Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• None

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

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

10. Canceled

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

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

False racism narratives

From a neutral point of view if you look at the "very fine people" comment was taken way out of context because he was talking about the people that were protesting for the statue to be up and said condemn the white supremacists I'm not understanding how this can be considered racism.. Trump's comment on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia—that there were "very fine people on both sides"—was widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence between white supremacist demonstrators and counter-protesters.[814][815][816] < 99.99.46.20 (talk)

It's not up to us as editors to decide whether something he said is racist or not. The function of this article is to record what has been said by notable and reliable sources.  Aar  ►  23:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Citations

I trimmed some citations from the article here but was reverted, and this should be restored. All the content is still supported by the remaining references. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

As several editors have commented to you, removal of carefully curated references, assembled over the course of countless discussions and untold hours of editors' time and attention, is destructive to the article and contrary to our readers' interest. Please stop. SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I ask you not to reflect on editors and instead focus on content. The citations which I removed in the edit were unnecessary. Please feel free to cite the discussions you claim to be referring to, but we aren't bound by them either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Given the size of the article, should these citations as edited here be trimmed? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support The content is supported enough without these particular citations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• When there's debate about whether or not a citation is necessary, I generally lean on the side of inclusion unless there are a clearly excessive number or the article is running up against technical limits. Onetwothreeip, if you want to remove them, make an affirmative case specifying the material and why it's adequately supported by the existing citations. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I would share that approach normally, but this article has in excess of 850 citations! The only content at issue here is one simple sentence: Many of Trump's comments and actions have been considered racist. It is not saying that Trump's comments or actions are racist, but that they are considered racist. This simply does not need six citations; my version retains two for this sentence (and there are about thirty citations in the rest of the Trump racism section). The two citations I retain are titled "Donald Trump's long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2019" and "Every moment in Trump's charged relationship with race". These sources are from Vox and PBS respectively, which are both reliable, and the articles certainly detail Trump's comments and actions being considered racist, if not himself being characterised as racist. These two sources are very thorough, and not simply focusing on whatever racial controversy was happening in the news. Personally I think either of these sources are enough for this one sentence, but if you feel they are not then please let me know. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• OpposeThose citations are in place because many editors discussed long and hard how to document this extraordinary claim. If you want to overturn that consensus, it will take more than just your opinion. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

That is an extraordinarily contentious claim, so I support having multiple citations. The way they're combined prevents them from unduly interrupting the text. I'm not sure the last two about the "shithole" remark are needed, since those refer primarily to a specific instance whereas the others document a larger pattern. But I would not support removing more than that, and if there is a strong prior consensus to use those sources as Specifico asserts, I don't see any urgent need to rock the boat. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's see this supposed prior consensus then, but I doubt it exists. It might be extraordinary to claim that Donald Trump or his actions and comments are racist, but that is not the claim made in the article. The article claims many of his comments and actions have been considered racist. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I would like to lean on the side of WP:V.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: Could you elaborate on why you think the content isn't supported by the remaining citations? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Support it is rare that more than 2 citations are needed for any statement of fact, and on an article that is already too long that holds doubly so. Without some argument why the 6 citations are necessary, I must support a reduction. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per SPECIFICO. — Politicsfan4 (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Impeachment sentences in lead fail to provide essential context

The sentences we have in the lead regarding impeachment are currently ...the House of Representatives impeached him in December 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate acquitted him of both charges in February 2020. for the first one, and Seven days later, the House impeached him for incitement of insurrection, making him the only federal officeholder in American history to be impeached twice. The Senate acquitted Trump on February 13, 2021. for the second one.

If I were a reader who knew nothing about Trump and were coming here to learn about him, I'd come away from these sentences with a severe misunderstanding of what took place. Just saying that the House/Senate impeached/acquitted him leaves out the absolutely essential context (noted in basically every RS covering the impeachments) that the process was highly partisan, and that the acquittals were not the result of Republicans weighing the evidence and finding it unpersuasive (as an uninformed reader might reasonably assume from the current language) so much as making a political decision not to go against a president from their own party. They self-admitted as much: "I'm not an impartial juror" is a direct quote from Mitch McConnell.

To remedy this, I propose changing the first instance of Senate acquitted him to Republican-controlled Senate acquitted him and the second instance to Republican senators blocked a conviction on February 12, 2021. This provides purely factual information that helps establish the essential partisan context of the trials.^{Edit: Paragraph modified, see below. 06:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)}

The GOP claims that Democrats acted in a similarly partisan fashion have not been widely adopted by RS in their own voice the same way as is true for Republicans, so I have concerns that it would be false balance to add Democratic-controlled House, but I would prefer both over neither. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support adding for Republicans as proposer, with second choice adding for both. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Would it be acceptable to say that the Senate did not convict/remove him, rather than to say it acquitted him? I agree that "acquittal" sounds like they were weighing evidence, which is not a useful assessment. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose adding that it was a "Republican-controlled Senate" should not be added since it's literally not true. Democrats had control of the Senate when he was acquitted. If were gonna say it was a partisan acquittal we should also say it was a partisan impeachment. I personally think it's fine the way it is now since it's not giving excessive detail in the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Ack, politics is so discombobulating these days, I forgot that the second impeachment trial was after the current class of senators was sworn in. The essential fact that Republicans blocked the conviction remains, though; I've modified the suggestion accordingly, changing the wording for the second trial rather than saying "Republican-controlled Senate" again.

  Regarding the "we should also say", that's exactly the whataboutism that I cautioned about above. Where are the reliable sources saying in their own voice that Democratic senators voted to convict because of partisan objectives rather than since they believed Trump to be guilty on the evidence? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

We can't seriously claim that either Democratic or Republican politicians voted based on evidence or partisanship, that is ascribing motives. If we say that the Senate did not convict Trump after the House impeached him, that leaves open the fact that it was partisan, if not implying it. The current version gives too much pretence to Republican senators acting on evidence, but saying that Republicans prevented an impeachment conviction goes too far the other way. It's much better to simply say the House impeached him (or even better to say the House voted for articles of impeachment), and that the Senate didn't vote to remove or convict him. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Well put Onetwothreeip. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment Broadly speaking, your notions are part of a general issue that has been on my mind. There are those that would like articles such as this to just state the bare facts, and there are others, such as I, that think it is important to provide the context, implications, meaning, etc. behind the bare facts. The latter approach requires more text. What you propose is a slippery slope, fraught with peril. It is also not quite correct to lay the partisan nature of the events to "Republicans" - it is perhaps more correct to speak of Trumpists and how the Trump cult has come to dominate the Republican party. An alternate approach may be to back up a bit in the lead with some statement to the effect that Trump's personality and election deceit came to dominate the views of his followers and the Republican party. The lead (and article) is missing the notion that the self-serving, bizzaro world that Trump spun has come to dominate Republican politics, a Trump cult dominates, disconnected from facts. Such a statement will likely be more necessary as the next few years unfold with Trump's evidently continued dominance of Republican politics. The lead, IMO, does not refute the massive election disinformation strongly enough - we used to have the statement that the election was the most secure in history, but it got removed. Perhaps some alternate language to yours to consider might be "the Senate acquitted Trump, with many Republicans continuing to express belief in widespread election impropriety," or something like that. Bdushaw (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

"Trumpists and how the Trump cult has come to dominate the Republican party" Pardon my confusion, but are there still other factions in this political party besides the Trumpists? Dimadick (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, though anyone could be excused for thinking not. Mitt Romney is an example, as are the "never Trumpers"/Lincoln Project. There are conservative commentators such as Max Boot and David Brooks who are not at all supportive of Trump. One doesn't know what to think of McConnell, other than he's an opportunist, but he's no Trumpist. The Trumpists dominate, to be sure, but the Republican party is split; the battle between the factions and how strongly Trumpism perseveres will be the story of the next election cycle.Bdushaw (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• I support the proposal for the first impeachment trial. The proposal for the second one would leave the uninformed reader as clueless as before (how were they able to do that). We could provide context for the second impeachment trial like this: "The Senate acquitted Trump by voting 57–43 to convict, falling short of the required two-thirds majority for a conviction." Anything more is too much detail for the lead, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  Or something like Despite a bipartisan majority of congressional and public support for conviction, the 57 votes in the Senate fell short of the required two-thirds margin. SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The impeachment was not bipartisan neither was public support bipartisan. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Please review RS narratives about that. All Democrat voters and around 30% of Republicans polled in favor of conviction. That comes to 60%+. SPECIFICO talk 22:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Dems had control at the time. But it doesn't even matter who was in "control" because no one has supermajority. And as for making impeachment a "partisan" issue, impeachment is inherently partisan/political to begin with. That is in no way lead worthy Anon0098 (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  Anon0098, the dems did not have control during the first impeachment; see 116th Congress. The goof Iamreallygoodatcheckers pointed out above was corrected in the proposal, so if you continue to believe that it is somehow factually incorrect, that points to you not having read or understood the proposal. Courtesy pinging PackMecEng and Spy-cicle, who seem to have followed—please either modify your !votes or articulate how the proposal is somehow factually incorrect. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I thought the first proposal was still referincing the second impeachment. Regardless, as I said, who blocked the impeachment is irrelevant especially since this is not noteworthy in relation to previous impeachments. The party always supports the president, it's a given -- impeachment is inherently partisan/political to begin with and I stand by that Anon0098 (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

There is much too small a sample size to declare impeachment is always this or that. Anyway, if it were, then it is all the more significant that there was bipartisan support in 2021. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - As factually incorrect and, as Anon0098 points out, misleading. PackMecEng (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support 2600:1702:2340:9470:BD7A:302B:D2C5:5563 (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Agree 100% that a misinformed person would absolutely walk away under false pretenses about this impeachment situation with how this worded. Perhaps the person who wrote this passage didnt realize it was confusing and misleading? I like what you proposed, it is clear and concise. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per other comments. 74.193.109.22 (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)MaximusEditor (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. BigCheese76 (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: the lead should be simple and factual. This is an attempt to put spin into the lead. Impeachment votes are by their nature partisan. This is misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  It's adding purely factual information that is supported by every possible reference you could find. We can mislead our readers by omission just as easily as by inclusion, so the current inadequate phrasing is the greater neutrality concern, in my view. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps noting that the Senate "did not reach the required two-thirds threshold to convict" and thus acquitted him of both charges for the first one, and then that would imply that they didn't reach two-thirds the second time, providing a little bit of context to it requiring bipartisanship that wasn't there. Go Phightins! 01:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Ethics experts?

The "Conflicts of interest" section uses the unspecific and non-neutral term "ethics experts" twice. I think the paragraph could be simply rewritten to point out that unless Trump sold his businesses he would continue to profit from them. Alternatively, the "ethics experts" could be specified. As it stands, the continual use of the term "ethics experts" seems to violate the NPOV policy and the prohibition on weasel words.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

What do the cited sources say? SPECIFICO talk 11:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

ranking out of us presidents

can you add that he is ranked as one of the worst presidents in American history — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTTTRZON (talk • contribs) 15:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

We are still too close to events to make a valid judgment.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Whether to report “historical rankings” has been discussed repeatedly on this page, most recently here. So far there is no consensus to include this, pending the passage of time and more scholarly analysis. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Post Presidency

There isn`t really a whole of lot information here regarding what`s he`s doing since Biden got sworn in..I`m not saying it matters but it`s odd considering the length of this article that as soon as he`s out there`s virtually nothing. 2600:1702:2340:9470:9512:EF4F:1107:4D3D (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It's largely because what he's done post-presidency hasn't been notable. Most of the things that he's done have been minor things that would be closer to news reporting than encyclopedic. See WP:NOTNEWS — Czello 07:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I have not heard about him post presidency 2601:1C2:101:3480:6C4E:310B:BAB0:DE2A (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Try look at this [[1]]. Its not a lot, but then he no longer has to just say stuff to get publicty.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

As previously discussed, I don't think this section is necessary.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Article suggestion

Hey all, I'm not a content creator but I was working on some categorization for an article in Category:Cults of personality and thought that maybe, in time, an article on Trump with this focus would be warranted. Whatever your opinion of Trump, pro or con, I think he definitely had (still has?) a cult of personality similar to some other world leaders. It probably would cross-over a bit with the article on his use of social media but I don't think a U.S. political party has had a leader with a singularly devoted following as Trump had in generations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd definitely argue that there is a cult of personality among Republicans surrounding Trump and would support an article discussing the subject. I'm not sure if now is the right time to write an article, as it remains uncertain if the cult will last into the future or if it will dissipate in the next few years or so. Mgasparin (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

While Trump is rare in having a personal rather than ideological following, your view is an over-exaggeration. The U.S. under Trump did not bear much similarity to North Korea under Kim Il Sung. All the news organizations that criticized him remained open and none of their reporters were arrested or executed. TFD (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I've read several articles discussing his followers as a cult, and Q-Anon is often described as cultlike. The Venn diagram between Q-followers and Trump supporters isn't quite a circle, but there's a LOT of overlap. I think you could certainly find sources for such an article, but the question is is now the time? As Mgasparin says above, it remains to be seen how much staying power this all has now that he's not in office. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 03:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing "Donald Trump's cult of personality" next to Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, etc in your list. There is no comparison. Anon0098 (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Anon0098 What do you mean there is no comparison? Cults of personality simply involve heavy uses of propaganda, spectacle and/or big lie, patriotism to create an idealized or heroic image of a leader, things Trump and his followers have explicity engaged in. The personality cult need not involve great acts of violence by the followers or the leader (as in Hitler and Stalin) to be a cult. Mgasparin (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't support this. There likely aren't a whole lot of sources that specifically describe and use the term "cult of personality" for Trump's movement, even if they do exist many are likely opinions. There is a relatively strict criteria for articles of this nature under WP:NEGATIVESPIN. I don't think we are at the spot or coverage for such an article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The current Trumpism article seems to fit the cult-of-personality bill, per Mgasparin, so maybe it should be listed in Category:Cults of personality. See also Golden statues, cult-like behavior, Trump worship. I'm surprised not to see Mussolini, many of whose ideas Hitler copied, listed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I recall not insubstantial reporting on the disappointment and shock of more than a few Trump supporters after Biden's inauguration. Many people felt duped. Comparisons to some of the historical political cult figures are not really relevant or fair. Trump had and has a considerable following - if we accept what the true nature of Trumpism is (according to RS's), such following is certainly cult-like; an irrational, misguided following. There are more similar examples in American history of such cults, e.g., Charles Coughlin or Huey Long. Trump is one of America's great demagogues, though there is wide agreement not to call him so in a Wikipedia article. Bdushaw (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

"an irrational, misguided following" Honestly, I doubt that rationality is relevant to politics. More often than not, an appeal to emotion is a winning strategy for politicians. The article on Trumpism has several sources pointing that it connects to the emotions of the ideology's followers, including anger towards the elite which they identify with Trump's opponents. For better or for worse, many of Trump's followers feel disenfranchised, and perceive establishment politicians as working against them. Dimadick (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there any significant amount of RS that say there is a cult of personality?Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven Define "significant". Here are some. There are more. They are easy to find. Most are opinion pieces. Some are by or are interviews with people who study and research cults. One is an opinion piece by a former Republican congressperson. BTW, Trump is already mentioned in our list of cults of personality. The following ones are all before March of 2020. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Revert

@Slatersteven: that's right, there are two sources, but only one calls it a "racist rhetoric" which is why I have specified that. Please revert your edit. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

So you object to one word?Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: what does that mean? What word? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

So what are you objecting to, RS say he used racist language, racist tweets and racist rhertioic to try and hold onto voters. So what are you objecting to if its is not "rhetoric", are you really, saying RS did not accuse Donnie of appealing to rasicm? Sure we might be able to reword it to "used racism" or "appeals to racism" as RS say, or we can just say "racist rhetoric", which RS also say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

We have enough in the article but here are some more about Donnie using racism as an election tactic [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]], so we paraphrase.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying. Please try and speak using better English or rephrase your comment so that I can understand. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I am asking what you are objecting to if it is not just the use of the word rhetoric, what (for example) did the Washington post say?Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not objecting to anything, simply providing attribution as the phrase "racist rhetoric" was used by NBC and thus should be attributed to them.

On a different note, this is the third time you have reverted an edit I have made almost immediately after I made it. This could be considered WP:HOUNDING, or am I wrong? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

As to the rest, or you could have removed the word rhetoric and thus conformed to both sources, which accuse him of using it as an election tool. Hence why I assumed you objected to the word "rhetoric".Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I would have reverted the second edit, had it not been done so already. Allen West was a 1-term Congressman nearly a decade ago, with zero national profile since, and is certainly not a recognized expert in race relations. Zaathras (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Referencing legislation names in lead

Taking a look back at other presidential bio articles, notable legislation signed into law by the President is almost always referred to specifically by the name of the legislation. I propose that we follow convention and do this as well for this article. Specifically "a tax-cut package" should be written as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and "criminal justice reform" should be the First Step Act. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Basil the Bat Lord, we currently handle this in the lead with e.g. He enacted a tax-cut package for individuals and businesses. I think that's good. Some pieces of legislation have a very well-known name and should be referred to by that name. But many (the tax cut act included) are better known and more clearly described by what they did. Legislation names are also almost always promotional, so it's also often more neutral to describe them than name them. Names can also take up more space, especially if they have to be described, and space is something we don't have. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

SdkbIf that's the consensus then fine, but I would just point out that it doesn't seem to be being applied consistently on other articles then. For example, the Obama page's lead contains a bunch of fully written out legislation titles, even for bills which are not commonly known today (such as the various stimulus bills). Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Basil's point. I can't see how "a tax-cut package" more clearly describes the legislation than its actual name. I don't see that the space taken by "criminal justice reform" is less than "First Step Act". Legislation names may be promotional, but that's their name. It is not POV to call legislation by its name, but it could be POV to substitute a short description for the name. It also seems a needless effort to create a description (which might be contentious) rather than simply use the name. As a reader, I find it far more informative to be told the name of the legislation upfront. If I want information about the legislation I can go through to the article (where I will get more than a short description). I shouldn't have to dig to find out what legislation is being referred to. And, yes, the style should be consistent. We shouldn't have a different style here.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Trumpists has been nominated for discussion

Category:Trumpists has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Trump wall

Given there is a separate article on the "wall", do we really need three paragraphs here? As far as I can see, it seems to be a simple matter of Trump promised X, and Trump delivered Y.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No we can pare this down to a few lines.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I have copied text from the introduction of the Trump wall article, which is more coherent than the text that was previously here. It could do with some improvement.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Good initiative. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

However, having done that, I realise that the two preceding subsections in the "Immigration" section are also about the "wall" (government shutdown etc). I think this should be one subsection, and again, since we have an article about the "wall", we really only need highlights here. I also think having one subsection would be easier to understand.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Covid 19

When was Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists added, as there is a claim it was added only a day ago, and is thus covered by wp:brd, as far as I can tell it has been in the article months, what am I missing?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

NPOV edit to intro

Hi, fellow Wikipedians! I'm Dswitz10734. One of my edits was recently reverted on this page. I want a consensus on the talk page to change this paragraph. The change I want is in italics.

Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden, but refused to concede defeat. He attempted to overturn the results by making false claims of electoral fraud, pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges and obstructing the presidential transition. On the day Congress met to tally the electoral votes, January 6, 2021, Trump rallied his supporters and told them to march to the Capitol. When they arrived, hundreds of them broke through security barricades and stormed the Capitol, resulting in the deaths of five people and forcing Congress to evacuate. Seven days later, the House impeached Trump for incitement of insurrection, making him the only federal officeholder in American history to be impeached twice. The Senate acquitted Trump for the second time on February 13, 2021.

Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden, but refused to concede defeat. He attempted to overturn the results by making false claims of electoral fraud, pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges and obstructing the presidential transition. On the day Congress met to tally the electoral votes, January 6, 2021, Trump rallied his supporters and told them to "peacefully and patriotically" make their voices heard. Following his statements, many of his supporters went to the Capitol. When they arrived, hundreds of them broke through security barricades and stormed the Capitol, resulting in the deaths of five people and forcing Congress to evacuate. Seven days later, the House impeached Trump for incitement of insurrection, making him the only federal officeholder in American history to be impeached twice. The Senate acquitted Trump for the second time on February 13, 2021.

The word "march" makes it seem like Trump encouraged the violence. I'm sure he didn't want violence nor deaths, but the light he is in seems to get that message across to the reader. I wanted to make it clear in the article that Trump didn't encourage deaths, but he said to "peacefully and patriotically" [6] express your feelings.

I didn't want the article to convey that Trump wanted the violence without a reference; this article should be neutral. I noticed when I referenced that site that it was citation number 1. That means that the entire intro is citeless! (I made that word up because it makes sense ;-) ) Please tell me your thoughts so we can get a consensus. Thank you for your time and I hope to hear from you soon! Dswitz10734 (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC) P.S. Requesting comment from Slatersteven

I oppose this proposal. He said "peacefully" once, but, as that section in the BBC article you cited then says, The language was very different from other sections, which borrowed more from combat or war. The overall message that was given to the mob was not one of peace. The article continues, He clearly knew there were people in that crowd who were ready to and intended to be violent, and he certainly did nothing to discourage that. He not only did nothing to discourage it, he strongly hinted it should happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thus we should represent RS analysis of what he said.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)