Talk:Donald Trump

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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) (Superseded by RfC Aug 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)

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.
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)

RfC: Gallup poll

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

There is a clear consensus against including this sentence in the lead. Most editors feel that including this single statistic from a single poll in the lead would afford it undue emphasis. They argue that there is no independent sourcing suggesting that this figure is particularly significant, and, pointing to the fact that the statistic is mentioned only briefly in the body, they conclude that including it the lead would be disproportionate. Although a handful of editors disagree in good faith, the community at large – from both a numerical and strength-of-argument perspective – feels that this statement does not warrant inclusion in the lead. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Should this be included as the penultimate sentence in the lead?

Trump was the only president to never reach a 50% approval rating in the Gallup poll dating to 1938.

It is currently in the body with reference.[1] soibangla (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes That is very notable and lead-worthy. -- Valjean (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• No - Leave the lead alone. For the first time in quite awhile, the lead's been stable. Put that info into the Trump administration article. GoodDay (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• Not on the sourcing provided Gallup is nowhere near enough for the lead. Even a few first-class news sources wouldn't do it. You'd need very high quality, all-over-the-place sourcing. As a comparison point, the assassination of Solemani is not in the lead. How much sourcing is there or that? Adoring nanny (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• Probably not The source is perfectly fine, despite the feverish protest above, that's not the point. Trump is one of the most deeply-unpopular presidents in American history, and the lead supports this by noting the double-impeachment, the numerous lies, the misogyny, the conspiracy-theorizing, the poor foreign relations, and of course - on the 1-year anniversary, no less - the incitement of insurrection. Noting his historically-approval ratings would really add very little to what the reader will already learn, the lead really is fine as-is. ValarianB (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  Re "Trump is one of the most deeply-unpopular presidents in American history" — What do you make of him getting 46.9% of the vote in 2020? Bob K31416 (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  "Feverish?" Please. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes: The sentence tightly dovetails with the sentence that follows it showing that both subject matter experts and the general public agree. soibangla (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• Absolutely Not not everything in the body needs to be crammed into the lead. It's one poll and plenty of presidents have dipped below 50% as well even for the majority of their presidency. Seems like a very insignificant statistic that you are trying to squeeze in at the top Anon0098 (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• No It's a sentence - one sentence - in the appropriate section of the article text; that's enough. The lead is supposed to reflect the MAJOR points of the article. This is not a major point. -- MelanieN (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• No. It’s just too trivial and specific for the lede, IMO. In the body though, it’s good to include. Cpotisch (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• No I don't think the lead is the place for trivia. Trump's poll ratings are important but they require analysis, which cannot be done in the lead. In fact, the lead already reads like a rap sheet and we should consult relialble teritary sources to see how they describe him. TFD (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• No As others have said this sounds almost like trivia and given how negative the lead already is (not necessary unjustified, mind) I don't think we need more. — Czello 08:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• No. There is already a ton of important information to cover in the lead; we don't need to clutter it with this piece of trivia. It doesn't help that the source is Gallup itself rather than an independent source commenting on Gallup's findings. It's probably worth including in the body though. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• No seems to be a little trivial and insignificant. I concur with Mx. Granger on the lack of independence with the Gallop poll be the reference itself. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• No the lead is already negative in tone and this doesn't need to be there. It doesn't qualify because of relative emphasis and I wouldn't say it's a crucial snapshot that readers need immediate access to. (After stepping back from the article for a few months and looking with relatively fresh eyes, I think the lead has become considerably more, and probably too heavily for wikivoice, negative than it was at the end of his presidency). I also agree with Mx. Granger's point re: secondary sourcing. Jr8825 • Talk 04:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• No per TFD and Czello.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 06:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• No -- as others have mentioned the president's standing in a poll that has existed for less than one century (i.e., for a relatively small subset of presidents) is trivia. Negativity has nothing to do with it: if Trump's rating on the Gallup poll was unusually high, the statement would still be trivia. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Lean yes I actually think the fact that Trump was the most unpopular President in the history of opinion polling is historic and probably lead-worthy. That said such a sentence shouldn't rely on one poll as has been suggested here. I think for this sentence to go in it should replace the "worst president ever" sentence, especially considering that it's way too early to make any kind of historical judgement about Trump and the fact that it makes the lead sound even more biased against him. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• No. Looking at the page history, this is the first period in time where the lead is stable and at a good point. There's a million trivial matters that are equivalent to this, and under this precedent those million others could go in the lead. Let's just keep the lead where it is. Sea Cow (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• No. The times a president's popularity matter are during their elections; anything beyond that is trivia undue for the lead. Noting that he lost the popular vote in 2016 and lost in 2020 is enough on his popularity for the lead. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• No Trump's done a lot of stuff, and the lead is supposed to sum up the most important parts of the article. The fact that Donald trump, during his four year presidential term, is the only president to never have reached a 50% approval rating is relatively minor, and seems to be a case of selectively choosing lead topics. If that addition must be put somewhere, it should be in the Trump Administration article. Even so, it's place in that article could be disputed too, given that what is effectively a piece of approval number trivia is rather unimportant in the shadow of the entire Trump presidency. KlammedyKlam:^Nosh 22:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I've requested for this discussion to be formally closed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Follow-up to Russian bounties

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

Hatted quote from NYT

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Off-topic discussion

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

The edit you cite above was just one of three.

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC Russian Bounties claims – better wording

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

The sentence currently reads:

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

I would suggest replacing this with:

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

or

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Proposal #4: :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RS says that there is not conclusive evidence that these bounties exist.[2] The bounties were disputed then and they are disputed now. Frankly, this discussion has already happened before and the consensus was to provide this context. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Post-presidency heading

I am proposing that we add (2021-present) after the Post-presidency heading. Should we do this? Interstellarity (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes as nominator. We have patterns in other articles such as Mike Pence, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris. If we do this to other articles, why is Trump the exception? Interstellarity (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• No. Presidencies are limited to 8 years at most, so for Biden and Harris it makes sense to say "–present". Post-presidencies/vice-presidencies tend to be permanent. What's the point in adding an unnecessary explanation like Jimmy Carter's Post-presidency (1981–present)? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  The point is for every president before Trump, we have a section in the article that says Post presidency (2017-present) for every president (ex. Obama) with the years a present left office and if still alive, add present to it. I believe we should be following precedent for adding (2021-present) like we have been doing for years. I fail to see why an exception should be made for Trump. Interstellarity (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  If everyone else jumped off a bridge they must have had a darn good reason? What’s the darn good reason for [year presidency ended]–[present]/[year of death]? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes It seems we do this with others George W. Bush Bill Clinton, why not Donny?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes This does seem to be the norm for living ex-presidents (that includes Obama, not sure why Interstellarity thought he was an exception). It is comparable to the way we handle other "positions" such as office holder. In effect "past president" is now the office they hold. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• No. It's pointless, ridiculous, and (to put it bluntly) stupid. I propose that this idiocy be removed from the other articles. --User:Khajidha (talk(contributions) 19:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)PS-consistency is a poor reason to continue a bad practice.
• Yes - since it's in the other bios of former US presidents. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW: Mike Pence has a "Post vice presidency (2021–present)" section heading. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes For consistency with the other articles. Dimadick (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes I agree that it's practically unnecessary, but this would be more consistent and I feel I'm obligated to follow the precedent of other articles. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• No The implication is that they are not coming back, which is definitely true of all past presidents except Carter and Trump, who are still alive and not barred from becoming president again. While in Carter's case, it is almost certain he won't return, there is a reasonable chance that Trump will be elected again in 2024. TFD (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Not a problem. We'd simply remove or rename the "Post-presidency" section, if Trump repeats Cleveland's feat. We've already done the same with changing "Post-vice presidency" at Joe Biden's page, when he repeated Nixon's feat. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I think the issue of whether Trump runs again in 2024 can be taken care of when the time comes should he run and get elected again. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When Biden left office as vice president, we used Post-vice presidency until he become president when we replaced it with Subsequent activities. The case for Trump can be discussed when the time comes. Interstellarity (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The difference is that we knew Biden would never become VP again, since the Constitution forbids it and factually anything he did thereafter was post-vice presidency. But since we don't have a crystall ball, we cannot assume or imply that Trump will not return. TFD (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Umm... no, we didn't know that because the Constitution has no such prohibition. The only limitation on being vice president is that you must meet the requirements to be president. Biden could have conceivably ran for and been elected to the vice presidency alongside another presidential candidate. Whether or not we put dates on the post presidency period for Donald Trump says nothing about whether he will return to the office. It will be the post presidential period of his life until he actually does so return. At which point it could be retitled "interregnum" or some such. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I stand correct on that. But it is reasonable to distinguish between future events based on the likelihood of their occurring according to reliable sources. Since Biden's becoming VP again is less likely than the 2024 election being cancelled, WP:CRYSTALBALL allows us to treat it as a fact his VP days are over. TFD (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It also allows us to treat current situation as though Trump won't ever get elected US president again. We can always change things, should Trump get elected. By putting in the proposed section heading. Nobody's claiming he'll never return to the White House. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Why not just leave the dates off? That says nothing about whether it is "temporary" or "final". I just don't see why anyone would want dates here but not want them in all the other undated sections. If anything, I would argue about removing the dates from the "office held" section headings. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I've no objections to using "Presidency", "Vice Presidency", "Post-presidency", "Post-vice presidency" as headings/sub-headings, for all the US presidential & vice presidential bios. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - For the moment, the Mike Pence article, should be treated as the Trump article on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The Mike Pence article should be left alone, pending consensus to change it. The dates there are longstanding content; in fact the heading "Post-vice presidency (2021-present)" was added on January 23, 2021 and has been there ever since. If people want to cite it as an example of Wikipedia's usual style, that is their privilege. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC) P.S. Come to think of it, you yourself cited it as precedent earlier in this thread. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes I did, until I noticed that "Post-presidency", rather then "Post-presidency (2021–present)" was being used in 'this' bio article. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - We should be considering @Khajidha:'s idea. Just use "Post-presidency" & "Post-vice presidency", where required. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

"T***p" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect T***p and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 17#T***p until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 19:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

G7 expansion

This information was reverted here by SPECIFICO, with the following edit summary: "Observe 24-hour BRD. Use talk". I think it is relevant and should be included.

Trump called for the establishment of a G11, comprising the G7 plus Australia, India, South Korea and Russia.

References

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

The current wording (Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7) follows the sentence about Russia’s annexation of Crimea which was the reason for Russia’s expulsion from what was formerly called the Group of Eight (G8). The proposed new wording—or is it supposed to be additional text?—refers to a Trump proposal that went nowhere and didn’t receive much coverage other than some ridicule (The Economist in the two paragraphs I can read because the rest is paywalled) and some speculation about his motives (TIME—isolation of China, possibly trying to sneak Russia back in under the guise of expansion). What is the relevance of this DOA proposal for Trump’s top bio? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it is relevant and should be included is about as substantive as the former president's expansion idea was, i.e. not very. Please expand your line of reasoning, and provide sources showing there was deep and lasting coverage, that this proposal was a significant milestone in the 75-year life of Trump to merit inclusion in a biography. ValarianB (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd say don't mention it. It is a proposal that didn't get off the ground and will probably need a lot of G-force to resurface. There seems to be an undue focus on Russia here. It is not outlandish for Trump to include Russia in a talkfest, and maybe this will happen soon somewhere on the G-string.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrong year in Trump University section

The article currently says "Shortly after he won the 2020 presidential election, Trump agreed to pay a total of $25 million to settle the three cases" with a link to a 2016 article. That 2020 should be 2016. StevenDoerfler (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

StevenDoerfler, thanks for pointing that out. At Wikipedia, we recognize Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 election. I've fixed the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

My bad—unintentional! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Too long?

Wikipedia:Article size

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It never left the news, you just haven’t been paying attention to it. Since you mentioned Jan 6, here are a number of articles mentioning both: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], plus a number of books (among them Woodward/Costa’s Peril, Leonnig/Rucker’s I alone can fix it). The section has already been pared down to the bare essentials. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC) "Figment of the past"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See [8]. SPECIFICO talk 12:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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

nitpicked: I almost always look at the recent edits to see if they're improvements IMO. If they're not, again IMO, I revert them, or if I think they could be further improved then I'll do that. That's what I did here. Take these edits, for example: yours and the two ([9], [10]) I made. I removed the cite after the first sentence of the second paragraph because it was about the Plaza Hotel, not the Taj Mahal, while the cite following the next sentence was about the Taj Mahal. I also removed "without much leverage" as unnecessary because the next sentence specifies how Trump financed the purchase, i.e., with junk bonds. My edits get "nitpicked" all the time, sometimes justifiably so, sometimes not, IMO—argument ensues. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2022

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

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

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

Remove "multiple deaths" from description of Capitol attack in the lead

In this sentence, On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which hundreds then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count., "multiple deaths" should be removed since it's misleading to the reader. It creates the connotation that several people died as a result from violence during the event, which is not correct. Of the deaths associated to the event, one woman was shot by police, three were natural deaths, and one was overdose. The proper context is not there, and creates a not only a neutral point of view issue, but an issue of accuracy. In the 2021 United States Capitol attack article any time these deaths are mentioned the proper context of the cause of death is provided. Since providing context in the lead of this article would create an overemphasis on the deaths, hence WP:UNDUE, it should just be removed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The deaths, regardless of the precise circumstances, still came about as a result from the Jan 6 insurrection. The text is fine as-is. Zaathras (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Not fine. "Resulting", in a death context, is heavily associated with cause of death and more lightly with contributing factors/other significant conditions. Current version makes them all sound like homicides, directly attributed to hundreds of Trump supporters (but not one police officer), and that's clearly a wrong thing to suggest. Put a period after "attacked", then say five people died and the count was interrupted, in any reasonably similar words. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Quite fine. The deaths are an indirect result of Donald Trump's incitement of insurrection. Whitewashing the affair one year later is disingenuous. Zaathras (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying facts supported by literally all RS is not whitewashing. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Do we blame Bush and Obama, or their followers, for everyone who died (even non-violently) during the actual wars they incited? Of course not, it'd seem partisan and undue. And in their cases, Republicans and Democrats generally agree those two wanted the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan to take up arms in the overthrow of their governments. Here, only most of the House alleged an insurrection even happened, and most of the Senate officially dismissed that idea. Wikipedia is undecided on it. More importantly, no pathologist has determined even an indirect link between these dead and anybody besides one cop. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

(And for the record, I've been been trying to get it through to readers that only one woman was killed by only one officer's only shot fired since Day Two, Three in UTC. Didn't even wait for my topic ban to expire in February, much less till now. I'm inedible, not incredible.) InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I noted how many of them died, kept the result of their support and saved 14 bytes. That was a nice job, and I politely ask it remain. That's not an order, though, reverting would simply be rude. And, of course, reinstate the clearly wrong suggestion. Plus 14 bytes! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

And yes, I discounted the police. This is not an anti-cop or pro-mob deduction. They just died after the voting resumed and finished. I thought about counting Sicknick as a Trump supporter, since he was. But he wasn't a marcher, attacker or whatever "Trump supporter" conjures up to Trump opposers. Plus, trying to explain why any cops came to be sometimes counted at all could take a kilobyte; let the body handle the complications, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which hundreds then attacked. Four of them died, interrupting the electoral vote count. You're blaming the dead for interrupting the vote count? The mob storming the Capitol interrupted the vote count, on account of lawmakers having to be evacuated to avoid being hung (Pence) or shot (Pelosi). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"They interrupted the electoral vote count, and four died", then. But of course you or SPECIFICO will object to that, too. I'll only help get the lies and wordiness out of this article after you guys die, retire or reform. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I would politely suggest that you reconsider leaving your post above as-is. It is a bit unbecoming to state that one's editing preference being accepted is conditional on a fellow editors death, among other outcomes. Zaathras (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

We're all going to die. Some of us might retire or reform. Is it more unbecoming to acknowledge these possibilities among colleagues "backstage" or to accuse living people behind their backs in a high-traffic lead of killing their fellow Americans? I've been disparaged many times on this talk page, often by these two, and I'm far from the only one. It comes with the territory. I did consider, but won't rephrase or do anything to hasten anyone's death, retirement or reformation. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't know whether the four people who died of "natural causes" would have suffered these natural causes if they hadn't been running with the mob or, in the case of Officer Sicknick, attacked by the mob. We also don't know whether the two officers who killed themselves a few days or weeks later would have done so without the attack. We do know that seven people died then and there or shortly thereafter, so "resulting in multiple deaths" sounds just fine to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Going out on a limb here, but I doubt the Capitol Police succumb to "natural causes" at the rate of 3-4 per day. SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Only 1 capitol police officer died of natural causes. The the medical examiner said he died of natural causes and his death hasn't been associated with deaths at the Captol, go see the infobox of 2021 United States Capitol attack. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Second verse, same as the first. CP doesn't lose a cop a day to natural causes. Medical examiner's job does not include comment on the conclusion you are denying. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

What matters is RS and the medical examiners report. By reaching the conclusion that surely it was caused by the riot, you are promoting a form of original research. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That's like saying that Biden's innaugural didn't remark that Trump had Covid and then using that to support removing Trump's covid. Or more recently like WP editors trying to use the inspector general of the Parks Service to conclude that Trump didn't violently disperse the Lafayette Square protest. Nobody asked the medical inspector about the insurrection details. He's not the insurrection inspector. Many many RS support the consensus view you are proposing to dislodge here. SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

He's not the medical inspector or the insurrection inspector, he's the medical examiner. And by the law of the land since 1855, as enacted and amended by your Congress, he is Washington's highest authority on cause of death, which is what we're talking about. Police asked him about the details of these suspicious deaths, per routine and legal requirement. Unimportantly, he's also more qualified than Biden to diagnose COVID. Politicians are nothing like doctors, keep on track. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Response to OP: "Multiple deaths" is an exaggeration, obviously. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I would support changing "multiple" to "several". Otherwise keep as is. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I could also support Inedible Hulk's suggestion to break it into two sentences, with the second saying "Five people died" not implying who died (not all were protesters) or what they died of. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I also support "several" and generally I think we should never use "multiple" except in the event of multiplication. This usage is spreading and should be curtailed. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"Several" generally is understood to mean less than five. We are talking about five to nine fatalities (four attackers, officer Sicknick, the four officers who died by suicide in January and July), so IMO the more general term "multiple" is the better descriptor—more than one without the limitation of "several" and without claiming "many". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Apparently the sources do use "multiple" so I am now neutral. So either one of those, or perhaps "nearly a dozen"? SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• "Resulted in multiple deaths" (or words to that effect) are how the sources describe it. For example, these are how sources are describing it today:

• NYT: ...the Capitol riot, which resulted in multiple deaths and dozens of injuries.
• Politico: ...a riot that led to multiple deaths.
• ABC: ...despite the riot resulting in multiple deaths and injuries as well as property destruction.}
• WaPo: The insurrection resulted in five deaths and injured about 140 members of law enforcement.
• Bloomberg: To date, the department has charged more than 725 individuals for storming the Capitol, resulting in the deaths of some police officers and rioters.

There's some room to slightly tweak the wording based on those, but I would strenuously oppose "four of them died" or the like, which is a weird passive-voice construction that doesn't match the sources. The sources say that these people died as a result of the riot, so we have to say the same. I also feel we might expand the sentence to include injuries, which is just a few more words and seems to be something most sources mention. --Aquillion (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't "have to" echo verbatim the opinions of political writers who work for outlets with openly stated interests in ousting and keeping Trump from office. You could choose to believe the objective autopsy reports completed by experienced doctors instead. Their factual findings are also covered by the NYT, WaPo and the rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment if we're not going to remove it, we could put a note on multiple deaths explaining it further for the reader, that would include the cause of deaths of the five people during the attack and the 4 suicides later. This would provide good context and is hard to oppose. The note could say:

Five people died either shortly before, during, or following the event: one was shot by Capitol Police, another died of a drug overdose, and three died of natural causes. Additionally, within 7 months, four police officers who responded to the event had died by suicide.

All those sources are used in the 2021 United States Capitol attack page, and the first sentence is a copy and paste from the lead of that article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you want to put that in the lead or in the body? If lead, no, too much. I just replaced the three sources for the last sentence in the body with a recent NYT article that sums up the deaths and injuries. It also has this about Officer Sicknick's death: natural causes: multiple strokes that occurred hours after Officer Sicknick’s confrontation with the mob. The medical examiner added, however, that "all that transpired played a role in his condition." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I proposing it being put in the lead as a note. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposition

If it's not clear, my proposition would read as this in the lead with the note:

On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which hundreds then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count.

Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't get the purpose of adding the note. The lead is a summary of the most important points of the bio. We expect readers to read the body if they're interested in reading more. Why add a long note to the lead with information that we don't even mention in the body (I'm undecided whether we should)? A better place for the info is the main article, 2021 United States Capitol attack, where the deaths, including the suicides, and the injuries are mentioned in the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That note is not an improvement and at any rate, no such note should go in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you please explain how a note that clarifies something to the reader is not an improvement? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It's distracting, it (at best) equivocates as to "natural causes", it interrupts the flow of the lead in a way that vitiates the statement that there were so many deaths, and more. Lots of detail condensed in a footnote denotes information of lesser significance rather than information that's necessary detail. I appreciate your effort, but it has the effect of negating the core text and moreover it adds lots of lenght after we took the scalpel to many sections here. SPECIFICO talk 22:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's the thing, right now there are 4 editors who want "multiple deaths" included, and 3 who don't. What we need to be doing is finding a compromise. I think you should maybe consider putting your concerns about "flow" aside and try and reach the best community consensus. This note isn't a major disruption, most readers can't even tell a note from a reference apart. Additionally, there's already another note in the lead that explained something that needed further detail (the popular vote and electoral college note). Some editors see the multiple deaths statement as needing elaboration and clarification. It's not the end of the world for this note to be there. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not flow for flow's sake. It alters the sense of the text. It is no good. It's longer, less faithful to RS narratives and WEIGHT and there's no consensus to change this longstanding text. There does not need to be a compromise. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's less faithful to RS narratives, RS completely supports everything in the note. I wouldn't say WEIGHT is much of a concern since it's a note. I'm sure it wouldn't necessarily be considered appropriate weight to explain in 2 long sentences how the US electoral system works in Donald Trump's lead, but we do it anyway, but with a note. Thats what notes are for, the operate separately from WEIGHT. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No, WEIGHT/NPOV is always a top concern, second only to Verification and BLP. This article is not "Trump according to Trump", it is Trump per RS WEIGHT. Everything else has been said. I suggest we move on to other issues. SPECIFICO talk 13:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no place to link to United States Electoral College in the lead, so the note on the electoral college system was added and changed several times because readers not familiar with this U.S. peculiarity kept editing the lead to something that made more sense than the winner of the popular vote by a few million not winning the election. In this case, the lead does have a link to the 2021 United States Capitol attack and the table of contents also lists it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Notes

Overturn consensus item 20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your first argument that "notability doesn't fade overtime" is not relevant to content, only to an articles standalone notability. (see WP:NNC) Content is not governed under this policy in anyway. So when you said "It really isn't", you were really wrong. What matters for content is significance or what we call on Wikipedia "weight". Now weight can change over time, unlike notability. There was a time when it was significant enough to mention that Trump had considered a run in the 2012 election in the lead paragraph [11]. Obviously, as time has gone by, and Trump has made many more significant actions we've removed this fact from the lead to make room for what's actually significant. The same is true for these protests 4 years ago that had little impact on Trump as a person, his stances, his presidency, or even his election. Additionally, the lead is supposed to be a "summary of [the articles] most important contents." (see WP:Manual of Style/Lead section) These protest have 1 small paragraph in the article and thats it. It's not proper as part of the summary. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Given the scale of, and extensive sustained sourcing on, Protests against Donald Trump, it seems hard to support the argument that protests against Trump have faded away as being significant. They continue to get significant academic coverage, eg. [12][13][14]. Obviously now that Trump is no longer president, everything about him is going to fade away somewhat in terms of significance, but I don't think there's any reason to think that this aspect has particularly faded relative to the rest of that part of his bio or that a single sentence in his bio is WP:UNDUE; it was a defining feature of his administration and for years was a major aspect of how he was publicly seen. Omitting them also makes it a bit harder to understand other aspects of how he was controversial, since the constant protests are a key point of context. --Aquillion (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

According to Collins, "If you describe something or someone as controversial, you mean that they are the subject of intense public argument, disagreement, or disapproval."[15] There is a lot of evidence that Trump's presidency was controversial in the lead:

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing in the lead is sourced

Okay, I don’t like Trump at all, but why is nothing in the head paragraphs sourced? Many of the statements are clearly controversial and probably require sourcing, just saying. Aardwolf68 (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

They are cited in the body, but I see your concern. WP:LEADCITE does say the content likely to be "challenged" should be cited in the lead generally. I suppose the content in the lead of this article has just gone through so much rigorous discussion, that it kind of makes it an exception. I wouldn't be opposed to citations in the lead for contentious statements. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I figured it was something along those lines, especially given the history of the talk page and such. I’m not a good source by any means, but we could probably use a lot for the sources that come from Trump’s numerous other Wikipedia pages, as well as the body sources. Regardless, hopefully this will be sourced sooner rather than later. Aardwolf68 (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aardwolf68: "Gone though rigorous discussion", indeed, including the punctuation. I'm pretty sure that nothing has been added to the lead that isn't contained and reliably sourced in the body. WP:LEADCITE also says that The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Citations have been kept out of the lead for several years now because of the size of the lead and the article—we have a recurring problem as it is. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Why does size of the article matter? Because somebody in a higher power will throw a fit that an article is now slightly larger? I doubt that the size of an article means more than its integrity. Regardless of whether or not the sources are required, they SHOULD be there. Using the sources from the body to compile one large source has been done for numerous articles and should be done here. I understand that everything here said is true, but that doesn’t mean everyone else will, and it’s up to us to make sure they understand why what’s written here is written here. Aardwolf68 (talk)<

Why does size of the article matter? Because somebody in a higher power will throw a fit that an article is now slightly larger? I doubt that the size of an article means more than its integrity. Regardless of whether or not the sources are required, they SHOULD be there. Using the sources from the body to compile one large source has been done for numerous articles and should be done here. I understand that everything here said is true, but that doesn’t mean everyone else will, and it’s up to us to make sure they understand why what’s written here is written here. Aardwolf68 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Aardwolf68, article size matters because this article is so large that it has caused technical problems. See WP:CHOKING. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The lede is merely a summary of the article–it follows the body. So anyone who continues reading past the lede can rather easily find the sources. ––FormalDude talk 23:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)