Talk:Donald Trump

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

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

10. Canceled

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

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

25. 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)

RfC: Should the lead section mention that the subject promotes conspiracy theories?

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.

Clear consensus for option A. The arguments to the opposite are essentially claims that this "has already been discussed" or that this is not a notable thing about the subject (plus an obviously humourous alliteration by InedibleHulk). The first of these is a non-argument, and the second (a negative statement) is thoroughly disproved by positive proof (in the form of multiple reliable sources, such as required by NPOV) of the opposite, a position which is endorsed by the majority of contributors and is coherent with usual practice as documented in WP:NPOV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

---

I'm creating this based on previous discussions here and here. Should the lead section mention that the subject promotes conspiracy theories? ––FormalDude talk 05:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

A: Add verbiage to the lead that Trump promotes conspiracy theories

or

B: Do not add verbiage to the lead that Trump promotes conspiracy theories

Survey (Conspiracy theories)

• A, Add. Of course. We even have a whole article and category for this because it's a very notable aspect of his disconnection from truth and facts. -- Valjean (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• B - on the basis that I'm not convinced he truly believes such conspiracies. Aside from political gain or wanting attention, I've no knowledge of why he's pushing such theories. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • His belief status is irrelevant to the proposition here. IRL, whether he believes or not doesn't change the effect on his believers and the nation. They believe him and act accordingly. -- Valjean (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree with Valjean here. The "why" question is completely irrelevant. Generalrelative (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• B - We literally already had this discussion multiple times. The links to the prior surveys all show a vast majority of users rejecting the idea of adding the content to the lead. What’s effectively a third poll now of the same question is effectively redundant. Some people just can’t seem to cope their way into accepting the prior results and appear to be prepared to clutter the page with the same question again and again until they hope to get a positive consensus, which would still be worthless as it wouldn’t override all of the negative consensus before. I question the point of all this again. Davefelmer (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Davefelmer: Links, please? SPECIFICO talk 01:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• A. It is not hard to find numerous high quality sources describing this as a key feature of Trump's notability as a public figure. His impact on the world as a promoter of disinformation arguably outweighs all other aspects of his political career put together. Leaving this out would be a disservice to our readers. Generalrelative (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • To clarify: I'm not in favor of adding this to the opening paragraph (something which there is a clear consensus against anyway, judging from previous discussions). I think the best thing would be to add this as a clause appended to the end of the sentence Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. E.g. "and has promoted conspiracy theories throughout his political career." I see that something similar was suggested by Space4Time3Continuum2x last week. Generalrelative (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• B How many times are we going to go through this discussion? Trump's promotion of conspiracy theories is not a notable feature of it's presidency. Also this RfC should be more clear on what is wanted, like articulate a sentence and say where you want it specifically, and then we discuss. It certainly shouldn't be in the lead sentence, that would be massively WP:UNDUE. There isn't a whole section on his conspiracy theories like there is his business, political, and media career. As for inclusion in the lead body, it's still not appropriate. He really is only well known for promotion of conspiracies involving election fraud and COVID-19, and both of these things are already covered in the lead. Also I'm not sure if these things are labeled "conspiracy theories" enough in RS for us to use that particular diction. Also the lead is supposed to be a quick sum of the article content and the subsection on "conspiracy theories" is very small, as it should be for WP:UNDUE. So it's not warranted to label any conspiracy theory promotion in the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Obama birtherism. SPECIFICO talk 01:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Consensus item 33 specifically states birtherism shouldn't be mentioned in the lead section. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The RfC isn’t about adding birtherism to the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you aware of the subsection Donald_Trump#Promotion_of_conspiracy_theories and the split article List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump? It is quite DUE to mention somewhere in the lede section that Trump has promoted conspiracy theories. ––FormalDude talk 04:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the subsection. I'm also aware of how tiny it is, a whopping 3 sentences. MOS:LEAD wants the lead to be a "brief summary" and summarization of the "most important points". None of Trump's conspiracy theory promotion is very relevant to his presidency or career beyond COVID-19 and the election theories, which are already mentioned in the lead, and giving that much weight to a tiny subsection is undue. Yes there is a crap ton of references about his conspiracy theory promotion, but it's not important to his notability. We already have a long standing consensus on not mentioning birtherism. As for List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump, who cares? It's not really even an article with content, it's a list. There are plenty of lists about Trump, they shouldn't be in the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll work on expanding it for you. ––FormalDude talk 05:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Those "whopping three sentences" cover a lot of ground—nine conspiracy theories in the first paragraph (each one wikilinked to its own page) and five in the last paragraph. Trump may have stopped mentioning the one linking the father of Ted Cruz to the Kennedy assassination but the others are still on his rally playlist. And he’s been mentioning election fraud every time he's opened his mouth in interviews, statements, even when he played commentator at the Belford/Holyfield boxing match. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD states the lead material should reflect what is "important to the topic". The lead is already really long and we don't need any material that is not significant to the topic. Most conspiracy theory promotion by Trump is just background noise to his notability and his importance. It never substantially effected his campaign, elections, or policies. It's just trivial information really. You can find plenty sources about it, but what does that say about it's importance? Conspiracy theories are not his claim to fame. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• A Trump has a long track record of promoting various conspiracy theories and other falsehoods. There are many high quality sources that can attest to this fact. This should be noted in both the lead and the body of this article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• A I've voted in the other versions of this RfC, but his promotion of conspiracy theories and conspiratorial thinking is a very common element of coverage by RS. Warrants a sentence or two in the lead. BSMRD (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• B. This is not a notable thing about his presidency. Sea Ane (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles. It's WP:DUE about Trump as a person (he's done it before, during, and after his presidency) because numerous reliable sources mentioned it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources mentioning this does not mean it should be in the lead of a Wikipedia article. Sea Ane (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sea Ane: This article is not the one about his presidency. This is about his life story. Everything. SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I do not agree. This is an encyclopedia article, not about his "life story" or "everything", but about things that need to be in an encyclopedia (important things). Sea Ane (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

You are the one who decided based on his presidency. There is a separate article for that. Much of this article is about things outside his presidency. Please try to be consistent. SPECIFICO talk▪︎

Yes, I agree that much of this article is about things outside his presidency. I also stand by what I wrote that I don't believe that what Trump says about conspiracies needs to be in the lead of Wikipedia article since this is not a notable point about his life. Sea Ane (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• B I oppose adding this to the lead per UNDUE and RECENTISM. I also don't think it's appropriate to expand the sections in the body to somehow give justification for adding it to the lead. Here appears to be the last time this was discussed, less than a year ago, with widespread opposition (only one support) to include in the lead. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ernie. Birtherism from 10 years ago is recent? Or do you believe its not a conspiracy theory? SPECIFICO talk 15:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• A: This isn't a notable thing about him? In what world? There are tons of reliable sources saying he does this (as listed by FormalDude in the discussion section below) and it's easily in the three or four things he's most known for. Loki (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I also support Generalrelative's language. Loki (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• B, as in Bonkers, Baloney and Bull, also Balderdash, Black Sheep and Bah (two Bags full!). B like a Bludgeoning, Badgering game, wherein Bastards and Bureaucrats answer the same. B is for Bowdlerised polarized Poo, and words rearranged till our faces are Blue. B on all Bunkum, Bad News and Brown, B on this Bewitched "Bipartisan" town! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  B as in Backwater argument? B as in Bickery? B as in Babbling nonsense? B as in Baby can't come up with any real justification? ––FormalDude talk 02:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: please be considerate of WP:CIVIL. Please refrain from personal attacks such as calling an editor a "baby" Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I have been reading a book expressly dedicated to a young Princess Beatrice, so... InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Please be considerate of warning other editors about WP:CIVIL. It is not to be used for pearl-clutching. ––FormalDude talk 03:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, if anything, it's InedibleHulk that's being uncivil. Being cute and alliterative doesn't protect you from WP:CIVIL. Loki (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

No, but choosing my widdle words wisely does. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Buddy, I've Bitched and Bemoaned this Bother here Before, three Beguiling times (my Bookie she kept score). I wrote Bigger Better Bluster "once or twice" back then, to be Botched, Boxed and reBuried, time and time again. So forgive my Basic Braying, my frank and formal dude, but the Bramble we've Bogged down in Bears Bad Boyish attitude. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• A—due, noteworthy, and well sourced. The section on Trump promoting conspiracy theories may be short but it summarizes or names 16 theories he has pushed, some going back a few decades, and he’s still pushing many of them. We don’t hear as much about it as before, now that Twitter has muzzled him and RS have stopped reporting every utterance. Here are additional RS, all from 2021, to the ones in the article and the ones listed in the below discussion:

'More Dangerous And More Widespread': Conspiracy Theories Spread Faster Than Ever , NPR, March 2, 2021

AP FACT CHECK: Trump stokes Jan. 6 conspiracy theories, AP, July 14, 2021

Examining the conspiracy theories, legal threats and Trump fraud claims in the California recall, LA Times, September 14, 2021

Power Up: Republicans are embracing Trump-enabled conspiracy theories more vigorously than ever, WaPo, May 7, 2021

Donald Trump is now backing a QAnon conspiracy theorist to run Arizona's elections, CNN, September 14, 2021

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• A We can find a ton of RS discussing this going back years. Again he is as notable for this as anything else.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• A. Coverage is extensive to the point where, today, it makes up a major part of scholarship on his administration; see eg. I can go into detail on each of these and find many more if requested; that's just the results of a quick search to demonstrate how broad and sustained the coverage of this aspect of his biography is. Note that while there has been consistent coverage of his extensive use and promotion of conspiracy theories as part of his political persona ever since he used Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories to rebuild his political image following his failed campaign in 2000, coverage increased drastically following his promotion of conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 and the 2020 election, which makes it logical to reconsider whether this is leadworthy now. The fact that his use of conspiracy theories for political purposes remains a WP:SUSTAINED part of his coverage long after he left office also demonstrates that this is a noteworthy part of his personal biography and not just his time in the white house. As a note regarding some of the comments above - several people say it is "not a notable part of his presidency"; that is irrelevant, since this is his personal article. The coverage makes it clear that it is a major part of his overall political persona, which goes beyond just his presidency. Whether he believes the conspiracy theories he promotes is likewise irrelevant. Similarly, "we discussed this before" certainly isn't a valid argument, especially given that substantially more coverage emerged concerning more recent conspiracy theories and given how it is now clear that the coverage is WP:SUSTAINED in a way that has outlasted his presidency. The only other argument I'm seeing against it is... some sort of alliteration? Which is also not a policy-based argument. --Aquillion (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• I (incorrectly?) insist injecting irreverent/irrelevant/irritating information isn't inherently illegal if I'm insane! Invalidated, indeed, indisputably. Iowa, Idaho, Indiana! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• A Extensively documented for many years in a broad range of RS. His conspiracy narratives are the basis of his current control of the Republican Party. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• A One of the most prominent things the subject is known for. Should be included in the lede. ––FormalDude talk 17:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• B: This is not an important part of who Donald Trump is.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• B We've been over this many times, read the archive if you do not believe me. Yes you can find a handful of articles related to conspiracy theories related to Trump, but you can do so for many other things about Trump because arguely he has been the most written about American in the late 2010s from the news media, so at this point it is just WP:UNDUE but I am not going to reiterate everything said before. It is not fundamental to him or summative presidency just like the fact he is teetotalist or eats a lot of fast food which you can also find many, many articles about.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• We mention those others in the article. But not his yearlong denial of the election outcome? Could you explain the similarity you assert between a man declining alcohol vs. his having incited the bloody Capitol invasion? SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• A, although I think the wording by Generalrelative is the best solution here. –Bangalamania (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• A, with support for Generalrelative's language. I would equally support, in the same location, "and promoted multiple conspiracy theories." A short addition is DUE based on the prominence that in-depth coverage of Trump affords this aspect of his character and is needed as a summary of the article's body. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• A per Valjean, Generalrelative, Literaturegeek, Space4Time3Continuum2x, etc. and thousands of reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• B, although the proposed words are true, because there are other things Wikipedia could but doesn't say about Donald Trump in the lead that are even more important than his promotion of conspiracy theories, for example:
  • his use of social media, especially Twitter: great amount of use, nearly 24/7 use, false statements — and eventual banning therefrom
  • his habit of dishonestly exaggerating the value of his assets in self-promoting journalist communications and when applying for loans, and dishonestly minimizing the value of his assets when distributing to creditors, investors, and family members
  • business practices including hiring undocumented workers in contrast to his anti-immigrant politics and his repeated business practice of cheating small businesspersons and poor treatment of employees

In sum, how can the lead mention conspiracy theories and not Twitter? —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Your argument here is a false dilemma. This is not about what other topics could be mentioned in the lede, and comparing them as if each topic isn't drastically different is not accurate. It sounds like you might want these topics in the lede (if so you should bring them up in a new discussion) because you haven't explained why "Wikipedia could but doesn't say" them. ––FormalDude talk 07:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Social media were Trump's tools to propagate the things we mention in the lead (false, misleading, racist, mysogynistic statements) and also the conspiracy theories whose mention we're discussing right here. The promotion of conspiracy theories by somebody more or less famous, let alone the president of the country, has a greater impact on politics/public discourse than his dishonesty, hypocrisy, and cheating when dealing with family members, creditors, investors, employees, and other businesses which affects a relatively small number of people. Adding any of that to the lead is a different discussion, though, as FormalDude pointed out. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• B Is he a conspiracy theorist? Yes. Is it what he is best known for? No.LM2000 (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• A - per Space4Time3Continuum2x, Aquillion and FormalDude. There is a clear pattern of Trump promoting conspiracy theories and Republicans are going along with it ([1] "Two-thirds of Republicans still think the 2020 election was rigged" / [2] "No. 2 House Republican refuses to say election wasn’t stolen") starship.paint (exalt) 01:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• A: as noted by others, this content is verified and DUE. This is a fact highlighted by multiple news and academic sources. I also want to Aquillion's rebuttal of points made by B-supporters. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Struck vote due to double vote. starship.paint (exalt) 01:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Conspiracy theories)

• Here's some analysis of mainstream reliable sources. I might add more later.

† Describes Trump only as a promoter of conspiracy theories.

‡ Describes Trump as both a promoter and a believer of conspiracy theories.

1. "24 outlandish conspiracy theories Donald Trump has floated over the years" Business Insider, 2019.^‡
2. "President Trump loves conspiracy theories. Has he ever been right?" Washington Post, 2019.^‡
3. "Trump accuses Cruz's father of helping JFK's assassin" Politico, 2016.^‡
4. "Trump praises QAnon conspiracists, appreciates support" AP News, 2020.^†
5. "Fact-checking the dangerous bin Laden conspiracy theory that Trump touted" CNN, 2020.^‡
6. "Trump again boosts a baseless conspiracy theory, this one about Jeffrey Epstein" Vox, 2019.^†
7. "Trump ramps up Twitter push on unfounded Scarborough conspiracy theory" The Hill, 2020.^†
8. "Trump praised QAnon during meeting about keeping the Senate" CNN, 2020. ^†
9. "Tracking QAnon: how Trump turned conspiracy-theory research upside down" Nature (journal), 2021.^‡
10. "Trump Repeatedly Boosts QAnon On His Way Out The Door" Forbes, 2020.^†

––FormalDude talk 05:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The section title doesn't show on the RfC page. Another editor just added the question to the RfC statement, so the problem has been fixed. A and B will work but aren't really necessary now that it's a "yes" or "no" question. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The question of this RfC is rather vague. Responders need to know what exactly is being proposed for inclusion and where it is being proposed for placement within the lead. I'm concerned lack of clarification could lead to another procedural close like the last RfC on this topic, or a result that was never a consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  It is specifically "promotes conspiracy theories." I worded the RfC the way it is to allow for the discussion to possibly come to a consensus of a better equivalent verbiage, or possible expansion on it. It's all the same basic question: should we talk about Trump promoting conspiracy theories, or not? If yes, we can always answer the question of what exactly we want to say when that time comes, by consensus. ––FormalDude talk 06:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems clear enough to me. Previous discussions showed a clear trend towards not labeling Trump a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence but no clear trend for no mention or some other mention. If the consensus is to include his promotion of conspiracy theories—as proposed—in the lead, then IMO the logical place for such a mention would be the third paragraph with his positions, false statements, comments and actions. If someone were to object to the placement, then we'd need another discussion just about that. Adding it to this yea or nay discussion would just result in another "yes (or no) but only with (without) s.th. except on alternate Tuesdays" result. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

That sounds good. -- Valjean (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

With an emerging clear consensus for inclusion in the lead, I agree with Space4Time3Continuum2x that this placement would be most appropriate. I think the sentence could read Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics, and has promoted conspiracy theories. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Lets not get ahead of things. I think we can come up with something better than that. That wording makes the conspiracy talk sound incidental. But sources tell us its his stock in trade. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if it's an honest typo or genuine muddling, but you claim claimed the sources claim Trump promotes and/or believes conspiracy theorists, as if to suggest there's no difference between people (who potentially vote for a politician perceived as pleasing) and certain specific ideas (which do not). There's also no distinction between theories meant to make this politician seem popular and personable, and those merely invoked to poison another participant's polling passibility. Stolen election coverups and mass media misinformation are in another boat from simply implying a competitor like Cruz or the Clintons could be complicit in conspiracies to commit murder, from what I've learned about American attack ads. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

References

• FormalDude, your edits in this RfC indicate that you support A but you haven’t voted. If this is the first RfC you started, are you aware that the editor who started the RfC also has to vote if they want their preference to be counted? If you are, my apology, and never mind. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: thanks I forgot! ––FormalDude talk 17:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Closure

We haven't had a !vote in 6 days and the last discussion comment was like 2 weeks ago. I think it's time for a non-involved editor closure. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I have posted a request for an uninvolved closer at WP:Closure requests. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2021 (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.

Lafayette Square photo-op

I removed the paragraph about the IG report. This article is not about the Park Police, so their initial plan for fence installation and park clearance is immaterial, as is the IG report about their actions. After the initial brouhaha upon the release of the IG report on the actions of the Park Police had died down, several sources pointed out that the report wasn’t an exoneration of the actions taken to clear the park immediately before Trump’s walk to the church. According to Barr, "there was no correlation between our tactical plan of moving the perimeter out by one block and the president’s going over to the church." The statements by federal officials indicate that they hadn’t intended to start clearing the park before the curfew at 7 p.m., and that the Secret Service had attacked demonstrators at 6:17, without coordinating with the Park Police who were nominally in charge of the operation and before demonstrators had been given the three mandatory warnings to leave.

References

According to Leonnig/Rucker’s book "I alone can fix it", Esper and Milley arrived at the WH while Trump was giving his speech in the Rose Garden. Esper believed he was going to a meeting. Milley, who was in fatigues because he was planning to be out on the streets with National Guard personnel, believed he had been summoned for an update. Both were then told that they would accompany Trump on a choreographed walk to the church, with Trump spearheading the group, Esper, Milley, and Barr following several paces behind Trump, and the rest of the group behind them (page 168-169). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, what the Park Police did is irrelevant, if we do not say something we do not need a counter point.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

This was a minor incident which doesn't belong in an article about Trump's life.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

"becoming the first U.S. president without prior military or government service."

This is mentioned twice in the lead. Can it be removed the second time? (Found right after mentioning he defeated Hillary Clinton) --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I have removed it. However, I think it made more sense in the second position. I don't think this information belongs in the first paragraph, but we probably need consensus to change this.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense, Truth be told, I don't mind if it's in the second position so long as the information isn't duplicated. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The problem then is when you say he's a Republican.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. If you feel it fits better in the second position, feel free to put it there. I certainly won't stop you. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The consensus version was the third paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I overlooked that you, InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion, had added the half-sentence about Trump's lack of military or government service to the first paragraph when I reverted your massive unexplained rewrite. It was removed and restored to its former place by another editor. It's just a minor statistic comparison and does not belong in the first paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is the mention of him "reacting slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic" before "Russia interfered in the 2016 election"?

This part of the lead is confusing. Why is the pandemic, something which began in 2019, mentioned before something that occurred during the 2016 election? --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I think keeping the Russia/impeachment material together is better than interspersing it to force chronological order. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Because it's more significant and involves documented actions by Trump. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the explanations! Makes more sense now. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Help campaign vs. help election

The way I see it you can help someone's campaign (since it is an organization) but not really help someone's election (since it is an event). Perhaps facilitate would be a better verb if it is important to replace campaign with election? - Tournesol (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree. The phrasing of the sentence was probably based on the first sentence of the subsection ("the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election to favor the election of Trump"). I rephrased it to avoid mentioning the Trump campaign twice, and "of that interference" was redundant IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Perhaps better phrasing would be "interfered in Trump's favour"? Thanks, thorpewilliam (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

That's a possibility (as long as we lose the "u":). Or another version (I went bold), using "to benefit the Trump Campaign", based on the wording in the body and in the Mueller Report? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The wording as it now stands seems fine to me. Even better if it is what is reflected in the source. Thanks, thorpewilliam (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Historical evaluations of Trump's presidency

I believe that we have reached the point where we can mention in the lede how his presidency is generally ranked by scholars and historians – specifically, that he is considered one of the worst presidents in history. We have done this for every former president; in fact we added rankings to Obama's lede less than a month after his term ended, and the scholarly consensus was far less clear for him than it is for Trump.

Doing so will of course be controversial, but it is exactly how we have treated every other president, and it is backed by ample RS. See our article on the matter, the 2018 APSA survey, the 2018 Siena survey, the 2019 Northwestern CSDD survey (though the scope of that one was more limited), and the 2021 C-SPAN survey.
The consensus among academics on this is wholly unambiguous, and the article should reflect that. Cpotisch (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Fully agree. -- Valjean (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• It's probably time based on the consensus of other articles. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Should we mention historical evaluations of Trump's presidency?

I brought this up in the previous section, but I think that a formal RFC is best, so I'm copying it below.

Should we state in the lede that scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history? Cpotisch (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: I opened this RFC at 02:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC), but rewrote and reformatted it for neutrality at 17:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)‎. The signature above has been edited to reflect the original date. Cpotisch (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support. We have done this for every former president; in fact we added rankings to Obama's lede less than a month after his term ended, and the scholarly consensus was far less clear for him than it is for Trump.

Doing so will of course be controversial, but it is exactly how we have treated every other president, and it is backed by ample RS. See our article on the matter, the 2018 APSA survey, the 2018 Siena survey, the 2019 Northwestern CSDD survey (though the scope of that one was more limited), and the 2021 C-SPAN survey.

The consensus among academics on this is wholly unambiguous, and I believe that the article should reflect that. Pinging Valjean, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Tataral, Declan Newton, and MelanieN. Best, Cpotisch (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - the guy's only been out of office for slightly over eight months. GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Eight months is more than eight times as long as we took in 2017. If you want to make the case that that was improper, I'm open to it, but the precedent clearly is there. Cpotisch (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Change the precedent & make it ten years. GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments like that are frustrating, and rude. The proposer wrote - "we added rankings to Obama's lede less than a month after his term ended". HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't have done that in 2017. GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. It seems precedent is to include this info in the lede section. ––FormalDude talk 03:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support We have it in the article, in the "approval ratings" section. It is reported there accurately and neutrally. So yes, I think it is time to put a short version into the lead. But let's keep an eye on it; it could become a vandalism target in either direction. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Can't think of a reason not to. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose. (Summoned by bot) I don't have much doubt how history will remember a President Trump: I find it improbable historians will cast him in a flattering light, generally speaking. But there are at least two obvious and substantial flaws in the logic of the reasoning by analogy of "well, we did it immediately for President Obama." First, that assessment was a largely positive one, making these non-equivalent situations under policy: the WP:BLP concerns are very different insofar as that policy (clearly very relevant to this scenario) has different concerns depending on how negative the tone of the disputed content is. Second, I'm not sure I can agree that doing so in Obama's case was the right call, whatever the tone of the content here. To some degree this is a quasi-WP:CRYSTAL issue: of course one can point to primary sources rating the man's general effectiveness (or lack thereof) and conduct as president, but the corpus of secondary sources that will eventually fix the man's place in history is still a very much in a nascent state.

Now normally, those factors standing alone, I still might err on the side of inclusion. Afterall, BLP is important, but I'm generally of the opinion that it has to be evaluated in the light of WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT: or more to the point, I think there's almost always a way to square BLP and WP:DUE, usually with well considered prose and attribution. But given the profile of this article, I'd want to see specific proposals containing fairly well-refined wording before I could support inclusion. That being lacking here, the BLP concerns being substantial, and the sourcing being of a mixed nature, I just can't see giving a blanket support at this time. I'm 50/50 on whether well-tailored content could address the relevant concerns at this point in time, but would need to see significantly more detail in the proposal to shift my !vote in that direction. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support I wandered across this discussion today. Provided edits are cautious and well-tailored, I can't see a problem. Nickm57 (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support Sufficient time has passed for these comparisons to become meaningful, and providing a careful and measured approach is taken, now is the time to do this. -- The Anome (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose We are not even 12 months from his defeat, and he is still a figure who is causing controversy and crisis. It is too close to events for a fair analysis.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Last I checked, there is no policy or guideline that says that we shouldn't list information because the subject is still causing controversy. I would in fact argue that because the mayhem we're currently dealing with is exactly what got him such low rankings in office, it has become even more relevant and important that it's covered here. Cpotisch (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. There has been plenty of time since he lost the election, and RS have spoken, so we should include a section in the body and mention in the lead. -- Valjean (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the body, last paragraph of Approval ratings. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I assumed we were talking about more than just "approval rating." -- Valjean (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. This is well-sourced, encyclopedically and historically important, and something that our readers will justifiably expect from us. The C-SPAN 2021 survey is authoritative -- it is a broad, representative assessment of many well-known and respected scholars. Other presidents' biographies have similar information. I can see no reason, based on Wikipedia policy, to omit this information from either the lead or the body. Being close in time to an event does not preclude us from including content. If the historical assessment changes over time (which is true not only of recent presidents, but of all presidents to a certain degree), than we can tweak the language accordingly. Neutrality^talk 16:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support This is a significant criticism of Trump and should be included. While I believe his ranking is affected by the closeness to his presidency and may therefore rise, we can change the wording when and if that happens. TFD (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support post-presidential rankings I support this in principle, however no ranking made prior to Jan 20 2021 should be used. Only rankings that deal with his entire presidency should be considered. BSMRD (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Fine with me. We have 1-2 post-presidential evaluations and they say the same thing as the contemporary ones, so it works out the same way, at least until another one drops. Cpotisch (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support post-presidential rankings - certainly is precedented to add rankings to lead by this time after presidency. I don't anticipate academics to suddenly shift gears on this. I do question if this is really needed in the lede under WP:DUE, but since there is such a strong consensus with every other presidents article, I regress. The sentence should be well articulated to stay in accordance with NPOV and I believe the final text should be approved with community consensus before formal inclusion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support: per Neutrality and MelanieN soibangla (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I dislike the entire idea of including these rankings in the leads to begin with because they're totally subjective and come from a group of people who have been proven to have significant political bias. But regardless, it's too soon and there's also a significant possibility that Trump's time as President isn't over yet (2024). Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree with every part of this argument. First off, we simply report RS, and if you are concerned that a source is too "biased" to be reliable, you need to address that at WP:RSP. But doing that still wouldn't even be sufficient to ignore these rankings, because we wouldn't be saying that Trump was one of the worst presidents; we would be accurately stating that historians/scholars view him as such. I also fail to see how it is relevant that he could be president again 3 1/2 years from now. He hasn't said he's running, so under your logic, we could never include evaluations of any one-term president. Cpotisch (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I was bored and browsing WP:RFC/All, and this obviously caught my attention. This RFC completely fails WP:RFCNEUTRAL as it makes an argument right before instead of asking the question (outside of the header). @Cpotisch: Please be aware of this the next time you draft an RFC.
  I don't actually care about the substance of the question, so I am not going to weigh in on it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support post–presidential rankings It's a part of the article, it should be mentioned in the lead. People want to know such things often, so it should be easy to find. The objection that it's too strongly biased because of recency is not very valid, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and is not here to predict what the ultimate legacy of someone will be. This is something that is always changing, at any rate. Dege31 (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Speaking of recentism, 10 years ago Bush was considered the worst president in history ([3]) and now, sure enough, he's at the 29th place. Alaexis_¿question? 20:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a different survey (Siena, not C-SPAN) and you're misreading the table. G.W. Bush was 39th out of 43, and on their latest survey (2018) he was 33rd. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't notice the numbers. It doesn't invalidate my point though. This is inherently subjective and the rankings, especially of more recent presidents, fluctuate a lot from survey to survey and from time to time. Alaexis_¿question? 05:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose though I expect I am in the minority. I think even now it may be too soon to have "historical evaluations" on Obama's article; waiting at least 5 years seems appropriate. And separately, considering the volume of discussion about a potential Trump 2024 run, it seems too soon to consider anything "post-presidential" at all right now. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Neutrality. I think there was a valid reason for omitting it in the past, but that time is now behind us. Also MelanieN rightly points out that it will likely be a target for vandalism, and will need extra attention. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 11:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Snow Rise. Not even a year has passed and the impacts of Trump's policies have not had proper time to develop, and his controversies are still ripe. Even other presidents' pages such as Bush admit that the consensus has changed over time to be more favorable. I don't know why this is such a pressing issue that people consistently bring it up Anon0098 (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. More time needs to past to measure the effects of his presidency upon the nation and the world. Less than ten months does not paint a complete picture especially with all the factors going on in the world today. Jurisdicta talk
• Strong Support - This is neutral reporting, and no different than what we've done for any other president. There's no need to wait for more time when the research has been authoritatively been done already. Fieari (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support We should have already added the evaluation in 2020, not waiting for so long. Dimadick (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - historians are, by definition, experts at the study of history, and in my opinion they hold no special authority on things that are happening now or happened a year ago. I don't think this is important enough for the intro. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Far too soon to give historical evaluations in the lead without context. In the body I am neutral about as we can give further context there. But strongly oppose doing so in the lead since it is far too soon to know the long-term consequences of his action in office. Moreover 'precedent' on another article like Obama is entirely irrelevant, it should not have been done there so it should not be done here. Just becauase we did it before it does not mean we have to blindly follow the same mistake again. Also this RfC question completely violates WP:RFCBRIEF and WP:RFCNEUTRAL.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. As Neutrality pointed out, the survey is a broad, representative assessment of many well-known and respected scholars. It was mentioned by every major and many minor newspaper, news magazines, news channels, and websites. A brief mention in the lead in addition to the present mention in the "Approval ratings" section is justified. 2A02:8109:B640:15D8:118:E7ED:1922:1686 (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support; clearly a defining part of his legacy and biography today given the level and breadth of coverage. If the historical consensus changes over time the article should of course be updated, but WP:NOTCRYSTAL means that, given how clear it is at the moment, we should cover things as they are. --Aquillion (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - per DUE and RECENTISM, months is too soon for such a retrospective assessment in the lead; it should be years. Same with Obama, and the changes to Bush's ranking over the past few years proves the point. Levivich 16:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. deisenbe (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)‎
• Support Now that several surveys of historians have been undertaken, there is no reason to exclude this from the lede. Historians are perfectly capable of giving a measured point of view on American presidencies, including recent or on-going presidencies. Even back in 2020, there was no reason why we couldn't have included one sentence about this in the lede. By now, we are well overdue to include it. Obviously, if historical opinions change, we can change the article, but it's pointless to hold off indefinitely just because opinions can change. We should insert the current opinion of the historians now. Worldlywise (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Neutrality, Aquillion and Worldlywise. Wikipedia should reflect his current ranking, and if it rises, we can reflect that also. Of course historians can judge recent history. starship.paint (exalt) 06:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This has been open a week, discussion has slowed greatly, and the consensus seems clear to all participants: the change should be made, with a preference towards rankings conducted after his presidency. Some users who have opposed the change have even acknowledged that they are in the minority. Per WP:SNOWBALL, I see no reason to wait to proceed. Cpotisch (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this is on the level of WP:SNOWBALL. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah not really a SNOW close. This RfC may need to run the allotted thirty days. ––FormalDude talk 04:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no required minimum or maximum time. The "30 days" thing is just that's when the bot may automatically close it. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Duration. It should be closed when the result is clear; we are getting close to that point but new !votes are still coming in. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The "30 days" thing is just that's when the bot may automatically close it. That's automatically remove it from the RfC listings, which is not a close. An RfC can be re-added to the listings (by adding a new {{RFC}} template), or it can continue to remain open without being listed. But you're correct that 30 days was never intended as a suggested run time. That is a widespread misconception and trying to dispel it is like playing Whac-a-Mole. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Historical evaluations)

The big difference to other presidents is that they were done with the presidency when their terms ended. Trump isn't, regardless of whether he actually believes that he should still be the legitimate president or whether he's just using the pretense for continued publicity and fundraising. Also, the sourcing is a bit meager. Are there any ratings/rankings other than the C-SPAN Presidential Historians Survey 2021? The only one I found was Brookings, "Comparing Trump to the greatest—and the most polarizing—presidents in US history" from March 2018. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, by his hand or not, he was certainly one of the most polarizing. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The Brookings survey should not be included. For one thing, it was taken in 2018, only halfway through his presidency. For another, it surveyed "dozens" of "experts" rather than hundreds of academic historians. The C-SPAN survey has always been the gold standard for this kind of rating. And they only take it after a new president has taken office. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree with MelanieN. That's why the Brookings one isn't even included in our historical rankings page. The sample size is tiny and the credentials are ambiguous. Cpotisch (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

We should just rely on the C-SPAN 2021 poll. It's very authoritative, and a broad sample of experts. Neutrality^talk 23:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm troubled that we appear to be fine with including this rather subjective and judgmental content while bending over backwards to suppress a variety of valid, factual biographical description, e.g shying away from racist, fascist, anti-American, or criminal views and issues widely supported in mainstream RS reports and analysis. We still don't say, e.g. that he attempted to "extort" election support from Ukraine's Zelinsky. We only recently described his statements and actions as "racist". We should really be focused on improving descriptive content rather than ill-defined indeterminate high-level rankings or labels. SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

See People accused of crime: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." These are opinions, not proven facts. If and when Trump is accused of any of these crimes, then we will report them. I believe that Gov. Cuomo is pursuing indictments in N.Y. TFD (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Cuomo resigned a month ago. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Ironic, isn't it? TFD (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I think SPECIFICO has a good point here. If we're at the point of including historical evaluations, which it looks like we may be, we should also be including objective biographical content that is notable. I don't, however, think that's a reason to not include historical evaluations. ––FormalDude talk 05:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO and FormalDude: These qualities are not "suppressed", quite the contrary. The article already says in the lead, "Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic." That's a separate matter from his ranking by historians. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, insofar as the lead goes, it reads quite bleak for Trump. SPECIFICO talk 02:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Has this RFC been re-listed? I notice the editor who opened it, changed his post date to October 6, 2021. -- GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible wording for historical rankings sentence

There is now clear consensus: we should add the sentence “Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.” Cpotisch (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Given that we seem to have a strong consensus to add a statement about historical rankings of his presidency, I think it is time to determine how we will phrase it. Other presidents who are considered the worst have it stated as follows:

Warren G. Harding – "These and other scandals greatly damaged Harding's posthumous reputation; he is generally regarded as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history."

James Buchanan – "Historians and scholars consistently rank Buchanan as one of the country's worst presidents."

Franklin Pierce – "Historians and scholars generally rank Pierce as one of the worst and least memorable U.S. presidents."

Andrew Johnson – "Johnson's strong opposition to federally guaranteed rights for black Americans is widely criticized; he is regarded by many historians as one of the worst presidents in American history."

Given that, I believe that it would make the most sense to add the sentence "Scholars and historians consistently rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history" to the end of the last lede paragraph. I also think that it may be good to add to that sentence something like "with particular criticism leveled at his use of falsehoods, promotion of misinformation, slow response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and efforts to subvert the 2020 election." I am more cautious about adding that part because I don't want the sentence to run too long or be redundant, however that is totally justified by the sources and is consistent with other articles. Pinging GoodDay, FormalDude, MelanieN, HiLo48, Snow Rise, Nickm57, The Anome, Slatersteven, Valjean, Neutrality, The Four Deuces, BSMRD, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Soibangla, Basil the Bat Lord, and Dege31. Best, Cpotisch (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with adding the wording by MelanieN below. The "conspiracy" thread isn't finished yet, but it's at 13 vs 9 (for inclusion), so I think we should also consider adding conspiracy theories to that list. We may have to wait, but at least keep it in mind. -- Valjean (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, we should wait 10 years after a president has left office, before including evaluations. Therefore, it's best for others to do the write up, if the RFC will end up pro-inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Cpotisch, I agree that we should add "Scholars and historians consistently rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history" to the lead. But we should leave it at that. We should NOT spell out our own reasons for why he deserves that ranking, because none of the things you mention were part of what the historians were surveyed about. They were given a list of ten categories in which to rank the presidents. Those categories were: "Public persuasion, Crisis leadership, Economic management, Moral authority, International relationships, Administrative skills, Relations with Congress, Vision/Setting an agenda, Pursued equal justice for all, and Performance within context of their times." The categories did not include "told a lot of lies" or "spread conspiracy theories" or even "tried to subvert democracy", although individual essayists may call attention to this type of thing. But they are not specifically named in the 2021 C-Span survey which is our source. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep, you are entirely correct. Struck. Cpotisch (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

P.S. BTW the only categories in which Trump was ranked dead last were "moral authority" and "administrative skills". But he was in the bottom quartile for every category except "public persuasion". -- MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN. I suggest replacing the ambiguous "consistently" -- which could mean across experts or could mean over time -- and replace it with uniformly or some other word that indicates broadly consider him thus as of now. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. ‘Uniformly’ and its synonyms mean a totally different thing, and we don’t use them on any other presidential article; in fact AFAICT we never have, even when a presidency had ended just weeks prior. Cpotisch (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Unless the sources say that is why Trump was ranked lowest, then it would be OR to mention the reasons. The current or last Republican president or candidate is always rated very low by partisan Democrats (which includes most historians) and then works his way up the ladder as the Republicans pick new candidates. There were a lot of discussions about mentioning that some sources rather George W. Bush as the worst president.[4] Nixon and Reagan were disliked by Democrats both before and during their presidencies too, although less so after. TFD (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Excellent points. I have altered my comment above. -- Valjean (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we should follow other articles in saying "Historians and scholars generally rank Trump among the worst Presidents." without listing reasons. I prefer generally to consistently as generally lacks the temporal nature of consistently. BSMRD (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with BSMRD's version. It's short and to the point and is in accordance with WP:NPOV. Use of generally is a good decision. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Given that MelanieN and I both like my original proposed phrasing, I’m open to swapping in “generally” if it is “Scholars and historians generally rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.” I’m leaning towards this because it is the basic format we used for every other article; it’s still only 15 words (which I would consider quite to the point), and it is specific. One concern mentioned about the word “consistently” was that it could be ambiguous, so I think that precision in the rest of the sentence is important. Cpotisch (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, "one of the worst, "among the worst" or whatever doesn't really matter to me. As long as "consistently" is replaced (doesn't even have to be "generally", though I do think that is the best replacement), I'm happy. BSMRD (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN: “Scholars and historians generally rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history." But we should leave it at that. soibangla (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

OK cool. Cpotisch (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

At what point should I add it to the article? I think we’ve covered all bases at this point, given that there’s an overwhelming consensus to make the change and a broad agreement on the details of it. Per WP:RFCCLOSE, it doesn’t look like it’s necessary to wait for an uninvolved to close this. Cpotisch (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Speaking as someone uninvolved in this RfC, it is far too soon to determine consensus. These usually last 30 days, and this one is still receiving !votes. If the current ratio of Support/Oppose continues, there might be a solid case for a WP:SNOW close, but I don't think we're there yet. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It's probably becoming time for a non-involved editor to close this and access consensus. However, I think it should at least be a day or two from now since this discussion is still active. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• My suggestion is to remove the qualifier from the verb. "Scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history" adequately summarizes the current content of the body without suggesting that there have been numerous rankings over time and/or by numerous sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Why past tense instead of "rank"? SPECIFICO talk 11:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

We use past tense in the article. I wouldn't oppose present tense in the lead but any survey is always going to be from a specific point in time in the past. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah I’m game for just “rank”, present tense. I’ll leave it with you to get some more votes for that, but I’m onboard. Cpotisch (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree that "rank" present tense is better. And I am OK with "generally", noting that it is used in two of the four examples cited above, and that "consistently" might imply that multiple surveys have produced this "consistent" result, when in fact we are using just one survey. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• I would prefer generally rank. Leaving out the qualifier creates an IMO undue level of certainty, and present tense flows better IMO. BSMRD (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• You know I’m starting to lean towards ditching the qualifier. I feel like “generally” implies that there are a bunch of sources and only relatively clear agreement between them. Meanwhile here we have a small set of sources (indeed only one conducted post-presidency) and they all say that he is one of the worst. So “scholars and historians rank Trump” just seems to fit better with the number of sources and what they say. Cpotisch (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems like we've narrowed this down to either:

• A) “Scholars and historians generally rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.” or
  
• B) “Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.”
  

Could y'all please write your preferences below? Thanks. Cpotisch (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• B. I originally preferred A, but now I'm leaning the other way. In my mind, the word "generally" may imply that there are a larger number of sources that agree broadly, but perhaps not completely, which isn't quite the case here. Every ranking we have which includes Trump puts him in the bottom four. There are only three or four of those rankings in total (depending on if you count the Northwestern survey), and just one if we're only talking post-presidency. I therefore think that "generally" implies a greater preponderance of sources and a greater variation between them than we have here. However if more sources come out in the future, I'd be open to adding "generally" or "consistently", depending on how much they agree. Still, at this time, B. Cpotisch (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• B per Cpotisch. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• B per Cpotisch. -- Valjean (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• I prefer A but I would accept B. My preference for including "generally" is that leaving out any qualifier could seem to imply "always" or "unanimously". But I will go with whichever people prefer. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• B per Cpotisch. Fieari (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• B per Cpotisch. starship.paint (exalt) 06:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• A Don't ask me for their names in particular, but while the great majority of historians do regard Trump as one of the worst presidents, I think there is a sizable enough majority which defend him to warrant "generally" as it is not unanimous. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 11:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I would support adding that he is seen as the worst president in living memory, but only if we devote subsequent sentences to explain the ranking. Single-sentence statements are often vague and uninformative, and brevity is not a virtue. Dimadick (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I think in this case brevity is a necessity IMO. We are dealing with a huge, huge biography article, that was huge even before he became president. We really need to keep things to a minimum at this article, and possibly expand on them in daughter articles such as "presidency of Donald Trump" or "public image of Donald Trump". -- MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging MelanieN, Valjean, and Iamreallygoodatcheckers. Discussion has slowed and the change does not seem at all contentious. I don't see any reason to wait longer on this, but I'd like your thoughts before moving forward. Cpotisch (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

!Votes are still coming in on the RfC, with two just today. We can afford to wait for a proper closure, it's best to have clear and decisive consensus, both generally and especially with this page. BSMRD (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no hurry. I think we should wait until it has been 24 to 48 hours since the last input was received. It's only been a week since the RfC was launched. RfCs often take longer than that. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

No hurry. These RfC's can last a while, we want the consensus to be as clear and developed as possible. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding picture to the Post-presidency section.

Back in July on Wikimedia Commons, I uploaded some pictures of Donald Trump (credit to Gage Skidmore) from the "Rally to Protect Our Elections" held in Phoenix, Arizona on July 24, 2021. I think it would be good to add one of them to the post presidency section of Trump's Wikipedia page. Here are just a few images to chose from. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

Thank you for providing the pictures. I used the left one on TPUSA's page but I don't think this article needs another picture of Trump speaking at a rally (we have three, from 2011, 2016, and 2020, respectively). Same old same old—rhetoric, heavy make-up, shoulder pads, and bursting-at-the-seams. Gotta love Gage Skidmore. So many great pictures of the event in his Flickr photo stream: the Trump rump, the ones proclaiming Trump to be president, the one with the horns. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the one on the far left should be added. This section is standalone and large enough to fully contain an image. An image is certainly warranted. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

An image is fine. starship.paint (exalt) 09:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"Little resistance", Iamreallygoodatcheckers? The editor offering said little resistance was the only one who actually had an argument as to the merits of adding a fourth picture of Trump speaking at a rally. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x Only you have opposed it. Another editor and I have supported an image placement, and the starter of this presumably supports an image to by the nature starting the discussion and saying he thinks it would be good to have one, thats 3-to-1. This discussion hasn't been going anywhere since it started and has faced only a little resistance from you. If you would like to revert my edit pending the possibility of more comments go ahead, an image being placed in a section is usually uncontroversial, but I suppose this is Donald Trumps article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how it hurts the article even considering that this is another picture of Trump at the rally. starship.paint (exalt) 06:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't improve the article, either (and I'm no longer the only one opposed to its addition:). I haven't seen any arguments as to what value or information another image of Trump at a random rally brings to the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Those convey nothing about "post-presidency". A better image would be needed. SPECIFICO talk 07:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

One of the biggest things it conveys about "post-presidency" is it depicts Trump post his presidency speaking about his election fraud and integrity stuff, that have a whole paragraph dedicated to in the post-presidency section. If you have a better image then we can consider it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

It conveys Alt: Trump, mouth open, wearing black suit with U.S. flag lapel pin and red tie, grabbing lectern he is standing behind with his right hand unless we change the caption to say "Trump promoting election fraud lies". For all we know, he's standing there catching flies. A picture can't convey the continued promotion of the "Big Lie" at all, the text does. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2021

Under the health section, should "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol ..." not be "Trump says he has never drank alcohol ..."? ― Levi_OP^Talk 02:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: 'drunk' is the correct past participle. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Corrections and dead urls

Surge elec, you were right in [this edit] that the url was dead. It's often a good idea, though, to search for the title of the article since some publications move their content to new urls, as was the case here. I just added the new url and removed the archive-info. You also changed the correct date of the Independent article to a wrong one (I corrected it). Were you going to change some other date maybe? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Surge_Elec (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The first link does not link to "politician", but to his political career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:404:C680:4B60:4DD5:6011:23CE:BD24 (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

That is how it is supposed to be, see consensus item 50. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

firehose of falsehood

I propose the lead sentence:

Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.

be changed to

Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics and characterized as the propaganda technique firehose of falsehood.

• Brian Stelter (November 30, 2020). "'Firehose of falsehood:' How Trump is trying to confuse the public about the election outcome". CNN.
• Maza, Carlos (August 31, 2018). "Why obvious lies make great propaganda". Vox.
• Zappone, Chris (October 12, 2016). "Donald Trump campaign's 'firehose of falsehoods' has parallels with Russian propaganda". The Sydney Morning Herald.
• Harford, Tim (May 6, 2021). "What magic teaches us about misinformation". Financial Times.
• Clifton, Denise (August 3, 2017). "Trump's nonstop lies may be a far darker problem than many realize". Mother Jones.
• "'Morning Joe' Rips Trump for 'Firehose of Falsehoods' and 'Nazi-Like Propaganda' on COVID". TheWrap. December 17, 2020.</ref>

Comments? soibangla (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Strikes me as UNDUE and not descriptive for most readers. Possibly some other wording about propaganda technique? SPECIFICO talk 02:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This is WP:UNDUE. I've never even heard the term used towards Trump before. I think it's fine the way it is now. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

According to the sources you provided, it's a "contemporary form of Russian propaganda known as the 'Firehose of Falsehood'" (quoting Mother Jones). The Rand Corporation calls it The Russian "Firehose of Falsehoods" propaganda model. It doesn't look as though the term caught on for Trump's torrent of lies except for a few comparisons with Russian propaganda. (Financial Times is the only recent source, and it's paywalled so I haven't read it.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

UNdue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Amended version

Not sure where in the article it belongs but the term is very descriptive and useful. Here is a source from 2016 [5]

The only caveat I'd add is that we don't know if Trump was knowingly using this technique, I don't think so.

Amended version:

Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics and likened to the firehose of falsehood propaganda technique.

-- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I prefer your version. As to whether it's knowing, this isn't him talking but his former chief strategist makes clear it's strategic:

Steve Bannon, once Trump’s chief ideologist, put the matter well earlier this year when he told Michael Lewis, "We got elected on Drain the Swamp, Lock Her Up, Build a Wall," he said. "This was pure anger. Anger and fear is what gets people to the polls.” Bannon added, "The Democrats don’t matter. The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit." [6]

And it was adapted from Putin's propaganda strategy:

Bannon articulated the zone-flooding philosophy well, but he did not invent it. In our time, it was pioneered by Vladimir Putin in post-Soviet Russia. Putin uses the media to engineer a fog of disinformation, producing just enough distrust to ensure that the public can never mobilize around a coherent narrative. [7]

soibangla (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• That's a good version. -- Valjean (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

"Likened to" sounds weaselly, and I am not convinced the "firehose" is well-enough known to be referenced in this way in an encyclopedia bio. Maybe there's a way to indicate that Trump executes propaganda techniques without getting into arcane detail. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The original sentence does not need adjusting, this just rings of UNDUE.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose in the lead. It's not a common term (personally I never heard it until just now) and it is not uniquely connected with Trump. Add a sentence to the article text if you want. To the "False statements" subsection, or better yet to the article Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a neologism coined by the Rand Foundation that hasn't caught on. Donald Rumsfeld, who was chairman of the board, used this technique to sell the War in Iraq, before Putin was credited with inventing it. Misinformation was broadcast through major U.S. media on a daily basis. TFD (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose in the lead and in the body. The term hasn't caught on, and the concept is pretty well-known (repeat a lie often enough, and enough people will believe it—the "I heard that before, must be true" effect or something along those lines). It's sometimes referred to as a "torrent of falsehoods" but I don't see that either term adds useful information to "unprecedented" or the number 30,573. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

In fact the well-known concept you describe - "repeat a lie often enough, and enough people will believe it" - is already being consistently applied to Trump's claims under the term The Big Lie. That term is already used in this article and in Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. No need for this little-known, Johnny-come-lately of a term. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose in lead and the body. The term is just not used abundantly enough in relation to Trump to appear in this article. An inclusion over at Veracity of statements by Donald Trump might be appropriate. Here it's certainly not warranted in the lead and probably not in the body. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Wealth

Mr Ernie, I thought we agreed long ago to exclude his wealth estimates, because The net worth of Donald Trump is not publicly known. He has a private company with no disclosure requirements, and though Forbes and others take their best shots at estimates, it's still pretty much "for entertainment purposes only." Fact is: no one really knows if he's even a billionaire or if he ever has been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1048613359&oldid=1048544746

soibangla (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the last discussion was #Richest president sourcing and content. I just skimmed it, but it seems like no consensus for including the descriptor. Happy to be proven wrong by those who participated or care to read through more thoroughly. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

These are 2 separate issues. The first is the wealth, about which per consensus #5 is pretty clear. The second is the “first billionaire president” text, which was originally baselessly removed as unsourced despite the clear source directly after, and later also baselessly removed on the grounds that the source is deprecated. Because the removals had no valid policy basis, the long standing status quo should be honored. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Immediately after announcing his candidacy:

The [Federal election regulators] report shows his assets to be worth at least $1.4 billion, including at least $70 million in stocks. Trump carries debt of at least $265 million. [8]

And that comes from information Trump provided. "At least" on both sides of the balance sheet makes it real fuzzy about whether he was a billionaire just prior to becoming president. soibangla (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

So at least $1 billion +? I mean I hear you and I agree that it is fuzzy, but that’s also why consensus #5 was established. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

So at least $1 billion +? No. Deduct at least $265 of debt. soibangla (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Forbes is a reliable source for this wealth, but apparently there is a consensus that it is. Maybe that needs to be rediscussed.

There's no consensus, however, on whether he was the first billionaire president–it's only that he was one of the wealthiest officeholders in American history. ––FormalDude talk 01:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The Forbes source is clear on that too. If you have an issue with the source please open a discussion at WP:RSN. Otherwise please help ensure that long-standing consensus text remains stable. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

If I'm understanding the history here, you're using two definitions of consensus. One is agreed upon consensus (noted at the top of the page), which is that Forbes should be used for net worth. I don't dispute that. The other is a "silent consensus" that "first billionaire" is appropriate. That consensus appears to be over, now that editors are objecting. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is that the objections to the text as unsourced and deprecated are invalid. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Is it a problem though? Are you saying we still need to add "first billionaire president" to the article? ––FormalDude talk 02:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Until consensus develops around a valid reason for exclusion then long standing text should remain in articles. What’s the reason to remove it and where was consensus established? Don’t say it’s unsourced or deprecated, because those aren’t valid reasons. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

But nobody seems to agree with you. BLP content needs indisputable sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not that it's unsourced or deprecated, it's that reliable sources contest it. We can't include Forbe's version of who was the first billionaire president over other reliable sources. That's not a neutral point of view. ––FormalDude talk 02:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Which reliable sources say he’s not the first billionaire president? Mr Ernie (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The AP source I provided doesn't explicitly state it, but it establishes some reasons for skepticism and caution. Though I hasten to add that Trump said a week earlier that the data he gave to the FEC showed he was worth TEN BILLION DOLLARS, so there's that. [9] soibangla (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

These sources cast doubt:

1. https://247wallst.com/banking-finance/2010/05/17/the-net-worth-of-the-american-presidents-washington-to-obama/
2. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-net-worth-of-the-american-presidents-from-washington-to-obama-2010-5#35th-john-fitzgerald-kennedy-1961-1963-kennedy-estate-worth-nearly-1-billion-34
3. https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/donald-trump-richest-president
4. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/02/13/donald-trump-george-washington-net-worth-us-presidents/39011559/ ––FormalDude talk 03:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

According to WP:RSP USA today is an RS and there is no consensus that business insider is not. Thus I think this is a contested claim, not a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Both the Business Insider and USA Today articles reprint the info from the 247 Wall Street source. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

And? They use it, they are an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that's an interpretation of sourcing that I don't subscribe to. If a RS reprints info from a non-RS, does that make the information reliable, or does it simply need to be attributed to the non-RS? Maybe that's a discussion worth having at RSN, but I think now that isn't how it's treated. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

If they do not question it yes, as they are accepting it as fact.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie, why does this article need this information? J. B. Pritzker's article doesn't say that he's the richest person to ever hold the office of state governor, and Michael Bloomberg's article doesn't say that he's the richest billionaire to ever run for president. It's not as if this article was suppressing any information about Trump's (real, estimated, imagined) wealth. If any reader does wonder whether there were any other/richer billionaires, there's the inline link to the list of wealthiest officeholders in American history. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

There are three problems with this content. 1) The WP:BURDEN for verification is on the editor who favors the content, but in this case, it has not gained support that it's adequately-sourced. 2) It's WP:UNDUE trivia. even in the counterfactual event it were true. The WP:ONUS would be on those who seek to include it. 3) Current consensus is clearly against inclusion of "first billionaire president", and there was no prior discussion that would confirm previous approval or awareness of this first billionaire snippet. SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a problem if the text is ultimately removed. I had a problem because SPECIFICO falsely removed it as unsourced and later on the grounds that the source was deprecated, and then again on the grounds that there was no consensus to include it. That's a misuse of the policies, and if I went and removed something cited to the NYT as unsourced or something to WaPo by saying WaPo was deprecated then those edits would be promptly reverted as nonsensical and I would likely get a talking to. I hope my fellow editors here don't endorse those types of tactics. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you're aware this bit was not sourced to either NYT or WaPo. The billionaire bit is nonsensical for reasons agreed by every editor other than yourself. Let's move on. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Dates of cites

Is there any guideline on which date to use when a source is updated, in some cases several times? I've searched "Help" in vain. This article, for example, was published on July 30, 2020, and updated on August 20. Do we keep the original date or use the date of the last update? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Very good question. Ping me if you ever get an answer. -- Valjean (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of conspiracy theories in the lead

SPECIFICO, yeah, agreed, it needs to be discussed but until then the consensus version per the RfC should be used. Except for the words "conspiracy theories", none of this was discussed: Through social media and mass media manipulation, Trump has brought fringe conspiracy theories into the mainstream, and used them to his political advantage. Please self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I viewed that as a bold edit that's also consistent with the RfC. Maybe needed some tweaks, but it reflected article text on the matter. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Which RfC would that be? It isn't this one. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. It did not limit the detail or context. The !votes and close were not for specific wording. The wording was briefly, minimally discussed, I believe. Anyway we need to discuss what wording is appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 17:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The current wording in the article reflects exactly what was decided in the RfC just closed: that he promoted conspiracy theories. Period. If anyone wants to expand on that wording, they should first do it in the article text - which currently says nothing about "social media and mass media manipulation" or "bringing into the mainstream" or "using to his political advantage". And of course such an addition to the text would need solid sourcing. Then and only then could it be considered as an addition to the lead. Come on, folks, you know this. You can't add original material to the lead that is not reflective of what is in the article itself. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The "and promoted conspiracy theories" is definitely supported by the body and by RfC consensus, and any further addition should probably start in the body. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought that the additional detail was already in the body text (as I said above). SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x Removed my contribution to the body of the article on grounds that it was "way too much detail." I completely disagree. My edit only added four sentences about vital parts of Trump's mass media usage, all properly sourced. ––FormalDude talk 17:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Are there perhaps even better sources, tertiary evaluations perhaps from some of the torrent of books that've come out in the past 12 months? SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I had to begin the revert a few times because of edit conflicts, and in the end I wrote the edit summary in a great hurry—apologies for the curt results. For starters, I disagree with making "Relationship with the press" a subsection to "Use of mass media". Trump had a relationship with the press long before social media existed (see laying-of-the-pipes and pouring-or-the-cement ceremonies) but the using went both ways. He wanted the publicity, and the press used him as filler/comic relief. If "media manipulation" needs its own subsection, it should be be part of his relationship with the press/broadcast media. It’s separate from his use of social media which was entirely unfiltered and unchecked by journalists and editors and manipulated the public. The cited NYT article is four years old, and they clarify that news media allowed themselves to be manipulated: 1. Mr. Trump remains a master media manipulator who used his first news briefing since July to expertly delegitimize the news media and make it the story rather than the chaotic swirl of ethical questions that engulf his transition. 2. The news media remains an unwitting accomplice in its own diminishment as it fails to get a handle on how to cover this new and wholly unprecedented president. That's changed somewhat. As for the sources, I find it a bit problematic to cite a book or article based on its summary or abstract. I don’t see what makes Cassam’s opinion quote-worthy (never heard of him or the Nature journal, for that matter). Also, Cassam didn’t say that, Nature paraphrased him. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Corrections of access-dates

Surge_elec, I just gotta ask how you know that whoever added or later looked at that cite did it on October 9, 2018, and not on October 3. I've noticed you doing an edit like this before. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that on certain sources, the access-dates were written as when the source (with that particular content) was archived. In this case, on that day (October 9), the source was like this (the archived October 3 source, was not like this). So, I made that way. Surge_Elec (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If it doesn't make sense to you, we can discuss. Surge_Elec (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I don’t understand your reasoning. You mention an archive, but the example link from Space4 wasn’t archived. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Space4Time3Continuum2x. I changed it. Oct 3 archive [10] and Oct 4 archive [11]. The Oct 4 archive matches the content given in the wikisource. Surge_Elec (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If you still don't agree, you can edit as you like. As, I have completed editing this article. Surge_Elec (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

And what difference does it make and why is the access date significant? SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

What difference does it make: Explained above. That seemed to be the case for certain sources.

Why is the access date significant: In the format of sources, it is. All the sources generally on Featured Articles have access-dates. Surge_Elec (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

So what? I see no defense as to the importance above. It sounds like you are way too involved with a pointless task. SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It is part of the format, and I also find it helpful to know when a cite was added or corrected. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Surge_elec, I was curious and checked the edit history from October 3 to November 21 when I stopped looking. The cite was added on October 3 with the access-date but without the author's name. Whoever added the name later didn't change the access date. I just mentioned it because changing the access date to some time in the past didn't make sense since you checked the source today. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The "access-date=" parameter should be used, and it should be the date when the person who creates the content read the source. (I don't think a later addition of the author's name necessitates updating the access date, as the author doesn't change.) The date the editor added the content and ref is another matter, and the access date should not be updated without actually rereading the source, which can be a pain, so just use the original date of access. Keep in mind that the URL doesn't change when an article is updated, so we are currently dependent on the access date. -- Valjean (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

When copying sources and content from other places at Wikipedia, remember to attribute the article it came from, and don't change those original access dates unless you actually have reread the source. Keep the original access date. -- Valjean (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2021

Swap low quality image of Trump attending baseball game in 2009 to photo of Trump attending a press conference for the New Jersey Generals under "Side ventures" subheading (represents actual side venture, not mischellanous baseball game attendance).

Trump at a New York Mets baseball game in 2009 (Current image)

Trump at a press conference for the New Jersey Generals, 1985 (Proposed image)

BarneyHank (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)