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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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. Do not add web archives to cited sources which 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. (October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (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)

2022 midterm results

@KlayCax: you violated the active arbitration remedies (24-hr BRD cycle) in effect on the main page with this edit, with the misleading edit summary that you were "reverting ... back to the original" when in reality you reverted to the changes you had made to the article. Please, self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x:. "Reverting back to the original wording" was in reference to the lead phrasing. It was marked and explained as a partial reversion in the edit. (Since I was under the persumption that you were only narrowly objecting to some aspects of the lead wording) Hence why I wrote: Partial reversion - reverting the wording of the lead back to the original while adding clarification that the 330 endorsements relate to the *2022 United States elections*. Trump's 2022 endorsements are clearly notable and WP: Due.

As for the specific changes: including making over 200 political endorsements was changed to including making over 330 political endorsements per (McGraw, 2022). I also clarified that the "330 endorsements" was referring to the 2022 United States elections in the lead. Since it could be unclear for readers on when he made "330 endorsements".

As for the deletion of this paragraph: it's WP: Due for the page. (I wasn't under the impression you objected.) It's remarkably clear that the Republican underperformance is notable for his biography.

Is there any part of the changes that you're specifically rejecting to? Beyond the lead being trimmed/underperformance being included?

Thanks, KlayCax (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC).

You need to undo your edit in toto & pronto, KlayCax. You've received the Notice templates on your talk page and the active sanction is explained on this page and in the edit screen. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

with the misleading edit summary I was under the wrongful impression that @Space4Time3Continuum2x: wasn't objecting to those parts of the edit. I immediately reverted it back after the notification from him. I wasn't being misleading. I misunderstood what he meant. It is now reverted back to the 05:32, 12 November 2022‎ version by @Iamreallygoodatcheckers:.

It was a partial reversion under Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts.

I thought Space4Time's objections were addressed in the partial reversion. Apologies. KlayCax (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I objected three times, here to the change in the lead, here to the potential 2024 run and Trump’s statements on DeSantis and Youngkin, and here to the other changes in the post-presidency section, such as moving the "Big Lie" into a new 2022 election section (do you have any sources to support what appears to be your opinion that it had anything to do with the midterms?). As for WP:DUE for the page … It's remarkably clear that the Republican underperformance is notable for his biography, why? The sources merely say that "many Republicans blame". He endorsed, but it was the members of the Republican Party who elected the Republican candidates in the primaries (and in the general election in red districts). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the status quo ante I reverted to. Not sure why you, KlayCax, reverted to a version I objected to, never mind that you piled your changes onto Iamreallygoodatcheckers's. My edit summary (Not an improvement - pls discuss these changes on the Talk page. Trump wasn't running for office in 2022, the blame game has only begun, and some election results are still pending) applied to the end product.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC) Seems to me that this top bio doesn’t need more than the short status quo ante version (Trump’s endorsement were mostly seen as important for candidates in Republican primary elections) with the add-on "but many of them lost in the general election". Put the rest in Republican Party (United States) and/or 2022 United States elections. Trump beginning to "jab" DeSantis and Youngkin belongs in the newspapers, not in an encyclopedia. 3RR prevents me from reverting. I’m not sure whether KlayCax’s edit falls under the 24-hr BRD cycle since they now re-reverted to a version they had built upon and I had objected to. If it doesn’t violate the letter, it violates the spirit, IMO, reverting instead of discussing. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

"Since leaving office...", reads better then "Following his presidency...", BTW. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

"Since being escorted from his office with a cache of top secret documents..." SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

"Since absconding from his office with a cache of top secret documents, love letters from North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un ..." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a matter of opinion. Meh — sooner or later it will be changed to past tense "after he left ... he remained". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

KlayCax, best to observe & respect the 24-hr BRD cycle. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• In the spirit of BRD, I've restored the article to before my first edit. At this point it needs to be a content discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting. I changed the heading of this section to reflect content discussion. This is what we're discussing: Many of Trump's endorsements were inexperienced and underperformed in the general election, which led many Republicans to blame Trump for the lackluster performance of the Republican Party in the 2022 midterms and question whether he should continue as the leader of the party. Following the election, Trump began jabbing Ron DeSantis and Glenn Youngkin, potential challengers in the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries.

At this point, IMO this top bio doesn’t need more than the short status quo ante version (Trump’s endorsement were mostly seen as important for candidates in Republican primary elections) with the add-on "but many of them lost in the general election". So the red wave the GOP was expecting didn't materialize, RS say some Republicans blame Trump while Trump claimed "219 WINS and 16 Losses in the General – Who has ever done better than that?" on November 10. Meanwhile we won't know for at least a couple of weeks just how off those expectations were (Politico's running tally on House results). We'd be better off to wait until the final results are in and RS have more than GOP speculations on the causes. DeSantis and Youngkin: if Trump announces his candidacy and other potential candidates don't immediately announce fealty, there will be a lot more name calling. For now, it's WP:NEWS, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, let's let the dust settle & await what's to come in 2023. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll concede that jabbing DeSantis/Youngkin is NOTNEWS. However, simply adding on but many of them lost in the general election is not sufficient enough. It needs to be understood that many RS and fellow Republicans are blaming Trump for his endorsements in key races that lost. That is significant because it's putting Trump in a predicament that may be devastating to his political standing in his party. Surely that warrants one sentence in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

You said it yourself: may be devastating. It's speculation at this point. After the January 6, 2021, insurrection, Republicans initially blamed Trump, then, "just a few weeks later, [were] already singing a different tune". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Abraham Accords

I know this has discussed before, but no resolution was ever brought forth. This article has some of the most insignificant things possible about Trump's foreign policy, such as him hypothetically saying he would strike back at Iran after they struck U.S. troops in Iraq (a hypothetical that never became reality) yet it doesn't have the most major treaty negotiated under him in 2020? Israel's peace with the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco was hailed as significant by numerous international observers, far more than say a single quote from one American journalist saying that Trump was to blame for Iran's shooting of an airliner. The page has an insane amount of fluff, yet something substantial can't fit in? Bill Williams 14:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

This is disruptive. It's been raised and rejected repeatedly. I urge all editors to resist the temptation to reply and start a long thread signifying nothing. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Or take for example a sentence about how the U.S. unsuccessfully tried to take a reinstate U.N sanction over the Iran nuclear deal. You can also see one about how Trump did not make a comment on alleged program by Russia in Afghanistan which the DoD and U.S. intelligence said they had no evidence to corroborate and "low confidence" in its existence. The lack of a comment on a specific allegation with no merit, or the attempt to take a specific action that failed to occur, or a comment on a hypothetical attack on a specific country that never happened, all are far less significant than the Abraham Accords, and there are plenty more examples. There is nothing disruptive about pointing out how useless information is in this article while more important things fail to be mentioned. If you think a discussion cannot succeed, then an RfC should be held, but either way something must be done because there are dozens of reliable sources on the significance of this. Bill Williams 14:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The Israel section is far shorter than the others under Foreign policy. Given that it's (IMO) one of the few things Trump received bipartisan praise for, and will likely be quite historically significant for the region (especially with Biden supporting the Accords), I don't see why it doesn't deserve a sentence or two. And BTW, consensus can change; it's not disruptive to attempt to discuss it. DFlhb (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC) shouldn't be the priority right now DFlhb (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

As someone uninvolved with previous discussions, I don't see a strong reason why a simple mention of the Accords shouldn't be included in the Foreign Policy section, as it stands. Trying to parse old discussions to see what points had been made, this is what I found:

• The most recent discussion. No apparent consensus for exclusion or inclusion.
  • Main arguments for exclusion seemed to be 1) It belongs in the 'Presidency of' article, not this one; 2) Trump was not personally involved enough for it to be mentioned; and 3) "This has been rejected before."
  • Main arguments for inclusion seemed to be 1) Trump is attributed as having a hand in completing these resolutions, by a multitude of RS: 1 2 3 4 5 6; and 2) The deal appears to have lasting impact, being talked about by RS 2 years later, and built upon by the next administration 1 2 3 4
  • Consensus for exclusion didn't seem very strong; seems it was excluded because editors lost interest, and kept status quo
• An earlier discussion from 2021. Formally closed after long discussion in favor of exclusion, noting that the 'Presidency of' article seemed to be the preferred place for mention
  • IMO, less relevant than the most recent discussion because of additional coverage in RS since then, and acknowledgement of the accords by the next administration.
• Another early discussion from 2020. Pretty summarily closed in favor of exclusion, based on most editors saying it belonged only in the 'Presidency of' article, and that its lasting significance wasn't yet apparent.

Honestly, based on all of that, I don't see a legitimate reason to exclude a minor mention of these accords in this article. The 'Foreign Policy' section in this article is quite extensive already; seems odd to draw the WP:UNDUE line in the sand here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• Two years later, the lasting impact doesn't look all that rosy. From a current analysis in Foreign Policy: "Last week, the Abraham Accords, arguably one of the Trump administration’s few foreign-policy achievements, marked their second anniversary amid growing signs that the accords’ bypassing of the Palestinian issue raises serious questions about their role as a vehicle for peace. The accords—signed at the White House two years ago between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain—set the stage for covert relations to emerge and flourish ... At the time, then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lauded the accords as a breakthrough because they divorced normalization with Arab states from any Israeli peace with the Palestinians. What looked like a breakthrough then now looks like the biggest drawback of the accords." The article mentions Trump's name once, in "Trump administration" in the sentence I quoted above, arguably a reason to put the Accords in the Presidency of Donald Trump article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  Ok. That's only one article. I linked plenty others that gave stronger attribution to Trump, and have rosier views of the impact. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Except for two (NPR and Hill), all of the articles you linked are from 2020, no? I'll have to take a closer look at the NPR and Hill articles from July 2022. At first reading they don't seem to be all that rosy to me, and Saudi Arabia hasn't changed its stance. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Does it matter whether the sources view the Accords in a positive light or a negative light? Why would either way preclude their mere mention in this article?

Here's another source from 2022. The fact that it's still being talked about is enough to give it notability; that said, and for other reasons discussed, I still fail to see a reason why it SHOULDN'T be included in this article.PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I've no objections to including the Abraham Accords. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

To further put this into perspective, the 'Presidency' section of this article is currently ~223,000 bytes, and around ~9700 words long. This is in spite of the fact that the articles Presidency of Donald Trump and Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency already exist. The proposed addition which is being opposed (one example here) would be ~250 bytes, and ~35 words - an addition of 0.25% the length of this section. For such a small addition, I don't understand the impassioned opinion of those who disagree based on the grounds "it belongs in the 'Presidency of' article, not here." That argument is weak, and it should have little, if any, weight in this discussion, considering the current size of this article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It's too absurd that people are saying this deal has a negligible impact, and as a result we shouldn't mentioned it. We must add this section and maybe we can mention what was the impact of it in two years later. I didn't know that Wikipedia editors have to judge the actions as well! you're here to tell the truth, it's up to the readers to decide. Unfortunately it seems that Wikipedia political articles are controlled by the same editors in the mainstream media trying to hide or undermine Trump's achievements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaka123 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

What achievements? He never accomplished anything. Dimadick (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Over a dozen reliable sources can be found specifically referring to the Abraham Accords as a significant "achievement" or "accomplishment" of Trump. We should keep POV out of the article, as we are discussing notable things according to the sources, not personal opinions on the matter. Bill Williams 01:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

12 out of how many total publications about Trump? 30 million? 40 million? SPECIFICO talk 03:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I also added info on Morocco and Sudan, since it was a major change in U.S., Moroccan, and Sudanese foreign policy. Sudan was under heavy sanctions until it was removed from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list before it normalized relations with Israel, while Moroccan control over Western Sahara was recognized by almost no country until the U.S. did so. Morocco also received billions in additional arms sales while it and Sudan both engaged in economic and tourist agreements with Israel in response to the normalization. Considering the restriction of travel on Sudan was already mentioned in the article, and that had far less of an effect than the crippling sanctions on the nation, while other disputed territory recognition was mentioned as well, I think it is my addition is warranted for inclusion. Bill Williams 02:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Removed. As stated numerous times by numerous editors, take it to the appropriate sub-article. It does not belong in the Trump biography. Zaathras (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bill Williams:, the only way you might get consensus for inclusion. Would be via the RFC route. A local consensus seems highly unlikely. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Yeah this is asinine, I'll start an RfC. There are hundreds of sentences, many of which are on minor issues, yet something major like this can't be included? Bill Williams 05:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Links in the lead

About this revert:

User:Space4Time3Continuum2x, just so you know, a WP:SEAOFBLUE is when adjacent words link to different Wikipedia articles without any visual indication that they are separate links. It has nothing to do with someone subjectively feeling like there are a lot of links. That means that "populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist" (four links separated by punctuation and a word) is not a SEAOFBLUE, but "Trump's political positions" (three links with no separation) would be.

On the substance of the question, this is a popular article, which means it will be read by people from all levels of education and a wide variety of interests. This is exactly the situation in which we should lean heavily on what our guidelines call "an important feature of Wikipedia" that "can increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand" and "help the reader find related information", specifically for making "Relevant connections to the subject of another article" and the "people, events, and topics" that are associated with the subject. Our guidelines also say that the lead should "provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that are important to the article's topic", which we are currently not doing.

In terms of common sense, rather than official guidelines encouraging more links (and different ones – does anyone seriously think readers need a link to a university degree that is awarded around the globe, but not to specific US-only laws?), if someone's looking for a specific event, the sooner they find the link to the details they want, the better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Looking at your edit, it may not be technically WP:SEAOFBLUE, but it's definitely MOS:OVERLINK. Not every word that has an associated WP article needs to be linked; see that MOS policy for the criteria.

As a side note, you made a content removal in the same edit, with an edit summary that simply said "links," which is pretty poor form. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that example is just to illustrate a point in this discussion. Overlinking can be a problem, but don't allow that issue to derail this discussion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you're assuming too much about this discussion. So far, all I see is @WhatamIdoing trying to defend their addition of 20+ assorted wikilinks, some of which included links to "media personality", "skyscraper", "real estate", and "golf courses." This user MAY have added relevant links in that edit, but it's hard to tell based on initial review of both their edit, and this new thread.

My advice would be to take the reversion under advisement, and add fewer, more relevant links in a new edit, to see if the pushback is the same. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

What is skyscraper? SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I tried to pick words that might not be familiar to English language learners. This is a popular article, including being popular with people who aren't native English speakers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Referring to the original discussion at #Leadrefs, we have three choices:

1. Restore the original wikilinks in the lead like at all other articles here. They would immediately take readers away from this article, which is not a desirable thing. We want them to stay here long enough to read the whole lead, at the very least.
2. Make sure all wikilinks in the lead point to the relevant sections in this article, IOW reinforce the primacy of the body as the source for the lead. That leads readers to the more developed content and refs related to the mention in the lead.
3. Use the discrete section links I had first proposed. That serves the purpose of #2 above while keeping the lead free from any blue links.

I obviously prefer #3. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I support the lead staying as it is; the lack of blue links is a relief for the eyes (blue is harder to read for many), and frankly I wish more BLPs were like this. Links are far more important in the body; but when users are reading the lead, the search bar is still right there (and on mobile, it's always there). DFlhb (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC) ; edited 16:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC); changed my mind; the previous proposal was excessive, but the new one is good

I think it's more common to hear people say that they like having blue links as more subtle "highlighter" for key words. Do you happen to use a dark mode? Most people don't mind blue links, but I could imagine the default color not being well-suited for a dark background. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The blue links look fine on Wikipedia's standard dark mode (I'm using it right now). Cessaune (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The lead as it is is fine. A few more things could potentially be linked, but we don't need a link for every term. Cessaune (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding to Valjean's #3: see the recent discussion about replacing the sea of blue (spirit, not letter of WP:SEAOFBLUE) in the lead taking readers to other pages with section links to the body, indicated by silcrows. Copying from that discussion to show what the lead looked like before, during (1), during (2), and after the change. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Please OP, no more links. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

No., the linkgasm in the lede was ridiculous. A reader of the Donald Trump article does not need to be directed to generic crap like "protectionist", "skyscrapers", and "political endorsements". Zaathras (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Were you responding to me (section link proposal) or to Whatamidoing? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I think we need to strive toward limiting wikilinks in the lead, but no change of practice for them in the body. How about refining this into a guideline? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused what you mean. Is WP:LINK/MOS:LINK not a good enough existing guideline for this? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't recall any difference being made between the lead and body. That's the issue here. Should we make a difference? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

You should review that guideline again, then. The MOS:LEADLINK section says "Too many links can make the lead hard to read." Seems appropriate to me. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I missed that. Maybe we should strengthen that wording. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

What we have now is probably too few, not too many. (Also, why do we need a sentence about where he went to school in this unusually long lead? He's famous for what he did, not for where he went to school.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• The lead should keep links to important, specific things like the Special Counsel Investigation, the Tax Cuts & Jobs act, and the two impeachments. It should not have links to more generic terms like "protectionist" or "bachelor's degree." Note: the given are all examples, I'm not making an exclusive list. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Ganesha811, we've had the toc limit set to 4 since this edit in August 2021. There were a couple of brief discussions since then, in connection with lead refs if I remember correctly. I think four in this case is better, it makes it easier for readers to locate specific topics in Trump's messy life. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

No problem, I couldn't find the relevant talk page section amongst everything but figured there probably was one. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• I submitted this edit, reverted by User:Space4Time3Continuum2x. Waiting for an explanation pertaining to MOS:EGG. The discussion hasn't gone anywhere, you're simply talking. I was bold and made a pretty reasonable edit, no overlinking as far as I understand it... You said of course those things were fundamental to his presidency, yet they aren't linked for people to gain a further understanding of what they are without scrolling down a multitude of pages worth of off-topic information. Makes no sense. -Teammm ^talk? 16:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think that's a very reasonable edit and should not have been reverted. As I stated above, it makes perfect sense to link to specific, non-intuitive things like the Special Counsel investigation and similar. There's no need for generic links in the lead, but the anti-link efforts shouldn't be taken too far. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with S4T3C2 that there are at least a couple MOS:EGGs in that edit:

  • [Veracity of statements by Donald Trump|false and misleading statements]
  • [Communication of the Trump administration during the COVID-19 pandemic|promoted misinformation]
  • "[United States Capitol|Capitol], which many of them then [January 6 United States Capitol attack|attacked]" - Probably only need one here

  PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced that we need [[United States Capitol|Capitol]].

  I don't think the other two are MOS:EGG violations. Someone clicking on "false and misleading statements" would hope and expect to go to an article that talked about Trump's "false and misleading statements", and Veracity of statements by Donald Trump seems like a likely candidate. Similarly, if you click on "promoted misinformation", you would hope to end up at Communication of the Trump administration during the COVID-19 pandemic.

  MOS:EGG isn't trying to have the link label and the linked article's title match. The point is that you shouldn't use links to hide specific information from readers who don't click the link. In the MOS:EGG example, the problem is that if readers don't click on the Parton (particle physics) link, they won't know that Feynman worked on that particular model. That information belongs in the article, and hiding that information only in the link hides it from readers. That's why we call them Easter egg links: they're hidden, and you can only find them if you look. That's not what's happening here. These links don't hide information that belongs in the article. They're just linking to the most relevant article related to those words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  I understand the point of MOS:EGG. I still don't think those 2 are good links. 1) "False and misleading statements" came from a sentence about his campaign; the first sentence in the linked article begins "During his term as President of the United States..." It was confusing, and the link isn't needed. 2) This is the worse of the two. The Communication of the Trump administration during the COVID-19 pandemic is not holistically and accurately represented by being linked to with "promoted misinformation." Whatever gets linked to that phrase should be a straightforward representation of "promoting misinformation." If you want to link the whole 'Communications' article, there needs to be a more detailed description of the communications in this article. Seems like cut-and-dry MOS:EGG to me. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  MOS:EGG does not say that the link label must fully describe the contents of the linked article. MOS:EGG says that the link label must fully describe the information that you want readers of this article to have. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Nowhere in that guideline does it mention what information we "want" readers to have. It's about making sure links are "reasonable, make sense" and are "as intuitive as possible." I don't understand how you can look at the example there, see the improvement that was made to the link and the sample article text, and still think link 2 is OK under that guideline. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Teammm's proposal as-is (though without the link to bachelor's degree); I think many people, including non-Americans, will visit this article to try to understand Trump's legacy. Ultimately, people may not be familiar with the travel ban, or with Trump's history of false statements, and those should be linked in the lead so readers can read the relevant articles and inform themselves. The goal of links is twofold: so readers don't need to manually type things into the Search, and so readers become aware that a Wikipedia article exists on a subject, when they might not expect it to (e.g. our article on the veracity of Trump's statements). I liked the bare-minimum version for its minimalism, but this version better serves readers' interests. DFlhb (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Re MOS:EGGs laid in this edit.

1. I'd expect "false and misleading statements" to go to False statement, not to [[Veracity of statements by Donald Trump|false and misleading statements]], and "conspiracy theories" to Conspiracy theory, not to [[List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump|conspiracy theories]]. The non-egg version for the sentence would be Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.
2. I'd expect "travel ban" to go to the page Travel ban, not to [[Trump travel ban|travel ban]], "family separations" to Family separations, not to family separations</nowiki>. (Also, do we need a link to "muslim"?) Non-egg version of sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, diverted military funding towards building a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border, and implemented a policy of family separations for apprehended migrants.
3. I'd expect "COVID-19 pandemic" to go to COVID-19 pandemic, not to [[COVID-19 pandemic in the United States|COVID-19 pandemic]].
4. I'd expect "attacked" to go to Attack, not to [[January 6 United States Capitol attack|attacked]]. Non-egg: which many of them then attacked.
5. I'd expect "impeached" to go to Impeachment or Impeachment in the United States, not to [[First impeachment of Donald Trump]]. Non-egg: After he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden in 2019, he was impeached
6. I wasn't expecting a page for "second time" but, sure enough, there's a redirect page to Evering Road, not [[Second impeachment of Donald Trump|second time]]. Non-egg: The House of Representatives impeached Trump a second time in January 2021

To make each of them less of a surprise to the reader, you'd have to expand each one considerably — lots of blue to direct readers to other pages when we have more information right here in the body. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

"Promoted misinformation" less egg than unnecessary: Why Communication of the Trump administration during the COVID-19 pandemic and not COVID-19 misinformation by the United States? This shows the difficulties of linking to other pages when we have the information in the body. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I think all of your concerns relate to a single theme, which is context. Taking your last item, in an article entirely about Trump, in a sentence that is 100% about Trump himself ("He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging, and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the need for testing.") it's not obvious to me that we should link to an article about misinformation by Trump plus other people. But the chosen link could be criticized on the grounds that a "Communication" article could also contain information about things the Trump administration got right, i.e., anything that was not misinformation. In the end, I think either of these links is acceptable, and my main point is that there should be a link to an article that says something specifically about misinformation from Trump.

And that, generally, is the theme above. When you read an article about Trump, and you see a sentence about Trump's false statements, Trump's travel ban, Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the attack that happened on Trump's watch, and Trump's two impeachments, you are better served by getting links to the specific, relevant, topical, contextually appropriate information – not the generic articles on the general subjects, which may not mention Trump at all.

I've no particular objection to re-phrasing things, but I want to be clear that MOS:EGG does not object to this. MOS:EGG objects to hiding information, such as the fact that Feynmann worked on the Parton (particle physics). MOS:EGG says that the word parton needs to appear in the sentence, for the sake of readers who don't/can't click on the link. There is no information hidden when you link to just the word "He was impeached" instead of the whole clause "He was impeached". MOS:EGG accepts either of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Your concept of not hiding information is not without merit, but it's not what EGG is about. The text of the guideline doesn't say or imply anything about that. Space4 is correct that readers encountering a link of "impeached" should expect it to target an article about impeachment in general, and they would have no way of knowing it was about impeachment of Trump without following it. That makes it inconsistent with EGG. Perhaps there should be a separate guideline about not hiding information, but it wouldn't bear on this discussion. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the majority of readers would expect "He was impeached" to lead to our article on Trump's impeachment; if they want to know what impeachment is, they can click one of the first links in that article to get to the general topic. But most of this page's readers clearly want to know more about Trump, so they'd want to read information specific to him, not general stuff. Same for the other links; I agree with WhatamIdoing's reasoning here. I've been pretty annoyed myself (as a reader) when links go to general topics, when more specific pages exist; it made me assume the specific page didn't exist. DFlhb (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I hate silly links as much as anyone, but I'm in agreement with WAID here. For example the Paris Agreement on climate change is mentioned and IMO most people would give up on trying to find the right link, which is this one United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. I know that I don't represent the average reader but I know that I'm far from alone. I like information background and if I don't read the entire article (though I often do) I want a good lead with links. Sectionworker (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for longer, non-EGGy links in the lead, I'm arguing for keeping readers on the page and going to the body, where we have a ton of links, for information summarized in the lead. For example:

Covid-19 pandemic

Main articles: COVID-19 pandemic and COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

Further information: U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic and Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic

See also: Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

In December 2019, COVID-19 erupted in Wuhan, China; the SARS-CoV-2 virus spread worldwide within weeks.

We should be linking to the body, not to other pages. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

So add some links in the lead to the body, and see whether anyone disagrees enough to revert you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I added a few to the third and fourth paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Why are you linking to him winning the election? It just seems... unnecessary. Cessaune (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Space4Time. @Cessaune is asking about this:

"He won the 2016 United States presidential election^§ as the Republican nominee against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton despite losing the popular vote."

I'm curious why you use this "^§" markup instead of adding a normal link. I would normally link straight to the separate 2016 United States presidential election, but you could link to the section in this article like this: [[#2016 presidential campaign|2016 United States presidential election]]. This is the normal way to add a link. Why did you decide to try something different? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Less blue in the lead, and gets rid of the added surprise of clicking on a link expecting it to take you to a new article and instead being sent to a section in the same article (see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 149 and 150). It's a proposal on this page that was narrowly shouted down recently and, as there is no consensus to include it, Space4Time should self-revert. Everything on this page works through consensus, and we haven't established consensus for this addition. Cessaune (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

2024 Run

Would it be better to place 2024, underneath the Post-presidency (2021–present) section where it was originally was? The articles events seem to run in chronological order with the 2024 presidental campaign now in the middle and all of Trump's presidency and his policies are now underneath it. Aaron106 (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

He was/is a former president, when he announced his 2024 bid. So sure. GoodDay (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create a "comparison section" that showed any possible similarities between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Jan 6

It's not proven that our president invited the people 174.251.135.96 (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is proven. He even knew that some of his supporters were armed with weapons, so he asked that metal detectors be deactivated so they could pass through them and march to the Capitol. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

2024 in the lead

Reading over the precedence of contention regarding the basics of the lead, I have a feeling that the inclusion of mentioning the recent 2024 campaign announcement might be up for comment. I generally support it, given that it is safe to assume Trump's elevated political activity and involvement is a theme sufficiently active enough to merit including at least the basis for including mentions of further presidential campaign activity; admittedly, the subject of what goes in and what doesn't probably deserves discussion from those far more versed on the discussion than I am.

So I'm posting just to clear it and make note of it for archival's sake, because maybe the wording could use tweaking and as the campaign situation evolves, so will consensus on it emerge (probably forcing terms of the campaign's inclusion in the lead to be enshrined in the huge consensus list posted up there in the talk). Better to act cautiously ‒overthrows 04:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd wait until late 2023 'or' until others announce their candidacies for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Length is becoming a bit of an urgent problem

(I withdrew my support for the Abraham Accords proposal above)

With Trump starting his 2024 campaign (and no doubt, there'll be controversies, lawsuits trying to prevent him from running, primaries we must cover, more controversial statements, etc), and with Donald Trump at 107kB prose size, we should likely foucs on removing & summarizing stuff, not expanding, to prepare for that. Targeting ~75kB or less would be ideal.

Here's what I propose:

• move most of the immigration section to Immigration policy of Donald Trump and summary-style it in just a single subsection of "Domestic policy"
• do the same with the COVID-19 pandemic section; turn it into a single subection of "Domestic policy"; it's far too detailed for a biography
• same with some material from the longer subsections of "Foreign policy"
• the "Special counsel investigation" subsection is too long as well; it's the longest subsection in the whole article.
• Lafayette Square: I don't think we need a whole subsection on that; should be summarized in a few sentences in another subsection
• does "Concern about a possible coup attempt or military action" even belong here? It seems like speculation, no? I'm not as familiar with Trump as I'm sure most of you are, so I might be wrong on this.
• the "Racial views" section could probably stand to be ~3 paragraphs; there's already a split-off article on it; it's currently the longest subsection in "Public profile"; we should target ~5kB, not 14kB raw size.

These may not all be necessary to reach 75kB prose size; I'm just floating ideas. DFlhb (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Difficult to say, with the caucuses & primaries 14+ months away. GoodDay (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

lawsuits trying to prevent him from running What do you mean by this? SPECIFICO talk 10:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

What I was referring to were the (IMO very predictable) future lawsuits to keep him off the ballot, which I expect we'll see in many states. Funnily enough, I just discovered I was proven right in a few very recent articles, on that point and on related efforts (I hadn't seen any of them when I wrote my comment). [1][2][3][4]

Possible avenues are: inciting an insurrection (Jan 6), corruption, mishandling classified materials (the Florida raid), and obstruction of justice (which Mueller hinted was possible after he left office), though I want to make clean I'm not expressing an opinion on any of these; just a prediction that may directly affect how the page ends up looking. DFlhb (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

IMO, if he's sued, or if his candidacy is challenged in individual states, we won't be mentioning more than the fact, citing the RS, ditto when the lawsuits/challenges succeed or fail. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree, as discussed before. Maybe we can rationalise the article this time.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see the urgency. WP is not a newspaper, and any new controversies, lawsuits, etc. would have to receive lasting coverage in RS. The archives contain quite a few discussions about article length, and we’ve managed to keep the article at a size where the page doesn’t "break". Several of the sections you mention are written summary-style, linking to other main pages. How did you arrive at 75 KB? This article has 109 kB of readable prose, JFK’s has 113, Reagan 105, Eisenhower 103, Hillary Clinton 94, Nixon 89, Bill Clinton 87, George W. Bush 88, Obama 81. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

How did you arrive at 75 KB? Might be too ambitious; 85-90 wouldn't be bad. Re: your other reply, it's more than lawsuits; a full campaign might end up taking 2-3 paragraphs. Not unreasonable to expect this campaign to differ somewhat from the last one, with the lawsuits, key allies dropping him [5], and potential future violence. I concede that's all speculation, but 109kB is IMO unreasonable when further expansion is a given. DFlhb (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

1. I don't think we should prioritize compactness over content. This has come up many times and it leads to cuts that end up being reinstated after a lot of silly talk page discussion about size comparisons.
2. The way to make the article more readible and to implement summary style is for editors to be much much more familiar with the vast number of tertiary sources that have become available. Books, academic articles, thougthful essays by experts. Instead of giving long narratives of examples and incidents of Trump's thoughts and actions, we can present the weight of RS characterization of them and point to the detailed articles on each facet of his extensive history. This is not happening because most editors have not read those books or even read most journals and news accounts. The talk page discussions archive shows that most editors rely on TV news and immediate press coverage, with little perspective on the range and central narratives of RS. We need to build back better. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

One of the main issue is that not everything is of equal importance always. Everyone that shows up here is 100% certain that their little nugget of information is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER, and that IF IT ISN'T INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE, WE ARE CENSORING THEM AND WHITEWASHING THE ARTICLE ZOMG BIAS ARGH!!1!11!. Not every true thing must be included in this article. Editorial decisions need to be made for the sake of narrative flow, tone, relative importance, and yes, length. Sometimes that means someone pet nugget of information gets moved to a different article. Or maybe not included at all. It has to be that way. Not everything that is true is equally worth writing about, and there's a priority threshold that means that sometimes, something is true and just not included in the article. And that isn't censorship, and that isn't whitewashing, it's making editorial decisions to create a quality piece of writing. --Jayron32 19:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Very much like any other bio, particularly BLPs. Nothing substantial gets added into or taken out of a bio, without a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you mean "very much like any other high-traffic, heavily watched bio". Most bios are editing with zero discussion.

@DFlhb, there's one thing that just about any editor could do, that I think would have a significant effect on the page size (NB: not word count). That is: Replace the zillions of newspaper articles and other primary sources with citations to a page in a decent book that says the same thing. As a bonus, systematically working your way through a book (or a couple of them) should give editors a clearer idea of what gets more (and what gets less) attention in this article than it does in high-quality secondary sources.

I'm unfamiliar with the literature, but there seem to be multiple options from university presses, and that's usually a good place to start. Here are links to some options: [6][7][8][9][10] and I'm sure there are many more at places I didn't think to check. I suggest that editors with access to a good library system check with their library first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

High-traffic & heavily watched? Yeah, that sums up this page quite well :) GoodDay (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a solid idea. DFlhb (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

we’ve managed to keep the article at a size where the page doesn’t "break": what exactly is the size when the page breaks??? From previous discussions it seems there is no such size...? And the size is what it is because of major cuts to the content in time passed.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Pages break when the "post-expand include size" exceeds 2 MiB. This is not a size you can predict by looking at the numbers in the history page. It is a number that depends very heavily on how many complex templates are transcluded. At the moment, there are 1,003 templates on this page. 817 of them are citation templates, which definitely qualify as "complex" for this purpose. In practice, the way that you figure out whether you're going to break the page is: you add something else, and it breaks. Then you know that it was close to breaking before your addition.

One very reliable way to prevent this is: replace individual WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources with sources that can be cited for many claims. There are 749 instances of {{cite news}} in this article. That's 92% of the cited sources. Less than one percent(!) of the cited sources are books. We don't need to replace all of the news sources, but over time, we should move towards replacing many of them. For comparison, 40% of the sources in Ronald Reagan are news articles, and 16% are books. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

But WhatamIdoing, roughly how close are we to breaking the page?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The problems we've experienced with this page breaking weren't caused by the readable prose, they were caused by the close to 900 citations we had at one time (and the over-linking doesn't help). We have pared them down considerably - and if we could get rid of the occasional left-over from initial outrage over Trump tweets we might be able to get rid of a few more. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Blue in the lead

Okay, okay.

This article is too long to not have more blue in the lead. This extreme 'no blue in the lead' stance that has been taken here minimizes efficiency. Regardless of how controversial any specific statement is, some statements are deserving of a little blue because they are inherently complicated or interesting, IMHO.

1. Do nothing
2. Section sign idea
3. More links
4. More inline citations

I want to open an RfC about this. An article this big requires more blue in the lead, if not solely for the purpose of helping readers navigate. What do y'all think? Cessaune (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you are out of control and need to NOT start an RFC. --Malerooster (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This was a civil attempt to voice an opinion based on evidence I have accrued from around a year of participation in discussions on this page (and it doesnt even deal with the content, but rather, the accesibility of the content, so it that way it is inherently less controversial than most things discussed on this page). There is a reason why I came here to say that I wanted to open an RfC, and I didn't jus open an RfC (as we all know RfCs aren't always the best way to go about things, especially for this article). Despite this, you respond with an uncivil retort on how I am "out of control". What did I do wrong? I don't get it. Cessaune (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Please don't open up an RFC about adding more links to the lead. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean, it doesn't have to be an RfC. We could just discuss. Cessaune (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

How about, no. Zaathras (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Which specific terms from the lead do you think need additional linking, and why do you think each of them needs it? --Jayron32 12:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  ^ Seconded. We can discuss on a case-by-case basis, since it seems everyone has a different opinion on each link - we've already seen edits with bulk additions of links get made and reverted a few times now. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  I want to establish whether this conversation is even needed before I worry about which links go where. I don't think people want to have a conversation about it, though, so I just wanted to see how receptive people are to this idea. Let's first establish whether this conversation needs to be had. We don't need to hold a lengthy discussion that will end in stalemate if we don't want to. I want to push this, and some of these no votes are, IMO, uninformative and only exist because people don't want to talk about this idea, due to previous proceedings on this page. Cessaune (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Well, so far the answer to your general question "should this article have more blue in the lead" looks like "No." Your next step could be proposing more specific links to add, to get those "No" votes to agree on more minor additions. My 2 cents. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  I definitely think we need "more blue" in the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'd link four words that I'd bet most people are unsure of: populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist. Also Special council investigation, Popular vote, Appellate judges, and perhaps impeached. I'm leaving special council red because most people wouldn't know what to search for either. I'd likely be agreeable to most others as well. Sectionworker (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Most people? I beg to differ. They're commonly used dictionary words, and if any reader doesn't know what populist, protectionist, isolationist, nationalist, or Muslim means they'll know how to look them up in a dictionary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of links is to direct readers to articles which they might find interesting, not to provide definitions of terms they don't understand. If a term is unlikely to be understood, we should either use one that is or explain what it means. I think a good rule is to assume that at a minimum, readers have the same level of comprehension required to understand mainstream quality news sources. If CNN can use terms such as appellate court or nationalist without explaining to viewers what they mean, then so should this article. There's a Simple English Wikipedia for readers with limited vocabularies. TFD (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Add environmental record to lead

I know that the lead is long and that there is a discussion going on right now over whether or not it is biased, but if we can discuss bias at length perhaps we could discuss something that has bothered me for a long time. Please see our article Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration. What do you think, should we mention it in the lead? Sectionworker (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The only place in the lead I could see a mention of this going is somewhere in the 3rd paragraph. Though, I don't think his environmental policy is quite as relevant to this article (Donald Trump, the man) as some other events/policies from his presidency that do get mention there, like the border wall, the China trade war, and the Covid-19 pandemic.

Why do you think this should be mentioned in the lead, when it could be covered in the body? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe that climate change may be the most important issue that we are dealing with today because our decisions will affect our way of life for a long time to come. Trump said that he was going to get rid of the EPA and he almost did, while he gave industry free rein to pollute to their heart's content with only profit to care about. I believe that this issue is as important as the border wall or the China trade war. I want to see what others think because I'm aware that I have a personal bias on the issue. Sectionworker (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Okay, since we're basically running up against the "already too long" wall, if we're going to include this information, what less important information do you suggest we remove to accommodate the addition? --Jayron32 16:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

How about this: "Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement"?Sectionworker ([[User

That is too important to replace, but a sentence on environment would be OK. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO Could you explain your rationale behind supporting this addition to the lead, but opposing the addition of a mention of the Abraham Accords in the body? Your prior arguments against the latter - "it belongs in the 'Presidency of' article" (example) and "Trump himself wasn't personally involved enough" (example) - could both be applied here, it seems. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't see what this has to do with my question. Sectionworker (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

They're throwing their support behind your proposed addition, after opposing a similar addition proposal rooted in similar arguments. It seems relevant to ask them for clarification on their vote here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I recommend removing the sentence about where he went to college. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm all for that although I think that most bios do have that in the lead. Sectionworker (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• I think it's important to read the Trump environmental record article to understand that much of his environmental policy had to do with more than just his presidency. Remember Sharpiegate? As a person he is completely unable to admit he's ever been wrong about anything. Also, it is clear that his policies went far beyond any concern what so ever about the environment but were entirely about ways to increase corporate means to increase profits, most certainly including his own and those of people he wanted to have in his group of buddies. Think about how he wanted to be pals with Russia and how he saw a Trump hotel on the ocean shores in North Korea. There is no reason that his personal plans for ways to benefit from the presidency did not include getting rid of pesky rules about the environment either. Actually he's a lot like Putin in that it is hard to separate their personal life from their political positions as heads of government. (Sorry for the length here on something that may be pretty obvious) Sectionworker (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Please, the lead is already very long. Create a new page or put proposed info into a related page. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the Trump environmental policy page? Sectionworker (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Put the info in that page. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

It's already in that page. Sectionworker (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Well then. We don't need it added to 'this' page. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Repeatedly asserting that it should be omitted -- without any argument as to NPOV, sourcing, policy and the proposed content, is not and cannot advance this discussion toward a conclusion. And the length thing is a dead issue -- it's been discussesd many times here and it's no excuse for violating NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

It's up to you, Sectionworker. Do as you please. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Would this be OK? During his time in office Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change, rolled back major climate policies and rules governing clean water and air, toxic chemicals, and wildlife. Sectionworker (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't understand why I am not getting any feedback. OK, I have added what we had in the lead already and it now looks like this: During his time in office Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change, rolled back major climate policies and rules governing clean water and air, toxic chemicals, and wildlife. If I don't get any comments I'm going to add it to the lead. Sectionworker (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

We may all be suffering from lead overload. The Paris Agreement is mentioned in the lead as one of his foreign policy "accomplishments". In foreign policy, Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. Internal U.S. policies and regulations (rolled back major climate policies and rules governing clean water and air, toxic chemicals, and wildlife) are a different matter, and the Biden administration got to work on undoing them right after Biden's inauguration {January 20, 2021, Executive Order). How about He rolled back environmental policies and regulations, signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 which cut taxes for individuals and businesses, and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. in the fourth paragraph? IMO, the rest is too much detail for the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that we all agree that we write for our readers. We try to look at everything and choose what we, as experienced editors, think is the most encyclopedic information that our readers expect. Most of our readers agree that we face a climate emergency. [11] thus I don't believe that the words "rolled back major climate policies" are too much. Then, how about if we include "rules governing clean water, air, and toxic chemicals" but skip wildlife.Sectionworker (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the body, keeping the text general is better. Environmental policies and regulations includes everything. The rollback removed the requirement for federal agencies to consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of their actions, including those related to climate change and social impacts like cutting up minority neighborhoods for highways, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. It could read, "Rolled back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations." Sectionworker (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That's compact and seems to convey his actions. However for the sake of NPOV, I wonder whether every president in recent years may not have rolled back numerous policies and actions that were far less significant but nevertheless also consistent with that language? This is not to nitpick, just that we don't want to say something that "sounds bad" and lead the reader to make a conclusion not directly stated in the article text. But I'm OK with the proposed wording. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

From the NYT: “This is a very aggressive attempt to rewrite our laws and reinterpret the meaning of environmental protections,” said Hana V. Vizcarra, a staff attorney at Harvard’s Environmental and Energy Law Program who has tracked the policy changes since 2018. “This administration is leaving a truly unprecedented legacy.” [12] Sectionworker (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. In light of that, perhaps the word "aggressive" should appear in the article and lead text. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

In the body would that be a direct quote or using Wikipedia voice? I also like the “This administration is leaving a truly unprecedented legacy.” sentence. Sectionworker (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what I'm supposed to edit here. Finally after all that discussion it's decided that it's OK to add a sentence to the lead and in fact at the last minute to also include the word "aggressive". But not a peep out of anyone about how to add that word to the lead. I will add: He rolled back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations in "a very aggressive attempt to rewrite our laws and reinterpret the meaning of environmental protections". So then I suppose people will say I need talk page approval first... Sectionworker (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the lead, there are no sources and I'd need a source when using a quote, and then I remembered that it is not as a rule OK to put quotes in the lead. So will hold off adding it hoping that someone will help me. Sectionworker (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You could just say "to weaken environmental protections". I believe that the quote in "a very aggressive attempt to rewrite our laws and reinterpret the meaning of environmental protections" appears in the article body in the appropriate context. SPECIFICO talk 22:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Special Counsel

On November 18, 2022, Garland appointed Jack Smith as a special counsel to lead a probe on Trump's handling of these documents.

References

I added the sentence above within the Post-presidency (2021–present) >> FBI investigation subsection (User:Nerguy added the counsel's name, thank you!)

But it doesn't fit. The special counsel (SC) was not appointed as part of the probe on the classified docs, he was appointed to centralize all federal probes, including ones regarding Trump's involvement in January 6th (if I'm reading news reports correctly).

Where should we put this, and how should we phrase it?

I considered putting it under Post-presidency (2021–present) >> 2024 presidential campaign, but then it may imply to some readers that the SC was political retaliation on Biden's part; I actually think explaining the reason for the SC's formation (to make the probes independent from the Biden admin, and avoid any accusations of impropriety) would be a good idea, but we'd need to agree on the wording; that explanation would ideally be very brief, just a few words. DFlhb (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe creating a Post-presidency of Donald Trump page, would be best. We just don't need this BLP getting any longer. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I moved the info into its own subsection under Post-presidential investigations. AP and NY Times both use the plural (investigations, probes); sounds as though the special counsel is taking over the supervision previously exercised directly by Garland. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Twitter page link?

So since his twitter page was just restored, should we include a link to it in the "External Links" section, like we had before his twitter page was suspended? I noticed that the link to the archive requires consensus to change. 08:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Mgasparin (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it exists at the moment.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a no-brainer. The link to his real Twitter should be added. But since he's also deleted some tweets, I wouldn't oppose the archive link being kept too. DFlhb (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I think we should keep the link to the archive for now and not link to the restored account Trump "hasn't agreed to return" to. "I like Elon, but I’m staying on Truth," Mr. Trump said during a Fox News interview after Mr. Musk’s takeover. ... Mr. Trump is obligated to make his posts available exclusively on Truth Social for six hours before sharing them on other sites, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. He can post to any site immediately if the messages pertain to political messaging, fund-raising, or get-out-the-vote initiatives. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother linking to it, if the former president isn't using Twitter anymore. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but I strongly suspect that he will come back to Twitter at some point. Mgasparin (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Let it happen first before switching it over. If he ultimately doesn't return then I'd say the archive link probably makes more sense. If he does return then this becomes issue. But otherwise it'd be a link to something not in active use. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

On the one hand, Trump is indeed unlikely to return to Twitter, since he seems contractually "obligated to make any social media post on Truth Social".[13]

On the other hand, the archive is independently-run, doesn't seem to be backed by proper funding (questionable sustainability), and lacks any media Trump tweeted (videos, images). The website is clearly designed for academics and researchers more than the general public, with its austere interface and advanced search syntax; but the lack of media support mean that the archive cannot fully replace his actual Twitter.

The previous RFC[14] was premised on Trump being suspended, and the consensus was that a link to his tweets (whether an archive, or a direct link) belonged here. Given that the archive lacks media, and that Trump was reinstated, I think keeping both is option that best matches the spirit of that consensus. DFlhb (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've added the twitter page link. I have also kept the link to the archive, since as DFlhb stated, many tweets were deleted over the course of his presidency. Mgasparin (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Trump May 2020 complaint about social media

FMSky removed a grammatical error from the direct quote of a Trump tweet that I then removed altogether, saying it was an opinion tweet. FMSky then reverted my edit, stating the tweet was relevant because it’s on Trump’s page. It’s a tweet from May 2020, Trump complaining on social media that social media had totally silenced conservative voices after Twitter had started to tag some of his falsehoods as falsehoods. It’s sort of funny but do we need this "Well, he would, wouldn’t he" in his top bio? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

the tweet also said that he would "strongly regulate, or close them down" which is relevant as he was still president back then. the typo should also not be reinstatet, per MOS:TYPOFIX --FMSky (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not a spelling or typographic error, so " [sic] (producing [sic]) to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia" applies. It has already been restored by another editor. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

FMSky, error aside, why is a direct quote of a Trump claim, followed by a threat that he couldn't legally follow up on, relevant just because this is Trump's page? The paragraph is about Twitter finally starting to tag some of his falsehoods in May 2020 and social media platforms banning him in January 2021. We wouldn't lose any information, just a bit of trivia. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

because it shows his opinion on social media, which is relevant in a section about social media. honestly, why is this even being discussed ffs --FMSky (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

If we want to write about Trump's views and potential regulatory proposals wrt to social media, why don't we find a high-quality secondary source, instead of a source talking about what happened that week? If that tweet is particularly important, then it shouldn't be difficult to find a source that mentions it and isn't WP:PRIMARYNEWS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robpegoraro/2020/07/28/heres-trumps-plan-to-regulate-social-media/ -- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/27/trump-twitter-social-media-threat-conservatives -- https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/27/21272675/trump-executive-order-social-media-twitter-facebook-youtube-tweet-fact-check-section-230 -- https://www.reuters.com/article/twitter-trump-idUSL1N2D90JY -- etc -- FMSky (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

WP is WP:NOTNEWS. Of course various news media reported on Trump tweeting that he would "strongly regulate" or close down social media platforms, along with their assessment that he would be unsuccessful if he tried, the news of the day being their business model. He didn't try, and that was the last anyone heard of it. The social media section is not about Trump's opinion about social media, it's about his use of it and the platforms' belated reaction to the misinformation and disinformation he spread. If anywhere, the tweet belongs on the main page Social media use by Donald Trump where they already have a number of Trump opinion tweets. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC) There

Agreed; he did nothing whatsoever beyond tweet about it, as far as I'm aware. I don't think it's even worth mentioning that he criticized Twitter for it. DFlhb (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Current equivalents of Trump wealth and debts

Kobra98, you added current equivalents to various dollar amounts, stating that "converting dollar amounts for inflation gives context to readers." Is that context readers need or want, 'though? What they lose is the cites for the sentences since the template adds its own cites. E.g., the cite for the first two sentences of Donald_Trump#Wealth is the one after the second sentence. With the addition of the template, it looks as though the American Antiquarian Society PDFs are the cites for the sentence. Sure, we could fix that by adding the actual cite to the first sentence, too, but do we need to know the current equivalents of hundreds of millions of dollars? Kudos for developing that template, but a better place for it would be the main article Wealth of Donald Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we probably do want to know that. Inflation has a significant effect over the course of 40 years. Back in the day, I was buying gasoline for a dollar a gallon. It got above $6 this year, but most of that difference is due to ordinary inflation. (I figure $3 is due to inflation and $2 to increased taxes and the [I hope] temporary world situation.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think that readers want that context. I'm a reader and I want that context, and I don't think we should withhold meaningful context from this page just because we could also provide it on another page. And adding citations doesn't lose the citations that are already there. If a reader is looking for a citation, they can continue to look as they always have. Kobra98 (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm a reader who can't relate to $562 million any better than to $200 million. In one of the sentences the equivalent doesn't even make sense: In 1995, his reported losses were $915.7 million (equivalent to $1.63 billion in 2021). Trump received a tax credit for $915.7 million, and he offset that amount against taxes due for almost 20 years, never mind equivalents due to inflation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Truth Social Link?

Should we link to the former president's truth social account page? Since he is currently actively tweeting from there instead of twitter and is now a presidential candidate again, seems like something worthy of mention. Saw a similar thread above about his twitter link, so feel free to merge this with that if deemed appropriate. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

We should not link to his Truth Social account, per WP:NOSOCIAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

But then why are we including a link to his active but presently unused twitter account? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to just link to the archived tweets because history but omit the active link for the same reason above? 23.84.19.247 (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know we were. I deleted the link to the Twitter account. I do also see in the #Current consensus section that there was a consensus to include it while it was active. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The link was added less than three hours before you removed it. The consensus was to remove it and to add the archive link. We would need a new consensus to add it if Trump starts using it again. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The difference between Trump's Twitter and Trump's Truth Social is that the former became more of a phenomenon in itself, i.e. Social media use by Donald Trump is dominated by the Twitter section, while everything else is lumped under an "Other" type header. Linking to it became a necessity given the notability, thus was an exception to WP:NOSOCIAL. Truth Social is just the minor social media echo chamber that Trump is apparently contractually obligated to use as his primary one. So IMO yes to Twitter linkage, no to T.S. Zaathras (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You mean yes to the archive link right? Because the active (i.e. no longer suspended) but presently unused twitter account is no longer a phenomenon since nothing is happening on it anymore. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Remove redundant citations from lead section

Currently, the lead section has two citations for the "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history" sentence. However, both of these citations are repeated in the body (the "Approval ratings and scholar surveys" section in particular), which would make the citations redundant. Mucube (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mucube: per current consensus at the top of this page (Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus, item [58]) "There is consensus towards using inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations."

More to your point, per MOS:LEADCITE: "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. (emphasis not mine). Also, the hidden note is definitely appropriate and shouldn't be removed as I'd imagine that particular sentence would have a tendency of being removed without those removing it realising it's supported by consensus. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Too many drive-by IPs and "new" editors whined about "how can you say Trump is the worst, there's no proof!!!" and such, so the consensus solution was to provide citations in the lede to stem said whining. Zaathras (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

"The trade deficit reached its highest level in 12 years under his administration"?

I'm concerned about the relevance and arguably non-neutral presentation of the following information at Donald Trump#Trade: "Although he pledged during the campaign to significantly reduce the U.S.'s large trade deficits, the deficit reached its highest level in 12 years under his administration." The Associated Press source cited for this statement clarifies that the monthly trade deficit in July 2020 "was the largest monthly deficit since July 2008 during the 2007-2009 recession" and occurred in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, which "has seriously disrupted global supply chains this year".

In fact, annual figures show that the COVID-19 pandemic coincided with a huge and sustained increase in the U.S. trade deficit, which reached an all-time high in 2021, during the presidency of Joe Biden (Trump's Democratic successor). As reported by CNBC on February 8, 2022: "The Commerce Department said on Tuesday that the trade deficit increased 27.0% last year [2021] to an all-time high of $859.1 billion. The deficit was at $676.7 billion in 2020. 'The US trade picture won't return to normal until the pandemic purchases start to slow and life returns to what it was,' said Christopher Rupkey, chief economist at FWDBONDS in New York."

In retrospect and considering this fuller context, it's hard not to see our text about the 12-year record high monthly trade deficit in July 2020 as a cherrypicked "gotcha" moment more reminiscent of a political campaign attack ad than an encyclopedia article. Moreover, what relevance does this data point have to Trump's overall biography? Would it be justifiable to note the record 2021 trade deficit in Biden's BLP (despite the obvious implication that there is very little any one man, even the president, can do in the face of a nearly unprecedented global pandemic/supply chain crisis)? Furthermore, please bear in mind that, contrary to rhetoric by Trump himself and by other politicians, economists do not generally believe that reducing the national trade deficit is an unalloyed good or the metric by which to evaluate the health of the economy.

To be clear, there may be comprehensive academic sources that could support a more objective (and clearly relevant) statement to the effect that (even before the pandemic) Trump's tariffs failed in their stated objective "to significantly reduce the U.S.'s large trade deficits," which I would fully support (provided the sourcing is there). However, the cheap one-liner we have now just doesn't cut it, in my view. In sum: I think that the sentence in question should be removed (and possibly replaced along the lines suggested above); failing that, it should at least be modified to better match the AP source (about this being the monthly trade deficit in July 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic). Thoughts?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Remove it. It's misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The cherry-picked gotcha moment per the AP: "The U.S. trade deficit surged in July to $63.6 billion, the highest level in 12 years, as imports jumped by a record amount. ... When Donald Trump campaigned for president in 2016 he pledged to sharply lower the country’s large trade deficits, especially with China, which for years has been the country with the largest trade surplus with the United States." The cited source juxtaposes Trump's campaign pledge with the reality 3.5 years after he took office. The trade deficit during Biden's tenure is of no concern here, take it up with the editors on that page. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Right, and as explained in greater detail above, rather than selecting just a single month (with an unusually high trade deficit, during a global pandemic) to score this partisan talking point, you should (especially now that Trump has left office) use retrospective academic sources evaluating the economic data from all 48 months of Trump's presidency. If such sources show that (even before the pandemic) Trump's tariffs failed in their stated objective "to significantly reduce the U.S.'s large trade deficits," that would be noteworthy encyclopedic content—which an attack ad-style "gotcha" moment never is.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

CNBC and its finance industry "experts" are not the best sources for matters of economics, policy, and international relations. I suggest we find one or more notable economists' assessments of the issue. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I checked Google Scholar and could not find a source discussing all four years of Trump's presidency (on the first page of the search results, at least), but I have modified Donald Trump#Trade to give a more representative overview of the topic, focusing on the failure of the Trump tariffs to reduce the trade deficit during 2018. See the difference between the old and new revisions in the respective links.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You used a primary source (a paper published by Trump's "economic advisory team") for the campaign pledge part to make a point that the original RS made. I think that's WP:SYNTH? You cited one source (a financial markets research company guy quoted by CNBC) saying the trade deficit wasn't "normal" because of the pandemic. The point of our current sentence is that, while Trump said he could fix the deficit, he couldn't. Consumers went on an extended shopping spree for cars and consumer goods. Seems those are often manufactured abroad which apparently was news to Trump and his advisory team. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• "You used a primary source (a paper published by Trump's 'economic advisory team') for the campaign pledge part to make a point that the original RS made. I think that's WP:SYNTH?" As explained in my edit summary, that content was merged with attribution from Presidency of Donald Trump#Economy (where it is evidently long-standing). You could have simply removed that sentence if you perceived a SYNTH or WP:OR issue, but I did not.
• "You cited one source (a financial markets research company guy quoted by CNBC) saying the trade deficit wasn't 'normal' because of the pandemic." That's largely incorrect in that I did not cite CNBC in article space or for any edit (although I quoted CNBC regarding the record 2021 trade deficit, above, here on the talk page). In fact, your own Associated Press source states that "[t]he pandemic has seriously disrupted global supply chains this year [2020] and economists said while it was good news to see trade rebounding now, the gains are coming from very low levels."
• Based on your comment, it seems unlikely that you carefully read both revisions (as suggested above) and simply reverted based on the prior conversation/my edit summary. The only original text that I authored in my edit is the following:

However, the overall U.S. trade deficit increased by 12.5% in 2018, with the goods trade deficit with China seeing a particularly large increase. The Economic Policy Institute stated in March 2019 that "[t]he rapid growth of U.S. trade deficits reflect the failure of Trump administration trade policies".

(Needless to say, even if it supports a less spectacular assertion than made in your preferred revision, this is hardly content favorable to Trump's trade policies, and my source is the Economic Policy Institute, not CNBC.)

Why is the monthly data point from July 2020, which your own AP source describes as an outlier and which Jack Upland called "misleading" above, the only one that you want to emphasize—as opposed to the above revision based on the annual figures from 2017 and 2018 showing the trade deficit grew by 12.5%? Aren't the annual figures from 2017 and 2018 more representative, more useful to the reader, and more likely to quiet Trump fans who will instinctively dismiss the July 2020 figure as an obvious cherrypicked outlier because—let's face it—it is exactly that? I even did the work for you and got the figures for 2017 and 2018, showing that the Trump tariffs (even before the pandemic) failed to achieve their primary stated objective, but you still reverted without engaging with that content at all in your reply. This does not seem like collaborative behavior.

If we can't reach agreement on a replacement text, then we may have to modify the existing text to accurately reflect the AP source (about this being the monthly trade deficit in July 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic), which the now-current version manifestly does not do—or (as Jack Upland suggested) simply remove it altogether as WP:UNDUE (without a replacement, since you rejected the proposed replacement at this time).

• "Consumers went on an extended shopping spree for cars and consumer goods. Seems those are often manufactured abroad which apparently was news to Trump and his advisory team." Correct, and this was also predicted by one of the sources that I found on Google Scholar, "The Economic Consequences of Mr Trump": "The consequences of Mr Trump's first economic policy initiative—the tax cuts and the larger budget deficit—are primarily macro-economic. ... The consequences of the second—increases or threats of increases in protection—are essentially micro-economic, affecting the allocation of resources across different economic activities." (p. 411); "One element of the low savings of the United States is the recent Trump-determined fiscal deficit. Thus macro-economic policy is in the way of what appears to be a target that he wants to achieve by protectionist—id est microeconomic—policy. But he is unlikely to achieve this target because of macroeconomic prospects." (p. 414).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

BTW, Space4Time3Continuum2x, per your comment it seems that the only portion of my edit that you are contesting is the part that I did not even write, but rather was merged from Presidency of Donald Trump#Economy, citing Trump campaign material as background information. That same information (on Trump's pledge to reduce the trade deficit) can instead be sourced to "The Economic Consequences of Mr Trump" (or any number of other reliable sources) or simply omitted altogether, while retaining the rest of my edit (i.e., "the overall U.S. trade deficit increased by 12.5% in 2018 ... "). Can I reinstate my edit with those modifications, or do you have another (unstated) objection in addition to the one that you stated in your comment?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It will take me a while to work through this wall of text, including the text you merged from another article where it is evidently long-standing & therefore not written by you, just copied into this article (?). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing your proposed edit: the first sentence is cited to Trump's website, which isn't appropriate. The second and third sentences are sourced to the Economic Policy Institute, which appears to be a partisan think tank; they're not credible for these claims, though they might be perfectly credible in other articles. We should also strongly avoid quoting a single person describing a policy as a "failure". If there is consensus (among prominent reputable experts, not think tankers) that it was a failure, then it's preferrable to avoid directly labelling it a failure (too vague), and instead to mention what makes it a failure (e.g. the deficit reached its highest level in 12 years) for precision and conciseness. I don't see anything wrong with the passage as it is, though it should be replaced with proper scholarship once that's available. DFlhb (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

“Worst President”??

It states he was the worst presidents. I feel this is extremely controversial and should be removed, as it is one’s opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrayolaTeam (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The article states this is the belief of scholars and historians - this is notable enough for inclusion. — Czello 18:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

CrayloaTeam, did you read the rest of the sentence and the sources attached to it, or only the two words "worst president"? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

One could mention "some scholars" instead. The way that the statement is written implies that all objective historians and scholars have deemed him as one of the worst presidents. Nkienzle (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

They have, and it is not a mere implication. In 4 different rankings, Trump has been ranked between the 42nd and the 44th position. The Siena College specifically cites his overall lack of accomplishments as the reason they placed him at the bottom. Dimadick (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Reacted Slowly to Covid Pandemic

"reacted slowly to the COVID-19 Pandemic" is an opinionated statement and should be changed, especially with the development of the vaccine and democrats calling his border closing xenophobic. Nkienzle (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nkienzle:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. (please note that most paragraphs in the lead of this article are established by longstanding consensus.) Colonestarrice (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Outdated statement in social media section

(Revision permalink)

Trump's attempts to re-establish a social media presence were unsuccessful.

This is sourced to an outdated June 2021 article, which predates the Feb 2022 launch of Truth Social. The next two sentences imply that nothing happened between Trump's blog shutting down and his Twitter reinstatement. And the sentence after that mentions Truth Social out of nowhere, but isn't coherent with what comes before.

Taking a step back: it's clear that neither Rumble nor Trump's blog are due here, since neither received sustained coverage.

Proposal

Delete:

Later in June, Trump joined the video platform Rumble and began to post the messages of his website blog on the Twitter account of a spokesperson. Trump's attempts to re-establish a social media presence were unsuccessful. In May 2021 he launched a blog that had low readership and was closed after less than a month.

Keep:

On November 19, 2022, Twitter owner Elon Musk reinstated Trump's account. Trump had said that he would stay on his own media platform Truth Social.

That sentence comes right after my proposed deletion. DFlhb (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• support removal, clearly WP:RECENTISM Anon0098 (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change to external links

Revision permalink.

I don't believe there is previous consensus on any of these. These proposals each stand on their own, and are not mutually exclusive, so please weigh in on each.

Proposal A: remove the following external link:

• Trump's news blog

It now a redirect to a donation page.

Proposal B: remove the following external link:

• Donald Trump collected news and commentary from The New York Times

I see no reason to elevate the NYT's coverage above others. This link merely shows recent articles about Trump; it's not a fancy visualization, or deep-dive, or a single page that seeks to seriously evaluate Trump's record. This link also violates WP:ELREG since these articles require a subscription to view.

Proposal C: remove the following external link:

• Talking About Donald Trump at The Interviews: An Oral History of Television

I don't see the dueness of this. This links to a nonprofit project that interviews prominent and non-prominent figures in the television industry. There seem to be only 17 interviews, each with an average length of only two minutes. I see no encyclopedic or historical value. If we have an article on celebrities' views of Donald Trump, this would belong there. DFlhb (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)