Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:34, 29 December 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (Index):

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q1: This page is biased towards/against Trump because it mentions/doesn't mention x. Why won't you fix it?

A1: Having a neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to all viewpoints. Rather, it refers to Wikipedia's effort to discuss topics and viewpoints in a roughly equal proportion to the degree that they are discussed in reliable sources, which in political articles is mostly mainstream media, although academic works are also sometimes used. For further information, please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.

Q2: Donald Trump has been convicted in the New York trial on felony charges. Why doesn't the opening sentence say that he is a convicted felon?

A2: Wikipedia works by consensus; new information can only be added if it is either uncontroversial or if there is community consensus in favour of the addition.

A discussion on the topic of whether the first sentence should use the wording of convicted felon was held, and the outcome was 'No Consensus'; per Wikipedia's established policy and practice, this means that change is not endorsed by the community, and that the requested addition should not be made.
While consensus can change, before opening a new discussion on the same topic, at minimum, read the previous discussion and either bring new arguments or attempt to address existing arguments against the inclusion of the 'convicted felon' wording. Remember that the policy based arguments are given most weight. Failure to heed this advice may result in your discussion being summarily closed.

Please remember that the Wikipedia community does not contest or dispute the fact that the subject is a duly convicted felon, as established by the relevant reliable sources. The choice not to include such wording in the opening sentence is not meant to indicate endorsement of or opposition to Donald Trump, and is not motivated by partisan animus. Rather, this is an editorial choice, rooted in existing long-standing and community-endorsed policy.

Q3: A recent request for comment had X votes for support and Y votes for oppose. Why was it closed as no consensus when one position had more support than the other?

A3: Wikipedia is built on consensus, which means that editors and contributors here debate the merits of adding, subtracting, or rearranging the information. Consensus is not a vote, rather it is a discussion among community members over how best to interpret and apply information within the bounds of our policy and guideline infrastructure. Often, but not always, the community finds itself unable to obtain consensus for changes or inclusions to the article. In other cases, the community may decide that consensus exists to add or modify material based on the strength of the arguments made by members citing relevant policy and guideline related material here. This can create confusion for new comers or those unfamiliar with Wikipedia's consensus building processes, especial since consensus can change. While all are welcome to participate in consensus building, keep in mind that the best positions for or against including material are based on policy and guideline pages, so it may be in your best interest to read up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before diving into the debates.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Want to add new information about Donald Trump?
Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:

... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Business B‑class Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Donald Trump

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

New York City B‑class High‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism B‑class High‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: American / Political parties B‑class High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government B‑class Top‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

Template:WP1.0

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Television B‑class Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other talk page banners

Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 2, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
February 12, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 18, 2016	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 25, 2017	Good article nominee	Not listed
December 2, 2018	Good article nominee	Not listed
July 15, 2019	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 31, 2019	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 29, 2020	Peer review	Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Vital article

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 125 times. The weeks in which this happened:

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Section sizes

Section size for Donald Trump (95 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	10,468	10,468
Personal life	20	22,622
Early life	5,318	5,318
Family	1,584	1,584
Religion	2,488	2,488
Health habits	3,534	3,534
Wealth	9,678	9,678
Business career	148	36,882
Real estate	2,030	14,203
Manhattan and Chicago developments	6,494	6,494
Atlantic City casinos	4,039	4,039
Clubs	1,640	1,640
Licensing of the Trump brand	1,708	1,708
Side ventures	7,103	10,333
Trump University	3,230	3,230
Foundation	5,695	5,695
Legal affairs and bankruptcies	4,795	4,795
Media career	58	5,342
Books	1,108	1,108
Film and television	4,176	4,176
Political career	2,269	27,859
Presidential campaigns (2000–2016)	2,645	25,590
2016 presidential campaign	7,459	22,945
Campaign rhetoric and political positions	6,944	6,944
Financial disclosures	3,452	3,452
Election to the presidency	5,090	5,090
Presidency (2017–2021)	125	205,006
Early actions	2,211	2,211
Conflicts of interest	3,455	3,455
Domestic policy	24	24,694
Economy	4,089	4,089
Climate change, environment, and energy	4,713	4,713
Deregulation	3,544	3,544
Health care	4,130	4,130
Social issues	8,194	8,194
Pardons and commutations	2,572	2,572
Immigration	5,048	23,639
Travel ban	5,258	5,258
Family separation at the border	6,641	6,641
Trump wall and government shutdown	6,692	6,692
Foreign policy	3,235	37,827
Trade	2,551	2,551
Russia	4,929	4,929
China	5,466	5,466
North Korea	5,773	5,773
Afghanistan	3,082	3,082
Israel	2,683	2,683
Saudi Arabia	2,250	2,250
Syria	3,998	3,998
Iran	3,860	3,860
Personnel	8,912	8,912
Judiciary	4,723	4,723
COVID-19 pandemic	291	32,615
Initial response	7,932	7,932
White House Coronavirus Task Force	6,073	6,073
World Health Organization	2,683	2,683
Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures	8,240	8,240
Political pressure on health agencies	2,682	2,682
Outbreak at the White House	2,318	2,318
Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign	2,396	2,396
Investigations	4,173	26,039
Russian election interference	6,499	6,499
FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations	2,573	2,573
Mueller investigation	12,794	12,794
First impeachment	6,833	10,454
Impeachment trial in the Senate	3,621	3,621
2020 presidential campaign	4,756	4,756
2020 presidential election	3,583	22,984
False claims of voting fraud, attempt to prevent presidential transition	9,083	9,083
Concern about a possible coup attempt or military action	2,868	2,868
January 6 Capitol attack	4,055	4,055
Second impeachment	3,395	3,395
Post-presidency (2021–present)	5,052	50,685
Business activities	2,382	2,382
Investigations, criminal indictments and convictions, civil lawsuits	1,134	28,287
FBI investigations	5,489	5,489
Criminal referral by the House January 6 Committee	683	683
Federal and state criminal indictments	7,533	7,533
Criminal conviction in the 2016 campaign fraud case	7,749	7,749
Civil judgments against Trump	5,699	5,699
2024 presidential campaign	14,964	14,964
Public image	58	55,539
Scholarly assessment and public approval surveys	6,679	6,679
False or misleading statements	9,465	9,465
Promotion of conspiracy theories	4,236	4,236
Incitement of violence	3,159	3,159
Social media	6,118	6,118
Relationship with the press	6,114	6,114
Racial views	14,208	14,208
Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct	4,894	4,894
Popular culture	608	608
Notes	136	136
References	30	1,189
Works cited	1,159	1,159
External links	5,580	5,580
Total	421,308	421,308

Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Wikipedia". New York Post.
Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Wikipedia page". The Verge.
Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Wikipedia, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times.
Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com.
Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Wikipedia is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post.
Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Wikipedia pages". The Washington Post.
Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Wikipedia pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News.
Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Wikipedia editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge.
Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Wikipedia". The Daily Dot.
Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge.
Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Wikipedia vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today.
Griffin, Andrew (23 November 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Wikipedia edit". The Independent.
Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Wikipedia page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek.
Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Wikipedia war has kicked off again". The Inquirer.
Brandom, Russell (December 3, 2018). "Wikipedia engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge.
Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Wikipedia Entry Is a War Zone". Slate.
Alex Pasternack (7 March 2020). "How Wikipedia's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company. Retrieved 9 March 2020.
Brian Flood (21 May 2020). "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News. Retrieved 22 May 2020.
Dan Evon (11 November 2020). "Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump's Wikipedia Page?". Snopes. Retrieved 19 November 2020.

Section sizes

Section size for Donald Trump (95 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	10,468	10,468
Personal life	20	22,622
Early life	5,318	5,318
Family	1,584	1,584
Religion	2,488	2,488
Health habits	3,534	3,534
Wealth	9,678	9,678
Business career	148	36,882
Real estate	2,030	14,203
Manhattan and Chicago developments	6,494	6,494
Atlantic City casinos	4,039	4,039
Clubs	1,640	1,640
Licensing of the Trump brand	1,708	1,708
Side ventures	7,103	10,333
Trump University	3,230	3,230
Foundation	5,695	5,695
Legal affairs and bankruptcies	4,795	4,795
Media career	58	5,342
Books	1,108	1,108
Film and television	4,176	4,176
Political career	2,269	27,859
Presidential campaigns (2000–2016)	2,645	25,590
2016 presidential campaign	7,459	22,945
Campaign rhetoric and political positions	6,944	6,944
Financial disclosures	3,452	3,452
Election to the presidency	5,090	5,090
Presidency (2017–2021)	125	205,006
Early actions	2,211	2,211
Conflicts of interest	3,455	3,455
Domestic policy	24	24,694
Economy	4,089	4,089
Climate change, environment, and energy	4,713	4,713
Deregulation	3,544	3,544
Health care	4,130	4,130
Social issues	8,194	8,194
Pardons and commutations	2,572	2,572
Immigration	5,048	23,639
Travel ban	5,258	5,258
Family separation at the border	6,641	6,641
Trump wall and government shutdown	6,692	6,692
Foreign policy	3,235	37,827
Trade	2,551	2,551
Russia	4,929	4,929
China	5,466	5,466
North Korea	5,773	5,773
Afghanistan	3,082	3,082
Israel	2,683	2,683
Saudi Arabia	2,250	2,250
Syria	3,998	3,998
Iran	3,860	3,860
Personnel	8,912	8,912
Judiciary	4,723	4,723
COVID-19 pandemic	291	32,615
Initial response	7,932	7,932
White House Coronavirus Task Force	6,073	6,073
World Health Organization	2,683	2,683
Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures	8,240	8,240
Political pressure on health agencies	2,682	2,682
Outbreak at the White House	2,318	2,318
Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign	2,396	2,396
Investigations	4,173	26,039
Russian election interference	6,499	6,499
FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations	2,573	2,573
Mueller investigation	12,794	12,794
First impeachment	6,833	10,454
Impeachment trial in the Senate	3,621	3,621
2020 presidential campaign	4,756	4,756
2020 presidential election	3,583	22,984
False claims of voting fraud, attempt to prevent presidential transition	9,083	9,083
Concern about a possible coup attempt or military action	2,868	2,868
January 6 Capitol attack	4,055	4,055
Second impeachment	3,395	3,395
Post-presidency (2021–present)	5,052	50,685
Business activities	2,382	2,382
Investigations, criminal indictments and convictions, civil lawsuits	1,134	28,287
FBI investigations	5,489	5,489
Criminal referral by the House January 6 Committee	683	683
Federal and state criminal indictments	7,533	7,533
Criminal conviction in the 2016 campaign fraud case	7,749	7,749
Civil judgments against Trump	5,699	5,699
2024 presidential campaign	14,964	14,964
Public image	58	55,539
Scholarly assessment and public approval surveys	6,679	6,679
False or misleading statements	9,465	9,465
Promotion of conspiracy theories	4,236	4,236
Incitement of violence	3,159	3,159
Social media	6,118	6,118
Relationship with the press	6,114	6,114
Racial views	14,208	14,208
Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct	4,894	4,894
Popular culture	608	608
Notes	136	136
References	30	1,189
Works cited	1,159	1,159
External links	5,580	5,580
Total	421,308	421,308

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 purge this page.

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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

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

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

10. Canceled

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

11. Superseded by #17

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

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: should we add a wiki-link to article subsection President Trump's statements on the Unite the Right rally?

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

Consensus not to add link. I don't always just count opinions in an RfC, but in a case about including a second link to the same article in the same sentence ... where there are clearly very fine people on both sides ... --GRuban (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add this this wiki-link to the first two words (Trump's comments) of the below paragraph in Donald Trump#Racial views? starship .paint (exalt) 08:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

Option A (proposed change) Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, condemning "this egregious display...

Option B (status quo) Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, condemning "this egregious display...

We've had discussions with differing views so I thought it should be settled thus. starship .paint (exalt) 08:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Option A - the focus of the paragraph is Trump's statements, so we should wiki-link "Trump's comments" to the 3,000+ words "Trump's statements" subsection of the Unite the Right rally article. If readers click the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia link, they will either need to read through 9,000+ prior words to get to "Trump's statements", or they will need to find the 26th to 30th subsections out of 45 subsections'. Why make life hard for readers? Retain the link to the rally for those interested in the big picture, and add a specific link to his statements for those focused on Trump. starship .paint (exalt) 08:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't need to read through 9,000+ prior words to get to "Trump's statements", or they will need to find the 26th to 30th subsections out of 45 subsections'. They just need to look at the table of contents. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a large table of contents and they wouldn't try to find something in it if they didn't know it was there. The very benign wikilink would direct the reader to the detailed discussion about Trump's comment. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. I don't think it has a significant impact one way or another. ––FormalDude talk 08:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. the status quo, longstanding article text reflecting Option B? SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have no strong feelings one way or the other. The day I start arguing over stuff like this is the day I stop editing Wikipedia. ––FormalDude talk 05:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed a similar reaction to this RfC in the discussion section below. Just saying here that without affirmative consensus to change or add the section link, the status quo Option B will remain. It's very unfortunate that this issue was elevated to an RfC, but I do think it is important to reject that model of escalating a failed proposal. SPECIFICO talk 06:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option B. The link to 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia is more helpful to because it provides context for readers not familiar with or even aware of the events (nazi salutes and imagery, racist and antisemitic chants, armed militia groups, a vehicular homicide). We don't need a direct link to the subsection on Trump's statements since this article quotes the comments that were widely critized, and we cite the sources with the details of the criticism. Also, I took a long look at the comment's section which turned out to be a shaggy dog story kind of collection of everything anybody ever said about anything, including Bannon getting fired on August 18, on the heels of an American Prospect interview, in which he mockingly downplayed Trump's threats of military action on North Korea, and put down his administration colleagues and the far-right, which White House aides felt would likely provoke Trump. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees—serves to confuse readers rather than give further information. That's not a subsection we should be linking to (subsection to the "Reactions" section). I was trying hard to assume good faith but I got the impression that the purpose of all that verbiage is to hide the forest. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option C If we link to his comments section, why do we need to link to the rally as well?Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option A The proposed wikilink informs the reader of a Wikipedia section that is a detailed discussion of Trump's remarks about the rally. All we need to do is take what is already in the text, "Trump's comments", and make it a wikilink, "Trump's comments". Bob K31416 (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option B Per the consensus already reached in the talk thread prior to this RfC, a reader wishing further content about Trump's remarks will need to understand further context as to issues and events surrounding and at the rally. Cutting to the garbled and isolated subsection proposed in Option A provides no such critical information. Further per my comment in the discussion section below, I think this is an abominable misuse of the RfC process, which uses lots of editor resources and should be reserved for significant intractible disputes. SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option B, two wikilinks to the same article even in the same article, let alone in the same sentence, is redundant and discouraged. The article linked to already contains the section for any interested reader to view. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option A, Trump's remarks are a significant and distinctive aspect of the Unite the Right rally article. The remarks are significant enough that they would arguably merita a stand-alone article. Adding the link would allow the reader direct access to the discussion on the remarks, without having to read the earlier part of the article. Pakbelang (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option A - It would make sense to me that a link outgoing from the Donald Trump article would go to the relevant section about his statements about the rally. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PraiseVivec: Its not that simple. The issue is not his comment in isolation. It is how he described the rally, its participants, and the actions and events therein. This context is not within the narrow section link, which would be a whitewash (yes) of his messaging around the event. Btw, if you will read that section, you'll see it is not well written. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC) Repair @PraiseVivec:19:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's five statements are discussed in that section and there is an intro that was recently added by Space4Time3Continuum2x. In fact, Space4Time3Continuum2x started working on that section after this RFC started and has made a considerable number of additions and changes. As is now and before, when the reader goes to click on the link to the section, they see a popup that is a preview of the whole article replete with a picture of people carrying Confederate and Nazi flags. And the wikilink to the article is in the same sentence. There's no whitewash as you say. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option B - it seems extremely redundant to have both links go to the same article, especially when this is additionally filled with extra inline references as well. This appears to be putting far to much WP:WEIGHT on this issue. TiggerJay (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option B Linking to the same place twice within the same article is redundant and encroaches into the realm of "overlinking" WP:OVERLINKWritethisway (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option A - Firstly, this kind of a petty thing to have a RfC on, I agree with FormalDude that this is pretty insignificant. There are really two arguments against the inclusion of the comments link: that we shouldn't change longstanding text and it's redundant. MOS:REPEATLINK states duplicating links should be avoided; however, I don't see this really as a duplicate link since the go to different places, just within the same article. The Unite the Right Rally is a big article and IMO it would be helpful to readers to pinpoint Trumps comments and provide a general link in case their unfamiliar with the event. I understand that this is changing longstanding text, but I doubt any discussion before would be a powerful enough precedent to override this RfC's consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option B It just seems very redundant to have two links in the same sentence for the same article. Mgasparin (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option A - It's an "ease of finding information" link. I don't see how it lends extra weight, it just seems to be an accessibility thing here. Fieari (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option B - link to Trump's comments, aren't required. GoodDay (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Bob K31416, Slatersteven, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and SPECIFICO: - participated in Donald Trump#Very fine people, see above. starship .paint (exalt) 08:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude, GoodDay, and Firefangledfeathers: - participated in Donald Trump#Very fine people, see above. starship .paint (exalt) 08:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TFD and Pakbelang: - participated in Donald Trump#Very fine people, see above. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abort trivial redundant RfC - We can't have RfC's for every little edit based on one editor's apparent obsession with a minor content issue. At most, @Starship.paint: if you think it needs closure, file a "request for closure". The issiue has been more than sufficiently discussed already and a compromise solution implemented by SpaceX. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(1) There's more support beyond Bob. (2) I don't feel there was a consensus in the above discussion. (3) Obviously I feel that the compromise solution is not good enough. starship .paint (exalt) 15:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your (1) is false. We already knew your other points (2) and (3). You did not address my two larger objective concerns. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How can (1) be false when I support the change? That’s more than Bob already. starship .paint (exalt) 00:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding two sources is not a compromise. The purpose of Wikipedia is to take information from sources and organize it for readers to be informed, not just supply a few sources. The section of the wikilink Trump's comments" does this with many references. There were 30 sources in the first subsection alone. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I meant that getting rid of your "statements" link and keeping the contextualizing rally link is the valid compromise. SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By statements link do you mean the proposal of this RFC? Then that's not a compromise. It's just denying the proposal. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, I did not realize that the page link was longstanding consensus text. But now that you've pointed that out, everyone can see that there was no affirmative consensus to change the longstanding text and you should have given up this tempest in a teapot long ago. SPECIFICO talk 22:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do as you wish. I've grown fatigued with the continuing content disputes at this bio article. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re Seraphimblade's comment, "The article linked to already contains the section for any interested reader to view." — Without a link to the section with a detailed discussion of Trump's comment, the reader would most likely not know about the section. Another editor noted, "If readers click the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia link, they will either need to read through 9,000+ prior words to get to "Trump's statements", or they will need to find the 26th to 30th subsections out of 45 subsections'.[1] And they wouldn't try to find a section that they didn't know existed. Bob K31416 (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

they will either need to read through 9,000+ prior words to get to "Trump's statements", or they will need to find the 26th to 30th subsections out of 45 subsections' That's why articles have tables of content. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They wouldn't try to find a section in the large table of contents if that they didn't know it existed. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob K31416: WTH? Kindly move my edit back to where you found it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob K31416: Kindly move my edit back as well.I hope the irony is not lost on you about readers not knowing where to find pertinent text. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that at Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#Challenged_change_of_subsection_heading_"President_Trump's_statements", Space4Time3Continuum2x and Specifico are trying to change the heading of the subject section, in which case links to the section that were made in the RFC, survey and discussion won't work. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC is about linking to the subsection. If the heading of the subsection is modified and if the consensus of the RfC is to link to the heading, we can change the link to Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, condemning "this egregious display—the text doesn't look any different. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC) @Starship.paint: Or you could change the link in Option A now? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The heading change would disrupt the discussion here where the link is used in various places. The heading has been in the article over there for four years. It would take awhile to regain stability if it was changed and the links here would have to be changed each time the heading may be changed. Why can't you wait until after this RFC is over to try to change it? Bob K31416 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The heading change can be accomplished with no disruption using Template:Anchor. I added one at that article so "#President Trump's statements" links still work. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! I accept that. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original section heading change by Space4Time3Continuum2x that broke the wikilink discussed in this RFC, caused a disruption of this RFC, which is now back on track. Space4Time3Continuum2x is currently working on that section and I hope there isn't any more disruption as a result. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Feathers. I didn't know about anchors. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've done about as much as I can to improve the article in this respect. It's taken a lot of my time and it's time for me to leave. I hope the RFC gets consensus. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formal closure requested. starship .paint (exalt) 14:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Merica, Dan (August 26, 2017). "Trump: 'Both sides' to blame for Charlottesville". CNN. Retrieved January 13, 2018.
^ Johnson, Jenna; Wagner, John (August 12, 2017). "Trump condemns Charlottesville violence but doesn't single out white nationalists". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 22, 2021.
^ Kessler, Glenn (May 8, 2020). "The 'very fine people' at Charlottesville: Who were they?". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 23, 2021.
^ Holan, Angie Dobric (April 26, 2019). "In Context: Donald Trump's 'very fine people on both sides' remarks (transcript)". PolitiFact. Retrieved October 22, 2021.

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

RfC Russian Bounties claims

This sandbox is in the Talk namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template.

RETAIN, BUT ADD CONTEXT

I've been brought here by WP:RFCL to close, so here I am. Looking at the rough survey, this seems somewhat evenly divided in terms of !votes. Going into the actual !votes themselves though, I see a few kinds of arguments.

On the "remove" side, most !voters issues appear to be that the story about Trump is "disputed" and that the current wording does not adequately convey that. To quote someone in favour of removal, OgamD218 says that "This wording fails to accurately convey the information and gives that section of the article an overly critical tone and the impression of bias." Iamreallygoodatcheckers mentions a lack of "appropriate context". This appears to be the central theme of the people in favor of removal; the specific wording of the content does not adequately reflect the story or is in some way biased. Only a few !voters such as Adoring nanny say that there should be no reference made to this controversy whatsoever and it would appear many "removers" seek to just remove this particular wording.
There are also some points on both sides that I will be ignoring. One !vote alleges that remove voters have "have made their bias for Trump clear over the years", another accuses "an editor very much on one side of trying to pass as independent", and another !vote by Space4Time3Continuum2x says that Trump had a "responsibility as president and commander in chief to ensure the safety of the troops and to bring the alleged threats up in one of his "chummy chats"". I mention these arguments because I will be ignoring them, since the first & second ones verge on personal attacks and the third is irrelevant, as whether or not Trump's actions was a "dereliction of duty" is a political argument about the underlying issue and does not address what our coverage of the issue should be.
To cover the main theme of the "retain" side, the main belief appears to be arguing against a wholesale removal of any coverage regarding this controversy. Not many of the !voters seem to be attached to the specific wording in question and some appear to support some kind of change to the wording. FormalDude expresses in response to a "remove" voter seeking to add context that FormalDude was "not against including that", but that they were "against removing the text altogether." LondonIP !voted explicitly to "Keep and provide context".

Keeping this in mind, I'll close with a consensus of retain, but add context. The biggest issue with this RfC is that it presupposes a choice between removing this sentence and having no coverage, or keeping this sentence as the only coverage. This is a false dichotomy and there seems to be rough agreement that some coverage of the Russian bounty controversy and its relation to Trump be maintained, but that the current wording of the coverage could be altered or contextualized. That being said, no consensus on any potential alternate wordings has appeared here as no potential alternate wordings have emerged. Another discussion will likely be necessary to workshop a better wording that may be agreed on by the participants here. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should the article continue to include that Trump "never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan"? Firefangledfeathers 14:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Until my comment above (an attempt at a 'brief, neutral statement'), the top comment in this discussion was OgamD218's, just below. Firefangledfeathers 14:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certain editors have insisted on retaining this content : that Trump "never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan." This wording fails to accurately convey the information and gives that section of the article an overly critical tone and the impression of bias. Trump maintained from the onset that allegations of Russia putting bounties on American soldiers fighting in Afghanistan were patently false. In fact from day one Trump referred to such claims as a "hoax". The citation this content uses barely touches the subject but is from the final days of Trump's presidency. Unlike many other instances where Trump labeled events fake news just bc he didn't like it-initial reports on the bounty subject admitted intelligence was not yet conclusive; as time has gone on there has only been increased reason to doubt the truthfulness of these claims. Trump never backed down from his original stance on the issue. Even still, Russia may have put bounties on American soldiers but the criticism, without relevant context, that Trump never confronted Putin on this issue is nonsensical as it implies it would or should be expected for him to "confront", a foreign head of state, over unverified claims he committed acts of war even though he publicly referred to such claims as untrue in the strongest terms. OgamD218 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2020 AP source used for the item was about hacking and didn't even have a full sentence about the bounties. An April 2021 AP article, after Biden was in office, was devoted to the bounties subject, White House: Intel on Russian ‘bounties’ on US troops shaky. The item in the first AP article and Wikipedia is misleading, especially by not mentioning that the bounty subject is based on questionable intelligence. Bob K31416 (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC) Delete the text. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this should be included. It isn't clear that the Russian bounties existed.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support including the disputed text. This source sums up my thoughts: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/u-s-officials-say-intel-russian-bounties-was-less-conclusive-n1233199. ––FormalDude

^talk 09:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: I read that article, though it brings up some important and certainly relevant points I honestly don't see how it stands to prop up your position that we should include this specific content. If anything this source bolsters the ambiguity around the validity of the bounty claim and even states Trump has long called it a hoax. I ask again, why insist on retaining wording critical of Trump for not calling out Putin for something Trump did not even believe to be real? OgamD218 (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since then, Ken Dilainian of NBC has revisited the subject: "While he was campaigning for president, Joe Biden treated as fact that U.S. intel agencies had determined Russia had paid the Taliban to kill Americans in Afghanistan....Such a definitive statement was questionable even then. On Thursday, it became more clear that the truth of the matter is unresolved."[2]

FormalDude, do you know if Biden has asked Putin about it? Maybe Putin can ask him if the moon landing was faked and where Obama was actually born.

TFD (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Biden raised the subject of the reported bounties on U.S. troops during his first call with Putin on Jan. 26, the White House said at the time. No mention of the topic was revealed by the White House after their latest call on Tuesday.

Defense officials and military commanders repeatedly said that the reports of bounties had not been corroborated by defense intelligence agencies and that they were not convinced the reports were credible. They also said they didn’t believe any bounties resulted in U.S. military deaths."[3]

Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As the source claims the story is disputed. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC

Retain - oppose removing the text. Whether or not you call the alleged offers of payment bounty, incentives, or financial transfers and whether or not they resulted in actual casualties, it was still Trump’s responsibility as president and commander in chief to ensure the safety of the troops and to bring the alleged threats up in one of his "chummy chats" with Putin. O’Brien said that Trump was not briefed on the matter (the AP source BobK mentioned), while Haspel said he was (see hatted quote).

Hatting long quote

The suggestion of a Russian bounty program began, another source directly familiar with the matter said, with a raid by CIA paramilitary officers that captured Taliban documents describing Russian payments.
Taliban detainee told the CIA such a program existed, the source said, although the term "bounty" was never used. Later, the CIA was able to document financial transfers between Russian military intelligence and the Taliban, and establish there had been travel by key Russian officers to Afghanistan and by relevant Taliban figures to Russia.
That intelligence was reviewed by CIA Director Gina Haspel and placed in Trump's daily intelligence briefing book earlier this year, officials have said. The source described the intelligence as compelling, but meriting further investigation. Nonetheless, current and former U.S. officials have said, many CIA officers and analysts came to believe a bounty program existed. They concluded that the Russians viewed it as a proportional response to the U.S. arming of Ukrainian units fighting Russian forces in Crimea, the source said.

A sitting president not reading his intelligence briefings—if you believe that’s what happened—is dereliction of duty, not an excuse. Military commanders not changing their force protection posture in Afghanistan at the time—it’s not as if anyone was cavorting around the countryside sightseeing, shopping for souvenirs, and enjoying the local cuisine. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All one has to do is read the article linked to in the above message [4] to see that the above message is a misrepresentation of that article. And by the way, editors should not express their personal opinions or advocacy regarding Trump. That's a symptom of bias. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We don't want to know what some Wikipedia editor thinks Trump should have done. He certainly didn't have a duty to bring up every intelligence report with Putin.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It's UNDUE. Please see WP:ONUS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. "The intelligence was based on notoriously unreliable “detainee reporting,” the official said on the call, meaning that it came from militants looking to get out of jail."[5] -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retain text This narrative was well-covered by sources at the time, the subsequent and routine denials by the former administration do not really matter. Zaathras (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that an RfC is a good idea here. The downside of a simple conversion from discussion to RfC is that the original post is not a "brief, neutral statement" as required by WP:RFCOPEN. While we're in the early stages, OgamD218, could you rephrase your opening comment? You might choose to copy your original below so later readers can reference what others were responding to. I'd suggest something simple like:
Should the article continue to include that Trump "never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan"?
Firefangledfeathers 13:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: Being aware of the neutrality expectation, I would have preferred a different opening as well. I weighed this vs the appearance of being disingenuous and misleading as to how this post started, proceeded and got where we are now. I'll also admit to having somewhat limited experience in this area as well. If you think that that is how it is best to proceed then by all means. I personally see no issue. OgamD218 (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable concern! I hope that the version I implemented in this edit helps more than it hurts. Firefangledfeathers 14:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so would I be wrong to conclude that unless more editors weigh in within the next 24 hours then the consensus here is that the content should be removed? OgamD218 (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@OgamD218: You removed the text without even waiting for your 24 hours to elapse. There is no consensus above to remove the text. Please self-revert your removal. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I waited longer than 24 hours actually? OgamD218 (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake -- mobile edit glitch. But there are two more important problems. First, having reviewed this as an uninvolved editor, I see no consensus to remove in the above thread. Second, you have no standing to impose a deadline for others to respond further. Also, this having been a US holiday, there was little reason to think that any editor would take the time to reiterate views already clearly expressed above. Please continue to present your views on the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there's no consensus to keep it. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt but I'm struggling to see how you honestly should be recognized as an "uninvolved editor" vs an editor very much on one side of trying to pass as independent. If I had in fact fact failed to wait the full 24 hours I think you'd be in the right, except I had, despite the mistake being on you, you chose instead to skip responding here and revert the change anyway=giving the impression you were going to find an excuse to do so regardless. But maybe I am wrong, it is easy to misinterpret one's motivation (we're editing the page for Donald Trump); it seems to me that the consensus is clear, 5 editors favor removal, 3 oppose removal/wish to retain. After almost 4 days of no other editors weighing I posted, *in the form of a question, that I would go ahead unless more editors contributed in 24 hours-at which time this discussion would be a week old, with all involved editors no longer posting/debating having voiced their respective positions for 5 days or more ago. After 24 hours, no other editors weighed, yes in light of the American holiday I waited an additional 16 hours-nothing changed. The only new posts to have been from you, who unilaterally reverted the change discussed here without discussion/under questionable circumstances. Another editor, @GoodDay: who has been involved in this thread since the beginning also weighed in agreeing that this should be removed, @Bob K31416 and Bob K31416:, who has also been involved from the beginning restored the agreed upon change. @Zaathras:, another involved editor, reverted-though and once again this is troubling, did not comment any further, instead putting in their edit summary let the debate continue-though they themselves did not continue debating or say/do anything else including post here or take advantage of or even object to the extended to 24 hour window. This was all hours ago and still no more editors have weighed in leaving the consensus still in favor of removal. Notably, no editor accepted my invitation to suggest even new wording. The debate has been had, I remain fully open to more debate but as the situation stands, the debate is over, a majority favor removing the text, editors that do not agree with this should at the very least take greater initiative than stubbornly insisting that this drag out just because they don't like the result. OgamD218 (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had no participation in anything related to this issue, nor having reviewed it do I have any opinion as to the content or sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I didn't make any edit on this topic, that was reverted. I think you meant Bob. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: sorry my mistake, thank you for letting me know, I just corrected it. OgamD218 (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: Today you did participate, and your participation has been far from token. Yes, had you reviewed it then you would have been made aware that a consensus was reached. I say again, it is at the very least suspect that you go around thinking of reasons to retain content that you apparently had neither reviewed nor have an opinion on. OgamD218 (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just replaced the AP cite, which only mentioned the alleged bounties in a half-sentence, with a Politico article that discusses all aspects of the matter. I also replaced "confronted" with "brought up". It doesn't matter whether or not Russia had a bounty program or whether the alleged program resulted in American death's and/or payouts. Our sentence merely said that Trump "never confronted Putin over [Russia's] alleged bounties against American soldiers". I haven't seen any sources saying that he shouldn't have discussed the matter with Putin. The officials quoted in the sources merely said that the low to moderate certainty of the ~~intelligency~~ intelligence community did not warrant any military or other punitive actions. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have to disagree: It does matter whether or not Russia had a bounty program, it also matters whether or not the alleged program resulted in American death's and/or payouts for killings. With that said I’m not sure if these changes are at all substantial enough to matter as far as a significant enough change to overcome the consensus that the material should be removed but at least we’re making some progress. OgamD218 (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to remove this content. SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just added Trump not discussing Russian support for the Taliban to the article, with the NBC source FormalDude mentioned here some days ago. Another instance where Trump argued that he wasn't briefed/informed and that he didn't bring it up with Putin because "we did it too". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't belong here. Barack Obama and Joe Biden, by the way, never brought up Iran's and China's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan with Xi Jinping and Iranian leaders nor their support of the Taliban with weapons, supplies, money, and propaganda.[6],[7] It's UNDUE and BLP violation. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's whataboutism, Toby. If you have an editing suggestion for the Barack Obama or Joe Biden articles, then make them at Talk:Barack Obama or Talk:Joe Biden, respectively. Zaathras (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tobby72, your reversion has already been reverted but I'd still like to know where you see synth and blp in [Russia's] support of the Taliban with weapons, supplies, money, and propaganda. Please explain. As for Iran's and China's alleged bounties, where's your source on China? One of your two Iran sources, CNN, is about the 2016 "not-a-ransom money-for-prisoners" swap (Iranian money the U.S. had kept—possibly illegally—since the ouster of the Shah) and doesn't mention Afghanistan or the Taliban. If you think the 2010 allegations of Iranian payments for attacks on Americans (your NBC source) should be added to Obama's page, then that's the place to discuss it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the 2010 allegations of Iranian bounties should be added to Obama's page, per WP:ONUS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. As for Iran's and China's alleged bounties, see[8],[9]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal - the existence of these bounties are disputed. Saying that he never spoke to Putin about it creates a balance issue because it doesn't provide appropriate context. It might be ok to say that Trump denied the existence of these bounties and didn't mention it to Putin, but saying he just didn't ask him like he was just bad at his job is a WP:NPOV concern. As this text reads now remove it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: I find your stance here to be rather contradictory. If you think the text needs to mention Trump's denial of the existence of the bounties, support that. Cleanup is better than blanking. ––FormalDude ^talk 22:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude:, I've honestly been wondering this whole time as to why you don't at the very least think that? Trump is polarizing and reasonable people will expectedly hold a wide range views here-but it is simply nonsensical to defend including content critical of him for not addressing over an allegation he called a hoax. Serious people do not confront each other over claims they very openly don't believe to be meritorious. OgamD218 (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@OgamD218: I'm not against including that, I'm against removing the text altogether. Trump's denial of the bounties as a hoax is not notable in and of itself. The situation is, at the time, all U.S. intelligence agencies were reporting that (to the best of their knowledge) there were Russian-backed bounties on U.S. troops. The Commander-in-Chief therefore going against their own intelligence agencies and saying they don't believe it is only notable in that context. You cannot only include his denial without mentioning the history of the reports of the bounties, which are still not unconfirmed. That would be FALSEBALANCE. ––FormalDude ^talk 22:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: both the tense and original sourcing for this content was from the time the allegations first came to light through the conclusion of Trump's presidency he did not confront/address the matter with Putin. By the end of Trump's Presidency the allegations had been increasingly called into doubt. However, at no point did a single U.S. intelligence agency report that to the best of their knowledge there existed Russian backed bounties on U.S. servicemen. From the onset the intelligence reports were not conclusive with the CIA only briefly describing the allegations as "plausible" or "credibly sourced" but still not "certain". At no point ever did all or even most U.S. Intelligence Agencies stand by the Russia bounties claims-if they had yes I would agree with you. My understanding is only the NCC shared the CIA's initial assessment with both the NSA and MI stating that while they too were uncertain, they had not found sufficient evidence to substantiate such claims, even at the CIA's lower level of confidence. OgamD218 (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@OgamD218: Well what I said is indeed true, so you should agree with me. Here's some cooberating sources:

That Trump was briefed on the intelligence and remembers it, and lied to the American people:

That every intelligence agency reported at least some evidence that Russia paid bounties for attacks on Americans:

@FormalDude: We never went over the whole when was Trump really informed about these suspicious, everything I've seen so far though says that Trump was definitely provided the relevant reports though whether or not and when his staff brought them to his attention is unknown, he may have simply lied about all this however (that's the side I'm on lol) or also possible, not taken them seriously and forgot. But once again we did not go over this yet. With regards to your second point, those sources do not come close to corroborating the claim that all US intelligence agencies (theres like 19) stood by the allegations at some point. Further, you originally claimed the situation is, at the time, all U.S. intelligence agencies were reporting that (to the best of their knowledge) there were Russian-backed bounties on U.S. troops, this is a very far cry from at least some evidence, especially when that "some evidence" several agencies referred to was simply provided to them by the CIA, not independently gathered.OgamD218 (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little too much grasping at straws for me. ––FormalDude

^talk 00:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grasping at straws? Give me a break. You claimed *"all" US intel agencies reported it + *as true to the best of their knowledge; out of 17 USIA, 1-2 reported it, zero gave any such assurances as to its validity.OgamD218 (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per others. Seems to be an attempt to soften the edges of some of the former administration's controversies, but the sources still exist to cover this, then as now. ValarianB (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ValarianB: Thank you for joining the discussion. Please self-revert your unexplained restoration of new content pertinent to this RfC. OgamD218 (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are your objections against the reliably sourced content? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article edit [10] and restore [11]disrupts this RFC by adding to the sentence that is being considered for deletion. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new material that disrupts this RFC [12] is being edit warred into the article [13] [14] [15] without getting consensus on this Talk page. Two of the three restores were made recently by Zaathras. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zaathras added material to the Donald Trump article [16]. It was reverted and Zaathras restored it [17] without discussing it after the editor Zaathras first added it, thus violating ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES. I'm not inclined to pursue it because I'm cutting back on my Wikipedia time, but anyone else is welcome to do it if they have the time. Bob K31416 (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must need new glasses. The (below) tally keeps changing back-and-forth, between hatted & un-hatted. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: yes lol, SPECIFICO keeps trying to on their own self appointed authority deem sections irrelevant. From the beginning SPECIFICO has lied and misrepresented their intentions here so especially now that their disruptions have arisen to concealing content, I'm not gonna give the benefit of the doubt but will wait for an actual uninvolved editor. OgamD218 (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@OgamD218: Please strike your personal attack against SPECIFICO. ––FormalDude

^talk 00:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Keep / Oppose Removal - It's well sourced and well covered. A single sentence is not WP:UNDUE given the coverage it received. Fieari (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Keep A rumour which snowballed into a a political opinion, enveloping various shades of lie, now commonly understood as much less real or meaningful than it seemed. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Favor removal First of all, thank you to the editors below for making it more clear who has !voted for what. We should give more WP:WEIGHT to the more recently published sources, which cast doubt on the entire event.LM2000 (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Keep / Oppose Removal since well sourced and well covered. Feedback request Bot brought me, an univolved editor, here on 29 November 2021 and I have been watching and studying the discussion ever since. I want to point out, that in this RfC many, if not most editors who are for removal, have made their bias for Trump clear over the years, in numerous edits on this and other pages and they are not uninvolved or neutral WP editors. Also, I had asked OgamD218 to update the tally and see he finally did it, but he still left SPECIFICO out. --Wuerzele (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wuerzele: As always I try to assume good faith but you're giving me at least some reasons not too. Since you have an issue with the motivations of many if not most of the editors who happen to disagree with you on this, please speak up and address these issues, that is kind of the point of all this and honestly it is a pertinent issue on this page that shouldn't be passively alluded too. I will say it is hard to view your post as being that of a legitimate neutral observer, while space is limited on a page like this, it stretches the bounds of reason to try and pass off the content in question as "well covered". I will make sure to include you and SPECIFICO in the next tally. My intentions were/are to update the tally in the next day or so, it seems logical to give it about week in between but that's just me-if you object by all means do it yourself, I am not in charge here. As a final point, this is now the second time (the first was on my talk page) that you have gone out of your way to-while posing as a neutral observer inform me only of untallied votes from editors who wish to retain this content, or in other words editors who agree with you. Between last week and today you noted I forgot to include a total of 3 votes to retain but somehow forgot to mention a greater number of untallied removal votes on both occasions..........OgamD218 (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ogam, it's not your role to keep a vote count on this discussion. Please don't do that any more. Also, please stop personal disparagement of other editors and focus only on the content issue at hand. SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We prefer to try to not presume editors personal politics or intentions. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The two !votes below were salvaged from the collapsed Tally subsection. Alaexis_¿question? 11:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove reference to disputed story. If we aren't even sure that X is true, how can failure to address X be biographical? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove or provide context. According to the latest assessments the US intelligence has "low to moderate" confidence in these allegations[18]. It can still be mentioned in the context of the presidential campaign (e.g.,"Trump was accused by Biden of not raising the issue of alleged Russian bounties with Putin") if reliable sources consider this accusation important. I have no opinion whether it's in the scope of this article. Alaexis_¿question? 11:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and provide context as it as notable as it is disputed. LondonIP (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hatting blow-by-blow bludgeon. SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tally and updates
change from hat to cot (collapse without close), so as not to suppress legitimate comments but to save space. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tally

It seems this situation has largely stagnated with very little momentum favoring a change in the content and almost all participating editors having by now only made clear their stance on whether or not the original sentence merits inclusion. This is the tally I am able to discern since the thread began 10 days ago. Please let me know if I make any errors.

In order of when each editor gave their position :

@Bob K31416: Favors removal/opposes retaining (1)

@Jack Upland: Favors removal/opposes retaining (2)

@FormalDude:: Opposes removal/favors retaining [1]

@The Four Deuces: Favors removal/opposes retaining (3)

@GoodDay: Favors removal/opposes retaining (4)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Opposes removal/favors retaining [2]

@Tobby72: Favors removal/opposes retaining (5)

@Zaathras: Opposes removal/favors retaining [3]

I also favor removal/oppose retaining the referenced content in its present form. (6)

By my count, this brings the tally to 6 editors in favor of removal/oppose retaining vs 3 editors in opposition to removal/in favor of retaining. I have pinged all involved in hopes that if anybody notices a material mistake in this summary it will be duly noted. New editors are obviously still welcome to weigh in but seeing as none have in over a week, if if no one does so soon, this needs to be closed. OgamD218 (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see no consensus to remove this so I oppose removal. It is adequately sourced and significant. Note, it will not be up to you, Ogam, to determine the resolution of your own proposal. SPECIFICO talk 03:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be removed. Whether or not it will be, isn't my decision to make. GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nor mine, but yes, erase that mistake (per the 70%). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@OgamD21:Just as a note, this hasn't been opened as an RfC, so there is no official expectation for a closure. If one is desired it can be requested at WP:RFCL, which would probably be for the best, either that or actually tagging it as an RfC which it has effectively become. BSMRD (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should really be an RfC in order to get sufficient community input. ––FormalDude

^talk 06:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BSMRD:, @FormalDude:, I agree. I was attempting to resolve this less formally and without too much contentious back and forth or edit warring but it does not seem to be working out. From the beginning I've attempted to maximize input and to be clear I never acted as though I had final say in resolving this (unlike SPECIFICO, who not keeps lying and making up reasons to stop an edit that they don't like from being made, despite a firm majority of involved editors agreeing should be.) A clear majority of editors have agreed with me from the beginning and despite that fact I did not leap at the opportunity to have my way. OgamD218 (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove reference to disputed story. If we aren't even sure that X is true, how can failure to address X be biographical? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove or provide context. According to the latest assessments the US intelligence has "low to moderate" confidence in these allegations[19]. It can still be mentioned in the context of the presidential campaign (e.g.,"Trump was accused by Biden of not raising the issue of alleged Russian bounties with Putin") if reliable sources consider this accusation important. I have no opinion whether it's in the scope of this article. Alaexis_¿question? 11:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to the general list of !votes. Adoring nanny, please let me know if you have objections to moving your vote. Alaexis_¿question? 11:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update/Survey

@Bob K31416: Favors removal/opposes retaining (1)

@Jack Upland: Favors removal/opposes retaining (2)

@FormalDude:: Opposes removal/favors retaining [1]

@The Four Deuces: Favors removal/opposes retaining (3)

@GoodDay: Favors removal/opposes retaining (4)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Opposes removal/favors retaining [2]

@Tobby72: Favors removal/opposes retaining (5)

@Zaathras: Opposes removal/favors retaining [3]

I also favor removal/oppose retaining the referenced content in its present form. (6)

@ValerianB: Opposes removal/favors retaining [4]

@InedibleHulk: Favors removal/opposes retaining (7)

@Fieari: Opposes removal/favors retaining [5]

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Favors removal/opposes retaining (8)

There is no consensus to remove. I therefore favor retaining. SPECIFICO talk 04:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, this brings the tally to 8 editors who favor removal/oppose retaining vs 5 editors in opposition to removal/in favor of retaining. I have pinged all involved in hopes that if anybody notices a material mistake in this summary it will be duly noted. New editors are obviously still welcome to weigh in. OgamD218 (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second Update

@Bob K31416: Favors removal/opposes retaining (1)

@Jack Upland: Favors removal/opposes retaining (2)

@FormalDude:: Opposes removal/favors retaining [1]

@The Four Deuces: Favors removal/opposes retaining (3)

@GoodDay: Favors removal/opposes retaining (4)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Opposes removal/favors retaining [2]

@Tobby72: Favors removal/opposes retaining (5)

@Zaathras: Opposes removal/favors retaining [3]

I also favor removal/oppose retaining the referenced content in its present form. (6)

@ValerianB: Opposes removal/favors retaining [4]

@InedibleHulk: Favors removal/opposes retaining (7)

@Fieari: Opposes removal/favors retaining [5]

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Favors removal/opposes retaining (8)

@SPECIFICO: Opposes removal/favors retaining [6]

@LM2000: Favors removal/opposes retaining (9)

@Wuerzele: Opposes removal/favors retaining [7]

@Adoring nanny: Favors removal/opposes retaining (10)

@Alaexis: Favors removal/opposes retaining (11)

By my count, this brings the tally to 11 editors who favor removal/oppose retaining vs 7 editors in opposition to removal/in favor of retaining. I have pinged all involved in hopes that if anybody notices a material mistake in this summary it will be duly noted. New editors are obviously still welcome to weigh in. OgamD218 (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not helpful, and borders on disruptive. It is not up to you, a participant, to gauge consensus of the discussion, that is left to a neutral and uninvolved participant when the time comes. Zaathras (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Recommend the supports & the opposes be placed (above somewhere) into a sub-section called 'survey'. Would make it easier to read over the RFC for the closer. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion RFC's do not and should not have a floor manager. I was summoned by a bot, have reviewed the article, reviewed the discussion, and found no strong reason to keep the disputed phrase. However, I find the discussion flawed by well intentioned but inappropriate hovering by OgamD218 (OgdamD218). Consequently, I do not see this exchange of views as useful—it can not really settle anything. With subject so contentious, an RFC proposal needs to be clean as a whistle—in the initial, impartial, and short statement and without one single editor dominating the discussion. A redo, if the phrase is still contentious to the pont of edit warring, is necessary for the outcome to be authoritative. I have no objection to OgdamD218 starting a new RFC after reading other rfcs on contentious issues that closed with an enforceable conclusion, a conclusion that was accepted by editors on both sides of the narrowly posed question. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 23:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In all likelihood, the RFC closer will ignore the tally lists. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they don't violate Wikipedia policies or guidelines, editors are free to comment on this talk page and they should not be suppressed. The closing is disruptive and serves no purpose but to suppress an editor's legitimate comments. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob K31416, perhaps you need to read up on this process at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, especially the "Ending RfCs" section. A RfC discussion is going to be closed with a consensus or lack thereof at some point. These don't run indefinitely. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the Tally and updates part that was closed by an editor, not the RFC. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob K31416: nowhere has an editor been suppressed; all posts still exist. No section has been closed. It is quite common for parts of a lengthy discussion to be hatted to make the many views expressed more accessible to late-comers. Once a section of the discussion has reached an impasse, hatting just makes plowing through the entire accumulation optional. I thank that's very helpful. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 14:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments aren't relevant to the Tally and updates. The closing is disruptive and is an attempt at suppression of any future updates and discussion. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC had not been closed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lets put it like this Wikipedia is not a democracy, and an RFC closer does not base his close on the number of votes, but rather on the quality of the arguments. If 100 users vote "Because Donald is the sexiest man on earth and I want to have his babies" and one user votes "it violates this policy, and here is why" the one user wins, as his policy-based argument is better. Thus a tally of just votes is in no way helpful (as the closer still needs to read ALL the arguments), and in fact, is disruptive as it adds to the closers workload (forcing them to read posts that add nothing to the debate).Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing time

I've put in a request for closure, now that the RfC tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Russia – Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA)

This information was removed (diff) by User:Space4Time3Continuum2x, with the following edit summary: "No consensus to include." I think it is relevant and should be included.

In 2017, Trump signed the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which has targeted Russia's oil and gas industry, defence and security sectors, and financial institutions,^[1]^[2]^[3] and his administration imposed sanctions on several third countries for buying Russian weapons.^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ "US sanctions on Russia could harm India. Congress is wrestling over a fix". Defense News. July 18, 2018.
^ "CAATSA designed not to take punitive action against friends, allies: US diplomat". The Economic Times. December 18, 2020.
^ "U.S. imposes sanctions on Russian vessel involved with Nord Stream 2 pipeline". Reuters. January 19, 2021.
^ "Trump signs bill approving new sanctions against Russia". CNN. August 3, 2017.
^ Storey, Ian (November 21, 2018). "US assault on Russian arms exports could misfire in Asia". Nikkei Asian Review. Archived from the original on July 1, 2019.
^ "U.S. sanctions Turkey over purchase of Russian S-400 missile system". CNBC. December 14, 2020.

-- Tobby72 (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I objected to this addition, too, when you first proposed it two weeks ago in U.S.—Russian relations, Igor Danchenko. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment appears to be false. Perhaps I missed something? Bob K31416 (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was phrased a little differently but linked to the same piece of legislation: In 2017, Trump signed the legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see no connection to Trump. Like all US presidents, Trump signed many bills on which they took no initiative or involvement. This appears to be one of them. See here SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The connection to Trump is that he didn't like the bill and submitted a signing statement against the bill he signed. I object to the sentence proposed by Tobby72 because it's clear that he did not sign the bill willingly. It was either that or his veto would be overridden (it passed the House 419-3 and the Senate 98-2). It would need lots of additional context and belongs on the Presidency of Donald Trump article, not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(response to Tobby72) Trump & Biden both imposed travel bans on some African countries. Do we/should we includes those? or place them in their administration articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is this in response to? Seems to refer to COVID19-related travel restrictions. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All such details, are best kept in the administration articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: wrote: ":All such details, are best kept in the administration articles." What do you think about this content?: Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7. (Trump also wanted to include India, South Korea and Australia [20]), and The Trump administration "water[ed] down the toughest penalties the U.S. had imposed on Russian entities" after its 2014 annexation of Crimea (In 2020, the Trump administration imposed new sanctions[21]). Should we includes those? or place them in their administration articles. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Trump administration article. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Trump supported the potential return of Russia to the G7". The word "potential" seems redundant there. --Khajidha (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What this appears to be as an attempt to synthesise] a purported instance of Trump being "tough on Russia" to counterbalance the claims in other sources that he was soft. ValarianB (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not synthesis but your remark that sources claim Trump was soft on Russia is synthesis, unless you can find in the given sources where they explicitly say that. Bob K31416 (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob K31416, 37 Times Trump Was Soft On Russia, CNN – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry picking. We would find a lot of examples when he was "tough" on Russia ([22],[23],[24]), a lot of examples when he was "soft" on Russia, a lot of examples when he was "tough" (or "soft") on China, and also a lot of examples when Bill Clinton ([25],[26]), Barack Obama ([27],[28]) or Joe Biden ([29],[30]) were "tough" (and "soft") on Russia, Iran or China. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're the one cherrypicking. Consensus of RS is that Trump was soft on Russia, and I provided an "overview" source for it documenting 37 specific examples. This relates to sanctions placed by Obama and Trump not giving a waiver because of appearances, this says he "gently criticized" Russia in a speech as Trump sought to ease the nerves of U.S. allies after failing in May to endorse the principle of collective defense enshrined in Article Five of the NATO treaty, and here he says "Russia is not helping us at all with North Korea" but does nothing. That's "tough"? That's whining. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Any denial of cherrypicking that begins "We would find a lot of examples..." isn't likely to make it across the finish line. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump: “We urge Russia to cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere and its support for hostile regimes including Syria and Iran... Do you think this is a "gentle" criticism of Russia? Muboshgu: "Consensus of RS is that Trump was soft on Russia..." In my opinion, most of the mainstream media is biased against Trump. A May 2017 study from Harvard University's Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy of Trump's first 100 days in office found that 93% of CNN & NBC coverage of President Trump during the period was negative. The survey also found 91% of CBS coverage was negative and that 87% of The New York Times coverage was negative during Trump's first 100 days.[31],[32]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A cherry! Does that sound like Trump's voice to you? What's the link to the context? SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump says U.S. is committed to NATO defense, knocks Russia over Ukraine, Reuters, July 6, 2017. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bush (43), Obama, Trump, Biden. I've given up on any of those bios ever being truly NPOV. You want changes made? go the RFC route. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, most of the mainstream media is biased against Trump. What can I do other than throw up my hands at a comment like that? The mainstream media is what it is, they're the only one we have. If you argue that the referees are biased, you're left with delegitimizing the whole game. And they've been negative to Biden too. Not the same way of course, because they're different people. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's material that isn't anti-Trump in main stream media reliable sources and is meeting severe resistance against being put in this Wikipedia article and is being suppressed. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What? The sources that Tobby72 cherrypicked? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RS news media, if that is what you reference, is (in the aggregate) not pro- or anti- Trump. It's our NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 03:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News media endorsements in the 2020 United States presidential election pretty clearly shows which ones aren't even feigning impartiality. Trying to adhere to NPOV in relaying these media's opinions of subjects they openly oppose is one thing, and wise. But pretending the pro-Biden, pro-Clinton or pro-Anyone-But-Trump political news publishers themselves are neutral is a second, more foolish thing to do. No question there are many. But anti-Trump mainstream media isn't the only kind we have; it's just treated favourably by those most invested in maintaining this anti-Trump article. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And no, that's not a knock on you. Just a friendly nod to your colleague. Maybe a general wave at everyone in that virtual smoky backroom, all good fun, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper editorial boards make endorsements and write other opinion pieces that are not RS, but for basic facts. Journalists write the articles that are RS. And the skew of anti-Trump articles in the MSM is likely not as bad as you'd expect, at least when compared to a different POTUS. But yes I do agree that that talk page comment linked above was in poor taste. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the comment was in poor taste, I think it was honest and transparent, hence the friendly nod. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We all have our biases. Hopefully we check them at the door before editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If "we" means editors who dislike Trump and belittle the reliable mainstream sources which don't agree he's soft on, gay for or otherwise subservient to Russia/Putin, it's too late to hope. I know who "they" are, and so do a lot of outside observers. They've written entire categories of articles based on and in furtherance of that disputed opinion, not just most of their least favourite politician's bio; we whose biases are apolitical or pro-Trump have long used those talk pages to explain this conflict of interest to the same seven or so regulars, and made no progress. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

we whose biases are apolitical or pro-Trump need to take a look at the FAQ at the top of this talk page, stop whining, and make specific proposals for improvement of the article "based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a previous comment, Tobby72 presented an article from Reuters, Trump says U.S. is committed to NATO defense, knocks Russia over Ukraine. Is there anything in that article that you think should be put in this Wikipedia article? Bob K31416 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birth place in infobox

The guidelines are pretty clear that neighbourhoods should generally not be included in the infobox for the birth/death place. I would be in favour of “New York City, New York, U.S.” being used instead. Is there any particular reason why this is not the case here? --IWI (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per consensus, item 2. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus that makes no sense. Put me down for "New York, New York, United States". --Khajidha (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The proposer of the October 2018 discussion pointed out that When the average person (including most New Yorkers) hear New York City, they think of Manhattan. Queens is not a neighborhood, it is by far the largest borough in land area and the second in population (2.4 million). Jamaica Estates is the upper-middle class neighborhood in Queens where Trump grew up. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Queens "a neighborhood" belies a rather stark misunderstanding of the NYC borough system. They are the equivalent of a county. ValarianB (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And we don't normally list county of birth. --Khajidha (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and "we don't normally" is not synonymous with "we never". NYC boroughs are more uniquely-identifying, culturally and historically, than a regular state county is. So in this instance, we have chosen to list it in this subject's biography. ValarianB (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His family's NY roots across the river has been cited as a defining insecurity of Trump, who boldly moved into the mainstream of the city by initiating projects and seeking public attention in Manhattan. Queens is significant and should be noted in the infobox. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is better handled as text. None of that is conveyed by the presence or absence of Queens in the infobox. --Khajidha (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the text and should be reflected and conveyed in the infobox summary. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"New York City, New York, US" would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to the factors others have raised. This is not a vote. SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 US Census figures
1	Los Angeles	3,898,747
2	Chicago	2,746,388
3	Brooklyn	2,736,074
4	Queens	2,405,464
5	Houston	2,304,580
6	Manhattan	1,694,251
7	Phoenix	1,608,139
8	Philadelphia	1,603,797
9	The Bronx	1,472,654
10	San Antonio	1,434,625

I hate seeing "New York City, New York". That's so vague. Each borough is like a city unto itself. According to the 2020 census, Brooklyn and Queens each have more people than every U.S. city aside from Los Angeles and Chicago. Each of the five boroughs aside from Staten Island would be in the top 10 for population if considered separately. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New York City is sufficiently well known that most people have heard of the five boroughs. In popular culture, Archie Bunker and Frank Costanza lived in Queen's. More people have heard of Queen's than Scranton, Pennsylvania, or most of the other municipalities where modern U.S. presidents were born. TFD (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EXACTLY. Prince Akeem didn't go to NYC to find a bride in Coming to America, he went to Queens. There's No Sleep till Brooklyn. We also have The King of Staten Island, currently dating out of his league. I feel very strongly about listing "Borough, New York" for NYC, I should probably start an RfC on this somehwere. I've added this table showing what the top 10 cities of the U.S. by population would look like if we separated the five boroughs. Four out of the five are in the top ten, and Staten Island, at 495,747, fits in between Atlanta and Omaha. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"My eyes are getting weary, my back is getting tight, sitting here in traffic on the Queensboro Bridge tonight"—King of Queens. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not care what it is. I still do not see why it cannot be a neighborhood, so I’ll vote for that, but really it is fairly innocuous. (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might be a little late to this discussion, but I am definitely in favor of including the specific borough rather than simply NYC in general. It is impossible for someone to live in NYC without living in one of the five boroughs, so for the sake of precision, the borough should be included. --Zander251 (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not too late to join this discussion. I'm thinking about what next steps might be, after updating this infobox to Queens. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Infobox has been saying "Queens, New York City" for at least two years, "U.S." was added in February 2021 after this exchange between two editors who decided to ignore the consensus formed in this discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Both FBI investigations were discontinued"

Space4Time3Continuum2x, it is true that both investigations were discontinued, but not for the same reasons. Crossfire Hurricane was folded into the Mueller investigation, but not "after deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein gave the bureau the false impression that the incipient Special Counsel investigation would pursue" it. That was true only for the "counterintelligence investigation into Trump's personal and business dealings with Russia."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&curid=4848272&diff=1060922675&oldid=1060863813

soibangla (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Space4Time3Continuum2x, this doesn't fix it. soibangla (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The latter investigation was discontinued appears to imply that the former was continued. Per the NY Times:

NYT excerpt

Mr. McCabe pushed Mr. Rosenstein to appoint a special counsel to conduct the investigation into Mr. Trump and the broader examination of Russia’s interference in the election. Two days later, Mr. Rosenstein appointed Mr. Mueller.

“It was the most enormous exhale of my life,” Mr. McCabe said. “I had been holding my breath” since the night Mr. Comey was fired, he added.

That day, Mr. Rosenstein joined Mr. McCabe while he briefed lawmakers about matters including the counterintelligence investigation and raised no objections.

The following day, Mr. McCabe briefed Mr. Mueller and his top deputies on the investigation into the president. But Mr. McCabe did not know that Mr. Rosenstein also gave his instruction to Mr. Mueller around that time to focus on whether crimes were committed. Mr. Mueller later told Congress he did not conduct a counterintelligence investigation. Mr. McCabe did not know that Mr. Rosenstein also gave his instruction to Mr. Mueller around that time to focus on whether crimes were committed. Mr. Mueller later told Congress he did not conduct a counterintelligence investigation.

I read that to mean that the FBI/their acting director McCabe believed Mueller was taking over both investigations when Rosenstein's instructions had limited the Special Counsel's investigation to "crimes committed". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iran deal

I object to this removal because Trump had long said he could negotiate a better deal, it wasn't merely a campaign promise that should be relegated to his campaign article, it was a core foreign policy position for years. If his BLP is to include the Iran deal, we must make it clear that the policy failed. soibangla (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Trump spoke at length, both during the campaign and during his presdidency about how he would negotiate a tougher deal than the Accord. This was a feature of his personal profile over the course of at least 5 years. The content should be restored alongside the additional text that replaced it. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't/couldn't follow through on many campaign promises. What makes this one special? The accord was bad but Trump's withdrawal, egged on by Netanyahu, made things much worse (Ha'Aretz, Atlantic). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The withdrawal is in the lead, but we never mention its outcome, that it made things much worse soibangla (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Strongly agree with the reasoning above. Cpotisch (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep out Trump ignored numerous campaign promises, how in the world is this one significant? He didn't get Middle East peace, renegotiate numerous trade deals, build a wall along the entire border etc. so how is this broken promise notable? Bill Williams 08:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What text do you suggest to reflect your "Trump ignored numerous campaign promises"? SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep out Covered by Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency.... InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you don't mean to suggest that a false statement of fact is the same as a failure to fulfil a commitment or a negligent boast? It's not "covered" by something completely different. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you say you'll do something, then don't, that statement is proven false. If people took it to signal a step in the untaken direction, it was misleading. And don't call me Shelley! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was not responsive to the question I asked directly above, which identified the equivocation in your preceding post, an equivication that nullifies your argument. SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In other words, yes, I mean to suggest that a false statement of fact is the same as a failure to fulfil a commitment (if expressly stated) or a negligent boast. Happy? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is far less about a false or misleading statement than it is about a major foreign policy failure. soibangla (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not major. Iran had already formally disregarded the agreement nobody was practically enforcing anyway, and continued to enrich uranium peacefully under Obama. The exact same speculative alarmism about a potential nuclear attack simply didn't change after Trump falsely claimed he'd better deal with the supposed ongoing threat, misleading those who take campaign promises seriously. Killing Soleimani, now that was a major international failure. Declaring the IRGC an FTO was also a legit boner. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I, alone, can fix it" he said at his inaugural. Fix DPRK? Nope. Fix China? Nope. Fix Iran? Nope. Those are the Big Three of his foreign policy. We note the outcomes of DPRK and China in the lead and we should note the Iran outcome as well. soibangla (talk)

Those are your Big Three. A Syrian, Mexican or Dane might think other global intelligence failures were bigger. A Nigerian, Afghan or Venezuelan, same thing. Anyway, major or not, he didn't "fix" whatever "it" was supposed to be, especially "alone". Since the sentence on his lying doesn't limit itself to big or small untruths, I still feel it can include any Big Three (and every Bottom 50). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Mueller investigation.

Please re-read the report, which states that there was no Trump-Russia collusion.. There was however, the Hilliary Clinton-Russia-Steele collusion. 107.77.237.191 (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm – Muboshgu (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite which pages of the report state that. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump & CIA: "Borrowing From Nixon's Playbook"

Christopher R. Moran; Richard J. Aldrich;

Moran, Christopher R.; Aldrich, Richard J. (4 December 2017). "Trump and the CIA". Foreign Affairs. via: google docs. ISSN 0015-7120. Retrieved 19 December 2021. www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2017-04-24/trump-and-cia

0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

0mtwb9gd5wx, do you have a specific edit in mind that you'd like to see made using this source? Please propose one. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removals by Spy-cicle

Spy-cicle, you removed content with the rationale of "Revert bold additions to lead," but:

You also removed the cited Gallup findings from the body.

Is it unreasonable to include that Gallup sentence in the lead, just before the findings of scholars and historians, and in order to support the body content?

Is it untrue Trump "made no progress in constraining Iran's nuclear ambitions," as cited in the body and in the lead of Iran deal, and which is actually a generous characterization?

Is it untrue he "initiated a trade war with China?"

Is it untrue the trade war was "widely characterized as a failure" as cited in the body, and with ten solid citations in the lead of China–United States trade war? soibangla (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon somebody else restored your edits. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To answer you points:

Did not intend to remove that from the body

Yes, it's WP:UNDUE, the lead is already too lengthy

Not untrue, but the lead is already too long as it is, sentence about each agreement adjustment under Trump (for example we could his withdrawal from the Paris agreement was critized by climate activists and climate scientists, but we do not have space on his personal biography space)

The wording was better before.

I refer to my previous points before about the lead already being too long.

Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 01:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead too long does not make content UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 03:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Space4Time3Continuum2x, do you believe it is neither notable nor leadworthy that Trump is the only one to not hit 50% in over 80 years, especially in conjunction with the consensus of scholars and historians that he is among the worst presidents in history? soibangla (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National polls are irrelevant, since the national popular vote doesn't always win you the presidency. Ya gotta win the popular vote on a state-by-state basis. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue your point is irrelevant because we're not talking about how elections are won, but rather the national sentiment. soibangla (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose what you're proposing, as it's (IMHO) irrelevant info. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made up my mind yet, still weighing lead being too long versus noteworthyness. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is not particularly long. Anyway as to noteworthiness, polls are widely reported and discussed in RS -- especially notable national tracking polls, so I don't think it's up to WP editors to say they are insignificant. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The guy's been out of office nearly a whole year. Wouldn't it be best to concentrate on the current president, concerning opinion polls? GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how Biden enters into this. A better question is why this Gallup content wasn't included months ago. soibangla (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a number of sources other than Gallup reporting on itself (Fortune, CNN, New York Magazine, The Wrap, Vox, 538). I just don't know how leadworthy one poll among many is—see 538, for example. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gallup pioneered modern polling in the 1930s. They've been asking the presidential approval question since 1938, encompassing thirteen previous presidents. This is why it stands out. Its combination with findings of scholars/historians makes it even more notable. soibangla (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If yas wanna have polling in the bios of former presidents, which cover their time in office? then fine. IMHO, that info is best placed in the president's or former president's administration article. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's Gallup polling is unique among fourteen modern presidents. soibangla (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is lots of respected polling that finds his unpopularity was largely due to personal traits and behaviors rather than his politcal views and the actions of his administration. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"And" or "but" made no progress, again

I still think the "but" before the Iran progress has the same inexplicably gratuitous condescending attitude it has with the Korean result, and maintain "and" better reflects the unremarkability of such routine diplomatic outcomes.

The unusual part is only that an American president tried and failed on Trump's watch, rather than the ambassadors, spies and unclassified state department delegates his successor and predecessors usually send to no avail. But make no mistake, a president is traditionally permitted to act as a high-ranking diplomat when it suits his or his nation's interests, and it's in that capacity he should be appraised. Same as how he could have been judged as a general if he'd chosen drone warfare over fruitless conversation.

Anyway, when the Korean version of this closed, it seemed "and" was up 4-2, or at least 3-2. Could we reach a firm consensus this time, or at least a compromise draft we all find merely reasonably unobjectionable? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a conjunction is just a conjunction, not a Mustela. IMO "but" is the appropriate conjunction in both cases. We’re not just adding information, we’re adding unexpected or different information—that is, unexpected and different than the outcomes Trump promised/predicted. "And" would convey what I expected: failure in both cases. As far as I can tell, the "Korean version" didn’t close, it died of lack of interest and strangulation by rambling musings. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But. There is already a firm consensus, notwithstanding a single editor's concern. SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven clearly doubled the concern, Jack Upland plausibly tripled it and GoodDay...was there. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replace 'but' with a period/full stop. Sorta clunky, but the meaning is not changed. Pretty soon another editor will come along and do the reverse. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 06:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Trump renegotiated NAFTA" now in lead but not in article

In this edit, the following text was reinserted in the lead "he renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement as the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement" There was a detailed talk page discussion and poll archived here concerning whether to state that Trump had renegotiated the Agreement -- there is no such statement in the article text -- and the text was removed from the lead. Since then, without new discussion, the lead text was later reinstated. That's why I removed it prior to the current reinstatement. For comparison, the article text does not attribute the new trade deal to Trump. It says "Following a 2017–2018 renegotiation, Trump signed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) as the successor to NAFTA on January 29, 2020." The lead text should be removed and nothing like that should be restored except when and as there is collateral article text and talk page consensus to place it in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I removed it. According to the source, the new agreement is 95% the old agreement with a new name and "great fanfare", providing small boosts for the U.S. auto (higher rules of origin) and dairy industries (opening Canadian markets for U.S. dairy products). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, put the policies into the administration article. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it ain't in the article its not going in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Capitol attackers

I suggest the following sentence is added to the end of the fifth lead paragraph: He repeatedly defended the Capitol attackers after leaving office.. JJARichardson (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JJARichardson, FormalDude, he did & continues to do so but it's not mentioned in the body. Also seems to be a relatively minor part of the continuing lies about him having won the election. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, surprised it's not mentioned in the body. Should've checked that first, my bad. ––FormalDude

^talk 23:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see very much coverage of his statements from the time after his presidency. From what I can find, he more often repeats the claims of election fraud and stolen election rather than praising the insurrectionists. There are also various statements praising extremist candidates relating to 2021 and 2022 elections. SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he said something along the lines of “I wanted what they wanted.”. Looking for article link now… - Tyrone (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"What I wanted is what they wanted" – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding that. - Tyrone (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the audio of Leonnig/Rucker's March 2021 Trump interview with transcript. The "loving crowd" being ushered in and hugged and kissed by Capitol Police is just the intro to the big lie—dead people voting, Indians getting paid to vote, poll watchers brutalized, illegal, corrupt election as bad as a third-world country. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump and Israel

I have suggested in the past to edit the foreign policy section of this article by adding a profound statement the former president stated in his interview with Ari Hoffman on 10-29-2021 [33]. Later to my surprise not only the suggestion was not incorporated in the main article but also even the talking point was removed. No reasons given. Now I would like to revisit this topic in light of the fact that the former president has repeated his remarks, this time in his interview with Barak Ravid, receiving large coverage in CNN and other US and foreign media. [34] MYS1979 (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then as now, there really wasn't any important context to the former president's words. He stated (inartfully, as he usually does) that Israel's influence on Congress has waned over the years. Honestly, so what? Zaathras (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This can't be further from just a mere "inartful" statement. We can't possibly ignore that the former president has made Isarel a corner stone in his foreign policy during his term in office. In this regard there were profound actions that he took with significant political, religious and historical consequences, all while congress and senate were debating his impeachment. For example:-

Recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
Recognizing the Golan Heights as part of Israel
Withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear deal
Assassinating the Iranian General Soleimani
Reversing course on the legality of Israeli settlements in the west bank
Cutting ties/funding with the Palestinian authority and closing consulate in Jerusalem
Withdrawing from UNRWA and UNESCO
Adding Israel as a country of birth on American passports for those born in Jerusalem reversing supreme court ruling of Zivotofsky v Kerry

and many others. 47.187.39.94 (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to propose specific article text that reflects the narrative of mainstream reliable sources. Otherwise, talk page discussion is not going to lead to any such changes to the article. SPECIFICO talk 22:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any neutral attempt to document the former President's pro-Israeli moves will appear misleadingly one sided. No surprise there, that's because they were one sided. Recognizing that I have left out many pro-Israeli steps out from the following suggested text, I hope this can be an invitation to other writers to expand on this topic. I humbly ask if we can append the following under the foreign policy/Israel:- "Trump supported many of the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.^[1] Under Trump, the U.S. recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel^[2] and Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights,^[3] and it abandoned a long-held U.S. position that Israeli settlements in the West Bank break international law ^[4] leading to international condemnation including from the United Nations General Assembly, the European Union and the Arab League.^[5]^[6]. According to a Pew Research Center survey Donald Trump enjoyed more popularity in Israel than almost anywhere else in the world. ^[7]. His administration has stopped funding to UNRWA which supports Palestinian refugees, withdrew from UNESCO out of concerns over anti Israeli bias ^[8]^[9], abolished the Consulate General of the United States, Jerusalem which served Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza ^[10], cut funding to the Palestinians ^[11], altered passport ruling for Jerusalem births ^[12], assassinated Iranian General Qasem Soleimani with the help of Israelis ^[13], abandoned Iran's Nuclear Deal, a move hailed by Israeli president then Benjamin Netanyahu as historic and courageous ^[14]. In an interview with Ari Hoffman Donald Trump said "Well, you know the biggest change I've seen in Congress is Israel literally owned Congress – you understand that, 10 years ago, 15 years ago – and it was so powerful, it was so powerful, and today it's almost the opposite. Israel had such power – and rightfully – over Congress, and now it doesn't. It's incredible, actually."^[15]. MYS1979 (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our current text on Israel: Trump supported many of the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Under Trump, the U.S. recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, leading to international condemnation including from the United Nations General Assembly, the European Union and the Arab League. Breaking the proposed new material down into manageable pieces:

and it abandoned a long-held U.S. position that Israeli settlements in the West Bank break international law
According to a Pew Research Center survey Donald Trump enjoyed more popularity in Israel than almost anywhere else in the world.
His administration has stopped funding to UNRWA which supports Palestinian refugees, withdrew from UNESCO out of concerns over anti Israeli bias, abolished the Consulate General of the United States, Jerusalem which served Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, cut funding to the Palestinians, altered passport ruling for Jerusalem births,
assassinated Iranian General Qasem Soleimani with the help of Israelis,
abandoned Iran's Nuclear Deal, a move hailed by Israeli president then Benjamin Netanyahu as historic and courageous.
In an interview with Ari Hoffman Donald Trump said "Well, you know the biggest change I've seen in Congress is Israel literally owned Congress – you understand that, 10 years ago, 15 years ago – and it was so powerful, it was so powerful, and today it's almost the opposite. Israel had such power – and rightfully – over Congress, and now it doesn't. It's incredible, actually."

The easy ones: oppose item 2—the world-wide ratings mentioned in Approval ratings suffice; oppose items 4 and 5—Soleimani assassination and withdrawal from JPCOA are mentioned in Iran; oppose item 6, echoing an anti-semitic conspiracy theory on local Seattle conservative podcast—I think Racial views covers that. Item 1—maybe but in a different location. The "international condemnation" sources only mention the annexation of the Golan Heights. Item 3: Have to read up on some of that, think about the rest. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Jeffrey Epstein

Let's move on without the spurious BLP claim, Epstein being dead and none of the sources mentioning any "dirt on Trump". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jeffrey Epstein was an Israeli spy with dirt on Trump. Ari Ben-Menashe (former spy for Israel) claims that Epstein recorded politicians and powerful businessmen having sex with children and provided the photos to Israeli military intelligence for use as blackmail material.^[1] Additional sources 1, 2, 3. 97.117.119.27 (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump is mentioned in two of the sources but only in the context of Alex Acosta's appointment as Labor Secretary. Possibly material for Epstein page. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [Elizabeth Vos, https://consortiumnews.com/2020/06/18/epstein-case-documentaries-wont-touch-tales-of-intel-ties/, "Epstein Case: Documentaries Won't Touch Tales of Intel Ties"]

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

we don't need to know what he did not do?

Slatersteven, I'd likely agree with you if he hadn't promised these things, but he did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1062454471&oldid=1062453895

soibangla (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, a lot of people promise things during elections and do not deliver, in fact they all do. This should be about the things that make Trump stand out.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He repeatedly and loudly promised he'd do these things for years and appeared at rallies with banners declaring "promises made, promises kept." These were centerpiece promises. We need to mention their outcomes. soibangla (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, they all do, and never do. This is about him, not his presidency, so this should be abouhis legacy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates declare what they favor and will try to do. Trump's campaign was noteworthy for his promises to do things that are outside a president's sole command. It was an effective campaign stance because he conveyed to many voters the impression that he would deliver these promised actions that other candidates and officeholders failed to delivevr only because they were lazy, corrupt, or indiffereint to the interests of the citizenry. I think a summary statement of the many key campaign promise failures is appropriate -- but a summary that covers the scope and importance would be helpful, rather than a mere list. SPECIFICO talk 16:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said this may be OK in an article about his presidency, this is not it. Also, we would need to show that RS found this exceptional.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this is more a personal characteristic of his, making boastful promises that sound convincing despite being fundamentally ridiculous. SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then (as long as we can find RS that say this is a defining characteristic) lets say that "he has been characterized as an inveterate liar who makes promises he can't (and had no intention) of keeping", or words to that effect. Lets make it about him, and not his presidency.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other candidates make promises, too, that they can't or won't keep (see PolitiFact's stats of Obama and Trump's campaign promises) but they don't keep mentioning them or claim that they have kept them. Trump made a few signature promises during the campaign that he kept harping on during the presidency with its continuing rallys: build the wall, repeal and replace Obamacare with something mucho better, bring back manufacturing, the infrastructure plan that never materialized despite several "infrastructure weeks" which became a running joke. Specifico, do you have a suggestion for a summary? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So he didn't keep all his promises. Nothing unusual for US presidents & politicians overall. GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, his record is highly unusual. For starters you can do an internet search on "Trump campaign promises" and a raft of top quality sources will be listed. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Merica, Dan (August 26, 2017). "Trump: 'Both sides' to blame for Charlottesville". CNN. Retrieved January 13, 2018.

[2] Johnson, Jenna; Wagner, John (August 12, 2017). "Trump condemns Charlottesville violence but doesn't single out white nationalists". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 22, 2021.

[3] Kessler, Glenn (May 8, 2020). "The 'very fine people' at Charlottesville: Who were they?". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 23, 2021.

[KruzelCharlottesville-4] Holan, Angie Dobric (April 26, 2019). "In Context: Donald Trump's 'very fine people on both sides' remarks (transcript)". PolitiFact. Retrieved October 22, 2021.

[5] "US sanctions on Russia could harm India. Congress is wrestling over a fix". Defense News. July 18, 2018.

[6] "CAATSA designed not to take punitive action against friends, allies: US diplomat". The Economic Times. December 18, 2020.

[7] "U.S. imposes sanctions on Russian vessel involved with Nord Stream 2 pipeline". Reuters. January 19, 2021.

[8] "Trump signs bill approving new sanctions against Russia". CNN. August 3, 2017.

[9] Storey, Ian (November 21, 2018). "US assault on Russian arms exports could misfire in Asia". Nikkei Asian Review. Archived from the original on July 1, 2019.

[10] "U.S. sanctions Turkey over purchase of Russian S-400 missile system". CNBC. December 14, 2020.

[11] ttps://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-how-trump-and-netanyahu-became-each-other-s-most-effective-political-weapon-1.7569757

[12] ttps://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/trump-move-embassy-jerusalem-israel-reaction-281973

[13] ttps://www.npr.org/2019/03/25/706588932/trump-formally-recognizes-israeli-sovereignty-over-golan-heights?t=1617622343037

[14] ttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-settlement/in-trumps-final-days-netanyahu-orders-more-settler-homes-built-idUSKBN29G12E

[15] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/21/world/middleeast/trump-jerusalem-united-nations.html

[16] ttps://www.euronews.com/2019/03/22/outcry-as-trump-backs-israeli-sovereignty-over-golan-heights

[17] ttps://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/11/27/donald-trump-impeachment-escape-hatch-israel-netanyahu-column/4298605002/

[18] ttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45377336

[19] ttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/u-s-and-israel-officially-withdraw-from-unesco

[20] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/world/middleeast/us-palestinians-consulate-jerusalem.html

[21] ttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-47095082

[22] ttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-usa-passport/first-jerusalem-born-american-gets-u-s-passport-that-lists-israel-as-birthplace-idUSKBN27F295

[23] ttps://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israeli-intel-chief-takes-responsibility-for-assassination-of-iran-s-soleimani-1.10481220

[24] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html

[25] ttps://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/trump-says-israel-literally-owned-congress-in-interview-683759

[26] [Elizabeth Vos, https://consortiumnews.com/2020/06/18/epstein-case-documentaries-wont-touch-tales-of-intel-ties/, "Epstein Case: Documentaries Won't Touch Tales of Intel Ties"]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[1]

@@ Line 235: / Line 235: @@
 == RfC Russian Bounties claims  ==
+{{User sandbox}}
+{{Archive top
+|result = I've been brought here by [[WP:RFCL]] to close, so here I am. Looking at the rough survey, this seems somewhat evenly divided in terms of !votes. Going into the actual !votes themselves though, I see a few kinds of arguments.</br>
+On the "remove" side, most !voters issues appear to be that the story about Trump is "disputed" and that the current wording does not adequately convey that. To quote someone in favour of removal, {{u|OgamD218}} says that "This wording fails to accurately convey the information and gives that section of the article an overly critical tone and the impression of bias." {{u|Iamreallygoodatcheckers}} mentions a lack of "appropriate context". This appears to be the central theme of the people in favor of removal; the specific wording of the content does not adequately reflect the story or is in some way biased. Only a few !voters such as {{u|Adoring nanny}} say that there should be no reference made to this controversy whatsoever and it would appear many "removers" seek to just remove this particular wording.</br>
+There are also some points on both sides that I will be ignoring. One !vote alleges that remove voters have "have made their bias for Trump clear over the years", another accuses "an editor very much on one side of trying to pass as independent", and another !vote by {{u|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} says that Trump had a "responsibility as president and commander in chief to ensure the safety of the troops and to bring the alleged threats up in one of his "chummy chats"". I mention these arguments because I will be ignoring them, since the first & second ones verge on personal attacks and the third is irrelevant, as whether or not Trump's actions was a "dereliction of duty" is a political argument about the underlying issue and does not address what our coverage of the issue should be.</br>
+To cover the main theme of the "retain" side, the main belief appears to be arguing against a wholesale removal of any coverage regarding this controversy. Not many of the !voters seem to be attached to the specific wording in question and some appear to support some kind of change to the wording. {{u|FormalDude}} expresses in response to a "remove" voter seeking to add context that FormalDude was "not against including that", but that they were "against removing the text altogether." {{u|LondonIP}} !voted explicitly to "Keep and provide context".</br>
+Keeping this in mind, I'll close with a consensus of '''retain, but add context'''. The biggest issue with this RfC is that it presupposes a choice between removing this sentence and having no coverage, or keeping this sentence as the only coverage. This is a [[false dichotomy]] and there seems to be rough agreement that some coverage of the Russian bounty controversy and its relation to Trump be maintained, but that the current wording of the coverage could be altered or contextualized. That being said, no consensus on any potential alternate wordings has appeared here as no potential alternate wordings have emerged. Another discussion will likely be necessary to workshop a better wording that may be agreed on by the participants here. [[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) <small>(please use&#32;{{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 22:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
+|status = Retain, but add context}}
 <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 07:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1641193281}}
@@ Line 458: / Line 466: @@
 ===Closing time===
 I've put in a [[Wikipedia:Closure requests|request for closure]], now that the RfC tag has expired. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
+{{Archive bottom}}
 == Russia – Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA)==