Talk:Donald Trump

Current consensus

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

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

10. 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)

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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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)

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow-up to Russian bounties

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

Hatted quote from NYT

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Off-topic discussion

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

The edit you cite above was just one of three.

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC Russian Bounties claims – better wording

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

The sentence currently reads:

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

I would suggest replacing this with:

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

or

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Proposal #4: :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RS says that there is not conclusive evidence that these bounties exist.[1] The bounties were disputed then and they are disputed now. Frankly, this discussion has already happened before and the consensus was to provide this context. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too long?

Wikipedia:Article size

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It never left the news, you just haven’t been paying attention to it. Since you mentioned Jan 6, here are a number of articles mentioning both: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], plus a number of books (among them Woodward/Costa’s Peril, Leonnig/Rucker’s I alone can fix it). The section has already been pared down to the bare essentials. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC) "Figment of the past"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See [7]. SPECIFICO talk 12:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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

nitpicked: I almost always look at the recent edits to see if they're improvements IMO. If they're not, again IMO, I revert them, or if I think they could be further improved then I'll do that. That's what I did here. Take these edits, for example: yours and the two ([8], [9]) I made. I removed the cite after the first sentence of the second paragraph because it was about the Plaza Hotel, not the Taj Mahal, while the cite following the next sentence was about the Taj Mahal. I also removed "without much leverage" as unnecessary because the next sentence specifies how Trump financed the purchase, i.e., with junk bonds. My edits get "nitpicked" all the time, sometimes justifiably so, sometimes not, IMO—argument ensues. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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

• The article is fairly obviously too long. Parts of it have already been cut to the bone, while other sections (COVID, the infamous Lafayette Square hed) have not. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Overturn consensus item 20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your first argument that "notability doesn't fade overtime" is not relevant to content, only to an articles standalone notability. (see WP:NNC) Content is not governed under this policy in anyway. So when you said "It really isn't", you were really wrong. What matters for content is significance or what we call on Wikipedia "weight". Now weight can change over time, unlike notability. There was a time when it was significant enough to mention that Trump had considered a run in the 2012 election in the lead paragraph [10]. Obviously, as time has gone by, and Trump has made many more significant actions we've removed this fact from the lead to make room for what's actually significant. The same is true for these protests 4 years ago that had little impact on Trump as a person, his stances, his presidency, or even his election. Additionally, the lead is supposed to be a "summary of [the articles] most important contents." (see WP:Manual of Style/Lead section) These protest have 1 small paragraph in the article and thats it. It's not proper as part of the summary. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good catch. I struck through "have" in the consensus, with a note explaining when and why it was done. That's a minor enough change that I don't think it requires renumbering. -- MelanieN (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Given the scale of, and extensive sustained sourcing on, Protests against Donald Trump, it seems hard to support the argument that protests against Trump have faded away as being significant. They continue to get significant academic coverage, eg. [11][12][13]. Obviously now that Trump is no longer president, everything about him is going to fade away somewhat in terms of significance, but I don't think there's any reason to think that this aspect has particularly faded relative to the rest of that part of his bio or that a single sentence in his bio is WP:UNDUE; it was a defining feature of his administration and for years was a major aspect of how he was publicly seen. Omitting them also makes it a bit harder to understand other aspects of how he was controversial, since the constant protests are a key point of context. --Aquillion (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

According to Collins, "If you describe something or someone as controversial, you mean that they are the subject of intense public argument, disagreement, or disapproval."[14] There is a lot of evidence that Trump's presidency was controversial in the lead:

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

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

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

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

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

Remove from lead. This is significant enough to mentioned in the body, but as the protest movement was incoherent, achieved very little, and dissipated relatively quickly, there doesn't seem any basis to say in was a major part of Trump's life...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

They achieved what they set out to achieve—demonstrate their disapproval. They weren't planning an insurrection. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if one can make such broad statements about such a diverse group as 'protestors'. The Meta Boi (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we can. The main call was to "impeach" Trump (or something similar). Many protesters had no idea of the impeachment process, and the impeachment processes did NOT remove Trump...--Jack Upland (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we can. This is what the march was about—also pink pussy hats and not keeping quiet. Two million protesters in the U.S., no reports of violence, zero arrests. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

State-controlled & largest Chinese bank's offices at Trump Tower

I added this sentence to Manhattan developments: The state-controlled Industrial and Commercial Bank of China has been a tenant since 2008, initially leasing three floors. It was deleted with the remark that the building has had scores of tenants since 1998, not to do enough w/Trump to merit incl. The building probably had more than scores of tenants since it opened in 1983 but most of them didn't pay almost $2 million in annual rent for three floors directly below Trump's offices and in the same building as his primary residence. The lease ended in 2019, and a new one was negotiated while Trump was negotiating with China on various tariffs and while other tenants left or couldn't pay the rent. Tenants Gucci or Ronaldo—meh, foreign government-controlled bank—noteworthy. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be well sourced over many years in multiple RS. I think it warrants inclusion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

References

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: all chinese banks are majority owned by the central government-if they were suspected of engaging in illicit activity that would be one thing. I meant to say 2008-not 1998. This specific entity paid market rate and Plenty of Trump Tower tenants have given millions over the years. The reference to the specific location of their offices seems like a mix of OR and an attempt to insinuate something not substantiated by any reputable sources. With all that being said, the relationship between this and the potential violation of the Emoluments Clause is what warrants inclusion in my opinion-maybe not even specifically on this page but if not on the Presidency of Donald Trump page (some may argue both). However the current inclusion of this content, in location and wording carries a tone of underhanded criticism of Trump just bc he owned a business that leased real-estate to a Chinese corp 8 years before he became President.OgamD218 (talk) 07:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You would need to show that the lease had received a lot of attention in reliable sources. Also, based on your comments, you believe that China bribed Trump. If we want to put that accusation into the article, it must explicitly say that rather than just hint it. TFD (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The image of Trump, per RS reports and accounts of those who know him, is that an explicit bribe is not always necessary to influence his perception of his self-interest. E.G. would be his apparent belief that currying the favor of NKorea leader Kim might get him development rights to some NK oceanfront property and his flattery of Putin due to an unfounded belief that the Trump Moscow tower would soon be built. I see no claim of bribery here. It's simply good business to cozy up to the rich and poweful. SPECIFICO talk 20:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll rephrase then: "Also, based on your comments, you believe that China influenced Trump. If we want to put that accusation into the article, it must explicitly say that rather than just hint it." And if you think it's telling that Trump rented out luxury office space in Manhattan to the rich and powerful rather than the poor and powerless, then you need a source that makes that conclusion. TFD (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• I just added more details and cites at current tenants at Trump Tower, BTW. OgamD218, you're reading meaning into the sentence in Manhattan developments that isn't there, and no, TFD, I don't know whether and didn't insinuate or imply that China bribed or "influenced" Trump or whether they're paying market rents. They were the third-largest tenant after Gucci and the Trump Corporation, and with the two floors they are currently renting they're probably still one of the top 3—5, considering that average occupancy has fallen below 80%. Would that make Trump feel beholden to ICBC? I really don't know, do u? Anyway, I just amended the sentence to read that ICBC is the third-largest tenant after Gucci and the Trump Corporation, i.e., the second-largest non-Trump entity. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose this is an attempt to smear Mr. Trump by association. It is not nearly important enough to include in this overly long article on the merits - there are hundreds of entities Trump has done real estate deals with and there is no particular reason this one is notable. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to take the most neutral stance possible and fact is violations of the emoluments clause is something that is was rarely ever even discussed as a possibility forget could realistically been violated. The rule does not require a bribe be made or influenced received it strives to prevent such from ever materializing. Due to Trump's resistance to placing his business assets in a blind trust, his administration was the only modern occurence when the commission of an EC violation was actually seriously discussed in public discourse-this is the one and only way the reference to the Chinese bank becomes potentially relevant enough to warrant inclusion. The fact a discussion has materialized over whether or not this specific lease influenced Trump's presidential policies to be more favorable towards the Chinese gives credence to the argument it was only added in the first place to insinuate as much. The key word being insinuate as no reputable source exists that would outright make such a claim. To be @Space4Time3Continuum2x: clear, it is clownish to think Trump felt beholden to the ICBC as President based on this lease. No reasonable person should draw such a conclusion but unfortunately reason all too often flies out the window when matters of contemporary politics are concerned-especially when Trump is involved. Without any other context or issues being raised, whoever the third largest tenant happens to be in one of Trump's real-estate properties, is not information that even comes close to warranting inclusion on this page. OgamD218 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Among the reasons you may not have seen ongoing discussion about emoluments was that it was noted and undisputed early in his administration. Not much to discuss. Please do not use this page to disparage other editors, and please review my comment in this thread above, which explains the misapprehension that underlies your rejection of this content. SPECIFICO talk 22:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If you say that Trump rented to the Chinese-owned bank, you are implying there may have been some influence otherwise why mention it? Why not mention all the tenants at Trump Tower? This tactic incidentally is one that Trump himself used successfully. "I'm not saying that Ted Cruz's father knew Oswald, I'm just saying that he looks like the guy in the picture with Oswald."

We cannot say that Trump might have violate the Emoluments Clause in this case without a source that says that. Although there are various definition, one is that the term emolument mean income paid to an employee. According to the DOJ, which interpreted it more broadly, it meant income in return for services to a foreign state. Only the broadest definition was any payment whatsoever.

TFD (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any suggestion we discuss emoluments in the proposed text, but I do think there could be some well-sourced content about mingling of personal and official relationships. The lease is significant not because Trump received cash income from the lease but because either party might have thought it could benefit from the wider relationship fostered by such proximity. Similar to what happened with the Trump Hotel in DC or the dinner table at Mar a Lago, where members regularly had the POTUS' ear. SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The criterion to determining whether something is significant is not editors' opinions, but the degree of coverage in reliable sources. That policy is necessary because different editors will have different opinions on what is important. While that is not the only possible policy, some policy is necessary and that's the one we have. Other wikis, such as Conservapedia, have different ways of determining due weight. But until you get Wikipedia's policies changed, we're stuck with existing policies. TFD (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I hope you'll take some time to broaden your view of this issue. I'm confident that if you care to read as many referenes as I have on this subject you will understand that what I've stated above reflects the central narrative of the most informed and respected available sources. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Ogam, you were the one in this discussion who brought up the emoluments clause, so were you referring to yourself with "clownish" and "no reasonable person"? Trump Tower is owned by GMAC Commercial Mortgage. It has 232 units, and 231 of those are residential. Trump owns at least one residential unit but its size is 10,000 square ft., not 30,000 as he claimed until recently, and worth a lot less than the $30 million he claimed. Trump owns the one commercial unit, i.e., the retail space in the atrium and the space on the 13 non-residential floors. According to the NY Times, they generated more than $20 million in profits annually, for a total of $336.3 million since 2000. He took out a personally guaranteed 10-year, $100 million mortgage loan in 2012; the master servicer of the loan, Wells Fargo, issued a debt warning in September 2021 when the occupancy rate dropped from 85.9% in September 2020 to a lower-than-average 78.9% in September 2021. The average landlord would probably want to avoid losing their third-largest tenant under these circumstances, by offering incentives such as lowering the rent, for example. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Tax Cuts

In the introduction, add the fact that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased income inequality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:0:A550:49C:1289:B58E:841 (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure any of this should be in the lede, this article is not about his presidency, tax cuts do not define him as a person.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Characterization of Trump presidency

Suggesting that Trump is considered by scholars to be one of the worst POTUS to date is fair in an immediate narrow sense.

But a slight elaboration in the spirit of fairness is in order.

First, here is the salient passage that caught my eye:

“Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.”

Again, letting that verbiage stand as is is perfectly acceptable. But I propose adding an additional sentence along the following lines:

“But Trump retains a base of popular support, estimated by Pew Research Center at around one-third of the U.S. electorate. This makes Trump potentially viable as the Republican Party’s 2024 nominee for the U.S. presidency.”

(I never voted for Trump and never would, but as an ex-journalist, (Reuters & Bloomberg), I thought I’d share my professional opinion…)

Thank you for your consideration. OllyCooks (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia that is what's called "synth" -- the juxtaposition of two unrelated facts that might lead a reader to make an unwarranted inference for which there is not well-sourced evidence. SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Let it go. If he runs again & gets elected in 2024? Then there'll be changes to the topic-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It’s not that what you’re proposing is false; it’s that it doesn’t really have anything to do with the ‘historical rankings’ sentence, and I don’t think it’s worth including in its own right. Seems pretty clear from the lede already that he still has a base, and I just don’t see what it adds to speculate about him pulling a Cleveland in ‘24. Cpotisch (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

(Any reason why you put every sentence into a separate paragraph?) On Wikipedia, we need reliable sources, and the lead summarizes the body where this Pew estimate and a potential viability aren’t mentioned. What are the links to the Pew Research estimate of Trump’s popular support (nothing here) and to sources saying that it makes Trump potentially viable? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yep I go with wait and see, a lot can happen.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Trump's habit of destroying documents

There is more and more information coming out about Trump’s habit of tearing up or otherwise destroying documents while president, or taking them with him when he left the White House.[15] [16] [17][18] This needs to be documented somewhere in Wikipedia - maybe not in this biographical article specifically, but somewhere. Any ideas about where we could put this information? Or do we already have it somewhere? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't appear like anything out of the ordinary, concerning US presidents, TBH. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the scale of it is quite unusual for US presidents. I would think a mention in the article on his presidency would be warranted. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, is this a joke? You think every POTUS takes 15 boxes of documents, many of them labeled TOP SECRET, to their private residences after they leave the White House? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Not every single one of them. But, I highly doubt only one of them. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It is orders of magnitude different from the minor violations committed by other presidents. Trump made it a habit - a routine he did all the time - to tear up documents after he had read them. (It was actually his lifelong habit, he had done it as a businessman.) No other president has had aides whose job it was to gather up the ripped pieces and tape them back together so that they would be in the archives as the law requires. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, person familiar with the National Archives process calls this "unprecedented". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

As another editor mentioned. Put the info in the Trump administration article. This BLP needs trimming, not expansion. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay on this. Not important enough for the BLP. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a developing story—not enough information on what he ripped up or tried to flush down the toilet, what kind of classified documents were shipped to Mar-a-Lago and how they ended up being shipped (who had access to "top secret"?). For now, maybe a new paragraph "Alleged violations of Presidential Records Act" in Presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Ethics? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed per WP:BREAKING. If this develops to the point where it becomes clear that it's biographically significant (hearings, charges) it'll belong for sure then. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a good suggestions, SpaceTime. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It will probably never come to charges, Muboshgu. The presidential records law makes it a crime to destroy or otherwise remove any presidential documents at all - important or not. But AFAIK the law has no enforcement provisions. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

As with many of these laws it seems, Hatch Act etc., toothless. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There's jail time and disqualification from future public office. I think the issue is more whether the Biden Administration would shy away from prosecuting him (should solid evidence be found) for fear of political backlash and a fraught precedent given Republicans' recent vows to impeach Biden and presumably future Democratic officeholders should the elephants ever regain the House. SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I back the wait and see approach, if this becomes a major issue we can wait until then, if not we have lost nothing by waiting.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The scale of this is truly unprecedented, so I do think that it warrants a short “Alleged violations of presidential records act” section here. However, that would have to be very concise, maybe with a “for more info” link to a more extensive section in the presidency article. Cpotisch (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I think if we want to do that the more extensive section should be added to the presidency article first, then the short summary added here. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I just discovered there is extensive reporting on Trump's practices at the article Presidential Records Act. BTW our article doesn't say anything about jail time or disqualification from future office. I had read that there are no enforcement provisions or penalties at all - that it was assumed the rules would be honored by, well, honorable presidents. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph on this subject to the Presidency of Donald Trump article, under the section heading “Transparency and data availability”, which I changed to “Transparency, data availability, and record keeping”. We might later add a sentence to the text of this article if the subject turns out to have staying power. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

North Korean progress in the lede

Trump met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, but made no progress on denuclearization.

As it is right now this reads overly negative. Trump was the first sitting president to meet with a North Korean leader at all and that should warrant a mention despite the overall talks failing in the end. As it is, it reads like his administration took three meetings for no progress at all, when the fact there were meetings at all was already notable. Suggestion:

Trump met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, the first sitting president to do so, but made no progress on denuclearization. --95.91.247.87 (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)