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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intro doesn't say what subject Trump's degree is in.

It says in the intro, "Trump graduated from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania with a bachelor's degree in 1968." Shouldn't the subject (economics) be stated? Arctic Gazelle (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

No, because it doesn’t relate to his notability. If you erase his media, business, and political career, and all he has is his Econ degree, he wouldn’t be notable enough to be on WP.

Also the reasons for his notability (careers in business, media, and politics), none of those three required a degree in economics. If he was a notable economist or economics professor, then yes it should be included in the lead. But it doesn’t pertain to his notability. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Arctic Gazelle i disagree. it absolutely should say he graduated with a degree in economics; the subject of his study is at least as relevant as the name of the school or the university he attended. Texaseliz (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I think you are actually *agreeing* with me. Arctic Gazelle (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Don't include the degree. It's not relevant in an already bloated lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

No. It's a bit confusing because he really studied business administration. And I would leave the degree in because although no one's degrees establish notability, they are noteworthy aspects of their biographies, especially when they graduate from prestigious schools. TFD (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

If he really studied business administration, as you claim, then the body of the article needs to be changed because it says, "At age 13, he was enrolled at the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school, and in 1964, he enrolled at Fordham University. Two years later, he transferred to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, graduating in May 1968 with a B.S. in economics. In 2015, Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen threatened Trump's colleges, high school, and the College Board with legal action if they released Trump's academic records." Do you have any hard evidence? Arctic Gazelle (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

No, he did not study business administration. Where did you find that bit of misinformation? On May 20, 1968, Donald John Trump received a "Bachelor of Science in Economics", per the source in Donald Trump#Early life, page 21 of the PDF archived on the Wayback Machine. We need to leave the degree in because Wharton is mainly known for its graduate school, i.e., the MBA program. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Generations of Wharton alums are spinning in their graves at the possiblilty that Trump is among their MBAs. SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that something has to relate to someone's notability to be included in the intro. Even if it did, I would argue that for a business man and president of a nation, who is involved in setting the economic policy of the nation, if it's notable that he has a degree, it's notable that the degree is in econcomics. It also shows that he had an interest in economics early on in life. Arctic Gazelle (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It's an undergraduate degree. All Wharton students graduate with a Bachelor of Science in economics, but students choose areas of study called concentrations. Trump graduated from Wharton with a concentration in real estate. It shows that he had an interest in his father's real estate business. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• It's two extra words: "in economics". It would be odd in any biography to read that someone got a bachelor's degree at X university and then have what the actual degree was left out. That sentence is 17 words long, and it's missing the most important 2 ("in economics"). I don't see any particularly good reason to conceal what the actual degree even was. Endwise (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The degree is the Bachelor of Science. This is no different than the biographies of most other presidents. Of course, many of them also graduated from post-graduate schools, Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you cite other examples of undergraduate majors of businessmen or politicians? What was Harry Truman's undergraduate major? What was Leona Helmsley's undergraduate major? SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Replacing "Wharton School" with "University of Pennsylvania"

Isn't "University of Pennsylvania" the standard? Just wondering. GuardianH (for some reason, the sign function isn't working for me).

Unsure, as it seems to take great pains to separate itself. Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

See other discussion above Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 145#Modifying consensus item 18 WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

No, Wharton is branded separately and the school and its program are widely known and known to be affiliated with University of Pennsylvania. Moreover Trump the businessman has branded himself as a Wharton grad. It's not like a major in French or Chinese. It is a separate division. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

CEOWorld rated Wharton the third best business school in the world in 2022.[1] While there is some subjectivity in this, there is general consensus it is in the top 10. It's a well known school and generally just referred to as the Wharton School. There are some schools that although part of universities are usually referred to by their specific names. TFD (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The London School of Economics (LSE) is part of the University of London, but is also normally referred to by itself. TFD (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't find a page where a graduate of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsyvlania is listed as "Wharton School." See the pages for Elon Musk, Warren Buffett, etc. All of the pages use "University of Pennsyvlania" instead of "Wharton School." It's similar to how a graduate of, say, Harvard Law School is listed as, for example, "Harvard University (JD)" instead of "Harvard Law School (JD)." GuardianH (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Buffett didn't graduate from Wharton, he transferred to the University of Nebraska after two years. By the standards of this page, the University of Pennsylvania shouldn't be mentioned in the infobox (we don't mention Trump's two years at Fordham University). Musk was simultaneously enrolled at another University of Pennsylvania college (College of Arts & Sciences) and obtained a Bachelor of Arts, majoring in physics. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• This is already being discussed above. This should probably be procedurally closed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

A random check of List of Wharton School alumni shows that Wharton is more likely to be listed in their info-boxes than UPenn. We had a similar discussion about Trump's place of birth, which is listed as "Queens, New York City, U.S." Reasonably informed people can name all of NYC's boroughs and know that NYC is in New York State. There is no policy or guideline that says articles must be consistent, but we should use the same description found in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hyphenation

Markell_West, what's with the hyphenation here, here, and here? Financial disclosure forms, property tax abatement, and consumer goods companies are non-hyphenated compound nouns, not nouns modified by a compound adjective. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

False statements

Anythingyouwant, none of the sources say that it was a challenge, major or otherwise, for the media to distinguish falsehoods from mere falsities. Both words indicate untruths/untrue statements without indicating whether intent to deceive is or isn't involved. Journalists shied away from calling them lies since, by definition, the word implies awareness of falsity and intent to deceive? How can journalists know what’s in Trump’s mind, even when he repeatedly says transparently untrue things (your WaPo source). Per consensus item 22, we cannot call Trump a liar or call his falsehoods lies. IMO that includes using the definition of lie, i.e., uttering a falsehood with intent to deceive. We shouldn't be using either one of these sentences without a new consensus: His falsehoods (which are intentional as distinguished from falsities which may be unintentional) became a distinctive part of his political identity (version Anythingyouwant), His intentional falsehoods (as distinguished from counterfactual statements which might be unintentional) became a distinctive part of his political identity (version SPECIFICO). Also, do we want to get into dictionary definitions? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

A falsehood is a lie. A falsity is not necessarily a lie. If consensus item 22 says we shouldn’t be calling Trump a liar, then we shouldn’t be saying he has uttered falsehoods. Since we cannot get into Trump’s head and determine his intentions, I support only referring in this article to his falsities, not his falsehoods. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

That's WP:OR and your opinion "we shouldn't..." is contrary to longstanding consensus after discussion and careful consideration by many many editors here. IMO the whole bit should come out. I tried to fix Anythingyouwant's version, but it's still against the consensus -- thanks for reminding us SpaceX. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

That's one definition of falsehood. Others are "something that is not true", "absence of truth or accuracy", "a false belief, theory, idea, etc.", "lack of conformity to truth or fact; inaccuracy". After your initial edit, adding the op-eds in parentheses to the sentence His falsehoods (which are deliberately false) and falsities (which may not be deliberately false) became a distinctive part of his political identity was challenged, you reinserted it with minor rephrasing 10 hours later, without discussing it on the Talk page per the ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES (24 BRD cycle). Way to go! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

This move came after the recent lifting of their tban. Maybe it should be reinstated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks User:Space4Time3Continuum2x for pointing out that 24-hour rule. I haven’t edited this article in many years and didn’t notice it. So I reverted my edits. As for the word “falsehood” it has very strong connotations of lying, unlike the word falsity. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but it only means the statement is false and says nothing about motives. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The leading definition of “falsehood” in the Merriam Webster Dictionary includes the word “lie.”[2]. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

All lies are falsehoods, but not all falsehoods are lies. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Nope, see here. The noun “falsehood” can be used in a countable way or an uncountable way; for example, “Falsehood is common where knowledge is lacking” is uncountable. In the countable sense (“Joe spewed falsehoods”), the word “falsehood” is primarily about lies. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

What is that source, vocabulary for elementary and junior high school kids? The problem with your edits is that they’re not supported by the sources. The sources don't discuss the merits of falsehood versus falsity, and neither one calls one of Trump's statement a "falsity". Farhi/WaPo Style uses the word once, in a definition of "lie": Could a presidential statement, no matter how blatantly false, be deemed a "lie" since, by definition, the word implies awareness of falsity and intent to deceive?. That's falsity in the uncountable sense, I believe. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The leading definition of “falsity” in the Merriam Webster Dictionary also includes the word “lie.”[3]. QED. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Good point! The policy stated at the top of this article is “Do not call Trump a ‘liar’ in Wikipedia's voice.” Presumably that means we shouldn’t say in Wikipedia’s voice that he told a lie, nor anything synonymous with “lie.” So there needs to be a lot of editing in this BLP to satisfy our rule, correct? Or we could change the rule. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Do we, qoute. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, if there are specific wordings you think are in violation, why not mention them here? Let's work on it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The section titled “False statements” is the one that concerns me. If we mean lies, then we should say lies, but then we would have to modify the rule 22 at the top of this page. The problem with saying “falsehoods” is that many people would interpret that to mean lies (contrary to rule 22) whereas many people would interpret to merely mean untruths (or exaggerations or something else that doesn’t imply downright dishonesty). So what I’m advocating is simply that we be clear, regardless of whether that helps Trump or hurts Trump. That said, I really do feel like a newbie here (having been gone away so long), so I would rather let others ponder this issue who have more experience, and maybe I’ll chime in or circle back. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

When we write "false statements", we mean statements that are false. When we write "Trump's falsehoods", we mean it, IOW his statements that are not true. We don't get into the weeds of his motives, so I don't see any problems with a single word in that section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

You may mean untruths regardless of intention but that is not what many people will infer from the word falsehood. So why not use a word that clearly conveys your meaning? Way back in the early 1990s, I submitted a manuscript to a scientific journal, and mentioned in my cover letter (or maybe it was in the manuscript itself) that the journal’s editor had written a falsehood in an article of his, and all hell broke loose. I got an incredibly nasty letter from the journal editor telling me how horrible I was to accuse him of lying, when actually I had meant no such thing. But if you want to keep using a word that many people will misunderstand, and will misunderstand in a way that violates our rule #22, then I hope you’ll reconsider. Cheers, Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

So we do not use the word lies, or accuse him of telling lies, just of saying things that are not true (which may be mistakes, not lies). All of which is well srouced. Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

It would be better to call him a liar who tells lies instead of using a fuzzy word (falsehoods) that very often means the same thing. Clear writing is not difficult. Anyway, if we keep using the word falsehoods then that requires a change to our rule #22. Or we could comply with rule #22 by using a word like “untruths” or “inaccuracies” or “exaggerations” or “misstatements” which no one will misconstrue as “lies”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, when you write "It would be better to call him a liar who tells lies instead of using a fuzzy word (falsehoods) that very often means the same thing.", you are telling us to violate rule #22 by taking sides and ourselves determining his motives. It's best for us to use the more vague and all-inclusive word which includes anything false, whether it's an outright lie or just untrue. We reserve "calling him a liar" for well-sourced uses of the words "liar" or "lies". We are not violating rule #22 with our current wordings. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding occasions where this Wikipedia article currently uses the word “falsehood” in Wikipedia’s voice, there are at least five alternatives.

• First, we could keep doing so and thus give many readers the reasonable impression we are calling him a liar, thus violating rule #22.
• Second, we could erase rule #22, so it is no longer an issue.
• Third, we could speak more clearly by using the word “lie” instead of “falsehood” which would still violate rule #22 but would have the advantage of forthrightness and clarity.
• Fourth, we could switch “falsehood” to something that doesn’t suggest to anyone whether or not he’s lied, such as the word “untruth” or “misstatement” or “exaggeration” or “mistake” or the like.
• Fifth, we could rephrase statements about his untruths that are currently in Wikipedia’s voice so they are no longer in Wikipedia’s voice, e.g. by using in-text attribution.

I think the worst options would be the first and the third, because then we would be violating our own rule #22. So I recommend the second, fourth, or fifth alternatives. But if we must choose the first or third, then the third seems much better to me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

No. Period. We are not responsible for readers' own "impression we are calling him a liar" when we are not doing so. We are deliberately using a word often used by RS that can be interpreted either way, and it is the the readers' own responsibility which way they interpret it.

I'm beginning to wonder if there is some language difficulty issue here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

A word that is defined by dictionaries using the term “lie” is quite different from a word that is defined by dictionaries without the word “lie.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The order of the definitions may not mean what you think ... All the senses of a word that are listed are equal, and not in a George-Orwellesque all-words-are-equal-but-some-are-more-equal-than-others sort of way. Merriam Webster. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The order of definitions in Merriam Webster is oldest definition first.[4]. Whatever we do, we should be clear, and also compliant with the rules for this page. Including the 24 hour rule. :-) Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

We can say he made false statements or uttered falsehoods because RS tell us he did. There also came a point, after long hesitation, where RS started calling him a liar and saying he was telling lies because there was so much information and debunking in existence that he had to have known that what he was saying was not true. He simply doesn't care. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Right, if RS say it so can we. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

We have a whole article detailing the lack of veracity for Trump's statements. The longstanding version should be reinstated. If we want to ADD an explanation about why the media changed their policy, that could be ADDED as good content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

We'd be better off waiting until he begins his campaign for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. I'm certain there'll be plenty of sourced material to add, by then. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

If someone ought to know that what they are saying is not true, is that a lie? Major media sources thought so and literally changed their policy and started calling Trump's false statements "lies". WaPo's fact-checkers even had to create a new category of lies because of Trump.

He is part of a rare class of liars who will repeat debunked lies. Normal people don't want to be classed as liars, so they don't repeat a lie when exposed. Trump's tactic is different as he doubles down using Hitler's (his mentor) Big Lie propaganda technique.

I said "rare" but that is no longer true. GOP politicians have adopted his methods for several reasons: he gets away with it, so they hope to do the same; he pressures them to as a loyalty test; they are compromised/blackmailed, so they abandon any sense of honesty. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know whether he's a rare class of liars who will repeat debunked lies. That applies to quite a few GOP members of Congress these days. And striking opinion. We do mention Trump's use of the Big Lie, in the second paragraph of Donald_Trump#Post-presidency_(2021–present). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Feels a little like we've been given homework — "I'll give you a topic. Discuss." Without new RS to support a change to consensus item 22, I’m not inclined to do any pondering. The cite Anything added is a 2019 article by WaPo's media reporter on the news media's terminology for Trump's "many questionable utterances". It doesn't support the sentence, and the media rarely referring to Trump's untruths as lies is mentioned in the fifth paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

This whole discussion is pointless. Wikipedia content is based on what Reliable Sources say. It is not based on our interpretation of dictionary definitions. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

If a reliable source says Trump “lied” then our rule 22 says we should not say he lied using Wikipedia’s voice. But we could say that the reliable source says he lied. Correct? I would think that the same applies to synonyms of “liar” (e.g. “fabulist”). Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

False information throughout his bio.

This bio is a hit job and is full of misinformation. 2600:4040:B125:2C00:D461:1696:3B78:1485 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Name one piece of "misinformation". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

As a non-American who is bombarded with negative media about the man. ....I do see a tone problem. Article come off heavy like a non authorized biography over an encyclopedia entry. Full of media sources...that said hopefully we are reaching a point were academic publications can assess the historical person over our current media version..... Obama is slowly getting cleaned up in this matter. Moxy- 00:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Our bios are supposed to be "non authorized" biographies. We do not write hagiographies, and no one's reputation should be "cleaned up", IOW we do not allow whitewashing. We document the facts and opinions, positive and negative, about the person using all types of reliable sources, including media sources and academic publications.

If you find inaccuracies and point them out, we will thank you, but griping and making accusations is not constructive. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You are correct the the narrative here reflects American Media sources....just saying once academic sources are published with a historical view the article can move from media regurgitation to academic research ability. Moxy- 03:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

We welcome such sourcing and perspective. It will nicely supplement the historical record provided by journalists. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You are correct again... despite the difference between journalism and historical views they can coexist....it's the sound bites I guess that feel off..TWO SIDES OF THE STORY: HOW HISTORIANS AND JOURNALISTS CAN WORK TOGETHER Shuang Wen Oct 1, 2015 Moxy- 03:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Nice. Feel free to provide any good source material and the parts that are relevant for this article topic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Julian E. Zelizer, ed. (12 April 2022). The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: A First Historical Assessment. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-22894-5. OCLC 1260172139. Moxy- 05:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That book is consistent with, but less euphemistic than, our WP article. SPECIFICO talk 08:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The point being made here makes no sense, as academic historical opinion of Trump is overwhelmingly negative, even moreso than that of journalists. This article is, in fact, significantly more positive about Trump's presidency than reliable sources actually warrant. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't most of the essays in the book be considered opinions for our purposes? It's not as if, for example, Trump being the "product of long-term trends in Republican politics and American polarization more broadly" hasn't been mentioned by various opinion writers, many of whom are also academics, in "media sources". Zelizer, BTW, is a CNN political analyst (presumably paid) and a regular guest on NPR (unpaid?), i.e., also a "media source". (I haven't read the book, just looked at the contributors in the table of contents and the description of content and author on Amazon.) Moxy, as Valjean said, what are some of the "negative media" or "tone problems" that need cleaning up? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

"Wouldn't most of the essays in the book be considered opinions for our purposes?" No. And if there is any "tone problem" with the present article, it is that it is excessively generous to Trump given actual media and academic assessment of his presidency in reliable sources. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

In the Donald Trump page as in any other page all it takes is for a large enough group of biased, like-minded editors to take ownership, quashing any edits that don't reflect their bias. That's the huge weakness of Wikipedia.Thinker78 (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Once again, if anything, “like-minded editors” have bent over backwards to present Trump’s presidency in a far more positive and euphemistic light than reliable sources warrant, due largely to spurious complaints like this one that fail to demonstrate any problem in what the article says or its sources. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Health habits - Bornstein

SPECIFICO, you're right about this. The last discussion was in March. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Whew. 👩‍🚀 Thanks, SPECIFICO talk 15:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs

In my opinion, the format of the lede of the page at the time of this writing [5] does not comply with MOS:LEAD which states, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate"; the page has six paragraphs. I tried to fix it [6], but User:Space4Time3Continuum2x reverted, with the explanation that my edit was "Not an improvement. The first few sentences should establish the subject’s notability. In Trump’s case there’s only one sentence doing that, needs to be separate from summary of education and career. His stand-alone, the two impeachments, need to stay in a separate paragraph." I will quote MOS:BEGIN, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic".

Per Space4Time3Continuum2x's own opinion, "the first few sentences should establish the subject’s notability. In Trump’s case there’s only one sentence doing that". If there is only one sentence doing that, then even by their standard, we don't have it as a well-composed paragraph in the lede, in contradiction of what MOS:LEAD indicates that there should be. According to MOS:PARA, "single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text". Although in the page certainly the single-sentence paragraphs are minimized, there is still the issue that they can inhibit the flow of the text and, although it can denote emphasis, in writing generally paragraphs should consist of more than a single short sentence or be several lines long. I checked other president's pages (Lincoln, Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan, and Obama) at the time they were granted at least good article status, and none of them have more than four paragraphs in the lede, although Obama's has a short first paragraph.

My suggestion is to analyze whether it's the best practice to leave the first paragraph as a single-sentence or short paragraph and to copyedit and reform the lede in such a way as to at least comply with having four paragraphs per the standard of MOS:LEAD and don't break with the rest of presidential pages format of the lede.Thinker78 (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Most mobile readers... that is 70% of our viewership... will only scroll down one time...thus reading only one sentence because of the current layout with a one sentence paragraph and giant infobox data. Our mobile readers will simply move on to another website to obtain information and if they are American it will most likely be youtube, facebook or amazon that are full of junk info. Looking to retain readers fix the layout...its why we have an MoS. A one sentence paragraph is a journalistic style that is not really encyclopedic. Moxy- 21:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thinker78, MOS:LEADLENGTH says that "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs" and also that "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article." Of the presidents you mentioned, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Roosevelt also have more than four paragraphs, and in FDR’s case two of those paragraphs ought to be split up into two each. (Then again, four terms, New Deal, World War II compared to Trump’s meager resume.)

Your edit summary said that you used Bill Clinton’s article as the model for merging the first and second paragraph. Clinton’s first paragraph does have four sentences but then, aside from two terms as president, he was also governor of Arkansas (two terms, non-consecutive) and husband of NY senator, secretary of state, and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. (IMO attorney general of Arkansas is not leadworthy, by comparison). Carter: governor of Georgia, Nobel Peace Prize for post-presidential humanitarian work. Obama: U.S. senator, first African-American president. Reagan: governor of California, fairly well-known Hollywood actor. FDR: elected president four times, New Deal, World War II. I’ll just quote Lincoln's entire first paragraph: Abraham Lincoln (/ˈlɪŋkən/ LINK-ən; February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) was an American lawyer and statesman who served as the 16th president of the United States from 1861 until his assassination in 1865. Lincoln led the nation through the American Civil War and succeeded in preserving the Union, abolishing slavery, bolstering the federal government, and modernizing the U.S. economy. If we wanted to add something to Trump’s first paragraph, I would support adding the two impeachments, the incitement to insurrection, the false statements, the racist and misogynistic comments and actions, not the bachelor’s degree or working for his father.

Moxy, do you have sources for your statements of what Most mobile readers, 70 percent of our viewership do? Viewership, as in Nielsen ratings? Quoting from the most recent source (2019) mentioned on the linked Wikimedia draft page: How good is this data?

It has some limitations:

1. Missing older browsers (Android browser,chrome < 39, Safari, iOS < 11.3.
   
2. Respects “Do Not Track”
   
3. Anomalous large amount of missing data on mobile
   
4. Doesn’t perfectly capture “reading.” Only measures that the page is visible. (That doesn't capture "reading" at all, just "viewing".)
   

We collected sampled 0.1% of page views from 2017-11-20 through 2018-10-25

Just looking at the Current consensus should give you an idea how many times the lead has been discussed, and you'll find numerous other discussions in the currently 145 archives. IMO, the current version of the lead does its job serv[ing] as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents per MOS lead section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2022

I noticed that in the article you mentioned that Donald Trump was wrong in his claims that the election was stolen, but the recent documentary 2000 Mules showed that in fact Trump was correct in his claim Ragnar Danneskjöld 7 (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Sources overwhelmingly call it false. — Czello 14:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

2000 Mules has also been widely debunked, see 2000_Mules#Reception. — Czello 14:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Czello What sources? The same that were biased in their coverage of Trump and don't criticize Biden for similar things Trump did? Partisan news networks? Or unbiased sources? How would you know which sources are unbiased regarding Trump? Because CNN may be a reliable source for say Tom Cruise reporting, but not about Trump reporting.Thinker78 (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)