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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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)

Follow-up to Russian bounties

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

Hatted quote from NYT

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Off-topic discussion

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

The edit you cite above was just one of three.

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC Russian Bounties claims – better wording

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

The sentence currently reads:

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

I would suggest replacing this with:

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

or

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Proposal #4: :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal #5

Trump expressed doubts about Russia's alleged bounties to Taliban fighters for attacking American soldiers in Afghanistan and never discussed it with Putin.

@Chess: One thing is for sure, the current version is against the consensus of retain, but add context. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me. It addresses every angle and provides the needed context. Trump's opinion expression is absolutely relevant and not WP:UNDUE because this article is about Trump and Trump only. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Checkers, I think it's been established above that, while we know Trump's statements we do not know his opinions or beliefs. Self-serving statements not treated as credible by RS may certainly be omitted, and this is such a one. SPECIFICO talk 23:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This proposition in no way at all says what Trump believes. It says what he has expressed, which is covered in RS. I described it as opinion in my statement above. I will correct it to expression. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Tobby, that's your very first proposal, from a month ago, and—as one of the editors responded back then—Trumnp is still a biased (and frankly unreliable) narrator. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support — Improvement over what is presently in the article which falsely implies that Trump should have brought it up by not mentioning any doubt by anyone. Trump, the military and intelligence services had doubts about the existence of the bounties and later even Biden had doubts. See for example [2]. For reference, here's what is presently in the article

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

Bob K31416 (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This is better phrasing. What about, "It is unknown whether Trump was informed about unfounded rumors considered low probability by intelligence that Russia offered bounties to the Taliban for killing U.S. soldiers, but in any case never raised the issue with Putin." TFD (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have requested for the closure of this discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

North Korean progress in the lede

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

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

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

Maybe, but was he the first president not ask?Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I assume you meant "to" and not "not"? I don't think that should play a role here, the article on the peace talks points out these summits being a first in several ways prominently as well, and so do sources from the time.--95.91.247.87 (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Well it would be as it would put why he was first into context.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Being the 1st is already mentioned in Donald Trump#North Korea. We don't need to cram every detail into the opener. Zaathras (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The lead should serve to summarize the article, and right now it makes it sound like the administration failed to make progress when the fact a president met with a North Korean leader was in itself considered progress and as of now is probably the most historically notable thing coming from these events. In either case it's definitely more notable than how often Trump and Kim Jong-Un met. --95.91.247.87 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The lead does summarize. Just meeting with the NK leader is not a success nor is it progress by any measure, if it led to nothing. Zaathras (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

More interesting is the recent RS reporting that sources close to Trump say he's continuing to exchange love letters with Kim from his Mar a Lago retirement home. SPECIFICO talk 14:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

As he is no longer president, yes this might be more relevant to this article. But I think we would need to see a bit more traction.Slatersteven 14:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, when Trump is reelected, the US might have its own Duke of Windsor thing. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This was recently discussed and resolved -- please refer to the talk archives and to Consensus #22. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• More concise and significant than what's in the lead is,

  Trump was the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean leader.

Bob K31416 (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that's better. The "no progress on denuclearization" is overly negative and ambiguously worded (what does "denuclearization" mean?).--Jack Upland (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Denuclearization, via a handy dictionary. Zaathras (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Leave it alone. Was already discussed & decided. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I know this discussion has probably been run into the ground already but sweeping absolutes such as he made no progress on denuclearization are often inherently untrue as it is very easy to overcome absolutely nothing. The sentence should be changed to something more like "made no long term/permanent progress on denuclearization". If not then the sentence should just be removed from the lead altogether, making no progress on denuclearization after 3 meetings is obviously not relevant enough to warrant inclusion there.OgamD218 (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I reopened this discussion after it was closed without good reason. In my edit summary I wrote, "premature close; active discussion with at least two new proposals pending; next lime wait several days for no discussion before closing". I mention this because there's too much of this going on and it gives the appearance of suppressing legitimate discussion of ideas that the closer is opposed to. Such suppression has also occurred by archiving. There's no reason to archive a discussion that has recently had comments, and unfortunately such inappropriate archiving has been done. Archiving is for sections where discussion has stopped for at least several days. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Archiving is sometimes done to prevent disruption from those who continue to beat a dead horse over a settled discussion. Zaathras (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, your comment has no basis in policy or guidelines. Archiving is for reducing excessive bulk of a talk page by removing old inactive discussions. The use otherwise may be a sign of abusive and disruptive editor behavior. Note that the current section is neither old or inactive. It appears there are new ideas being presented. For example, I suggested a change in the lead from

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

to

"Trump was the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean leader."

which is more concise and significant. So far one editor responded directly and was in agreement. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

My comment is in line with common practice across a wide variety of contentious talk pages. As for as your suggestion goes, I heartily disagree with it. Zaathras (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It's beautiful, I love it and we're doing this. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

No, we're neither lumping nor leaving it. It's meaningless and less concise. Three meetings, zero results—that's concise. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Zero results? Since the meetings North Korea has tested no ICBM and no nuclear bomb.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

When did anybody make any progress with North Korea, concerning nuclear weapons. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's a valid question. Superficially, however, the hiatus in ICBM/nuke tests could be seen as progress from a US point of view.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

In a recent article, 'North Korea's Nuclear Family: How the Kims Got the Bomb and Why they Won't Give It Up' in Foreign Affairs (September/October 2021), former CIA analyst Sue Mi Terry concludes: "Until that regime either dramatically reforms itself or collapses, the nuclear threat will remain".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy intelligence briefings for former presidents

I removed this sentence: Days after leaving office, his successor Joe Biden barred Trump from receiving intelligence briefings, the first former president to be excluded from the customary practice. I’m sure that wasn’t Soibangla’s intent but the text sounded as though Biden was just being mean to his predecessor. If we include the info it would need context—why former presidents receive security briefings in the first place,(… part of a long tradition of former presidents being consulted about, and granted access to, some of the nation's secrets. … They are provided access to secrets as a courtesy, with the permission of the current president. Typically, former presidents are given briefings before they travel overseas, or in connection with an issue about which the current president wishes to consult them, [former CIA officer] Priess and other experts say.) and that the intelligence community allegedly had stopped briefing him after the January 6 insurrection. Should we include this? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Given that this article is already so long and we would need that context, it's probably best saved for the "presidency of" articles, at least at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Muboshgu. Also, providing such thorough and detailed context also can become a WP:UNDUE, especially for a relatively insignificant factoid fact. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Relative to what? It is significant that he was locked out of American intel. soibangla (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Relative to everything else in the article. He was president of the United States, just about anything is insignificant relative to that. Trump is one of the most notable people on earth. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Relative to everything else in the article We disagree. soibangla (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

What are you trying to get out of this tangent? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no tangent. I continue to believe the content, as succinctly phrased in consideration of space constraints, belongs in his BLP. That's all I got on this. soibangla (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be a fact even if we hadn't heard about it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Factoid isn't the word I should have used. I corrected it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Your argument is unintelligible and is no more than an unreasoned assertion. You might strike through "tangent" as well, if you are not going to support that claim. Moreover, Trump's denigration of US national security briefings and intelligence in general are among the top reasons for his notability. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Biden removing Trump's post-presidency security briefings is 100% not among the top reasons for his notability. How about, appointing 3 of the 9 members of one of the most powerful courts in the world, being elected to be the most powerful person on earth, or overseeing the U.S. COVID response. That's just a few of so many things that he's actually notable for. Can you please explain how him being removed of customary post-presidential security briefings is among the most notable aspects of Trump? If you sincerely believe this is among the top reasons for his notability go put a sentence in the lead about it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

His obedient complicity in appointing Heritage Society folks to the court and his dishonest, stupid, and homicidal covid response are already covered. His conduct toward foreign governments is equally as significant, but in some ways more surprising. It could be integrated into a narrative about his conduct and statements with respect to North Korea, NATO, the Saudi murder of a WaPo journalist, his inviite for a weekend retreat with the Taliban at Camp David, etc. etc. -- If the standalone uncontextualized mention of Pres. Biden's precaution seems out of place, the solution would be to work on integrating it into the general topic of Trump's allegiance to the US and all the instances in which that has been questioned. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself. Put it in the Trump administration article. We're trying to cut down the length of this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

His life is getting longer so the article gets shorter? SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

We are trying to cut the article size because it's too long and hard to navigate. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Cut fluff about wrestling, the names of his relatives, etc. Length problem is not the consensus here and has been a huge waste of time. "Length" does not rebut advocacy of inclusion for important content. You need to show why it is less important than all the current content. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You've already cut everything about wrestling, from the fluff to his hiring of Linda McMahon for national small business to his headlining of the largest WrestleMania known to man (at the time). Cut some fake bullshit you enjoy for a change, eh? Personal sacrifice is only useful to a greater good if everybody gives up their two bits. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

And that is a personal attack you should delete. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a polite request to everyone controlling the flow of information to let some of their favourite filler go, especially if it's largely only in the interest of relaying a "narrative" from a cable news network, as it relates to an ongoing feud with the company's top heel. As a wrestling fan, I dismiss all this week-by-week commentary and hotshotting as exactly as big a waste of time and brainpower as Washington drama fans take the pomp and buildup surrounding his well-documented feud with Vince McMahon.

Acknowledging the scripted nature of political outrage theatre isn't a knock on any of its most devoted connoiseurs, least of all you two, but I'm sorry for calling it "fake bullshit". It's not fake, it serves a purpose to a very real audience with very real tastes in amusement, and makes good money doing so. In some ways, I respect the psychological skill of CNN and FNC's writers, editors and directors, honestly. But when an article about a WWE Hall of Famer turned federal political archnemesis has dozens of sections about the latter and two [expletive] sentences about the former (in a stub about his decades of work in other entertainment genres), it's hard to ignore the fact that post-2015 American news junkies have a disproportionate amount of pull in deciding how to apply NPOV, BLP and RS to the whole biographical picture here.

Enough is enough, in my detached opinion. You can keep every treasured piece of every week's "top story" fluff here forever for posterity if you want, or trim it like the silenced majority have repeatedly asked nicely, but to mischaracterize my incongruent suggestions as attacks just as an excuse to censor me would be incivil, so no, let it be. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This nonsense does not belong on an article talk page. And stop characterizing other editors. SPECIFICO talk 07:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Stop belittling modern political reality. It's not nonsense, it's just a side of him you don't seem to want to accept. I'm not sure why, don't presume to and am fine if you'd rather not explain why you have cut so much wrestling content for yourself. No characterization intended, of editors. But if you can't trust the multiple independent sources that say Trump was still utilizing wrestling tactics as the president, who can you trust? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Here on Earth 1 we didn’t agree to participate in any reality-TV show, and we didn’t sign up to follow WWE rules or buy tickets to become active audience members of the amusement. You’d need to present a considerable number of RS who say otherwise. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel like no matter what points I make, you'll insult me, then shift the conversation to an absolutely ridiculous demand that has nothing to do with what I wrote. Why would I or anyone even want to convince you you bought a WWE ticket or signed up for any imaginary rules? It's literal absurdity. I have no earthly idea, despite being a fellow human, why you highlighted "amusement". Are you saying I should have called it something else? Edutainment? Live history programming? National debate?

In any case, I'm 100% not proposing we elaborate on anything to do with wrestling in the article. Understand? I just wanted polling and policy-related superfluous detail and fan jargon reduced as well as the stuff other people prefer to enjoy learning about has been. I think the bio's very heavily skewed by recent events. If you, despite following this Trump coverage closely for several years and having a basic understanding of traditional wrestling booking, don't see how the scene has changed, I believe you. It's not important.

As for noting his lack of access to top secrets in the lead, Oppose. Rounded off, 100% of Earthlings also don't have such privilege, as Trump hadn't for the vast majority of his life. It's not crucial to understanding the person. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

From Trump's debts owed to unknown entities (not talking about Ladder Capital or Deutsche Bank) to his blabbing to Lavrov/Kislyev right after the inauguration to his tête-à-têtes with Putin to his Mar-a-Lago patio sessions he's been considered a threat to national security since before he was even elected. This needs to be mentioned. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Trump has always been a threat to national security. National loyalty, like truth, is an unknown quantity to him. Normally, he would never be able to get the security clearance required for those who work in the White House. Once elected, he just got it, which was immediately misused to endanger the life of a source in Israel. We may never know how many Russian assets were placed in various positions. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Russia Report expressed its concerns:

Finally, the Committee's bipartisan Report shows that almost immediately following Election Day in 2016, the Trump transition responded to Russia's election interference not by supporting punitive action, but rather by holding a series of secretive meetings and communications with Russian representatives that served to undercut the outgoing administration's efforts to hold Russia accountable. The transition's openness to this private Russian outreach prior to taking office, so soon after Russia's interference on Trump's behalf, combined with Trump publicly questioning Russia's involvement, signaled that there was little intention by the incoming administration to punish Russia for the assistance it had just provided in its unprecedented attack on American democracy."

See also Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information. -- Valjean (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The wording is fine how it was originally and it certainly merits inclusion here and not on the Presidency page as it happened AFTER his presidency ended. If Biden cited anything specific as his basis for denying Trump intelligence briefings then that probably should also be included briefly (one line or less) but it is silly to insist on re-summarizing content already included throughout the article regarding Trump's controversial statements regarding the topic US foreign intelligence. OgamD218 (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I take it, my suggestion hasn't been implemented. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Page size

Compared to Presidency of Donald Trump, we're doing OK.

• Page size: Presidency 491,268 bytes; Donald Trump 417,231 bytes
• Characters: Presidency 153,270; Donald Trump 108,522
• Words: Presidency 23,434; Donald Trump 16,851
• References: Presidency 979: Donald Trump 914
• Unique references: Presidency 870; Donald Trump 823 Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Pardons and commutations

Re my "extreme pov move by editor who selectively deleted only this specific pardon from the section" and OgamD218's revert. Yeah, well, for once my "extreme POV" is supported not just by the usual suspects but also by a source from the right, first time I EVER cited the The Federalist (website). Aside from that, the text and the cite are outdated. Trump didn't just commute Johnson's sentence (something most people support)—while his AG and DoJ ordered federal prosecutors to pursue the toughest possible charges and sentences against criminal defendants, reversing President Barack Obama’s efforts to ease penalties in nonviolent drug cases (NYT 2018), and a mere three months after he himself had called for the death penalty for drug dealers (Vox March 2018). He later (a day after she appeared in a campaign video praising his leadership, to be exact) (NYT 2020, CNN) pardoned the "one-time non-violent drug offender" who actually spent three years in "middle-management" of a drug operation that brought 2,000 to 3,000 kilograms of cocaine into Memphis (Tennessean).

I just discovered that there is an actual article misleadingly called List of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump. I think the best way to handle this is to move that article to "Executive clemency granted by Donald Trump" and then add whatever is missing. Johnson, for example, is only mentioned as a clemency recipient who was part of Trump's "kitchen cabinet" of influencers. Then we can cut the section in this article to the bare bones: "Most of Trump's pardons and commutations were granted to people with personal or political connections to him. He sidestepped regular Department of Justice procedures for considering pardons, instead often entertaining pardon requests from his associates or from celebrities. Trump frequently bypassed the Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA), and the majority of his executive clemency grants were made to well-connected convicts who did not file a petition with the OPA or meet the OPA's requirements. Overall, Trump granted less clemency than any modern president." I copied the last two sentences from the lead of "List of ...", haven't looked up the sources yet. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I would be OK with bare bones on details such as Blackwater slaughter but with summary from RS about Trump's personalization of this authority with text similar to what's in second paragraph above. SPECIFICO talk 13:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: how does any of that "support" your "extreme pov move by editor who selectively deleted only this specific pardon from the section". You deleted a commutation/pardon of Trump's that received substantial attention and even you acknowledge the individual appeared in a Trump campaign ad. You just deleted it outright, you didn't provide any additional context or relevant information. I do not consider The Federalist RS, a position I still hold regardless of whether or not they agree with me. Hard for sources to be out of date as it pertains to pardons since those are permanent and specific, regardless you tag or save the sourcing you don't just delete it wholesale. I don't even necessarily think what you're saying is wrong, you raise some fair points; but it does seem to be as is so often the problem with this page that the point of an encyclopedia is disregarded in favor of OR and individual editor's politics. To be honest, Kim Kardashian's involvement in the Alice Johnson case, Trump made it known openly. The information re her appearance in his campaign ad and such is not as well known and in my opinion merits inclusion. However it is not ok to just up and delete this mention. OgamD218 (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Praise for Putin, invasion of Ukraine

I believe Trump's praise for Putin and for Russia's invasion of Ukraine might be news, but it is news that will certainly pass the WP:10YEARTEST - moreso, say, than buying another company. My addition was reverted by Space4Time3Continuum2x. Can I get consensus to include, even if modified? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I would rather wait, but yes this may be relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A lot of the content about Trump's support of Putin and other foreign autocrats (while deprecating the US' global alliances) needs to be summarized and contextualized. Too much of it is recited without articulating its significance. SPECIFICO talk 13:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The wording implies that Trump supports the Russian incursion into Eastern Ukraine. TFD (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That may be because that's what Trump explicitly stated? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

An excerpt from a Guardian article [3],

“Here’s a guy who’s very savvy … I know him very well,” Trump said of Putin while talking to the The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show. “Very, very well. By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened."

Bob K31416 (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Could certainly include that, too. What he also said was "I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, 'This is genius.' Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine – of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. I said, 'How smart is that?' And he's gonna go in and be a peacekeeper." Trump also stated that the Russian military buildup in Russian and Belarusian territory was "the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's the full quote from the talkshow (you can find a copy on youtube under 'President Trump Joins Clay & Buck from Mar-a-Lago'): "We could use that on our southern border. That's the strongest peace force I've ever seen. There were more army tanks than I've ever seen, they're gonna keep peace alright. No, but think of it: Here's a guy who's very savvy. I know him very well. Very, very well. By the way, this would have never happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable, this would never have happened.". If what you posted can be considered RS, maybe we should re-evaluate the standards on that. I honestly can't believe nobody has posted the unedited quote here before... Prodigial Son (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This one's a doozey for sure & should be included. The rest of yas can decide, whether he was being sarcastic or not. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It should probably be included. Thankfully it doesn't belong on his "presidency of" article. Maybe wait a few days per WP:RECENTISM to see what else develops. Like, he hasn't praised Putin since the invasion started last night (EST), has he? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

And here's the Guardian excerpt with the additional part of Trump's quote in brackets that came before it,

"[That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right. No, but think of it.] Here’s a guy who’s very savvy … I know him very well,” Trump said of Putin while talking to the The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show. “Very, very well. By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened."

Trump was being sarcastic about "peace force" and that's clarified when he added "No, but think of it." He does not support the invasion and thinks Putin is a formidable adversary that Trump thinks he could have handled but Biden couldn't. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't be the first time the so-called reliable news media twisted Trump's stance, into a negative light. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That's how I would interpret it. We will have to wait for expert opinion in order to interpret it. TFD (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

um? really? SPECIFICO talk 20:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Bob, "thinks Putin is a formidable adversary"? Sure, and he also admires Putin for doing it. He envies him and wishes he could do the same things Putin does, such as imprisoning and killing American journalists, if he's ever reelected as president. Both men are authoritarians with no respect for republican democratic values, human rights, or civil liberties, and their followers love them for it. Yes, Trump and his followers share Putin's views and have been expressing it lately. -- Valjean (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Re your remark, " [Trump] 'thinks Putin is a formidable adversary'? Sure, ..." — I'll take that as agreement. Regarding admiring Putin, it looks that way but Trump may not admire anyone. I think it looked like he admired other people and then they were either fired or treated like enemies or incompetents. Also note that he said regarding Putin's aggression in Ukraine, "By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable." As far as the comments and article on authoritarianism, they look fallacious. I could respond further but I think it would be going off on a forum-like discussion and not appropriate for here. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Source for "just kidding"? What makes you think he wasn't just kidding when he said, "Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened." ? SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, right, "sarcasm", twisted into a negative light by the "so-called reliable news media" . Here's the transcript of the entire section of the interview dealing with Putin:

Hatted quote Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Q: ... in the last 24 hours we know Russia has said that they are recognizing two breakaway regions of Ukraine, and now this White House is stating that this is an “invasion.” That’s a strong word. What went wrong here? What has the current occupant of the Oval Office done that he could have done differently? TRUMP: Well, what went wrong was a rigged election and what went wrong is a candidate that shouldn’t be there and a man that has no concept of what he’s doing. I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, “This is genius.” Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. So, Putin is now saying, “It’s independent,” a large section of Ukraine. I said, “How smart is that?” And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s strongest peace force… We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right. No, but think of it. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy… I know him very well. Very, very well. By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened. But here’s a guy that says, you know, “I’m gonna declare a big portion of Ukraine independent,” he used the word “independent,” “and we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.” You gotta say that’s pretty savvy. And you know what the response was from Biden? There was no response. They didn’t have one for that. No, it’s very sad. Very sad.

I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, "This is genius." Losing his fight with the English language, as usual, and sarcasm isn't in his repertoire. He's Trump, retiree, currently ineligible for security briefings. His remarks are late night comedy gold but other than that they only got a brief mention as an aside to the invasion—outside of Russia, that is. If that changes, we can always add it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A brief mention? CNN, Washington Post, The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, Sky News, the NYT, MSNBC, and many more... (as per the link in my initial comment in this section). As to commentary on his remarks - no, they don't appear to be taken as sarcasm. At least by the State Department. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Rephrasing: His remarks were only mentioned as an aside. Here's another one, same day, on the Ingraham Angle:

Hatting quotes Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb8t-UToTxw, starts at around 45:50 seconds) Ingraham: We’re just learning that U.S. officials are looking at a potential amphibious landing now in Odessa, Ukraine. A month ago, or three weeks ago, all the so-called experts were saying that Putin was probably gonna just be content with staying in those separatist regions. But I think given what’s unfolded sadly with a lot of weakness in the United States they just decided to go for it. I mean, looks like they’re going for it and where does that leave NATO, the NATO alliance. Trump: I think that’s what happened. I think you’re exactly right. I think that’s what happened. I think he was going to be satisfied with the peace and now he sees the weakness and the incompetence of the stupidity of this administration. And as an American I am angry about it and I’m saddened by it and it all happened because of a rigged election. This would have never happened and that includes inflation and that include (video ends) The rest can be seen here, apparently too embarassing for Fox to show: https://twitter.com/JonahDispatch/status/1496695902727196675 Ingraham: We’ll continue to monitor this. We’ll go back to President Trump for a quick reaction. We have kind of a really pathetic display from the Ukrainian President Zelensky earlier today where he in Russian, he doesn’t like to speak Russian, he was imploring President Putin not to invade his country. Now we have the Ukrainian ambassador to the United Nations looking like a defeated man. Your final reaction. Trump: Well, I think the whole thing again would have never happened, it shouldn’t happen, and it’s a very sad thing. But you know what’s also very dangerous you told me about the amphibious attack by Americans. You shouldn’t be saying that because you and everybody else shouldn’t know about it. They should do that secretly, not be doing that through the great Laura Ingraham. They should be doing that secretly. Nobody should know that, Laura. Ingraham: No, those were the Russians, the Russian amphibious landing. Trump: Oh, I thought you said that we were sending people. Ingraham: No no, that would be news. Trump: And you what, that’s all we need. That’ll be next, OK? Now, we ought to protect our own borders.

That's the stuff that sells papers and brings clicks but I doubt it's important enough to be included in his biography. Former president, out of the loop and out of it. I agree with the State Department spokesman: "I have no response, in fact, I have no words." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought Trump was supposed to be colluding with Zelensky.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It's great, that sanctions (as though that would stop Putin) are being piled onto Russia. But what about Belarus? Ok, that's another matter. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Jack, on the contrary. Trump tried to force Zelensky to back up his Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, a bunch of false allegations against Joe Biden designed to distract from his own misdeeds. Zelensky did not cooperate and Trump was impeached for making the attempt. Trump and Manafort were on the side of Viktor Yanukovych, the former pro-Russian President of Ukraine who worked for Putin, just like Trump, who is always on the side of Putin. -- Valjean (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I think Jack was just being sarcastic. SPECIFICO talk 02:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting that Putin only invaded Ukraine when Biden was VP or president, not during the Trump presidency. I am sure that historians will have a lot to say about that, but we will have to wait. TFD (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It would have been much more advantageous for Putin if Trump had been able to continue to work for him (see turning over Syria to the Russian/Syrian alliance, a purported discussion of "Russia’s encroachment on Ukraine" at the 2018 Russia–United States summit in Helsinki ending with Trump casting "doubt on U.S. intelligence agencies conclusion that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election" and not mentioning Ukraine at all, Trump continuing to talk about fulfilling Putin's top wish, withdrawing the U.S. from NATO, and making the U.S. administration more dysfunctional than he managed to do in four years. With Trump gone, Putin had to do his own dirty work, and he got right on it ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). Getting off my soapbox now. BTW, brilliant Rachel Maddow commentary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's wait and see if this WP:RECENTISM or not. If it proves to be enduring we should begin a discussion on the appropriate verbiage and ensure proper context of this. As of this moment, I'm just going to say we should wait. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Haven't checked the BLP itself, but no doubt it'll be added. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting qoute from Trump

• Include for right now: Easily sourced, both now and during his presidency. We can always remove it later if it turns out to be tangential. pbp 17:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Include: It is referenced to multiple high quality reliable sources and has been making the news in these sources for several days now. ––FormalDude talk 00:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: how could you possibly say this has been reported on for weeks? He made this statement just few days ago. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Corrected, sorry. ––FormalDude talk 00:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• comment — I suspect that the above two "include" votes don't know what they're voting on. Perhaps one or both of them could specify what they think the proposed edit is. The proposed edit I saw was the diff "reverted" in the first message of this section. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  We are of course !voting on the content of that revert which is the topic of this thread. The recent comments made by Trump praising Putin's invasion of Ukraine are due weight and should be included in the body of the article. Is that clear enough for you? ––FormalDude talk 01:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  In the interview, Trump was essentially saying that Biden was no match for Putin, but that Trump was because he understood how Putin worked. One of the parts of the interview that was left out of the reverted edit was where Trump said, "By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened."[9] It would be false to imply that Trump supported Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thats the third time that's been said in this thread. It's just Trump's trademark sarcasm. SPECIFICO talk 03:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  None of your comments should be considered in this discussion. You are blatantly misrepresenting Trump's comments and reliable source's reporting of Trump's comments. ––FormalDude talk 06:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  No. Trump said that if he were president, Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine. That's clear from the Trump quote in my last message. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Trump called the invasion of Eastern Ukraine the best peacekeeping force ever. Peacekeeping -- e.g. missile attack on a daycare facility. Reliably reported. It would not be false to state, let alone "imply" that Trump voiced support for the invasion. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  In my message of 16:07, 24 February, I already discussed that. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• No, you missed the point. Trump uses sarcasm for emphasis on important events. He was just being sarcastic when he said he would not have allowed the invasion. And anyway, there are very fine people on both sides. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Apparently we disagree on what was and wasn't sarcasm. I gave evidence in my Feb 24 message and you haven't. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm confused. You mentioned his sarcastic saying he would have stopped the best peacekeeping mission ever, so I think we are in agreement not to put it in. SPECIFICO talk 00:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

At this point Bob's comments should be taken with the same seriousness of that of a TROLL. This is some 2+2=5 bullshit. We've gone over the quotes half a dozen times. Anyone with an inkling of literacy can tell Trump's true sentiment is praising Putin and the invasion. ––FormalDude talk 04:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

With regard to a message like that, I'll just refer back to my above message of 02:36, 27 February that was my previous response to FormalDude. And I think that about does it for me with regard to FormalDude, except to mention Wikipedia:Civility. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS are not OK on an article talk page or anywhere else. If you have diffs to back up your concern, take them to an enforcement board and see what happens. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that Specifico posted a message in the Further coverage subsection with a link to the Reuters article, Trump condemns Russia invasion; hints again at 2024 presidential run. And regarding the article, Specifico said "repeats sarcastic remarks". In that article it doesn't look to me or apparently the journalist, that Trump is being sarcastic when he condemns the invasion. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. I've already commented on this above, but I really don't see this being noteworthy right now. When were are trying to decide if a recent news story should be included we use the WP:10YEARTEST, and I see no reason why this passes that test. Here is my rationale. (1) Trump's comments have no real effect on anything. He has no power and he's not a leader right now. So they make no impact on anything, at least in matters of foreign policy. (2) The candid and brief nature of the comments. These comments were said on like podcast of some sort, not like in a press briefing or official statement. As far as I'm aware, he hasn't been doubling down on them and attracting attention beyond the actual incident. (3) We have no reason to believe this will ever be significant for Trump, at this point in time. The only way I could see this ever being WP:DUE is if he runs for president again and this becomes a talking point, then it could be due. The only other examples I can think about when a brief comment by Trump has been mentioned is the Access Hollywood tape and the Charlottesville comment, and this definitely is not on that level. This is likely only WP:RECENTISM. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Bob K31416:: That's rather presumptuous of you to claim that I don't know what I'm voting on. pbp 21:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  First I said suspected. Second, you wrote in your vote, "Easily sourced, both now and during his presidency." The proposal was about statements Trump made recently, not during his presidency. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion, WP:NOTNEWS. The remarks of Putin’s dream president made the headlines for a few days—that's to be expected. They're no longer in the headlines. Trump is already trying to put a spin on his words, as usual, but it's getting hardly more coverage than his—also usual—coy hints at running again or him doing the Trump wobble. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - NOTNEWS. Needs context and RS narratives as to significance. Already Trump's efforts to walk it back are shedding more light on his view and its response to Republican condemnation. Any significance will be much clearer with time. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Trump's no longer the prez & what he thinks & doesn't think is irrelevant, accept to those news media who want ratings. Also, despite how it's being presented. The guy's not exactly giving Putin's actions total approval. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

He is the frontrunner for the 2024 GOP nomination and the principal backer of state and local GOP candidates, with a huge cash PAC fund. Highly relevant to US governance and public discourse He and his proxiees are currently the leaders of the GOP and if we had clear narratives as to his view and his attempts to reverse his initial statements, they would be appropriate article content. It's just too soon. SPECIFICO talk 21:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We both oppose the addition of the info. Leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

No, content decisions should be based on realistic and well-informed evaluation of the sources and circumstances. The suggestion that Trump's views are irrelevant to his bio is not well-founded. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I've nothing more to discuss with you. We both oppose the addition. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support As he continues to do it, so this is now very much part of who he is.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Still WP:RECENTISM. Something we can add to the BLP or his 2024 presidential campaign, when the time comes. Right now, he's just trying to get attention & the media loves the ratings. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

That utterly begs the question. He could get attention by condemning Putin, by praising Biden's response, or by dancing on ice. This discussion is about the notewothiness of his comments, not the fact that he frequently makes comments. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you supporting or opposing the additions of Trump's Russia/Ukraine remarks. Which is it? GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Except he has been praising Putin for 5 years, this is just then lastest chapter. In represents an ongoing admiration.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Carter opposes Israel. Both former presidents comments on both topics, aren't big news. The only reason why the media is more hyper about it (along with getting ratings) is because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. PS - You've made your choice, so I'm not gonna pester you any further about it. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Israle (last time I checked) was never hostile to the USA. With that apples and orangies I will ask you to stop wp:bludgeoning this thread, and I will stop replying.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Read my post again. "PS - ...I'm not gonna pester you any further about it". GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an "oppose" that's not based in policy. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose appears to be RECENTISM, and falls under NOTNEWS, thus we should not include it, at least for now.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 09:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Further coverage

Apparently, Trump is continuing to comment on Ukraine. [10] and repeats sarcastic remarks, here. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You oppose additions & yet seem to be making arguments for the additions. Which is it? GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

In Specifico's message, the second link is to the Reuters article, Trump condemns Russia invasion; hints again at 2024 presidential run. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

if we included every time a president misspoke, we'd be adding paragraphs to the Joe Biden article every day. TFD (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

That's Biden though. Different article treatment. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Apparently you are gonna pester us... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"Biden gaffes" -- a deprecated Republican talking point from years past. Let's see RS reporting any in 2022? That should be a cinch, since you seem to believe he makes dozens per day. False analogies and false statements are not good argumentation. SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

See "Joe Biden flubs speech appearing to call Ukrainians ‘Iranian people’ during State of the Union/The moment quickly went viral online as political pundits pounced on the video as a sign of the president’s declining mental sharpness." (The Independent, 2 March, 2022) TFD (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, right, pundits like Sebastian Gorka and Thomas Massie quoted in former KGB officer Alexander Lebedev's newspaper. It was neither a "gaffe or geographical confusion", it was a slip of the tongue. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a new low for talk page SOAPBOX. Shaming an 80 year old guy for minor vestiges of a prior speech impediment while the 80 y.o. POTUS has been 24/7 leading the world in crisis. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Russian bounties wording

Does the following sentence provide the appropriate context that is understood the closing of Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 141#RfC Russian Bounties claims?

Trump expressed doubts about Russia's alleged bounties to Taliban fighters for attacking American soldiers in Afghanistan and never discussed it with Putin.

Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WTH? The other RfC hasn't been closed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The other "RfC" wasn't even an official RfC, and it's not an organized discussion that could be considered closable Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Abort this. Don't be impatient. Jumping to unnecessary RfC wastes editor time and attention and validates IDHT and TE. Your language was not successful the first time. Its not ok to escalate after it failed so recently. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected, RfC Russian bounties - better wording was just a heading referencing the RfC. But you did ask for the discussion to be closed. Was there any kind of response? The title of this RfC ought to include that it's about the wording, and the short description appears to be missing a word or two. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

But still -- the wording proposed here was the first one suggested above in another thread and it was not endorsed and it should not be proposed again in a structured RfC -- that is not what RfC's are for. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It's being proposed for the third time, now. First proposal, second proposal, third time's the charm, or something. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to see anything near that level of attention paid to improving the article with well-sourced summary content concerning Trump's relationships with autoctats and criminals instead of hindsight revisons of settled text that has been uncontested for these many months. It reduces well-informed editors to damage control at the expense of broad improvement. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I did ask for the discussion to be closed. However, after a brief discussion with SPECIFICO we both agreed a closure would not be helpful or even possible, so I removed the requested closure. SPECIFICO it's not WP:TE or WP:IDHT to try and reach consensus to fix wording that there is a current consensus against. If anything actively trying to obscure the process of changing a sentence that the community already has a consensus against is WP:IDHT. This proposition gained some support in the last discussion (3 supports, no oppose). Also, I'm not opposed to adding a second proposal to support here. I do believe this RfC is warranted as we had a informal discussion right above, being followed by a formal RfC. This is in accordance with WP:RfC. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I've warned you on your talk page about the above. But wrt this content, I see no support for your view before you launched this pointless RfC. And those who oppose your change have not !voted here, perhaps due to the reasons it's a bad poll, reasons that at least a couple of us have laid out. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, this is what the RfC's closer wrote about the wording: ... there seems to be rough agreement that some coverage of the Russian bounty controversy and its relation to Trump be maintained, but that the current wording of the coverage could be altered or contextualized. How do you get the context "Trump doubted" from three sources that say the explanations from Trump/WH/other officials were inconsistent, i.e., "fake news" and "wasn't briefed"? Counterproposal:

Trump did not discuss the alleged Russian bounties offered to Taliban fighters for attacking American soldiers in Afghanistan with Putin, saying both that he doubted the intelligence and that he was not briefed on it.

As I've said before, the New York Times said that other commentators misunderstood the April and May 2021 briefings on intelligence declassified in 2021.

Hatted quote from NYT

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

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Oops, forgot to add "with Putin" before the comma. Fixed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: The proposal is not terrible, but I do some issue. (1) It doesn't clarify that he failed to discuss with Putin, which would be very confusing to the reader. (2) I see trouble with saying he "doubted the intelligence" because I don't believe that is supported by RS, it's only clear that he expressed doubt about the existence. Also, can you please explain what you find so wrong about the proposal here? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

How about "he doubted the intelligence assessment"? See the last two paragraphs in the NYT article. Your proposal doesn't mention that Trump/WH/Trump administration kept waffling between different narratives.

BBC: "The intelligence assessment was first reported last June by the New York Times, … Mr Trump at the time called it "fake news" and a "fake issue". He later tweeted that he was not briefed on the subject because US intelligence agents had not deemed it credible."

AP: "The White House says that the intelligence community does not have conclusive evidence that Russian intelligence operatives encouraged …" "In June, The Associated Press reported that Trump White House officials were briefed on intelligence about potential bounties in 2019 and again in 2020. Then-national security adviser Robert O’Brien said Trump himself had not been briefed on the matter because the intelligence reports 'have not been verified.'"

Politico: "Top administration officials have been inconsistent in their explanations of the extent to which Trump was briefed on the bounties, but POLITICO reported earlier this month that the White House told congressional lawmakers the relevant intelligence was included in the president’s daily written brief in late February. President Donald Trump acknowledged Tuesday that he did not raise reports of Russian bounties on American troops during his phone call last week with President Vladimir Putin, suggesting U.S. intelligence on the matter was 'fake news.'" "Trump claimed Tuesday that the bounty intelligence 'never reached my desk' because intelligence community officials 'didn't think it was real,' adding: 'If it reached my desk, I would have done something about it.'

NYT: "Facing bipartisan criticism, the Trump administration defended its inaction by playing down the assessment as too weak to take seriously, falsely denying that it had been briefed to President Donald J. Trump. In fact, it had been included in his written presidential daily briefing in late February, two officials have said." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, Your counterproposal is questionable. A June 28, 2020 NPR article [11] reported that Trump said the intelligence community told him the bounties story wasn't credible. In the NPR article was, "The Pentagon 'has no corroborating evidence to validate the recent allegations,' according to a statement by [Defense Department] spokesman Jonathan Hoffman..."

From your message of excerpts: "US intelligence agents had not deemed it credible." Also, the AP source [12] in your message was referring to the Biden White House in the excerpt you presented, not the Trump White House. Your quote is from the first sentence of that article. "The White House says that the intelligence community does not have conclusive evidence that Russian intelligence operatives encouraged …" It looks like you were trying to say that it came out of the Trump White House when it actually came out of the Biden White House. Bob K31416 (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

AP source: you're right about the first sentence in the AP source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support — Improvement over what is presently in the article which falsely implies that Trump should have brought it up. In the article there is no mention of any doubt by anyone of the existence of bounties. Trump, the military and intelligence services had doubts about the existence of bounties and later even Biden had doubts. See for example [13]. For reference, here's what is presently in the article

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

Bob K31416 (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support it makes no sense that Trump would bring up something to Putin that his own intelligence community disputes is even real. Of course Putin would deny it and moreover use it to make American intelligence look weak. The intent of the original text seems to be leftover from when it was first breathlessly reported but before it was walked back by most sources. This should be corrected sooner rather than later. The proposed text is a much needed improvement. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "Makes no sense?" No, it makes lots of sense. Let's not be naive here. Never believe what he says, only what he does. When dealing with Putin, Trump's actions make lots of sense when one realizes he is viewed as a useful idiot and Russian asset (not agent) who is subservient to Putin, and he consistently acts that way. At the Helsinki summit meeting he expressed belief in Putin's denial which caused the whole intelligence community to condemn him as Putin's puppet.

According to Trump's own aides and biographers, he usually skipped intelligence briefings[14] and never showed real interest in understanding national security matters, and this was no exception. When speaking on national security matters, he often spoke from ignorance and self-interest, as noted by a judge's skepticism of Trump's tweets. So keep that in mind in this case as he admitted he was not briefed on the matter: Trump "later tweeted that he was not briefed on the subject because US intelligence agents had not deemed it credible...Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters the intelligence community had determined it had "low to moderate confidence" in the claims...due to the fact that the information was said to have come from interrogations of Afghan detainees."

So Trump lied in that tweet when he wrote that "US intelligence agents had not deemed it credible". (Stricken as those are not his, but BBC's words.) They had actually rated it "low to moderate confidence". Even if it had been rated high confidence, Trump wouldn't be likely to complain to Putin, just as he didn't seriously complain about Russian interference in the election, a much more serious matter proven with high confidence. In fact, he directly told Russian officials in 2017 he wasn't concerned about Moscow's interference in the U.S. election. He enjoyed benefiting from their help.

My point? We cannot use what Trump says about the matter as it, as usual, is not reliable. We never treat Trump as a RS, only in an ABOUTSELF manner. -- Valjean (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Stricken later. Valjean (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Here's a more accurate version:

  Trump was not briefed on the matter, yet he expressed doubts about Russia's alleged bounties to Taliban fighters for attacking American soldiers in Afghanistan and never discussed it with Putin.

Valjean (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The beginning of your version is, "Trump was not briefed on the matter,[1] yet he expressed doubts..." The full sentence from the RS was, "Trump tweeted he was not briefed on the matter because US intelligence agents had not deemed it credible." What you have is a false implication because you used only part of the source's sentence. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

?? I used the full quote further up so you could see the full context, but that context is not necessary for the point being made. -- Valjean (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Your version makes the false implication that Trump had doubts based on nothing. Your version left out the info in the second part of the sentence from the source which said that Trump tweeted US intelligence agents had not deemed it credible. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we're parsing the wording differently. Keep in mind that it is not a direct quote, but BBC's description. Trump "later tweeted that he was not briefed on the subject because US intelligence agents had not deemed it credible." (BBC)

Come to think of it, this fact means we should be more careful and not depend solely on BBC, as other RS have commented on the matter. He tweeted more than once on the matter, so we can't even be sure which tweet they are referring to.

Politico mentions there is doubt about the matter: "Top administration officials have been inconsistent in their explanations of the extent to which Trump was briefed on the bounties, but POLITICO reported earlier this month that the White House told congressional lawmakers the relevant intelligence was included in the president’s daily written brief in late February." The article is good. -- Valjean (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

So far you've got nothing to support your version's false implication, which appears to be OR and shouldn't be in the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Re "Keep in mind that it is not a direct quote" — For reference, here's a direct quote of the Trump tweet reported by NPR on June 28, 2020 [15], "Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or @VP. Possibly another fabricated Russia Hoax, maybe by the Fake News @nytimesbooks, wanting to make Republicans look bad!!!" Bob K31416 (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment- Thought there was already a recent RFC on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

There has been no RfC on the wording. Just a discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support the proposed sentence is supported and cited by RS, and establishes the needed context that is established in the previous RfC. A lot of the concern regarding this proposition, voiced above by Valjean, is that we are treating Trump as RS. However, this is simply not the case. We are merely stating Trump's response, not stating it as fact. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Quite the contrary, this version was rejected in the initial thread because it obscures the fact that in 2020 the intelligence assessment was that the bounties reports were correct. As Valjean has explained, the assessments from the following year were not the basis of Trump's having given Putin a pass on this in 2020. SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  The article you linked to was on June 26, 2020. A June 28, 2020 NPR article [16], for example, reported Trump said the intelligence community told him it wasn't credible. In the NPR article was, "The Pentagon 'has no corroborating evidence to validate the recent allegations,' according to a statement by [Defense Department] spokesman Jonathan Hoffman..." Bob K31416 (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You opposing is not equivalent to being rejected in the previous thread. This proposal in no way says the claim of Russian bounties was false. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Remove sentence entirely: I don't think his opinion on this topic merits inclusion in the main article. If kept, "and never discussed it with Putin." needs to be replaced with "and claimed to have never discussed it with Putin." pbp 02:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a consensus for inclusion, but context is needed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Bornstein claim

Under the subhead "Health", the article read "In 2018, Bornstein said Trump had dictated the contents of the letter, and that three Trump agents had seized his medical records in a February 2017 raid on the doctor's office", with a cite to NBC News. The sentence was true as to Bornstein's claim, but did not include information in the source that disputed that claim. So I added ", a characterization that was disputed by the White House press secretary" at the end of that sentence, for balance. Another editor then removed everything after "February 2017", which is mostly ok, but because of that I then changed the word "seized" to "taken", which was reverted by a third editor. Nowhere in the source is the word "seized" used. The accused say the records were handed over voluntarily and cordially. Our source says that the records were "taken", of which there is no dispute. We should use the neutral word used in our source if we don't want the longer but balanced sentence. Station1 (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:MANDY. If this article recited all of Trumps implausible denials and revisions, claims of sarcasm, and equivocations, it would be 5 times the current length. This section content has been discussed extensively in threads that you can review in the archives. As I stated in my edit summary, "seized" is a compact summary of RS accounts. The alternative is much longer detail about 3 large men entering the doctor's office without legal authority, rifling through the files, and taking and removing medical records That's why "seized" is a neat solution. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't find anything in the archives about medical records, but maybe I missed it. If you have a source that says 3 large men entered without legal authority and rifled through files and removed records without permission, then "seized" would be good word. Meanwhile the neutral and reliable source that we have doesn't say that. It reports that there was an "incident" that "Bornstein described as a 'raid'," and that a "spokesperson for Garten" described as a peaceful "hand off" where Bornstein "willingly complied." NBC also says that "Bornstein said" the documents "were taken". Without additional sources, "seized" is not a neat solution, it's an unsourced word that is unnecessarily biased. Station1 (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:MANDY is not a valid policy for reverting anything, and is especially irrelevant here. The source uses "took," "collect," and "taken." There is nothing in the source about 3 large men, which appears to be SPECIFICO's original research. SPECIFICO please stick to what the sources say and do not interject your own fantasies. Taken is the neutral word and should be how our article describes it. One side likened it to a raid and the other side described it as "voluntary turn over" or a "handoff," so let's stay neutral here. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Since the current wording of Bornstein's experience is being contested (and it was far too short), we'll do what we always do: we double down and describe more accurately, even if it's longer. Since "seized" is being contested, we need to be completely accurate and describe the feelings of "rape", fright, and chaos created by this unauthorized "raid" that violated HIPAA patient privacy laws. This is how we usually deal with attempts to minimize what RS say. Such attempts create a Streisand effect and the content becomes even more noticeable. So be it. -- Valjean (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed your NPOV assertion of only one side of the sourced text. It is also wildly UNDUE. Per your comment it appears to be some kind of revenge addition, so please try to avoid that. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a very accurate description from Bornstein and NBC. "that three Trump agents had taken his medical records" is so non-descriptive that it is an NPOV violation. What is the "other side"? Is it the deceptive denial from Garten? Sure, we could include that. -- Valjean (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is the removed text:

He also described what he called a "raid" of his office the morning of February 3, 2017, by three men acting for Trump: Trump's bodyguard Keith Schiller, the Trump Organization's top lawyer Alan Garten, and a third man. The men arrived "without notice and took all the president's medical records": "They must have been here for 25 or 30 minutes. It created a lot of chaos," said Bornstein, who described the incident as frightening." He told NBC News that he felt "raped, frightened and sad". He was not given an opportunity to authorize release of the records, which is a violation of HIPAA patient privacy laws.

We could add that Garten's spokesperson wrote "that Bornstein "voluntarily turned over the medical records to Mr. Schiller" at the request of the White House. "The hand off, which occurred well over a year ago, was peaceful, cooperative and cordial. Prior to turning over the records, Dr. Bornstein was informed of the reasons for the request and willingly complied.""

That makes it plain who is telling the truth and who is lying, and that would be more informative for readers. -- Valjean (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Let’s discuss instead of edit warring in the article, please

Hey folks. Way too much of this argument is being carried out via additions and reverts and changes in the article itself. You all know better than that. Let's call a halt to that, and discuss any changes here at the talk page like good Wikipedians, and try to reach consensus. I propose that each of you spell out what you think the sentence should say, make a numbered list, and then we can discuss it rationally. In the meantime I am going to restore the longstanding version as #1, and you all can post your suggested improvements or changes, and then we can see where we stand. My own feeling: this is a hugely bloated biography and we should try not to put in too much verbiage about any one incident; my suggestion would be to keep it to a single sentence.-- MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate this approach, but disagree about one sentence. It is a bland and non-descriptive NPOV violation as it gives no context or feeling for the situation as described by Bornstein and RS. We need more than just "taken". The version you propose to restore is more accurate, as "seized" is a much better description. The word does not have to appear in the source. Also use of "raid" is from the source and very accurate. We need Bornstein's description of disruption and the violation of HIPAA that occurred.

We also need to put the citations in the right place. The first citation only applies to the first part of the sentence (about dictation). Then we need a new sentence that covers the raid more fully. -- Valjean (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

MelanieN, I notice that you haven't restored the consensus version yet.

Also, may I move the first source to the right spot in the sentence? -- Valjean (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I intended to restore the longstanding version (#1 below) but neglected to do it. I see that User:Firefangledfeathers has restored it; thank you. Let's leave it there unless and until there is consensus to modify it. That's not to say it is the best — just that it was there for a long time and that gives it a kind of implied consensus. I'm not seeing any consensus yet here around any proposal to change it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggested versions

1. (the original version) In 2018, Bornstein said Trump had dictated the contents of the letter, and that three Trump agents had seized his medical records in a February 2017 raid on the doctor's office.

• @Station1: "Trump's aides seized the records" I agree with MelanieN it's hard to understand why experienced editors are reverting valid content without responsive engagement on talk. SPECIFICO talk 22:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not sure why I'm pinged on this. I've reverted nothing. I've made only 2 edits, the second of which you reverted. And I think I responded quite fully to your only previous comment. Will add those 2 edits here (first one modified based on your earlier comment), if that's what you're suggesting. Station1 (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Station1 and Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Station, you say you are not sure why you are pinged above. I pinged you because in the original post of this thread you expressed concern that "seized" was inappropriate. But "seized", to repeat, is the ordinary English word for "take without authorization" and that is what is described in the source that was in the article. However, to demonstrate that there are also sources that use the more specific term "seized", I linked to the WaPo article above in this section and pinged you. If you think it's important to insert that reference with an in-line citation in the article, that's fine, but I personally don't think it's necessary to source each word in the article text. SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The whole point is one party says the records were "taken without authorization" and the other party says they were taken with authorization. The source properly includes both accusation and denial and in its own voice neutrally describes an "incident". I have no objection to the word "seize" if we also say, per source, that the other party disputes that characterization; that was my original and preferred edit. And you do understand that the Washington Post piece is not a hard news article, it's an "analysis", so labeled, not intended to be neutral. In fact, it's an analysis of the NBC News article that is our hard news source! And certainly we don't need to source each word in every article, but we do need to source those words that make Wikipedia seem to be biased to anyone who does check our sources and finds something more neutral than the words we choose. Station1 (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Station1: Believe it or not: Yes, I do understand that The Fix is a tertiary source, and as you should be aware it is a perfectly valid one for straightforward english wording of facts. Did you expect Trump to say that he instructed his agents to commit a crime -- burglary -- and illegally enter the Dr.s offfice? Per my statement above, WP:MANDY is a valid reason to omit WP:FALSEBALANCE. Although I am ready willing and able to hear you refute my view on that, I'm disappointed to see it ignored. SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I accuse you of bias. Don't bother denying it, because "you would, wouldn't you?" Station1 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

No, if you were to do that -- which I presume you are not intending to do -- I would ask for evidence. In this case, it would have been easy for the 3 large men to have presented the authorization either at the time of their arrival or upon the publication of the story they unconvincingly denied. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Note: Despite the "original version" label, this is the version written by SPECIFICO on 27 Jan 2022. The earlier version read: "In 2018, Bornstein said Trump had dictated the contents of the letter and that three agents of Trump had removed his medical records in February 2017 without authorization." Station1 (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

2. In 2018, Bornstein said Trump had dictated the contents of the letter, and that three Trump agents had seized his medical records in a February 2017 raid on the doctor's office, a characterization disputed by one of those agents. [Or...]

• I favor this version, and we should use WaPo for the "seized", as it says "Trump's aides seized the records". "Seized" is a more accurate description for when something is taken (literally stolen!) by surprise, without permission and illegally. -- Valjean (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

3. In 2018, Bornstein said Trump had dictated the contents of the letter, and that three Trump agents had taken his medical records in February 2017.

Discussion

I suggest taken be used instead of seized, as per the source that is only one party's interpretation of the event and not the other. NPOV directs us to describe it neutrally. Taken is neutral and clear. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I support just changing "seized" to "taken". All that matters is what RS says, and RS uses the word taken. Nuff said. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

NBC uses "took" and "collected" in their own words, CNN uses "retrieved" and "had come to collect". While the WH said that the medical records were "handed over peacefully", they didn't deny that the men showed up unannounced and demanded 35 years worth of medical records. Who does that unannounced, expects copies to be made on the spot, and then takes off with the originals 20 minutes later? "Seized" seems to be a good compromise between peaceful handover and robbery. The physical records do not belong to the patient, they belong to the doctor. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Chex, you were given good tertiary RS for seized. But per SpaceX, "seized" is also simply a polite English word for every RS description of events. The alternative would be Valjean's solution, which is needlessly long and complex. You do understand that RS describe a criminal misconduct? Burglary. Theft, etc. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you think using the word taken which is explicitly used in the RS cited for this sentence in some way negates the possibility this was "criminal misconduct"? It doesn't seem like a big change to me. It's not like a reader is gonna be like "Oh my God, the word "taken" must mean the agents peacefully and legally obtained the files. I can't believe Trump is that kind and respectful." Who cares what the word is? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

A bizarre and specious argument. By that logic, we could omit the fact that he was elected president in 2016. After all, there would be nothing to negate that possibility. That's not how we write article text, even for something that's "not a big change." SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, you write: "Do you think using the word taken which is explicitly used in the RS cited for this sentence in some way negates the possibility this was "criminal misconduct"?" You are technically correct but practically wrong. Synonyms have shades of meaning and using the wrong one can give a misleading impression. A neutral one like "taken" says nothing at all about the circumstances, whereas "seized" is a synonym that describes what happened much more accurately. Below MelanieN has addressed RS use of "seized", which is a much better word to use. -- Valjean (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Apparently NBC news didn't think it was innapropriate, but I found you solution above for using seized with a citation to WaPo as a good compromise. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Statements by White House physicians Ronny Jackson and Sean Conley in 2018, 2019, and 2020 said Trump was healthy overall, but was obese. Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's 2018 LDL cholesterol level of 143 did not indicate excellent health. Trump's 2019 coronary CT calcium scan score indicates he suffers from a common form of coronary artery disease.

• Trump went to great lengths to hide accurate/complete information from the public about his wealth, his grades, and his health. Before the news got out that Trump had been much sicker with COVID than he and his WH had previously let on the health section used to mention that he didn't allow the release of the kind of information released by previous presidents.

Health section, October 2020

In 2015, Harold Bornstein, who had been Trump's personal physician since 1980, wrote that Trump would "be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency" in a letter released by the Trump campaign. In 2018, Bornstein said Trump had dictated the contents of the letter and that three agents of Trump had removed his medical records in February 2017 without authorization. Statements by White House physicians Ronny Jackson and Sean Conley in 2018, 2019, and 2020 said Trump was healthy overall, but was obese. Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's 2018 LDL cholesterol level of 143 did not indicate excellent health. Trump's 2019 coronary CT calcium scan score indicates he suffers from a common form of coronary artery disease. Trump was hospitalized with COVID-19 on October 2, 2020, and treated with the antiviral drug remdesivir, the steroid dexamethasone, and an unapproved experimental antibody drug made by Regeneron. He was discharged on October 5.

Health section, June 2020

Trump abstains from alcohol. He says he has never smoked cigarettes or cannabis. He likes fast food and French cuisine. He has said he prefers three to four hours of sleep per night. 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. In December 2015, Harold Bornstein, who had been Trump's personal physician since 1980, wrote that Trump would "be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency" in a letter released by the Trump campaign. In May 2018, Bornstein said Trump had dictated the contents of the letter and that three agents of Trump had removed his medical records in February 2017 without due authorization. In January 2018, White House physician Ronny Jackson said Trump was in excellent health and that his cardiac assessment revealed no issues. Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's 2018 LDL cholesterol level of 143 did not indicate excellent health. In February 2019, after a new examination, White House physician Sean Conley said Trump was in "very good health overall", although he was clinically obese. His 2019 coronary CT calcium scan score indicates he suffers from a form of coronary artery disease common for white men of his age. In June 2020, Conley released a memorandum saying "the data indicates that the President remains healthy." The memorandum was not the usual report issued after the annual physical exam. It summarized medical appointments that had taken place between November 2019 and 2020.

Right now the first two paragraphs are a tad anecdotal. We could replace the Bornstein paragraph with a link to the Bornstein page in a sentence about Trump claiming to be extraordinarily healthy and withholding the usual reports on presidential physicals. (I haven't given a lot of thought yet on how to word that.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Another solution would be to add the summary you gave above, Trump went to great lengths to hide accurate/complete information from the public about his wealth, his grades, and his health. to the article text, with a few linked examples. From the comments in this thread, that would appear to nail it down a bit better, while also shortening the article. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You said "Who does that unannounced, expects copies to be made on the spot, and then takes off with the originals 20 minutes later?" In fact, copies were NOT made; the entire intent was to remove all of Trump's files from the doctor's hands. Per the NBC News source, Bornstein said the original and only copy of Trump's charts, including lab reports under Trump's name as well as under the pseudonyms his office used for Trump, were taken. As for the word "seized", it is specifically used by at least one source, the Washington Post: It involves Trump's colorful longtime personal doctor, Harold Bornstein, who claims that Trump's bodyguard, a Trump Organization lawyer and a third man conducted a “raid” of his office in February 2017, seizing 35 years of Trump's medical records. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. It was SpaceTime who said that. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

If we were to use the Washington Post analysis piece as our source for the word siezed, we'd need to put "raid" in quotes like they do. We shouldn't cherry-pick our favorite words from different sources. Station1 (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You are proposing to change longstanding, extensively discussed, content. You bear the WP:ONUS to find new consensus for your change. There appears to be little chance of that. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I am very disaapointed by that statement. I've just now discovered that the sentence under discussion is not longstanding at all and has never been discussed. In fact, the sentence as it now reads was put there by you, SPECIFICO, on 27 Jan 2022, in other words a few weeks ago. You are the one who added the words "seized" and "raid" to the previously more neutral senetnce, which read: "In 2018, Bornstein said Trump had dictated the contents of the letter and that three agents of Trump had removed his medical records in February 2017 without authorization." If no consensus is reached in this discussion, we need to simply restore the pre-27 Jan 2022 version to get back to status quo. Station1 (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

SpaceX has already posted the former versions above. To shorten the text -- a widely voiced objective of editors on this page -- I replaced "removed...without authorization" with the single word "seized". There have been a couple hundred edits since then. I have no problem calling that longstanding consensus. And notwithstanding your disappointment, if you'll review the talk archives you will find that the health section has been extensively discussed in detail. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

No, that is not true. You have not fully described your changes of 27 Jan 2022. You made the sentence longer, not shorter. Station1 (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not constructive to misrepresent editors' comments. I said nothing about shortening a sentence. I said I shortened the text, and that occurred in a series of copyedits to the bit about Bornstein. And it has been accepted consensus through a couple hundred edits and loads of eyes on this page. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

References

"Far-right" and "conspiracy theorist" categories

Both these categories are inappropriate for inclusion in this article. WP:CATV requires categories to follow a neutral point of view, just like all other content. The term, "far-right" is not cited in this article anywhere, and the vast majority of sourcing uses terms like "right-wing populism" or "nationalist" to describe Trump, both of which are cited in this article and are categories listed. As for conspiracy theorist, it's inappropriate to describe Trump as a "conspiracy theorist" in WP:WIKIVOICE. We only say he has promoted conspiracy theories, that is not equivalent to being a conspiracy theorist. This category violates that NPOV standard. Both these categories should be removed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Far right is throughout the article, properly sourced. Ditto promoting conspiracy theories. SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Not one sentence in this article says the Trump was a far-right politician and not one sentence says he's a conspiracy theorist. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, I have trouble taking your reading comprehension seriously, unless you're trying to be tricky and extremely technical. Trump has enjoyed much support from the far-right, largely because he shares their POV and has lent them much support. They are his base. Keep in mind that he and his heritage have been enamored with Hitler, and he has studied Hitler's speeches, even having a copy of them at his bedside. Several of his social policies are those shared by the far-right. This article touches on his connections to the far-right.

As far as conspiracy theories goes, this article has a whole section about that subject, and it is a summary of a whole article: List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. He has created some and pushed even more, and some of his most ardent supporters and friends are conspiracy theorists (lots of Fox News people, as well as Alex Jones). He really does have some horrible and creepy friends. Birds of a feather.... Thus it has due weight for mention in the lead and inclusion in the category. -- Valjean (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Re your response to the previous message — I think it would be helpful for editors following this discussion if you could copy and paste here one sentence in this article that says Trump was a far-right politician. Bob K31416 (talk) O2:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding "politician" to it creates a straw man. The subject is whether it's accurate to describe Trump as far-right. He is. -- Valjean (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's an edit that shows one of the categories that's being discussed [17]. As you can see the category is "Far-right politicians in the United States". Bob K31416 (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: Support from the far-right doesn't mean he's a far-right politician, in the same way that Louis Farrakhan supporting Obama doesn't make Obama a black supremacist politician. We can only explain Trump as being a far-right politician if it's explicitly in RS. You thinking his policies, supporters, and speeches are far-right and reaching the conclusion that Trump is a far-right politician because of those facts is WP:OR, more specifically WP:SYNTH. The same is true form conspiracy theories, Trump is not described as a conspiracy theorist, and us concluding that his promotion of conspiracy theories makes him a "conspiracy theorist" is also WP:SYNTH. Also PackMecEng does a good analysis of existing consensus on this below. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

We have a whole section about Trump and the conspiracy theories he has created and those he has pushed, and we have a consensus for adding "verbiage to the lead that Trump promotes conspiracy theories", even though that is not under discussion right now. The category should be restored.

Trump's support of far-right/alt-right causes, policies, politicians, and media talking heads is well-known and is mentioned in this article. That's why they all support him. The category should be restored. Both categories were long-standing and consensus content. -- Valjean (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Obama was endorsed by Savage Dragon, among other vigilantes. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

But did Obama actively support and encourage such causes? No. (I don't know what I was thinking and mistook that reference for someone else. See this for context I didn't know about.) Did he have their speeches on his bedside table? Trump had Hitler's speeches there. You're picking an exceptional situation to dis Obama, but with Trump and the alt-right/far-right it's a two-way, mutual admiration society that's consistent. Even when he tries to backtrack after criticism, he equivocates. He knows his base and doesn't want to offend them. He's an alt-right/far-right populist politician. Just look at his friends (oops! he has no real "friends"). Birds of a feather. You can judge a man by his friends. It's no accident he chose Bannon and was close to Hannity, Ingraham, and Alex Jones. They are all far-right and push conspiracy theories, the ones Trump has created and the ones they have created. They feed him conspiracy theories and he pushes them. -- Valjean (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to "dis" The Man. Just elaborating on Checkers' point; being elected president takes millions of votes, and getting those votes means appealing/pandering/relating to millions of wacky characters. Some fictional, some unsavoury, some both. Name any president, he has assholes with opinions to thank. American politics is an absolutely filthy game, whether you're working the franchised crowd who like to hear the traditional lies (no more taxes, a car in every garage, nothing to fear), the untapped deplorables who pop for lockerroom lies (so much pussy, America rules, Mexico drools) or the most marginalized last resort demo of all who only want to see any old white man finally associate with a young black woman as if he had a personal choice. But even filthier than politics is The Unholy Trinity of disgusting fast food, trashy talk TV and killer flying robots. It is there, not in his treasured bedside(?) collection of used Spidey and Conan mags, that Obama lost me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

You still haven't shown any sentence in this article that says Trump is a far-right politician. There may not be such a sentence because there is no RS that says so. You'll need that to justify the category "Far-right politicians in the United States", which is one of the categories being discussed here. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: you haven't addressed my WP:SYNTH concern which is present here. I do not contest that we have a consensus for saying he promotes conspiracy theories, I'm merely saying that does not indicate he is a conspiracy theorist. Almost all your commentary in response to InedibleHulk is WP:OR. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, I started it, what did I expect? Should've linked more clearly, both of us. On that note, I made nothing in my last link up, it was the links who rotted, I tell ya! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, sorry for the delay in spotting your comment here. I have a lot of unanswered notifications right now.

What would it take for you to consider someone a "conspiracy theorist"? Do they have to be a major producer of myriad conspiracy theories, such as Alex Jones, Hannity, Bongino, and Glenn Beck? Does 95% of what they say have to be conspiracy theories, or is 5% enough? Does their constant repetition of conspiracy theories created by others enough? What is your measuring device?

Have you even examined the List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump for the ones created by Trump? What about his Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election, which includes several of his own conspiracy theories? What about his Spygate (conspiracy theory), his Trump Tower wiretapping allegations, and his birtherism against Obama? He doesn't settle for repeating others' conspiracy theories. He has always created fiction, used fake names, the White House was the biggest source of fakes news during his administration, and his creation of conspiracy theories was part of that pattern. -- Valjean (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

There would have to substantial reliable sourcing that very explicitly says "Donald Trump is a conspiracy theorist." That's what would it would take. Saying "promoted a conspiracy theories" or "supported a conspiracy theory" is not enough to label someone using the term conspiracy theorist. Concluding that he is one from his activity without explicit RS support is WP:SYNTH. I hope that is clear. You ask what it would take me to consider someone one to be a conspiracy theorist, and all I will say is my opinion on what makes someone a conspiracy theorist is not relevant to this discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

So the fact that we have several articles here, all based on multiple RS, which describe HIS conspiracy theories, as in the sense that he is the creator/author/whatever, in that sense...that means nothing to you? All of those RS mean nothing to you? We do use common sense here. Even if not a single one said the exact words "Trump is a conspiracy theorist", if the consensus of their descriptions means the same thing, then we say he is a conspiracy theorist. (Mind you, I'm pretty sure there are many RS that describe him as one.) Using common sense isn't always SYNTH or OR. Exact words aren't always required if the meaning is still clear. You could also just AGF that your fellow editors, as in all those myriad editors who have created those articles, many far more experienced than yourself, were maybe on to something you haven't noticed.

"President Donald Trump has been a conspiracy theorist for years."CNN. "Conspiracy Theorist in Chief."[18][19][20]

I suggest you read FactCheck's article, "Trump’s Long History With Conspiracy Theories". -- Valjean (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

They don't mean "nothing to me." We extensively cover these conspiracy theories, and I'm not trying to undermine that. I just believe that we do not have the ability to label someone a conspiracy theorist, that's the business of RS, and for whatever reason they don't call him a conspiracy theorist. It's not our job to pull out a dictionary and decide if Trumps conduct make him a conspiracy theorist, and that's practically what you're advocating here. Labeling the former president of the United States a conspiracy theorist is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and requires vigorous RS support for the label, and as I've said that RS support is nearly nonexistent. It's gonna take more than an Op-ed from the LA Times, Mother Jones (which requires attribution), and 2 CNN articles to label one of the most notable people on earth a conspiracy theorist. There's a reason we don't label him that anywhere else on Wikipedia except this category. A good guideline for you to review is WP:LABEL. Also the FactCheck one only quotes someone else calling Trump a conspiracy theorist, someone who had just had beef with Trump. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You can't discount sources because they disagree with Trump. That's not how Wikipedia works. Also, don't misuse EXCEPTIONAL. Context is important. Stop and think about the type of person we're talking about. If a person were renowned for their honesty, good ethics, high moral values, and unimpeachable moral character, EXCEPTIONAL would indeed apply. In this case, EXCEPTIONAL would only apply if we were trying to say good things in attempts to make him look like a Boy Scout. That would be an exceptionally impossible task because he fails all those points miserably, more than almost any other notable living person. We are not trying to do that. We are just following what RS say and describe, and that's not a pretty picture.

Myriad RS are clear that conspiracy theories and Trump fit each other like a glove. He breathes them and manufactures them on the spot. They just ooze out of his pores. RS not only label him as a conspiracy theorist, they also describe his activities in creating and promoting them so clearly that the meaning is the obvious, without any OR or SYNTH. If a synonym is accurate, we can use the appropriate related synonym(s). To illustrate... A dictionary lists a word, and below it are lots of other words that define it. If we find all those words below it, we know the word. In this case we have the word and all the other words that define it. That is enough for us to label him. This isn't rocket science. It's common sense. Wikilawyering just wastes time. If you can't see that, I give up. You could try to AfD all those articles and see where that gets you, but I can assure you it won't end well for you. We don't take such disruption lightly. -- Valjean (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

All I will say to this is your claim that RS labels him a conspiracy theorist, is simply not true. I'm not discounting sources that disagree with Trump, only following WP:RSP regarding the sources you cited. I think our points have been made pretty clearly, and I see no need to continue this. Also WP:EXCEPTIONAL does not only apply to positive things about Trump.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

There are several very problematic, dare I say disqualifying, statements in your recent remarks here. But for one, please read and make a special effort to understand what WP:SYNTH does and does not say. You've repeatedly misused that term. Your post appears to say that it is a priori "exceptional" to apply the "conspiracy theorist" category to a former president of the US. But that is not at all what's meant by WP:EXCEPTIONAL and the suggestion that Trump or any other elected official inherits a mantle of nobility solely by virtue of having been elected is so far off the mark as to overshadow all your other comments in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 02:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't claim that Trumps status as a former president makes this exceptional, calling anyone a conspiracy theorist is exceptional. I'm not misapplying WP:SYNTH. This is what SYNTH says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. What including this category is doing is reaching a conclusion from RS that is not explicit in the RS. I'm done stating this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

See this previous talk page discussion so we dont rehash. It is settled consensus, and the facts have not changed. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

That discussion involved the term "right-wing populist" which is not being contested in this discussion. This issue is far from "settled consensus." Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• A quick search of the archives says nah on the conspiracy part.[21][22][23] There was also an RFC to talk about conspiracy theorist and consensus was he promoted but did not fit theorist.[24] For far-right I am leaning towards nah, a 5 year old discussion is basically worthless at this point. Here are some more recent ones.[25][26] PackMecEng (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

As always unsure, I think ascribing any lable to Trump is pointless as I am unsure he has any firmly held convictions beyond TRUMP!. But if RS say it so do we. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

How true! -- Valjean (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I have been opposed to many proposals to add labels to article text. They are not descriptive and they are prone to misunderstanding when in article text where specific description is the informative encyclopedic alternative. But here we are talking about category links which are much more general and make no specific factual statement. These two categories are fully consistent with the more specific, descriptive text that is in the article and well sourced. There's no justification whatsoever, either in policy or common sense, to remove these among the dozens of categories that appear in articles of this size and scope. The suggestion that because he voiced conspiracy theories but we can't refer to it because he did not copyright them beforehand -- what? -- that is unworthy of this discussion page. On the 2020 election alone, Trump and his hired entourage promulgated dozens of conspiracy theories. He went on and on in detail about his secret Honolulu team to KO Obama. So, the category does not introduce anything that is not supported by thousands of RS accounts. We are not making the claim, e.g. that Trump's entire life story is a conspiracy theory. There's no such implication. Simply that he is a conspiracy theorist who has voiced and promoted such falsehoods. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

You speak of categories as though they are almost held to a lower content standard since they are supposed to be general. However, this is not the case, see WP:CATPOV. If we are not going to describe Trump as a conspiracy theorist in the text, which we don't and there is no consensus for, then we shouldn't describe him as that in the categories. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Checkers is assuming that the article text must explicitly repeat the categories verbatim, but that's not true. As has been explained above by Valjean and SPECIFICO, these categories are verifiable and neutral for a number of reasons. I'm not seeing any good argument to remove them. ––FormalDude talk 02:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Your partially correct about my viewpoint. I do think it not being in the text is significant, but my main concern is that this claim is not backed by RS and is not in accordiance with MOS:LABEL. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:SEALION posting after all your statements have been rebutted is not constructive. Please review all the responses that other editors have generously contributed before continuing to raise the same points again. SPECIFICO talk 02:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: FormalDude mentioned me by name in a comment and I clarified what he believed my stance to be. I had every right respond, and that is not "disruptive". You have no reason to claim I am civil POV pushing. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I did no such thing. NPA. SPECIFICO talk 03:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: you cited WP:Civil POV pushing to explain my conduct. You did imply I was civil POV pushing. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, where did User:SPECIFICO do that? I can't find that anyone did that. Please provide the diff. -- Valjean (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: SPECIFCICO cites WP:SEALION (same as WP:Civil POV pushing) right above and says what I'm doing is disruptive. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for the clarification. I agree with SPECIFICO's point about "raise the same points again". -- Valjean (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You also aren't in a fair position to decide all his points were "rebutted" and all counterpoints were "generously contributed". You're on your own side here, again. By my biased reading, our points are generally better. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Rebut≠Refute. Yes the were rebutted each time he repeated them. SPECIFICO talk 03:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Were any good ones refuted, from your perspective? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

"or "nationalist" to describe Trump" Hmmm, you do realize that ultranationalism is a main element of both fascism and the far right, correct? The main article describes it as a combination of xenophobia, support for authoritarianism, tendency towards totalitarianism, and the rallying of an "amorphous" political movement behind a charismatic leader. Dimadick (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

That (and all the other descriptions you mention) is also a good description. -- Valjean (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

Trump was also democratic before 1987 2603:6081:7943:279C:4909:9D21:3C87:DE66 (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AwfulReader (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Bias and political statements

This article about Donald J Trump goes against many Wikipedia guidelines in many ways including biased sources and political opinions. Unless these standards and guidelines only apply for those that the editors agree with this should be changed into a more neutral position. Instead of saying “he said many false statements and lies” it should say something like the following “opponents of Donald Trump say that he’s made many false statements” or something along those lines. This post might not attract any attention, knowing Wikipedia but this must be changed. Jake pres (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)