Talk:Donald Trump

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

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

10. Canceled

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

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

66. Do not add {{infobox criminal}} to the article. (RfC June 2024)

RfC: Mark Milley apology

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.

This RfC concerns the inclusion of the sentence as presented below. WP:ONUS dictates that it is up to those seeking to include content to rally consensus. As of the moment of writing, the sentence is included in the article. A discussion preceded this RfC.

Proponents were outnumbered by the opposers two-to-one. Those arguing for retaining the passage suggested that Milley's apology was basically a veiled rebuke of his boss, and since he could not refuse his orders, this is about as big a repudiation of Trump as he could make. They argued it is important to mention for context, as Milley's apology was highly unusual in the circumstances. For opposers, the fragment is about Milley not Trump. It also clutters the already too large article with relatively minor details, so they belong in articles with narrower scope. Finally, if the criticism of Trump's actions is to be included, it must be directly stated and not inferred from the text's framing.

For several reasons, the proponents failed to establish consensus to include. The !vote count does not favour the "yes" side. The proponents did not address the argument that the article must be trimmed and did not look for shorter alternatives to the text.

As for the implication of criticism that the proponents want to give by including this statement, it does not convince me as a strong argument. Writing that that apology is veiled criticism without a source stating so could reasonably be treated as an unsupported assertion. If you mean to say that was a rebuke, why not write it upfront and why stick to an apology?

There might be relevant scholarly commentary or journalist analysis on what this incident tells about Trump's broader style of governance (authoritarian? egoist?). It is not there yet, but new sourcing may justify inclusion. Another suggested possibility is to merge Milley's reaction with the previous sentence, whom it does not cover for now. This may be discussed. But for now, there is clearly no consensus to retain the fragment. The reason for this outcome is that according to WP:NOCON, disputed content about living persons generally gets removed for no consensus closures, and I see no good reason presented in this discussion to override that recommendation. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now) under the subsection Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op?

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, later apologized for accompanying Trump on the walk and thereby "creat[ing] the perception of the military involved in domestic politics".

Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 07:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Added categories bio, media, and hist to publication lists. See discussion below. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Survey

• No - This article should be in summary-level description of aspects of his presidency. Mark Milley's apology is significant and important but it's not relevant enough to Trump the man to be mentioned in this BLP. Save the apology for Mark Milley, Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church, and even Presidency of Donald Trump, but not this long-article in need of a trim. Here it's only serving as bloat. I will contend to you that this article should focus on Trump's actions/statments and direct responses to his actions/statments. This article is not about Mark Milley's after-the-fact reflection on his own actions and their effects on the image of the military/country. This article is about Trump, not Mark Milley. Also, Milley was not actually present at the photo-op itself, just a portion of the walk. So, I'm not seeing how Milley's walk and subsequent apology could be seen as a significant enough part of Trump's legacy or his presidency to be in this summary-level description. I think you get the point I'm trying to make here; this article needs to stay on topic. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 07:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe you'll want to consider more fully if you review all the RS coverage showing Milley in his military uniform resolutely marching through the park. Trump, media genius, got exactly the images he wanted to project and Milley's apology for enabling that is essentially and entirely about Trump and his projection of strongman brutality on peaceful US civilians. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes As it serves to undercut an administration mistruth about the attempt to burn the church down. Trump wanted a military response, and this is a one-sentence summation of the matter, expanded on at the next article. ValarianB (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• No Per Iamreallygoodatcheckers. This might be a relevant part of Milley's biography, but it's not a significant part of Trump's life. Nemov (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• No per User:Nemov&User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers - This would be a good thing to include in other articles (e.g. Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church and Mark Milley), but here it would be WP:UNDUE. NickCT (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Leaning no. Let's face it; the main reason for that sentence's inclusion (and indeed, for the entire section's inclusion) was what SPECIFICO succinctly expressed in this comment. The whole section solely exists to highlight Trump's authoritarian character, but it fails to make any of those points explicitly. I'm tired of this article "alluding" and "hinting" at things we should be stating directly. We're only doing that because our current sources are too weak to support an explicit statement, and because we're too lazy to find a source that would.

We need a source that says that Trump ordered the Square's clearing, one that says that Trump did it for ego-related reasons, one that says the clearing was a blatant violation of freedom of assembly, and one that says that it reveals Trump's authoritarian character. That's what the section is trying to say, but we resort to meekly hinting at it because we're too lazy to look for sources that would allow us to say it outright. It's pathetic. The section should be centred around Trump ordering the military to violate American citizens' rights, followed by (attributed) explanations of how this violates the Constitution/Bill of Rights/whatever. Nothing else is due.

Rant over, and I plead with others to read this as an impassioned plea rather than an attack. We're all doing our best, but it's not remotely good enough. DFlhb (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. The proposer says that this article should focus on Trump's actions/statments and direct responses to his actions/statments. Milley's statement, blaming himself for going along on the walk Trump ordered him to go on, is as direct a response to his Commander in Chief as he could give without directly criticizing Trump for making Milley accompany him. (Trump was the president; when he says we're going to take a walk, you take a walk.) Milley was not actually present at the photo-op itself, just a portion of the walk.: he was still behind Trump when they walked past the bathroom on H Street opposite St. John’s at 3:56 in the C-SPAN video but did not cross the street towards the church, i.e., he peeled off at the first opportunity short of making a run for it inside the park while being filmed. not ... a significant enough part of Trump's legacy or his presidency: less significant than the Tour de Trump or the star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame or his physician’s 2015 letter stating he would "be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency?" Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  I like your CSPAN video showing Milley getting little attention among many civilians, and the part that shows the door and ground floor windows of the church boarded up [1], presumably as protection against protesters. I like CSPAN because it is unedited and gives a more realistic view. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, as WP editors, we do not use "unedited" i.e. primary sources to evaluate verification or NPOV of BLP content. We rely on the narratives of Reliable Sources, which are reliable due to their editing/reporting/expertise. A view based on such a preference for unedited sources is invalid. SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Here's the edited Trump WH version with the "heroic" soundtrack. Best viewed on computer monitor to get the full effect. Speaks for itself, as for Trump's intent, I think. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  In your recent Trump WH video, Milley's appearance is even less noticeable than in your CSPAN video. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  He's the one in fatigues trying to hide in the herd of suits. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes As is evident from the discussion thread on this page above, that I hereby incorporate by reference. This should never have gone to an RfC because there was no consensus to remove the incident, which is an unprecedented public rebuke of a sitting President by the most senior military officer he commands. I'd be fine with a more conclusary tertiary statement, which the removalists failed to contribute. Removal would violate NPOV and omit critical context for one of the most significant evants in Trump's personal evolution toward fascist signaling and display. I also note that the many additional sources that support the noteworthiness of this event have not been cited by OP, a regrettable omission for a presumably neutral polling process in which less experienced editors may come to cast a quick !vote. OP, tear down this RfC. Abort, please. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• No- Recommend it be placed in the Trump administration page, as it took place during that time. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  That does not present a reasoned evaluation of the text. Most of what's in this page took place during his time as President. SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  My position on this topic, hasn't changed. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• No per the other no’s. Additionally, I don’t think General Milley apologizing, by itself, tells us anything significant about Trump. We would have to include more context to suggest anything about Trump, and the additional context would then be undue weight. So it’s better to cover in Wikipedia articles where it won’t be undue weight. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Milley's apology is a specific rebuttal to Trump's actions of the day, it is relevant to the article. Zaathras (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• No - Maybe include in one of the sub articles, if at all. --Malerooster (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• No Per Checkers and Nemov. Milley’s comments are more relevant at his BLP. I don’t see how this sound byte is DUE for Trump’s already too detailed article. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Strong No per arguments by Checkers, DFlhb and others. We don't need everything tertiary that has happened during Trump's presidency. It's not important enough IMO to be included, though it fits at Mark Milley and maybe Presidency of Donald Trump.

Also, SPECIFICO commented this in the prior discussion: The actions and statements of Trump in this incident are one of a handful of defining moments that reveal his personal stance and agenda. Like the Charlottesville march and the Putin/Helsinki. The statement by Milley, still in command of the institutions Trump sought to subvert, was an extraordinary and unprecedented action that gives definitive context to who and what Trump is about. Maybe, but this is a) original research/unsourced and b) only hints at the idea instead of directly making the claim, which is what it should do. Cessaune [talk] 03:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The weight of secondary and tertiary RS reporting on this clearly supports my statment, and no -- editors are not required to cite sources in talk page discussions. The "claim" that Milley condemned this is explicit and it's what you apparently call "tertiary". Ironically ''that'' is not only Original Research but is inconsistent with the mainstream narratives on the issue. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• No — The subject was already covered by the previous sentence in the section, "Many retired military leaders and defense officials condemned Trump's proposal to use the U.S. military against anti-police brutality protesters.[286]" Removing the Milley sentence, which is evidently very difficult to do, is a drop in the bucket of items that should be removed from a bloated Political career section.

Bob K31416 (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes - The subject is not entirely covered by the previous sentence, which is about criticism from retired personnel. This one sentence is about the then and now serving chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Political criticism from any serving officer is highly unusual, much less criticism of the US President by the highest-ranking officer in the US Armed Forces. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Milley is not criticizing Donald Trump through this apology. He's an active general and they tend to not be political; hence, why they don't clap at the state of the union address and also why it would indeed be unusual to see a general criticize the president over a policy choice. His apology is about his own poor-choice to join a walk that gave the impression that he was involved in politics. That doesn't have anything to do with Trump and should not be seen as Milley criticizing Trump because it's only about his own actions. If you still want to say it's criticism, it would be appreciated if you provided RS describing the apology as a form of criticism of Trump. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  OK, then it is definitely not covered in the previous sentence and is an important addition as it removes the implication that he supported Trump's actions by walking at his side through the cleared field of protesters. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  O3000, I wrote that the subject was covered and you make a straw man argument of not entirely covered, which I think is not an appropriate goal. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  My argument's clothing had a complete lack of thrashed grain. In any case, reading Iamreallygoodatcheckers's response, it now appears it wasn't covered at all. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  The subject was Trump's use of the military re protesters. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  And you don't think The general's statement was along those lines, as Checker's quotes from Haberman make clear? The point is that the highest ranking member of the military made it clear that he considered this stroll a political act which he had been ordered to attend at odds with the Constitution. I think this meets DUE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Responding to Checkers: As I wrote above, Milley's statement, blaming himself for going along on the walk Trump ordered him to go on, is as direct a response to his Commander in Chief as he could give without directly criticizing Trump for making Milley accompany him. Quoting from Maggie Haberman’s "Confidence Man", pg. 436, after Trump called himself "your president of law and order" and the protests "acts of domestic terror" in the Rose Garden speech: Suddenly, cabinet officials and White House staff were being lined up to walk out the north side entrance of the White Houe; they were told Trump wanted them to join him looking at the damage outside. … Milley and Esper walked out of the White House alongside Trump, but Esper quickly realized that they had been "duped" into something. Milley pulled away en route, telling an aide "this is fucked up" as he did.. Pg. 438: Esper and Milley were incensed to have been used as props in what was clearly a political portrayal of Trump against the protesters. Both drafted memos the following day, on June 2, choreographed for when they’d be released; together, they underscored an oath to the Constitution, the military remaining apolitical and the right to freedom of speech. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's what sub-articles are for. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• No per Iamreallygoodatcheckers. The sentence is about Milley, not about Trump. Station1 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• No - per everyone else. Not about Trump the man, not a rebuttal of him, and not important enough to be on this article - belongs elsewhere, where it can be given context. Pincrete (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes it was a direct apology by an incumbent JSC Chair of an action taken with a sitting president. That sort of rebuke is massive compared to anything this side of Truman-McArhtur. It is eminently relevant, newsworthy, directly involved in the contemporary history of the period and Trump's life. Imagine if this happened to any other president. Volvlogia (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Absolutely it belongs here. I have spent too many years here working too hard to present articles for people that really want to understand the topics and not those that hardly even have time to finish reading the lead, let alone the entire article. SPECIFICO got it right as do the others that voted yes, for example Volvlogia and many others. Sectionworker (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Weak no. This strikes me as too much intricate detail. The sentence is not really about Trump – it's about Milley's comment on Milley's own participation in an event organized by Trump. Even the lead of the article about the photo op doesn't go into this much detail about Milley's comment. This is a long article, because there is obviously a lot to cover, so we can only go into the broad strokes of any specific incident. Milley's statement should of course be covered in other articles such as Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church that have more room to go into detail. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• No, and on articles for subjects with this much coverage, our first instinct should always be to remove unless something is essential for a broad overview. As has been said above, the appropriate place for this is Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church. This article struggles with WP:SUMMARY as it is, and squabbling about the inclusion of each sentence makes it impossible to clean up articles like this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• No. This is not significant in Trump's life. It can adequately be covered in the photo op article.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• No. Not biographical for Trump, and also WP:UNDUE for Trump. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• No As others have said already, the sentence doesn't have much to do with Donald Trump himself; it belongs more on the Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church article instead. Some1 (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes: With due respect to those who think this was "about Milley, not Trump", it was a statement by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs about how the military (including him) had been used for Trump's political publicity stunt – which, in light of the long national tradition of keeping the military out of domestic partisan politics, is a profound condemnation of Trump. That this same incident also trampled the separation of religion and government, and the religious freedom of that church's own staff and clergy (who were among those violently forced off church grounds for Trump's photo-op) makes this a three-fer of shame. It would be worthwhile quoting one of those church personnel, too. – _•Raven  ^.talk 22:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• NoThis, imo, would constitute unnecessary article creep. WP:CREEPAKerdooskis (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers Why an RfC for this? You can start with a regular talk page discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

We’ve already tried right above. It hasn’t solved the issue. We need outside input. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 08:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah sorry I missed that discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Withdraw RfC Chex, Please, we don't jump to an RfC on a discussion that failed or disappointed a few editors. This is the worst way to collaborate on contentious talk pages. Please withdraw this. There is no deadline for your advocacy or views, but formalizing the discussion when even your !vote above, does not reflect the views raised in the prior discussion - that's the worst thing for any talk page. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This is textbook WP:RFCBEFORE. That discussion did not result in a consensus or agreement and you and I both know it isn’t going too. We can get this over with now in the next month or we can rediscuss it for the rest our natural lives in the talk page with repeated threads like the Abraham Accords. Also, my !vote above is the based on the same principles I discussed above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

No, that's an utter and total misunderstanding of what's at that link. Not every discussion needs to go to an RfC just because some editors fail to disengage when they don't win consensus. This kind of pointless RfC wastes the time and attention of volunteer editors and is a drain on the project. Please withdraw. Your repeated insistence on your principles, which have now failed to respond numerous times to the reason for rejecting the disputed removal, is just more proof that the RfC needs to be withdrawn. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a perfectly valid RFC to me, especially judging by the interesting and varied responses to it thus far. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. I understand, and somewhat agree with what you're saying here SPECIFICO, but this RfC follows all the main tenets of RFCBEFORE:

a) it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC. Tried that; got nowhere.

b) Doesn't fall under any of the other dispute resolution mechanisms.

You can argue that it wastes editor time, and I somewhat agree that this issue is not important enough to go to RfC; it really comes down to editor opinion, however. Cessaune [talk] 15:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"Got nowhere" is a POV version of "the discussion failed to change the established consensus text". Most discussions "get nowhere" in that sense. It's highly disruptive to encourage a small group of editors with marginal or fringe editorial suggestions by hardening the discussion into an RfC. The RfC posts one editor's up or down version of the issue, as if it were black and white and there were no room for a compromise or all-inclusive solution. Just for example, we could mention Milley in the preceding sentence while avoiding the second separate sentence that cites him. But OP, by unilaterally deciding that he will declare an RfC on his terms with his yes-or-no question, has prevented spontaneous collaborative work here. @Iamverygoodatcheckers: withdraw this RfC and remember the editorial version of the Hippocratic Oath. First do no harm. Undue RfCs harm collaborative resolution on article talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

a) The RfC question only pertains to this specific sentence. Other important Milley info can be included elsewhere if we feel it's due. We can mention Milley in the preceding sentence while avoiding the second separate sentence that cites him, so I don't get your point here. I don't think anyone is against including something like including General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time.

b) A lot of what you just said was your own opinion treated as if it were fact: marginal or fringe, highly disruptive, undue RfC and others. I don't necessarily disagree, but treat your opinions like opinions.

c) Quite a few people have already commented and no one except for you is calling for this. It's not going to be withdrawn. Cessaune [talk] 18:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

WRT (A) - that's exactly the problem. If it is decided to remove this sentence, I can guarantee you that any attempt to include a different sentence about Milley will be attacked as "against the RfC" etc. etc. Just look at the antics at other politics articles where a vocal minority shuts down improvement by pointing to a narrow RfC as if it were a broader poll on other related wording. And if as you seem to suggest this is only about this one sentence, consider whether any article could ever be improved one sentence at a time in isolation and without regard to alternative sentences that state similar content. WTR (B) I have written no opinion or statement of fact or statement presented as fact. WRT (c) Irrelevant. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The RfC is about the sentence, but it's also about the apology being mentioned; that's what the sentence is about and it's what every reasoned response above is striking at. The apology being mentioned or not is a black-and-white question. The RfC will not be withdrawn; several editors are participating in it and you're the only one that's complaining about the RfC. Maybe a bigger issue is the tendency for us to keep in content that discussions (like the one above) reveal a lack of consensus for, yet we keep it in just because it's the status quo. That's also problematic with WP:BLPRESTORE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

a) Maybe, but everyone reasoned on this page (quite a few nowadays) will not read it like that. Provide a wording and a source and let's discuss potential inclusion of something like that. ...consider whether any article could ever be improved one sentence at a time in isolation and without regard to alternative sentences that state similar content—it's not that it isn't possible to regard any alternate wordings, it's that no one has. Yes, I agree, but I don't think that's what's happening.

The RfC posts one editor's up or down version of the issue, as if it were black and white and there were no room for a compromise or all-inclusive solution—I don't agree. Here's OP's sentence: Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now) under the subsection Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op? I feel like this leaves room for a compromise. Again, present your wording and a source.

b) Saying things like Undue RfC so matter-of-factly and without first stating that its your opinion is stating your opinion like it's fact. Unless this is, objectively, an undue RfC, which it isn't per Nemov, at least.

Also, I don't think the OP has prevented spontaneous collaborative work here. Let's collaborate. No one's stopping you.

c) I think it's very relevant. You know the RfC isn't going to be withdrawn. Yet you still push. Disagree with the fact that it was started, but you are using up valuable editor time. Pushing for a decision that isn't going to be implemented, no matter how correct you think it is, wastes people's time.

That being said, I don't see why this issue had to go to RfC. If the idea of an RfC had been proposed in the discussion, I would've said no. I don't like using RfCs for every sentence, but I get why Checkers did it. Nothing gets through anymore.

Also, status quo and consensus are two different things, and I don't think there was ever a consensus to include this sentence. ...the discussion failed to change the established consensus text isn't true IMO, as there doesn't seem to have ever been a consensus. A truly NPOV reading would be something along the lines of "the discussion failed to generate a consensus either against or for the sentence's inclusion". Cessaune [talk] 23:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Just because I haven't asked Checkers to withdraw the RfC doesn't mean that I don't think they should, it just means that I think they won't, i.e, it's a waste of time. The discussion petered out after a few days, Checkers wasn't happy with the inconclusive status, hello RfC. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the RfC. It's a perfectly natural step in an ongoing content dispute. Nemov (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The RFC is already in progress, so let it run its (one month) course. There can be only two results. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a super consequential RfC, but nonetheless the oppose arguments are quite weak. The idea that the sentence is not relevant enough to Trump is a stretch–it is about the highest ranking military official that reports directly to the president and was appointed by Trump voicing their concerns on a notable Trump event. The numerous editors adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment carry little weight. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with this reading. It is notable that this happened, but the argument is that it's too trivial in its relation to Trump. Secondly, an argument based on previous arguments is valid. Seconding someone else's argument is common RfC practice. (You can argue, and I would argue, that people turn their !vote into a normal vote by seconding literally everyone, without talking specifically about what they agree with.) Cessaune [talk] 20:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It may be common practice, but it does nothing to add to the discussion, and as you mention, it's not a vote. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It's common practice, so don't condemn it, especially when the group you are condemning is the group you disagree with. Cessaune [talk] 00:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Uh, don't tell me what do? Being common practice does not absolve it from all criticism. And it is not my fault that the only ones who are just repeating arguments saying "per X" are all on the opposing side. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair. Cessaune [talk] 15:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

FormalDude, Re your comment "...it is about the highest ranking military official that reports directly to the president and was appointed by Trump voicing their concerns on a notable Trump event." — Read the sentence again. It does not say anything about Milley expressing his concerns about the event itself, only his concern about "creat[ing] the perception of the military involved in domestic politics". Bob K31416 (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Bob, read RS accounts of this. The event was a kickoff for Trump's threats to send the military into Seattle's and other woke hotspots. SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This RFC is about one sentence, not what you are talking about. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I attempted to remind you of the subject of said sentence. Please read the article and cited sources for that section. Here's another good one. SPECIFICO talk 00:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you can't just say this. It doesn't make this connection in the article (or maybe it does; if so, can you point me to it?) It's irrelevant until you provide a source. Cessaune [talk] 00:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It's irrelavant even with a source because the sentence of this RFC is not about that. Here it is, "The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, later apologized for accompanying Trump on the walk and thereby "creat[ing] the perception of the military involved in domestic politics".[1]" Bob K31416 (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that this RfC about a biography wasn't even listed in "Biographies". Also, the incident in question being about an event produced for media consumption, I added "Media", as well, and "History", which seems just as relevant as "Society, sports, and culture". I'm not sure whether listing the categories the way I did is sufficient or whether I need to do something different to alert the bot. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes: With due respect to those who think this was "about Milley, not Trump", it was a statement by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs about how the military (including him) had been used for Trump's political publicity stunt – which, in light of the long national tradition of keeping the military out of domestic partisan politics, is a profound condemnation of Trump. That this same incident also trampled the separation of religion and government, and the religious freedom of that church's own staff and clergy (who were among those violently forced off church grounds for Trump's photo-op) makes this a three-fer of shame. It would be worthwhile quoting one of those church personnel, too. – _•Raven  ^.talk 22:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC) Moved this up to the survey section Cessaune [talk] 01:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Page views

Should we keep or delete this

template from the talk page?

Space4Time3Continuum2x is keen on removing it so what do you think? 195.20.17.82 (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Does not appear to be a useful or interesting metric. ValarianB (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Not needed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 13:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Remove it. It's pretty useless, and not all that interesting. Cessaune [talk] 18:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Current event tag until the conclusion of his trial

We know he’s going to plead Not Guilty, so there’s going to be a trial. Givin the amount of attention to his article it will obviously bring I think that the current event tag is necessary throughout it. 2A00:23C7:6140:C601:F150:C4A7:AD40:15AA (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

there's no much editing to be done here, most will be at Indictment of Donald Trump. ValarianB (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

In....what

In history, surely...? 31.54.248.212 (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

? What are you asking? Cessaune [talk] 05:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Aaron Burr

I added info on how Burr was previously the highest ranking official charged. I see why it was removed, but wanted to know what others thought. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Your edit summary said this was "historical context". How so, and does "first former president" need more context than "first"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I see it being unneeded, but it seemed like it was worth mentioning that prior to, a Vice President had been the highest before Trump. Given that it occurred after both left office, I thought it might be worth bringing up and people who wanted to know more about high executive officials being charged could see Burr and then go to his page to read up on it.3Kingdoms (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Piped link to same page

Somedifferentstuff just added a piped link to the recently renamed Donald_Trump#False_or_misleading_statements section. (I'm 3 for 3RR today, so I can't do anything about that 11-word #005ccc wall.) Does that mean that it's OK now to use piped links to the body of the article instead of other articles, something I tried to do fairly recently? 'cause I'm ready to do just that . Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If you are referring to the 'squigglies', then, please, no. Per the previous consensus. I'm fine with section linking in general (though V2022 has made section linking less useful with the new TOC). Cessaune [talk] 05:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

There is little to no attempt to be neutral and lack of citation.

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.

---

Just read the main section of the article and you will see exactly what I am talking about. Many of the things mentioned in the main section seemed to be cherry picked to be the negative aspects of Trump, neutral aspects skewed to seem negative, false information or just the author's opinion. There is also only two citations for the whole thing, both relating to the opinion of the media and other institutions known for bias. Jordan LaQuey (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Where the number of citations is concerned, please see WP:LEADCITE. In short, citations that are in the body of an article are to be avoided in the lead. — Czello 22:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Eh... I wouldn't define LEADCITE like this. It's more of a suggestion to do as you see fit when it comes to citations in the lead, and if certain citations prove to be redundant, they can be omitted if wanted. Cessaune [talk] 05:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

"if certain citations prove to be redundant, they can be omitted if wanted." any cite in the lede would be redundant as it has nothing in it not cited in the body. Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

If wanted is the key phrase here: Editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Cessaune [talk] 16:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The article follows what reliable sources say about the subject. If it seems to be overly-negative, then that is a reflection on the subject being mostly well-known for disgracefully and dishonorable activities. As for citations, they are used sparingly in the opening section, you will find many more for the same material in the body of the article. Zaathras (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

826 is too few citations for you? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

In the lead, specifically. Not the entire article. Cessaune [talk] 05:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Vague whining is non-actionable. Be specific. Dricoust (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe write the section in a neutral tone. Balance the amount of slander and facts. 136.50.140.154 (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

These are all facts, are they not? What in the section do you think is "slander"? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Or, what is it you actually object to/want to change? Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

This should not have been de-archived. There is no there there. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Jordan LaQuey, Thanks for your comment and feel free to make further comments here or elsewhere on Wikipedia, if you like. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

As no substantive request has been made, and therefore can't be discussed or actioned I move we close this. Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

My request is to write the section with a more neutral veiw point. Possibly include some things that people consider positive about Trump, provide counter opinions to the ones already presented. Use better diction etc. 136.50.140.154 (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear I don't like Trump. 136.50.140.154 (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Give some examples, is what we mean. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether you "like" Trump or not is irrelevant. This article is written based on the WP:WEIGHT of news coverage. What problems are there with "diction"? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• What about this lead rewrite that was proposed by User:DynaGuy00 a while back? It had substantial support in this discussion. Of course it would have to be updated to reflect what we know now, but I feel it's just generally better written. Cessaune [talk] 16:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Becasue it had been rejected and no new arguments have been made to change that decision. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Rejected? By who? Cessaune [talk] 16:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  By the people who either did not enact it, or changed it to what we have today. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  There was substantial support in the discussion, and the major issues that people had with it were sorted out. The 'links in the lead RfC' killed the discussion, but to say it was "rejected" is an uninformed statement. Cessaune [talk] 16:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  So it was rejected, as a discussion killed it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Have you actually read the discussion? Cessaune [talk] 16:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Then why was it killed by 'links in the lead RfC'? Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Again, have you actually read the discussion? The RfC killed it because it was so intensive, IMO. Cessaune [talk] 17:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  And what I see are a lot of discussions that seem to be about a different version to the one you link to, so changes were clearly made during the discussion. Hell its even mentioned, and people are asked to recast based upon the changes (which they did not, what I assume you mean by "The RfC killed it because it was so intensive". Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. The entire point was that there was some support for the change, and the issues brought up in the discussion were fixed, for the most part. We can try to revive it, or not. I think we should. Cessaune [talk] 17:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  OK, then suggest a new text (in a new thread, as this one is not about this text, nor does it seem to address some of the issues). Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Despite efforts, Bob K31416 continues to disrupt this talk page by insisting on keeping a discussion open that will ultimately serve no purpose. ValarianB (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Then report them, this is not the place to discuss their conduct. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

JL - It would help if you would propose what you'd like added to this BLP, word-by-word. Simply saying 'add something positive', is too vague. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about figuring out how to make a WIP page and proposing it. 136.50.140.154 (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I assume you are Jordan LaQuey, signed out? GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Well, we now have 32 edits in this thread and not one that shows examples of cherry-picking, bias, or skewing facts. Same as the previous times this discussion has taken place. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2023

LanallahYazid (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Good day, members of the Wikipedia community,

I stand before you today to humbly request that my application for editing rights on Wikipedia be accepted. I am excited at the prospect of contributing to this incredible platform, and I believe that I have much to offer.

Firstly, I would like to express my passion for knowledge and my eagerness to share it with others. I have always had a love for learning, and Wikipedia has been an invaluable resource for me over the years. I am eager to give back to the community by helping to ensure that the information provided on Wikipedia is accurate, reliable, and up-to-date.

Secondly, I am a detail-oriented person who takes great pride in the work that I do. I understand the importance of fact-checking and source verification, and I am committed to ensuring that any contributions I make to Wikipedia are of the highest quality. I am willing to put in the time and effort necessary to make sure that my edits are accurate, informative, and valuable to the community.

Finally, I am respectful of the guidelines and policies set forth by the Wikipedia community. I understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, and that every contribution made has an impact on the quality and credibility of the platform as a whole. I am committed to upholding the standards and expectations set forth by the community, and I believe that I can make a positive contribution to the ongoing growth and development of Wikipedia.

In conclusion, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the opportunity to speak with you today. I hope that my passion for knowledge, attention to detail, and commitment to community guidelines have convinced you that I would be a valuable asset to the Wikipedia editing community. Thank you for your time and consideration.

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. EpicPupper (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts

While this statement in the lead is technically accurate, I think that it could be confusing to others.

"making him the first former U.S. president to face criminal charges"

President Grant was arrested while in office. Could it be edited to say something like "the first US president to be arrested since Ulysses S. Grant in 1872. Making note to be the only president arrested after leaving office..." Not stuck on the wording but I think the information is important. Michael-Moates (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

i don't think this article is the place for possibly-apocryphal trivia, no, even if the Grant "arrest" did occur, it was the equivalent of a traffic citation. ValarianB (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/03/1167683136/ulysses-s-grant-was-the-first-president-to-be-arrested

According to this article, Grant never faced criminal charges, although he was arrested. So, based on this, the current wording is fine IMO. Cessaune [talk] 17:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It isn't confusing. Trump is still the only U.S. president (former or sitting) to have been indicted on criminal charges. Grant was stopped and cited for "speeding" (racing a horse-drawn buggy down M Street). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Grant never faced criminal charges, so that's pretty irrelevant to Trump being charged with felony offences. Bill Williams 23:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

There is outdated information in the "Indictment" section.

Explanatory footnote for divorce

There is a lot a articles saying they divorced in 1992 which has been proven false by court records,[2] which specifically state the divorce was granted on December 11, 1990 and a post-divorce settlement reached in 1991. The reason i added the footnote is to prevent people changing it back to 1992 because they are a lot of articles that ran with this misinformation. Aaron106 (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

(@Aaron106: moved edit from my talk page.) Please, be advised that active arbitration remedies apply to this article (see warning at the top of the talk page). If your change was reverted, you may not reinstate it until you have posted a talk page message discussing your edit and waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message. I assume that includes <!-- NOTES -->, as well. You corrected the divorce date in the body and the infobox on March 5. Nobody has reverted it to the wrong date since then. The notes following some sentences in the lead and some items in the infobox refer to "controversial" items that were discussed—usually at length—on this talk page and that now form the current consensus. The cite for the divorce date makes more sense than a note, IMO, although it's not really necessary since we have the cite for the date in the body. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

My point is they are thousands of sources online that ran with this misinformation. If so many articles didn't exist saying otherwise we wouldn't need a explanatory footnote. It's necessary in order to prevent people changing it back because they are thousands of articles out there that ran with this wrong year. --Aaron106 (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You mean news articles? Where did you find these thousands? I got curious and checked WP's editing history. Seems we listed the correct year, 1990, until this edit in 2017 when the Guardian (and presumably a few more newspapers) ran this Associated Press article on Ivana writing a memoir about "raising the US president's children". (Maybe AP got the dates confused because Donald and Ivana Trump were still haggling over the divorce settlement amidst a few Trump business bankruptcies.) We now cite the December 12, 1990, New York Times article saying that they were divorced on December 11, 1990. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I added the New York Times article in March, also with this edit in 2017 my point is it could be changed again just like that, because a lot of news articles say 1992. That’s why an explanatory footnote would be helpful so editors do not make the same mistake and change it. If you don't wish to have a explanatory footnote though then you could remove the cite you added in the Infobox. Aaron106 (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Abortion in lead

Hi, @Bill Williams:. I saw that you reverted my edit. Dobbs v. Jackson has frequently been cited as the most enduring legacy of Trump's presidency.

Not mentioning it in the lead is a bit strange. KlayCax (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is part of his enduring legacy, but can you point me to a single other article about a President that mentions anything their SCOTUS appointees did in the lead? This is an article about Trump, not the Supreme Court or its justices. They also made other landmark decisions regarding guns (Bruen), Native Americans (McGirt/Castro-Huerta) etc., as did the justices appointed by Obama, Bush etc. This content is not DUE for the lead in an already jam-packed article. Bill Williams 23:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean you could say Obama's judges vote in favor of Obergefell (same-sex marriage), or Bush's judges in Heller (2nd amendment). Obergefell and Heller were landmark, but created (not overturned) constitutional rights.

But Roe was almost 50 years old when Dobbs was decided 5-4, and Dobbs was leaked to press before being officially released (not to mention Whole Women's Health v. Jackson (2021) nullified Roe in Texas even before oral arguments in Dobbs). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I would mention it, though I would grammatically clarify that it was his 3 SCOTUS judges that overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Other judges, such as ongoing litigation over the drug mifepristone (i.e. Matthew J. Kacsmaryk) or in WWH v. Jackson (2021) (which the SCOTUS allowed pre-Dobbs being argued and released) shouldn't be included in the lead in my opinion. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• I've removed the new content about this because it wasn't sourced at all. Please find reliable sourcing that establishes that Dobbs is indeed part of Trump's legacy and then try and convince the community that it's a big enough part of his legacy to be included in the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Closing of RfC on Mark Milley apology

Moved to User talk:Szmenderowiecki Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

ping|Szmenderowiecki: You wrote that WP:ONUS dictates that it is up to those seeking to include content to rally consensus. As of the moment of writing, the sentence is included in the article. A discussion preceded this RfC. Were you under the impression that the sentence was added recently since you mentioned the discussion that took place a month ago? The sentence was added to the section almost three years ago. WP:ONUS says that "[t]he responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." That's a bit vague but I read that to mean "those seeking to add disputed content." The proponents of the RfC were seeking to remove long-standing content. The RfC proposer's question "Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now)" may have led some readers to believe that it is recently added content. The proposer should have asked whether "the sentence below should be removed from the article." Also, this cute move, u|Iamreallygoodatcheckers, really? I haven’t decided whether I want to do something about this or not, so for now I’m unarchiving the RfC to see what other editors think. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(This wasn't meant to be a private discussion, so copying my comment back to this page. Responses by Szmenderowiecki and Iamreallygoodatcheckers at User_talk:Szmenderowiecki#Mark_Milley_apology_close. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC))

• Bad close and canvassing Please reverse the close, restore the text, and await experienced Admin close. Also, let's not jump to immediate archving of significant discussions, even long ones that take up lots of talk page space. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• The closer was correct in determining that there was no consensus for the material, and yes they are correct in removing it per WP:BLPRESTORE which says, ...the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material... If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. WP:STATUSQUO is not a valid argument to keep because this is a BLP (it even mentions at STATUSQUO the BLP exemption). There should not be a push to include material that there is clearly no consensus for in this BLP. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  A very disappointing comment and pure equivocation. There was no BLP issue with this article text. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  How does WP:BLPRESTORE apply to the sentence in question (also, the closer didn't mention it)? To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections. WP:STATUSQUO: "unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material" in BLP's? Neither you nor any of the other supporters of your proposal questioned the neutrality and writing standard of the sentence or the reliability of its source. Your argument boiled down to "off-topic". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  When something is being mentioned in the article that is off-topic that means it inherently lacks weight, which falls under WP:NPOV; therefore, it is a NPOV violation. Yes, the closer did not cite BLPRESTORE, but that doesn't mean it doesn't apply. Furthermore, they did cite WP:NOCON, and the BLP exemption under NOCON is more or less the same thing as BLPRESTORE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close Speaking as an admin who was not involved in the original discussion: The close is fine. It's a reasonable reading of the consensus that WP:ONUS has not been established to include the material, and that's a reasonable reading of Wikipedia policy as well. --Jayron32 17:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Jayron, glad to see you here as an Admin who's also familiar with American Politics subject matter.

  Now, here's why I think you're wrong on this: First, "reasonable" is way too weak a test for the close of a month-long discussion on a contentious topic. Second, the closer cites those many who said this page is not about Milley, etc. But those !voters did not address the many explanations as to why this content is more about Trump than Milley the man, and further that its media weight had little to do with Milley man, and everything to do with his unprecedented and urgent rebuke of Trump. Finally, yes some editors view ONUS that way but as you know the interpretation of ONUS as to standing content is highly controversial and has been disputed for years on the V talk page. We have recently seen too many eager, inexperienced non-Admin closes on Contentious Topics. It's repeatedly led to trouble, wasting editor time and morale and though the closers are well-intentioned, it is not worth the waste of editors' time and morale or faith in consensus-building on CT pages. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, that's your reading of the discussion. That someone else interprets the comments and weights the responses differently than you would have doesn't mean they were wrong in doing so, especially since your analysis is colored by the fact that you have a pony in the race. The advantage of leaning on the side of the closer in a close call over your analysis is that they don't. --Jayron32 12:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  Wow, Jayron. Please don't suggest that my comment is intended or motivated by a POV or view about content. Maybe I'm concerned about inexperienced non-Admin closes on difficult issues in CT articles? That would be the simplest explanation. The close should not depend on their interpretation of the controversial issue RE: ONUS. Moreover, if I understand you correctly, you take a questionable position that the issue RE: consensus and ONUS should be interpreted in your and the closer's way notwithstanding that this article has functioned for years by observing established items of consensus, many of them implicit consensus, and protects reinstatement of longstanding text as such. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, it says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." If consensus doesn't exist, then it isn't included. That's only controversial when it's information you want in the article. Look, it's quite clear you intend to badger every that doesn't have an opinion that exactly matches yours. You asked for neutral, third party opinions on the close. I have not been involved in the discussion, or any related matters. I gave my opinion. I have no intention of allowing myself to be hassled anymore. You don't win just because you make more comments. Your opinion is the best documented opinion on the matter, but you are still only afforded the weight due to one person, no matter how many times you comment. --Jayron32 14:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  What would be most constructive, I think (if you wish to continue volunteering your time to this little issue) would be for you to provide a reasoned close that takes account of all the arguements, sourcing, and rebuttals of the removal-advocates. Who knows? Maybe the close was correct. But the closing statement and the "endorse" comments in this thread certainly give no solid reasoned summary and evaluation of the !votes and arguments. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  The closer left a multi-paragraph explanation of their evaluation of the votes and arguments; it would be difficult for me to add anything more that is worth saying. --Jayron32 15:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close - It's best we accept the decision & move on. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

First/only "officeholder" or "president" twice impeached by the U.S. House? Which word should be used?

Is this change agreeable? Changing the statement that Trump became the only president to be twice impeached to the (sourced/verifiable) statement that he became the only officeholder to be twice impeached by the U.S. House.

There appears to be disagreement of the gist of consensus that the last discussion this talk page had on it. I believe that the last discussion largely accepted broadening the claim when that was substantively discussed, but objected to using the word "individuals" (hence why this latest edit used the term "officeholders"

By limiting the statement to "president", we leave it unclear whether other officeholders have been twice impeached federally in the U.S. In fact, by the deliberate language that limits the claim solely to "president" it might reasonably be falsely inferred by readers that this wording choice was due to the existence of other officeholder(s) that have been the subject of multiple impeachments. However, by wording it as "officeholder", there is no mistaking this, and its is understood that this means he was the first president as presidents are entirely encompassed by the word "officeholder" SecretName101 (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I would say he's the first "person" to be twice impeached. "President" you correctly note is too narrow, but "officeholder" feels very clunky to me. Loki (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

As I've said in the recent previous discussion, the larger pool of eligible personnel doesn't make the two impeachments more significant, the importance of the office does. How many readers even know that officeholders other than the president are subject to impeachment and, if so, which ones? Why would some of those readers falsely infer that other officeholder(s) ... have been the subject of multiple impeachments instead of being removed from office or care about them? The NBC source is about the House impeachment managers bringing it up "as an example of the Senate holding an impeachment trial for an official who's no longer in office." (It resulted in the Senate determining in 1799 that senators are not "civil officers" and therefore not subject to impeachment). How is this important for Trump's two impeachments? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Too many paragraphs in the lead?

As of writing, the lead has seven paragraphs, and I'm unsure if they benefit the article. The final sentence of MOS:LEAD's lead paragraph recommends four paragraphs. I'm leaning towards suggesting that the paragraphs on his presidency be seen if they can be consolidated into one or two, and maybe consider putting his civil and criminal lawsuits in the same paragraph as his impeachments. What I see as the main issue is that the paragraphs are almost niche focused, and overarching "themes" should be condensed as appropriate. Maybe even see if bits and pieces can be placed into the first sentence and turn it into a multi-sentence paragraph? Just an idea. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Typo in the body of this article

It says "He Three Supreme Court Justices." I don't imagine that is correct. Hairsonfire (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Fixed; removed and I mentioned the intended content in the final lead paragraph. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments requested on draft Rewritten Lead

Should the lead of this article be changed to this rewritten version? This aligns with "current consensus" above.

DynaGuy00 (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I briefly read the rewrite and I think it flows and reads better then the current lead. From my reading of the rewrite I didn't notice anything removed (besides the Dobbs legacy which I've removed from the current lead anyway) and saw only 1 new sentence: Trump has been the subject of significant controversy and critique before, during, and after his presidency. Otherwise, it appears everything else was merely rearranged. However, I could have missed something; so I'll ask DynaGuy00: (1) What content, if any, is actually removed rather than just rearranged? and (2) What content is new? Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Which items of the current consensus does what part of your rewrite align with? The last time you brought up this rewrite, you said the lead is "poorly written". I just spent some time comparing the versions. If it is so poorly written, why are you mostly shuffling sentences around? Example:

Current version: He expanded the company's operations to building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos and golf courses, and later started side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice. Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies.

New: He expanded the company's operations to building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos and golf courses, and later started side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies. He also co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice from 2004 to 2015.’’

IMO, that’s not an improvement. The current version mentions his career(s), and then the legal actions he and his businesses were involved in. Your mention appears to make the point that the legal actions had nothing to do with the Apprentice, which, BTW, isn’t the case (discrimination, idea theft, pitching a failed videophone on the show, Zervos defamation suit).

Your rewrite is 44 characters longer than the current one. You removed "in an aggressive attempt to weaken environmental protections" (anything else?). What did you add? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Link the Trump Wall in lead?

My edit was reverted by for WP:STATUSQUO reasons which linked "building a wall" in the lead sentence diverted military funding towards building a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border to the Trump wall. Would like to obtain consensus on adding this link per WP:BRD. I believe that this link can additionally be helpful for readers looking for more information not he wall itself as the link to the article on Trump's wall is more prominent is placed here. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Include the link. Obviously, it's relevant linking. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Include; it's one of the most prominent symbols of his presidency. This recent paper calls it one of two metaphors that animate Trump's rhetoric, and describes how it ties-in to everything else: the "President-as-CEO" metaphor, dealmaker symbolism ("I'll make Mexico pay for it"), nativism, protectionism, and soundbyte-as-policy. DFlhb (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, Trump wall says that The concept for the proposed expansion was developed by campaign advisers Sam Nunberg and Roger Stone in 2014 as a memorable talking point Trump could use to tie his business experience as a builder and developer to his immigration policy proposals. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's the edit [3] by User:Space4Time3Continuum2x that reverted the link. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: did you intentionally remove the link or was it just collateral damage to the removal of the other content? Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

It was intentional. The sentence already has two WikiLinks, and the second clause isn't about the wall that didn't get built but about President I-did-more-for-my-military-than-any-president-ever-in-the-known-universe attempting to divert $3.8 billion in funds allocated by Congress to the Defense Department's budget for (among other purposes) "buying equipment for National Guard and Reserve units, such as trucks, generators and spare parts, as well as fighter jets and ships." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the fact that the sentence already has two links really a reason to not include the link? That seems quite arbitrary IMO. Cessaune [talk] 00:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You know my opinion: the blue "ink" is distracting from the information. If we have to have some blue (item 60 of the consensus), then let's keep it to a minimum and off the PR stunts like Trump's wall. relevant to his presidency — about as relevant as the other PR stunts, the meetings with Kim Jong-Un, currently commemorated on Trump's I-love-me wall at Mar-a-Lago. They were all distractions from the real agenda, tax-cuts for the super-rich and further dismantling of the social safety net. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Source? Cessaune [talk] 14:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

For what, the social safety net? The proposal sunk by an election. Or for his PR stunts being a distraction ([4], [5])? I'm opining on the talk page, SYNTH doesn't apply. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Include it; it has obvious ties to Trump and is relevant to his presidency. Cessaune [talk] 16:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Neutral - linking or not linking to the Trump Wall, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Stop !voting

Please don't treat every talk page discussion as if it needed an up or down !vote off the top. Horrible. And the link is silly, per OP. We need more tertiary sourcing and less holding up each individual action or controversy as if it is dispositive of some unstated conclusion about the subject. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not like you can WP:Bold-refine this specific edit. The ArbCom restrictions also make things a bit tedious. If it was deemed important enough to be reverted, it's important enough to bring to the talk page, and a !vote is a simple, easy and relatively quick way to gauge conesnsus. I don't see what other option there is. Cessaune [talk] 16:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I read your response as confirmation of my concern. There are thousands of alternatives that do not take the form of yes or no. I tried to suggest one in my post, without any specific article text proposed. Namely, the article needs to use more tertiary sources, not editor-curated lists of sins and outrages. Tertiary RS by expert mainstream commentators are increasingly abundant. The upshot is that this man was unprepared for the office -- even outside the very wide range of all but one or two of his diverse predecessors. That he lacks the knowledge or personal character to assume such responsibilities, that he routinely misapplied and misapproriated the powers of the US executive, etc. etc. That is more what's needed, with RS citations rather than a mere collation of "smoking gun" gotcha's like the wall, the Bible fiasco, etc. Not that some of those may not be noteworthy in themselves, - the Neo-Nazi equivocation, e.g. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Re "That is more what's needed, with RS citations rather than a mere collation of "smoking gun" gotcha's like the wall, the Bible fiasco, etc." — What Bible fiasco are you referring to? Bob K31416 (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2023

Add the about template, should have Donald Trump Jr. to the first text, and link "Donald Trump Jr.". ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about his father, and Donald Trump Jr.'s name does not belong in the first sentence or anywhere in the lead. Donald Trump Jr.'s article is linked in the infobox and in the Donald_Trump#Family section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

what I mean is:

first: Donald Trump Sr.

Second: his son:

Donald Trump Jr. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Any reason why we should be doing this? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

For those who are looking for Donald Trump's son. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You mean to change "Children Donald Jr". to "Children Donald Trump Jr because people might not realize that the former means Donald Jnr means his son? Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

no ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

(Not sure if our collective leg is being pulled here.) Trump has more than one son, and those looking for Donald Trump Jr. will just have to search for "Donald Trump Jr." in their browsers (his WP article is probably the top result) or in the WP search bar, or read the infobox or the Donald_Trump#Family section in this article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The "this article is part of a series about"-box should lie right below the info-box.

This is the standard. Would someone please fix this? Ramanujaner (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Someone moved it into the Donald_Trump#Russian_election_interference section "to avoid image stacking at the beginning of the article". I just moved it back. Doesn't cause any crowding problems in Vector 2010. In Vector 2022, it pushes Trump's high school photo down into the "Health habits" section but that's the only "stacking". IMO that's preferable to the series box way down in the body. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)