with effectively. Usually not helpful to try to solve all the related problems at once. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The point being, if the same logic applies, then I don't think the reasoning is valid. There is no way the intended use of the Awards section is to list the "most important" awards, because choosing which are the "most important" would be very controversial on every article where the subject has more than a few awards (let alone this article).

Of course, this is all speculation, and I could be wrong. Farkle Griffen (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're not proposing we do something to the |awards= parameter in this discussion, disregard my comments with my apologies. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Edited after reply 06:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't apologize; it was a very reasonable assumption Farkle Griffen (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize for apologizing. Stricken. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 06:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I've posted a question here at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Hopefully they can clarify the intent, as there seems to be some disagreement on the talk page. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Financial

Here's some material that is in our article at [58]

Financial

In April 2019, the House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas seeking financial details from Trump's banks, Deutsche Bank and Capital One, and his accounting firm, Mazars USA. Trump sued the banks, Mazars, and committee chair Elijah Cummings to prevent the disclosures.[506] In May, DC District Court judge Amit Mehta ruled that Mazars must comply with the subpoena,[507] and judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District Court of New York ruled that the banks must also comply.[508][509] Trump's attorneys appealed.[510] In September 2022, the committee and Trump agreed to a settlement about Mazars, and the accounting firm began turning over documents.[511]

It doesn't appear to be worthwhile for our article, is just taking up space and maybe we should delete it. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Bob K31416 What weighting do RS give it? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

In the material there were 6 refs. The first was April 22, 2019, then 4 refs May 21–22 and finally one September 17. It was an episode of congress subpoenas for some of Trump's financial records. As we look at the episode today, there doesn't seem to be much of interest there. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Bob K31416 Hope you don't mind, I may take a day or a few getting to this, but I'm not ignoring it and think it is worth evaluating in some depth. In the meantime, have a look in secondary sources 2022 and later and see if they discuss/give weight. Some examples of sources: Criminology on Trump and Indicting the 45th president Boss Trump, the GOP, and what we can do about the threat to American democracy. Look for academic reviews of texts like these to contextualize them in academic literature; I find writing a Wikipedia article based on the reviews helpful to share such research with other editors and ensure NPOV. If I haven't responded in a few days, ping me. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead cleanup move third para in lead to "First Presidency" section

I think the lead in general needs a very thorough cleanup, for example the entire third paragraph, starting with:

"In his first term, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, funded expansion of the Mexico–United States border wall..."

Should probably just be moved to the "First Presidency" section... These are things he did while he was in office for his first term so I would think that is the section where they belong rather than contributing to the bloat in the lead.

We have mention of racism and sexism in the second paragraph preceding this one, so I don't think it is appropriate to go into discussion of his policies that reflect this in the lead, but are better left to be considered in the article body per my brief understanding of MOS:LEAD, MOS:INTRO and WP:LEADLENGTH Artem...^Talk 23:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead absolutely requires a description of the policies he implemented as president. It doesn't "contribute to bloat" because it is one of the core features of his biography, this article, and the lead of any article on a U.S. president (or leader of any country). The details can be debated, but pretty much everything mentioned is important. If anything is bloat in the current lead, it is instead sentences such as "He and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 legal actions, including six business bankruptcies" (see my proposal to remove this above), or perhaps the exact details on his indictments (which as commentators have noted [59] are now basically dead) and civil liabilities. — Goszei (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That is a fair point - do you think it requires such an in-depth of a discussion about those policies though? The business and legal actions / bankruptcies I agree should be looked at, I think maybe cut down or removed and left for the body? These things happen all the time with businesses. I also think the exact details of his indictments could be removed and left for the body - I think mention of them should stay in the lead as a summary of the body, but as a whole I do not believe the specific details are lead appropriate and should be left for later on in the article Artem...^Talk 00:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If we want to trim down that section of the lead, it should probably done to the list of things he did in response to COVID, or the part about Kim Jong Un and North Korea, since nothing substantial came of that. The parts besides those are too important to cut, in my opinion. I will note that there are other things that had real effects which are currently absent and could be added, such as the USMCA or Abraham Accords. There's also nothing about the Operation Warp Speed or the CARES Act, which some editors have mentioned in this discussion above. — Goszei (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

A "discussion" involving two editors that lasted 91 minutes and you claim that a consensus has appeared to emerge? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I was not referring to this thread, but this one above. I believe that a fairly clear consensus has emerged there. — Goszei (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

My apology, hadn't seen that one. Will respond there. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

These things happen all the time with businesses: does the majority of reliable sources say so? Not to my knowledge, and we have many sources to the contrary. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Biggest Political Comeback In US History

He staged the single biggest comeback in US Political History as quoted by Newsweek, CNN and others (they agreed greater than Nixon's in 1968) achieving the 2nd highest popular vote totals ever including a record amount of support from minority voters (Black, Hispanic, Jewish, Asian) than any other Republican in history. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 08:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

So what do you want us to say? Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

State the facts, they are written directly below the Topic Header. You can expand upon it if you wish by including the final official numbers for minority and popular vote totals but those will be another week or so away. Regardless of the timeline, he's already achieved both facts stated above about the popular vote and the minority vote. He's also achieved 2 out of the top 3 largest popular vote totals ever recorded in American history. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 11:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any RS that say this was the "Biggest Political Comeback In US History"? Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

of course, I'm not sure how to link articles on here but if you Google "Newsweek How Donald Trump Pulled Off the Greatest Comeback in Political History" it will show the article written by Carlo Versano from 1 week ago. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

This would fail wp:v for your suggestion (clickbait titles are not RS). There is also here an issue of wp:undue. We can (at best say) "according the Newsweek he pulled off the biggest political comeback in modern US history". I am unsure, that this improves our article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, another article you can Google (sorry about no links) is "Daily Express 8 greatest political comebacks in history: from Trump and Farage to Churchill and Lenin." Again, the topic header stated US Political Comebacks. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, what? Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

CNN "How Donald Trump completed a historic political comeback" article from November 6th also. There are many more articles from mainstream sources stating this again and again. That would be 3 direct, seperate resources reiterating the Topic Header. You could say, "according to many sources, Donald Trump pulled off the biggest comeback in US political history." 104.230.247.132 (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Popular vote total is trivial since as the population grows, the number is higher and higher. A more accurate measure would be % of the popular vote which Trump did not earn a significant majority of when compared to prior presidents like Reagan or F.D.R. Noah, BSBA^Talk 11:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it trivial, there's never an infinite expansion of populations. Look at China, South Korea, Japan, etc. Many countries are shrinking in demographics. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The 2024 population is estimated to be 24 million higher than the 2020 population which is higher than the 2016 population.... Pretty much every election cycle prior has had more eligible voters. Having a larger percentage of the country support someone is more important than simply having the most. If F.D.R. won today by the same margin he did in 1936, it would be almost 90 million people. Noah, BSBA^Talk 11:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

By that logic it sounds like there should've been another 10+ million more total votes this election cycle than in 2020 but the fact is there wasn't. The truth is, Trump has won 2 of the top 3 total popular vote counts in history, and also defeated 2 Democratic candidates in a single election cycle. That's very relevant, and factual. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Not if there's lower turnout which is what happened this time around. He never ran against Biden in the general election so it isnt factual to say he defeated Biden. He only ran against and defeated Kamala Harris. Biden probably would've lost anyways but that's simply speculation, not fact. Noah, BSBA^Talk 12:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

if he was running against him up until 2 months from the election and then dropped out because of a soft coup caused by his disastrous debate performance (and terrible polling numbers), that would be defeating a candidate, 2 to be exact. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

We aren't going to state this because this is not what reliable sources say. Noah, BSBA^Talk 12:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Propaganda isn't 'reliable sources.' Biden continued his campaign after one of the worst debate performances in modern history and afterwards still continued to state he was continuing his campaign, until many Democratic donors, former and current House of Representatives and Senators demanded he quit. That would be a soft coup, especially withholding campaign finances to force him out. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

How Donald Trump completed a historic political comeback, CNN. Here's an excerpt, "Millions of Americans, including pivotal voters in Midwest and Sun Belt battlegrounds, cast ballots that clinched Trump’s historic comeback — one that promises to reshape American politics for the foreseeable future."

(To new editors, you can make a link like the above by writing: [https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/06/politics/how-donald-trump-won/index.html How Donald Trump completed a historic political comeback] , i.e. put the link, then space, then the title, all in a pair of brackets.)

Bob K31416 (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

This would broadly fall under WP:OR I would think, which is not allowed. At Wikipedia, we follow what WP:RS reports Artem...^Talk 21:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion would be "noted by media as one of the greatest political comebacks in American history." to the end of the sentence about the victory. I don't think it can go unmentioned, it is a very notable point in his political career, and also helps balance out the lead a little. Mb2437 (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I am now out of this with a confirmed no to the suggested edit, as what we seem to have is wp:or based upon various sources that do not actually say it was the biggest comeback in US history. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Should be stated as "one of the greatest" anyway, stating it is "the biggest" outright would be fairly contentious. We typically apply this same nomenclature to great sportspersons e.g. Lionel Messi. It can't really go unmentioned entirely though, it is very widely sourced by major, reliable outlets, and is a major point in his career. Lead reads as incomplete without it. Mb2437 (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTOPINION: unless you provide reliable sources supporting your opinions, you're wasting your and our time. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump’s win is his greatest resurrection in a career of comebacks, Washington Post. "Trump’s political revival, unparalleled in U.S. history, follows a long pattern in his life of seemingly insurmountable, self-inflicted catastrophes followed by shocking rebounds."

How Trump pulled off an incredible comeback, BBC : "This is surely the most dramatic comeback in US political history."

Greatest comeback? Here’s how Trump stacks up in White House history, Denver Gazette. "President-elect Donald Trump pulled off what many are saying is the greatest political comeback in American history by winning a second non-consecutive term despite a felony conviction and the stain of Jan. 6."

Also, please see the Wikipedia guideline, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and policy Wikipedia:Civility. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump the ‘colossus’ is the comeback king of American politics NY Post. "We are in the midst of the greatest political comeback in American history — which follows, by eight years, the greatest political stunt in American history."

Donald Trump pulled off the ultimate comeback. See how we got here CNN."Despite a felony conviction, two attempts on his life and rhetoric that would have surely sunk any other political campaign, he has completed the ultimate comeback."

Trump Just Staged the Biggest Political Comeback in American History Newsweek."You are witnessing the greatest comeback in American political history.

The previous greatest comeback was by Richard Nixon, who lost his race for President in 1960, only to win decisively in 1968 and again in a 1972 landslide. After his resignation, he staged yet another extraordinary comeback, becoming the most influential former president America has ever had."

Back from the dead: Donald Trump is America’s political Lazarus The Hill. "He is the greatest comeback politician in political history. The closest thing to what Donald Trump has pulled off can be found in 1968 with Richard Nixon."

How Donald Trump Pulled Off the Greatest Comeback in Political History Newsweek."Donald J. Trump completed the greatest political comeback in modern U.S. history in the early hours of Wednesday, claiming enough electoral votes to defeat Vice President Kamala Harris and return to the White House for a second term." 104.230.247.132 (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Propaganda isn't 'reliable sources. That's disqualifying right there. Sources Wikipedia accepts as reliable: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Four of the five sources you presented here are opinion pieces which are generally not acceptable, and one of them is from January 2024 and referred to his win in the Iowa caucuses as the "biggest political comeback in American history". CNN's ultimate comeback after having been "temporarily render[ed] [] a pariah in mainstream Republican politics after Biden took office" — I think that means final comeback, not single biggest. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

That something exists does not make it encyclopedic. Print media engages in sensationalism, esp. in headlines, to attract eyeballs and sell subscriptions. The Wikipedia is not that. Zaathras (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

In a review of what reliable sources emphasised when discussing Trump's win in a thread above (see here), one conclusion drawn was that from this sample, for RS, the most significant thing about this election was it being a political comeback. I would have to look at the sources discussing the win more closely to assess how to write it (historic, biggest, attribute or not etc.), but it should be mentioned in the lede to give due weight. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

NO the, lead is a summary of important parts of our article, at best this would warrant one line in the body. Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven could you elaborate? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes (per wp:lead) "In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. It is located at the beginning of the article, before the table of contents and the first heading. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." it only goes in the lead if it is a major part of our article. It is hard to see how a throwaway headline can ever be spun out into a major section. Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven I imagine you think including the fact about being the second president to win non-consecutive terms should be removed on the same basis. Do you agree? I am not opposed to merely including that In the 2024 presidential election, Trump defeated the Democratic candidate, incumbent vice president Kamala Harris, winning the popular and electoral college votes.

I am not sure how to determine if his win should receive more context in the lede than that. If it should, it should be this fact, given that at this time, it is the one RS think is the most significant element of his win. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If it is not in the body it should, not be in the lead, however, I am gonna suggest the fact this is an unconvertible fact, means it has a place in the article. Where as it is debatable if the claim this was historic does. I said I was out of here with a firm no to including this, it remains a no. Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

We don't have to describe it as "historic" etc, if that would be UNDUE. Simply "multiple media outlets characterized his win as a political comeback" could work. Whatever we choose if we choose to include something it should a) be in the body, b) reflect the emphasis placed by RS, including reflecting to how RS describe it as a political comeback. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I will also convert vote totals among minority voters (when they're fully counted and considered official) to percentages with a link to the official numbers to show his historic performance among minority voters for a republican candidate. This will add some balance to the sensationalized, prevailing media narrative of DJT's supporters being "white supremacist, misogynistic, Nazi, etc, etc" garbage they continue to spew forth while also showing a growing realignment of political bases within the parties. I can add this to whatever section it would fit best in to show a bit more fairness or balance to the article/page. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

IP, Yes it was indeed the biggest political comeback in US history. Would support a write-up of it, in the page. Afterall, it's only an opinion (also) that Trump is (for the moment, at least) considered the worst president in US history. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Users need to read wp:lead, the lead is not there for emphasis it is a summary of our article. If it aint in the body it aint going in the lead, and one line can't be summarized with one line. Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Then let's remove the election victory as a whole, and his being the second president elected to non-consecutive terms, as they're both only discussed in one line in the body... It's a highly notable point in his political career that is widely agreed upon by major, reliable sources. Mb2437 (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

BY all means remove them if you wish. But two wrongs do not make a right.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:LEAD doesn't even support your argument. "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." This is a major point in establishing his political notability, and widely supported by reliable, published sources. Many of the points in this lead are also concisely noted in the body, exactly how this article is meant to be written given the extent of his career. Mb2437 (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Try the first line "In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. " and " (latter on) "Significant information should not appear in the lead, apart from basic facts, if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text.", This is not a "basic fact". Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It is covered in the body, and should be expanded to include other sources. It is a basic fact if firmly agreed upon by reliable sources. CNN ABC AP BBC Keep in mind I'm not agreeing with the "biggest" wording. Mb2437 (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It is a basic fact if firmly agreed upon by reliable sources see Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not using that to argue its inclusion; it should be included because it's one of the most notable points in his political career, such to the point where it should even be in the lead. Their point was it was not a basic fact, and thus should not be included, which is simply false given that many reliable sources disagree. Mb2437 (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

So again, a firm no. Time for an RFC? Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Could we give this a bit more time before we escalate? I will have a go at working on the body. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

FORUM

There has been a lot of WP:NOTFORUM vio going on here of late. Including a number of experienced editors. I'm curious:

• Do these editors know they are violating policy?
• If so, can they explain themselves please?
• What, if anything, should be done about this? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think what we maybe seeing is good faith efforts to deal with requests that are not policy compliant themselves. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Go WP:TROUT them or something </sarcasm>. It’s incredibly unlikely anyone is going to be sanctioned by an admin for anything short of uncivil behavior. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I must have missed when somebody was sanctioned for uncivil behavior without a trip to WP:AE. But I'm not looking for sanctions.

I mean, we sometimes collapse NOTFORUM vios, but that's not really practical when it's interspersed with constructive non-vios every fourth comment. Even if I did that, I'd look like a self-appointed Talk Page Sheriff unless I had help from a few others. There's just too much of it going on, and I know better than to piss off ten experienced editors at the same time. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yea, that's kind of what I meant, I've never seen anyone sanctioned at AE for NOTFORUM (that wasn't a blatent civility issue as well). I digress though, you kind of highlighted why there's not much we can do. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Tell ya what. I'll start posting on user talk pages and see if that has any beneficial effect. I could use some help with that, by anybody who cares about keeping this page functional. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I am moving discussion of FORUM and BITING to this more relevant thread. Context is an IP apologizing for not knowing how to link to sources. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the help with how to link articles Bob, thank you and sorry to others for not linking directly. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM: not a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It may be WP:NOTFORUM but its just a small tip in a relevant discussion to help the IP out, its nice to just be helpful sometimes and may encourage them to make an account and be an active participant in the project; WP:NOBITING Artem...^Talk 21:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Best practice here would be to post a note on their user talk page to avoiding BITING and FORUM. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

There was a discussion of this at the policy talk page in the section Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#4. Discussion forums. It appears it is OK to make a brief, related, helpful technical suggestion on the article talk page for the benefit of various editors. Cheers, Bob K31416 (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

"List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2026)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2026) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 13 § List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2026) until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Less bitey and more actionable response to bias page

A lot of editors to this page are new, and their comments on this talk may be among their first. It's crucial we don't bite. I've rewritten Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias be more welcoming and actionable for these new editors. The draft can be seen here. I also think the page should be renamed to "Is Wikipedia biased against Trump?" to better meet the same goals. I hope to see if there is consensus for either or both changes to be accepted. Best, Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Re proposed page move:

• Somewhat problematic considering we just created the WP:TRUMPRCB shortcut. I suppose we could abandon it like we did TRUMPBIASED and create WP:IWBAT!
• I wouldn't presume to speak for other Trump articles, which may very well be biased against Trump. It was merely a local solution.

I am not opposed to de-biting if that's what editors think you've done. It didn't seem all that bitey to me, but my perspective is different. Otherwise no opinion at this juncture. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh... the part about "specific, policy-based" suggestions seems absent from your proposal. How is that not important? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I also don't think the version in use is bitey, but I'm not against trying to make it less bitey. Your draft is fine with me, but I agree with Mandruss that the "specific, policy-based" part is crucial. Hence the emphasis. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I feel mostly neutral on this topic, but I guess it can be very difficult to tell tone just by reading some words on a screen, so am all for reducing any perceived biting towards newer editors and making their efforts feel more welcomed Artem...^Talk 03:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Added in "specific, policy-based", with emphasis.

Less bitey may not be a useful phrase, perhaps "more welcoming", which is applying the same guideline would be better.

To avoid presuming for other Trump articles, how about "Is Trump's page biased?" Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"Is the Donald Trump article biased?", if you seriously think phrasing it as a question makes a significant difference. Might as well use correct terminology, and "article" is more specific than "page". Then we have WP:IDTAB for the shortcut (which will work until Wikipedia invents something called an "ID tab"). ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, no. The page does not discuss whether the article is biased; rather, it says it is not. So that's actually misrepresenting the content of the page. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mandruss, this is an important point. At this point, I do not know if the article meets NPOV (as with essentially all articles), although I am somewhat sceptical. If you think a page change would misrepresent the contents, it should not be changed.

I should note a difference made in the draft if you have concerns about drawing this distinction. Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias says: "Since reliable sources are widely critical of Trump, this article reflects that." The proposed draft says "Editors have evaluated reliable sources and have determined they are generally critical of Trump. His article reflects this." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You and I have recently discussed the "larger issues". They are outside the scope of the page in question. sceptical Ut oh! You have outed yourself as a likely Brit. I would like to say that I'm still fuming over that whole Revolutionary War thing. ;) I'm okay with that change. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

A bit is outside the scope, but most is not. A low-hanging fruit is that with the end of the election, we have just had several major outlets post summaries of Trump's last four years; if we evaluate the weight they put on issues and opinions for that period, we can move closer to a NPOV by reflecting such weighting. Even better sourcing exists for earlier periods (e.g. [60]) You can see why in particular I don't presume familiarity with sourcing ;) Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. Are you suggesting the response page should reflect said fruit? If so, how exactly? If not, aren't you off topic? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that until we have undertaken activities we know will either bring us closer to NPOV / affirm we have it, we should take on more of a posture of humility to its status re; NPOV. Which would involve not making strong claims that the page is definitely not biased. That's the impact on title. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

That's the impact on title. The current page title is "Response to claims of bias". The title itself makes no claim whatsoever about bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe it can be read as taking a defensive posture. Some editors will take a neutral read and others will take a defensive. It should be changed to one that is purely neutral to avoid the latter. If you don't think that's a natural read that editors will not be making then no need to change it. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't. I think it's possible to overthink this, and I think we're getting there. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You know, most pro-Trump readers making bias complaints will take a defensive no matter what we do. You do understand this? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries, let's leave it as "Response to claims of bias". I don't think there's been opposition to the content change after I made requested changes, I'll leave this up for a day to see if anyone else weighs in then I'll make the change.

I will have to think about that latter comment. Best not to pursue it here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

We could maybe give it four days. No deadline, as they say. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think you can merely copy-and-paste your new page into the old page. Wikipedia rules require the retention of the page history for attribution to the editors who wrote it (which now includes me). I'm not sure how that's done; maybe you or someone else knows. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Could just move the draft over the existing bias page, deleting it in the process, and then undelete past revisions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I can leave a link to the relevant revision differences [61] which should meet copyright obligations (based on Copying within Wikipedia). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2024 (2)

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.

---

Change "In November 2024, he was reelected to a second term as president, defeating the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris." to "In November 2024, he was reelected to a second, non-consecutive term as president, defeating the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris." in the lead. AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: this looks a sensible request. If nobody objects to it (in the next 24 hours) and if it's not added by someone else, I will happily add it (please ping me if I forget). M.Bitton (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I support this change being made, it doesn't change the substance of the text other than by adding a fact that has been covered by WP:RS. I dont think it creates a WP:WEIGHT issue as although this has not been covered to a great extent by RS, it is only passing a brief mention of it in this particular sentence.

Would like to hear from some other editors who are active here and have previously engaged in discussion on the non-consecutive term topic, so pinging @Rollinginhisgrave @Muboshgu @SNUGGUMS Artem...^Talk 21:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not fussed about the change, I just think the redundancy I flag below makes it poor writing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It's the specific mentioning of Grover Cleveland that I object to, not so much the mentioning of non-consecutive terms. But I agree with Rollinginhisgrave on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: I won't answer the request, but including the end of the previous sentence, the text reads "who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. In November 2024, he was reelected to a second term as president". I removed nonconsecutive with the justification rmv "consecutive"; redundant given dates provided in this sentence, his election to a second term could not be retrospective I would prefer to see this point addressed before it's readded. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I was going to endorse the proposed change until Rollinginhisgrave mentioned the redundancy and made a good point there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks sufficiently redundant to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Because of the constant changes over the last roughly ten days. I'll faint if this remains the lead, between now & inauguration. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yup, it's been changed again. GoodDay (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2024 (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.

Latter half of the opening paragraph

Does anybody have a formal proposal for the second half of the opening paragraph? That's all the info relating to the 2024 election results? It's been ten days & counting, so we need a stable version in place, between now & the inauguration day. PS - For goodness sake, don't add "current" or "currently" before (if included) "president-elect", as it's a useless descriptive. GoodDay (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support forming a consensus to put an end to all the back-and-forth (stabilize). Since it would be a temporary consensus as you say, it wouldn't need a consensus list item, just an archived discussion (e.g., this one) that we could point to in a DO NOT CHANGE hidden comment. No opinion on content. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Biography organization

Hi Space4Time3Continuum2x, I saw you moved the discussion of religion and family back to "Early life and education". I don't think there are any good options here, as the article is not structed as a biography. The article to compare to would be Ronald Reagan, as he is the most recent president that is a featured article (and helpfully he also had a prominent pre-political career). Some thoughts on reorganization to better meet this I'd like to hear your perspective on:

• Break up the section Donald Trump#Wealth, placing most into Business career where it is relevant.
• Break up religion paragraph into the bits relevant to early life, and then a brief discussion in presidency discussing the relevance to his relationship to religion as president.
• Ronald Reagan#Marriages and children is placed a lot more chronologically.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll get back to this tomorrow, too complicated for my addled brain today. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm generally not too fond of "one size fits all", including conform[ing] to others on Wikipedia, for example Donald Trump's two predecessors, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. This is the edit that moved "Personal life" to the top of the body on February 1, 2017. I wasn't editing here at the time, briefly looked for discussions in the archive but nothing jumped out at me. I never questioned it because it made sense to me: family, wealth, tabloid and later media personality — it's all interwoven and difficult to separate into business/profession/political positions (whatever the subject is notable for) and personal life with spouse(s)/kids, hobbies, etc. Seven years later one editor shows up, questions it, and it gets fixed a few minutes later (see "MOS Layout", above). Good process — no dillydallying with time-consuming discussions.

MOS:SNO also says: Because of the diversity of subjects it covers, Wikipedia has no general standard or guideline regarding the order of section headings within the body of an article. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, Trump's personal details have been part of his public persona for more than 40 years and shouldn't relegated to the end of his bio like an afterthought. I moved them back to the top of the body, along with the "Racial views" and "Misogyny/sexual misconduct" sections that had been newly added to the "Personal life" section. I agree that these two sections also deal with views and conduct predating his first term as president and continued throughout his political career. The "Public image" section is gone, so there's no other logical place for these sections. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about the best way to address this. I will narrowly respond in two ways:

• Racial views and misogyny could be folded under a s section 2 heading #Prejudice.
• There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Public image of Donald Trump#Article scope which is relevant and I hope you'll participate. It's responding to me cutting down the article 20% of its size (seen here) based on the principles laid out at the top of the discussion.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, Space4Time3Continuum2x. I object to organizing this article based on your personal preferences. Please read all of MOS:SNO. Exceptions are given and this isn't one of them. Why didn't you contribute to the MOS Layout thread? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I've spent a bit of time thinking through my objection to commenting further at this time, and it has been resolved. Susan sums up my thoughts here. We can reopen to the MOS Layout thread before it's archived to discuss further or simply restore. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Already gone.[62] ―Mandruss ☎ 21:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, thanks for the correction. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to rename Racial views of Donald Trump

There is currently a proposal to rename Racial views of Trump at § Changing the title. Editors here are invited to participate: this will impact the section heading "Racial views" in this article per summary style Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion: Combine these two sentences in the lead

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 promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, and misogynistic."

The most common objection right now is the length of the lead. These two adjacent sentences are really saying the about same thing, and can be combined somewhat more concisely:

"Trump has made several comments considered racially charged, and misogynistic, promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements, to a degree unprecedented in American politics"

I don't think this goes against consensus on these sentences as it doesn't remove or downplay any details, just re-orders them.

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? Farkle Griffen (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no content objection. This would break new ground as to our long-standing consensus process. There are four existing consensuses involved: 49 and 53 for the first sentence; 30 and 51 for the second. 49 and 30 show precise wording thoroughly hashed out in discussion(s): Four discussions including two RfCs. We have not in the past just thrown out the products of all that work so easily. One could argue that shortening things in this manner reduces the weight established by the discussions. How do we do this without another RfC? If we did another RfC, could we limit it to the restructuring alone, or would it need to reconsider everything covered by those four consensuses? So this is all problematic from a process standpoint. One could argue WP:NOTBURO, and a number of us would respond with WP:PI.

So maybe we could find other ways to reduce the lead. Me, I would just "raise the DUE bar", bite the bullet, and eliminate many of the things that other editors feel are "essential". ―Mandruss ☎ 06:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you're overthinking this a bit. This is clearly an edge case, and you don't have to set a precedent with each new addition. At some point, you can just call WP:IAR, discuss and move on. I don't think there's anything controversial here, nearly everything is preserved, down to the individual word choice, it's just more concise.

But, to respond to your last points: WP:NOTBURO is a Wikipedia policy, and WP:PI isn't even a guideline, I don't see how that would be a proportional objection. And I agree, I expect raising the DUE bar is soon to come, but I also expect that to be much more controversial and a much bigger fight than just this sentence. I'm working the less controversial trimmings for now. Farkle Griffen (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

NOTBURO is neither absolute nor a trump card. So what would you do in the consensus list? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Personally? I would just leave a note on 30, 49, and 51 saying "merged with 53" and one on 53 saying "merged with 30, 49, and 51", and append the combination to 53.

Of course I agree that policy is important, but the policy is only as strong as the users are willing to carry it out. I think this situation is just an edge case, and we have the right to notice that. Farkle Griffen (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, and I do have content objections. it doesn't remove or downplay any details, just re-orders them — um, really? Current text:

Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, and misogynistic

. Proposed text

Trump has made several comments considered racially charged, and misogynistic

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Good eye! But does your Oppose go away if they fix that oversight? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

No. I also oppose turning two much-discussed and litigated sentences into one long sentence for the sake of saving three or four words. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

See "Suggestion: Combine 3rd and 4th paragraphs". These two sentences make up a large part of the first paragraph. Shaving off even a few words is a lot of progress, especially if the goal is word-count per Mandruss in that thread. Farkle Griffen (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

And, to be specific, the original has 38 words, the new has 27, shaving 11 words, nearly a whole sentence. Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2024 (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.

Recommended biography

Can anyone here recommend a Trump biography? My plan is to read one good biography. Looking at the bibliography, maybe What Were We Thinking, or one by Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig, Jonathan Karl, Bob Woodward, Jennifer Mercieca, Maggie Haberman, Fred Trump III, ? Other than a historical bias learned from my mother, I have no horse in this race, and am trying to keep an open mind. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM Farkle Griffen (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Pardon me, Farkle Griffen. I daresay this article comes up short and I'm offering to help. Book sources are an impoverished list given the number of books about the subject. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Taking my marbles and going home. I settled on Mr. Lozada's What Were We Thinking. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

That's fine, and we appreciate your efforts, but a Wikipedia talk page just isn't the place for this Farkle Griffen (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Farkle Griffen I think Susan was inquiring as to the quality (reliable, comprehensive) of high-quality sourcing on the subject for the purposes of editing, which is an important function of talk pages. Perhaps Susan could have rewritten to be clearer as to her intent, but in cases where intent is unclear to us, it's best to assume good faith (which can involve asking an editor for clarification of they believe their comment is on topic).

SusanLesch I don't think What Were We Thinking is a biography in the strictest sense. From my similarly limited familiarity with sourcing on the subject, it seems like biography, particularly pre-presidency, will have to be sourced primarily to biographies 2017 and before such as Trump Revealed.

For a retrospective assessment of the Trump presidency and afterwards, which is necessary for assessing what reliable sources put emphasis on, the best sources I have seen aren't necessarily exclusively about Trump, but have a chapter on broad-strokes of his presidency. For domestic policy for example, see The Presidency and Domestic Policy: Comparing Leadership Styles, FDR to Biden. I'm interested to read The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: A First Historical Assessment, but reading reviews on such a book will be particularly important: as I read themread them (books) I'll create stubs for them to share findings with other editors like I have with Cocoa and Unsavory Truth. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Farkle Griffen (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Farkle Griffen, sorry for the misunderstanding. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Questions for you, Rollinginhisgrave. First, the book sources seemed to be slim pickings given the number of books about Trump. I appreciate the work that editors have done using Kranish & Fisher, which does appear to have been helpful. I am comfortable with Leonnig, Woodward, Haberman, and am interested in Jennifer Mercieca because it looks like she studied Trump's speech patterns. Decided on Lozada because, for one thing, I don't wish to become a scholar of Trump. Lozada is a Pulitzer-winner who was able to sort through the 150 or more books about Trump. I could be mistaken easily, and it would help to have a guide. Don't you agree his perspective would be useful? Is the Zelizer book you mention here a collection of essays/papers? Another good way to get a birds eye view. Sorry I can't invest the time in something like The Presidency and Domestic Policy. One other criterion: if any of the bibliography list is available free on the Internet Archive that would be a selling point. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

SusanLesch The book sources are certainly slim. I expanded the use of Kranish & Fisher a few days ago as a proof of concept in replacing news articles with books, but I will revise. If we're covering the presidency, there's two elements of sources to prioritise: retrospective and academic.

• Haberman is interesting, I haven't read about it. Might be the best for biographical details.
• Mercieca is interesting as well; we're a few years out so might be good to read recent reviews.
• Lozada would be useful to the page, but I think it serves a different purpose to what you identified in your first two sentences.
• Yes, Zelizer is a collection of essays; I'm most looking forward to any introductory material which attempts to synthesise.
• The Presidency and Domestic Policy would probably actually be the easiest, since it is one chapter which is relevant (the one on Trump).

I'm sc(k)eptical much will be available on the Internet Archive; it's been cut down mercilessly recently. If you need access to a source, email me. Hopefully I'll be able to construct an annotated source list over the next few weeks. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm leaning to Haberman because you thought it sounds interesting. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Suggest we don't underestimate the Internet Archive. I went through the first half of the bibliography and found these. Most of the others are available only to persons with print disabilities.

• Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success
• The case against Trump
• Where's Trump? Find Donald Trump in his race to the White House
• Man Enough? Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the Politics of Presidential Masculinity
• The Little Book of Trumpisms
• Trump: A Graphic Biography
• If Only They Didn't Speak English
• Big Agenda: President Trump's Plan to Save America
• Choosing Donald Trump: God, Anger, Hope, and Why Christian Conservatives Supported Him
• In America: Tales from Trump Country
• Trump: Anatomy of a Monstrosity
• Trump This! The Life and Times of Donald Trump, An Unauthorized Biography

-SusanLesch (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, very helpful. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion: Combine 3rd and 4th paragraphs

Keep in mind, over the next 4 years, we will almost certainly have to introduce a new paragraph about his 2nd term.

These two paragraphs are about his first term, and I think it's reasonable to set a precedent now of one paragraph per term, unless we want to add two more paragraphs to the lead during his second term.

Some details can probably be dropped or made more concise, but those details can be ironed out later. For now, I'm just looking for general opinion on setting this precedent to keep the lead from becoming abhorrently long later. Farkle Griffen (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If I'm reading you correctly, this is a proposal to remove a paragraph break? If so, I'll oppose the resulting extremely long paragraph, which would impede readability. The issue is not number of paragraphs but lead length. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes and no... I'm saying combine them into one paragraph, however that has to happen.

If the concern is length, then remove some less important details. Whatever we do, we should expect about the same amount length as the eventual paragraph about next term. Whatever the exact details are to combine them can be ironed out in edit summaries and further discussion. But this is just about agreement to (abstractly) combine them, apart from any specific details. Farkle Griffen (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Still oppose. Combine paragraphs after shortening them, not before. All readers need a (paragraph) break from time to time. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I haven't been clear enough. This is not about how or when to merge them, just a general agreement between editors that we need to start moving in the direction of merging them.

Your "Oppose" here seems to contradict what you're saying later. An "Oppose" here would be similar to saying "I think these paragraphs should remain separate, regardless of future edits." You can support this suggestion, and still revert merges you believe are done poorly. Farkle Griffen (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

just a general agreement between editors that we need to start moving in the direction of merging them. Seems too vague to be useful. I think we should propose specific changes when we're ready for them, not seek agreement on general statements of principle. But that's just how my brain is wired. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the paragraph lengths we have now is about the maximum I could tolerate, and I don't know that we could remove enough to combine two without exceeding that length. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Paragraph lengths at this moment are: 55, 96, 88, 126, and 120 words. I guess I'd set 150 as my max. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, there's been some significant shortening going on of late. I went back two days and para 4 was 176 words. So I asked my self, "Self, does that look unbearably long?" And my self replied, "Well I suppose not." So I'll up my max to a round 175. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

At current, if we replace the two sentences with the proposed one in my previous discussion, the word count would be down to 178 Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll take your word for that despite your inadvertent misrepresentation in that discussion[64], but I oppose that change for the reasons given. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I won't press that discussion any further. Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)