Talk:Donald Trump

Current consensus

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

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

10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016)

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus #50 discrepancy

Re: [1][2]

Article is not faithful to #50 as to the links. Needs correction. My suggestion is to remove the first three links from #50. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with your edit summaries, and with removal. Those were definitely MOS:EGGs. Per MOS:LINK, they probably shouldn't be linked even in their non-EGG forms—we're generally not supposed to link [c]ommon occupations (e.g., accountant, politician, actor). Cessaune [talk] 23:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree. The links weren't mentioned in the discussions that led to consensus #50, and they're eggy and common occupations that shouldn't be linked. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That's good news. If you're sure the links weren't mentioned (I've been too lazy to check), then the item was incorrect from the start and we don't need a consensus to correct it (or a link to this discussion). Raise your right hand and repeat after me. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

At the time of the drafting of consensus item #50, the links were present. Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Cessaune [talk] 02:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

That makes it a bit stickier from a process standpoint, but I'm inclined to say the links should have been incorporated into the discussions if the intent was to keep them. I wouldn't necessarily say that in a different situation – links are often omitted from discussion if the discussion isn't about links – but I'll make an exception for such an obvious case. I can't believe "we" ever allowed those EGGs in the first sentence, but apparently "we" didn't used to care so much about EGGs. The editor mix has changed. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think a four-person consensus is enough to remove anyway, but I don't like that logic. Especially consdering how big that RfC was. There were tons of editor eyes on the issue, and I don't think anyone objected to the links. No objection = no issue = consensus to include. Cessaune [talk] 12:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, the discussions weren't about links. If an editor had brought up links, they would have been dinged as off topic and expanding the scope of the discussion. Either that, or just ignored. But I'll go with I think a four-person consensus is enough to remove anyway, and I'll give it another day or two before acting on it (there's no hurry). I'm not clear; do you think the item should link to this thread? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

eyes on the issue — the links were not an issue in the first RfC, a prime example of how not to do RfCs. 10 options in green, with blue highlighting the issues — "tell[ing] the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is" (MOS:FIRST) — i.e., what is he (media personality/businessman/real estate developer/television personality and in which order) and do we say "who was" or "served as" president. The second RfC was about a different issue, whether to link "45th president of the United States" to Presidency of Donald Trump or 45th "president of the United States" to President of the United States). By the time of the third RfC — on whether to add politician to Trump's jobs — the common occupation links were gone, and, when the issue of the order of his jobs came up again a couple of months later, nobody had missed them in the lead or noticed that the blue text in consensus #50 indicated links. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Valid, I guess. Cessaune [talk] 03:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Link removals look good, to me. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm only seeing this now, but just for the record, I would've supported retaining the links. The subarticles are important ones that we ought to make it easy for interested readers to find, and that in my mind takes precedence over any EGGiness. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The links are already in the article twice, thrice, and twice, respectively. All three are in the infobox's occupation field. I think interested readers are given sufficient opportunity to find those articles without glaring violation of MOS:EGG in the first sentence of this high-profile article. Thankfully, readers don't stop reading at the first sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

American Academy

Trump has proposed a tuition-free online "American Academy" to be funded by taxing university endowments (apparently to be started if he gets elected president). I think this should be briefly mentioned. See https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/11/donald-trump-wants-government-fund-another-trump-university, https://www.newsweek.com/heres-what-donald-trump-plans-teach-his-new-free-university-1840446, https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/problems-donald-trumps-american-academy-plan-rcna123332 Kdammers (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It is getting responses among academics: "A Free, Online National University Is Trump’s Latest Higher-Ed Idea. Here’s What Experts Think"= https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-free-online-national-university-is-trumps-latest-higher-ed-idea-heres-what-experts-think?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_8193728_nl_Academe-Today_date_20231103&cid=at (chronicle.com) Kdammers (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do we need this? He has said a lot of things. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't belong here, it can go in Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, maybe. Zaathras (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Another brilliant — 'though a tad communist-sounding? - idea for his Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign#Platform, to complement the shooting of shoplifters and the centralization of government power under his authority. Take the billions and billions of dollars that we will collect by taxing, fining, and suing excessively large private university endowments and then we will use that money to endow a new institution called the American Academy. Will the academy offer "an entire universe of the highest-quality educational content covering the full spectrum of human knowledge and skills", presented in PragerU videos the way they offer highest-quality educational content to students in Florida? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC).

The Trump campaign shared its plans with Politico. Academy graduates would "use their credentials to apply for jobs with the U.S. government and federal contractors". Yay? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 20:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The irony being the right giving the people something for nothing Anonymous8206 (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Given Trump's track record of involvement in "educational institutions" I find it highly likely that people attending this proposed American Academy would receive nothing of any actual value. Not to mention that the "wokeness" that Trump says is ruining the educational system in many cases is actually the accepted consensus of the best information in a discipline. The whole project reeks of scams and indoctrination. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Who won the 2016 election?

Trump won in 2016 and lost in 2020. Yet the lead says he was a “losing” candidate in 2016. Here’s the full sentence in the lead:

Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican nominee against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote.

Now that a lot of time has passed, and we’ve seen the baneful effects of election denialism on all sides, I suggest we reconsider saying Trump lost in 2016. He didn’t. In basketball we don’t say, for example, that the Lakers scored more points but the Celtics won the most applause. It reeks of denialism to say Trump lost the election in 2016 in any way, and if he had lost then the entire executive branch (and the entire country) would have been entitled and obliged to subvert his presidency. I suggest a slight rephrase:

Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican nominee against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton while she received more of the popular vote.

In other words, he got more of the electoral vote, which is what counts. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose A solution without a problem. SPECIFICO talk 10:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Huh? The sentence says that Trump won the 2016 presidential election. How do you get "election denialism" from that wording? And, yeah, according to a many RS, he also lost the popular vote — by 2.9 million votes, which is a bit more than Clinton receiving "more of the popular vote". Quoting our cited source: "For the fifth time in U.S. history, and the second time this century, a presidential candidate has won the White House while losing the popular vote." A few others, in no particular order: "Note: Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 but won the Electoral College" (PBS); "—2016: Trump won the Electoral College, 304 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton’s 227 — but lost the popular count by 2.8 million votes" (AP); "How Did Trump Win Election While Losing Popular Vote" (VoA); "An updated count by the Cook Political Report shows Trump lost the popular vote ..." (Vox). And a couple saying Clinton won the popular vote: "... indications are that Hillary Clinton will become the fifth presidential candidate to lose the election despite winning the popular vote" (Guardian); "Hillary Clinton Officially Wins Popular Vote by Nearly 2.9 Million" (ABC); "... a margin of 233,404 that puts Clinton on track to become the fifth U.S. presidential candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election" (NPR). Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose no we say he won the election, but yes, popularity is also significant. Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose It reeks of denialism ? No, the reek here is from a lack of comprehension of the subject matter. Presidents who lose the popular vote but squeak in via the Electoral College is a well-known, well-documented subject of political interest. There's even an article on it. This has nothing to do with election denialism, but rather a (well-sourced) observation on the thwarting of the will of the people. Zaathras (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - The words "mandate" and "landslide" have both repeatedly been used to characterize the election. The popular vote does not suggest illegitimacy to the Trump win. But, it does suggest the illegitimacy of claims of a mandate or landslide. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - I struggle to see how you get any sense of "election denialism" from this. Rather, I question your understanding of either or both of 1) the English language and 2) the Electoral College system of electing US presidents. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral - Trump isn't the only US president to be elected without getting the most popular votes. FWIW - technically, nobody won the popular vote, as nobody got over 50%. Anyways, I'm content with either the status quo or the proposed change. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• La bufera di opposizione porta a una chiusura precipitosa. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  In english: "The storm of opposition leads to a hasty closure". GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The lead of George W. Bush says In the 2000 United States presidential election, he won over Democratic incumbent Vice President Al Gore, despite losing the popular vote... As long as we're consistent across the relevant articles of presidency-winning-but-popular-vote-losing presidents, I don't see an issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support: It reads defensively. Trump didn't really win, apparently.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  The longstanding wording reflects the near-universal statements in the best RS references. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  The first five words of the sentence are Trump won the 2016 presidential election – Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• I don't have a principle objection to the wording, as it's a factually accurate statement and doesn't evokes election denialism or the alike. It does flatter the narratives that he may not have legitimately earned the presidency in the minds of people who object to the electoral college but that's another issue. However, whether or not its due is a more nuanced question IMO. The lead is bloated. What makes this important to include? The national popular vote has no bearing on who becomes president... so why mention it in the lead of this article? Removing it would also allow us to remove the distracting note having to describe what the electoral college is. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Has anyone ever legitimately earned the presidency? He was elected, period, and his having been legitimately elected despite his opponent getting almost 3 million more votes than him is an important part of his biography. The footnote is not distracting, it's necessary for readers not familiar with this peculiar institution. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Legitimate is subjective. Just saying "his opponent getting almost 3 million more votes than him is an important part of his biography" does not provide adequate reasoning as to why it's important, much less why its important enough for the lead. Again, I ask, why is his opponent getting more votes an important part of the article considering the national popular vote has no relevancy to who wins? Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree it's not due in the bloated introduction.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Healthcare Mandate

I think the phrase “after the Supreme Court found it to be unconstitutional” should be added after the statement that Trump rescinded the healthcare mandate to be more informative. 12.74.54.42 (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not the case. Do you have a reliable source for the text you want to add? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Italics in hatnotes

I attempted to fix the italics issue in two hatnotes in this article. Both Space4Time3Continuum2x and Iamreallygoodatcheckers removed the improvements without any constructive comment, despite my comment directing them to the relevant style guideline WP:ITHAT. I propose we reinstate my changes. Thrakkx (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Admittedly, I was unfamiliar with the guideline. You may reinstate. My apologies. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Not so fast. Does WP:ITHAT apply in this case? Words or phrases that are italicized within a normal sentence should be unitalicized within a hatnote. Since all words in a hatnote are italicized, the specific text will not stand out if the italics are not disabled. The "specific text" is the only text, there's no other text it could — or needs to — stand out from. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: yes it does. There is automatically generated, italicized text when using the {{Main}} template, namely "Main article:". So the phrase "Main article: E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump" must be presented in a hatnote as "Main article: E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump". Thrakkx (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Space4T. OP appears to be reading the letter of the guideline, specifically the first sentence, without understanding its purpose and intent. The guideline should apply only when part of the hatnote text is italicized within a normal sentence, not all of it; otherwise, it accomplishes nothing. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mandruss As I replied above, I do understand the purpose and intent of this guideline. All hatnote templates produce italicized text (in the case of this article, "Main article:"), so the destination article text must always be unitalicized. Thrakkx (talk) 04:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

After another read, I concede the intent. However, I question the purpose.

From the guideline: Since all words in a hatnote are italicized, the specific text will not stand out if the italics are not disabled. I would disagree; the blue color is enough to make the text "stand out". Can you explain why we need roman type as well, particularly when the entire target title is in italics?

"Because the guideline says so" is never sufficient. Guidelines are not only prescriptive but descriptive – for better or worse – which means that editors must be allowed to deviate when they don't make sense. I could see some logic in cases like "Main article: E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump".

It would also make more sense to use roman type for "Main article:" in this case, as: "Main article: E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump". Maybe you should propose that at WT:HATNOTE? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I am a partial author of this guideline. I don't see the value in requesting fundamental changes to the italicization of hatnote text as you suggest. This is why ITHAT exists:

New York State's civil fraud case

Main article: New York civil investigation of The Trump Organization

Lorem ipsum...

E. Jean Carroll's lawsuits

Main article: E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump

Lorem ipsum

If the italicization of the case name is not canceled, the reader cannot tell from text alone that case names are italicized according to Wikipedia's style guide. This is especially apparent in the example above with the first hatnote that is fully in italics because the destination article title is not italicized under normal circumstances. A deviation from this guideline would not make sense; it implies that Wikipedia doesn't italicize the names of court cases, which is of course not true. Thrakkx (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It implies that it's a link to a main article that looks the other links to main articles in this article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Using roman type to denote italics will never make much sense to me, sorry. Even if readers could figure that out. I don't know who that guideline is serving, but it isn't readers. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see where the confusion is coming from. "Reverse italicization" is a pretty widespread convention. The APA, for instance, says to "use reverse italics when a word or phrase is italicized within a title or other phrase that is already italicized". See: https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/formandstyle/apa/more/italics --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm getting on in years, I pay almost obsessive attention to little details like that, and I've never seen such reverse italics. So I don't know how widespread it could be. But I guess we have to bow to major style guides even when they make little sense, and I withdraw my opposition. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

(Walden University? Doonesbury fans?) The cite says to, as a general rule, use italics sparingly ("splitting the infinitive" intentionally) and that italics are appropriate for - followed by items 1–7. I assume you are referring to item 1, "Titles of ..."? The three examples show the titles used in sentences which isn't the case here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the instruction to remove the italics when the italicized material is used "within a title or other phrase that is already italicized". The "other phrase" here is the infobox as a whole, so that any words that would normally be italicized become straight text instead. Here is the APA itself saying this: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/italics-quotations/italics. "When words that would normally be italicized appear within text that is already italicized, those words should be set in standard (nonitalic) type, referred to as reverse italicization." --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

In other words, if the normal string is "fooity foobar foo", then the italicized version of that string is "fooity foobar foo", no matter the reason for the use of italics in the original. The italicized form of a normally italicized term is the same term in standard type. ALWAYS. At least in APA.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Include mention of Trumpism in lead of article

Currently, Trumpism is only mentioned as a link in a "See also" under the section "Campaign rhetoric and political positions." Irrespective of Trump, I believe that any figure that has an entire ideology named after them should have that ideology mentioned in an article's lead. BootsED (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Trumpism is used ironically or imprecisely in various sources, but it is not a well-enough defined term to be considered an ideology. SPECIFICO talk 03:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

"Trumpism" isn't coherent enough to be an actual ideology. It's just "Trump said it so I'm gonna cheer" even if what he says in one sentence is completely contradictory towards what he said in the previous one. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Trumpism has been used to describe an ideology, political movement, and the overall personal style of Donald Trump. However, I do believe that it is significant enough to include a mention in the lead. A quick Google search of Trumpism will include links to hundreds of articles, academic journals, and reputable sources that talk about it and its impacts on American politics. Trump has in many ways redefined and captured the Republican Party and oversaw major shifts in American politics to an unprecedented degree.

To that end, I believe that we should add in a brief sentence after "During the campaign, his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist" stating:

 His rise created a political movement known as [[Trumpism]].

This would be similar to how Reaganomics/Reaganism is included in the lead of Ronald Reagan's page, even though Reaganism is limited to an economic angle, while Trumpism is more in line with a political movement and ideological angle. Trumpism has been a major force making the Republican Party more populist, and I believe that this unique movement deserves mention within the lead of the article. BootsED (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

What do those academic sources say? Isn't MAGA the most common reterm for what you describe? SPECIFICO talk 23:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Trumpism appears to be the preferred term among academics rather than "MAGA" itself. A search in JSTOR filtered to include only research reports brought up more relevant results with Trumpism than with MAGA. Another article by the Cambridge American Political Science Review found that "Partisan terms indicating identification with Trumpism (e.g., “Trump,” “MAGA”) are more frequent than those referencing the Republican Party itself" when it came to social media. So yes, MAGA can refer to Trumpism, but Trumpism seems to be the preferred term under which "MAGA" is identified. MAGA is also a political campaign slogan, which might partly be why Trumpism is seen as more fitting for academic use. BootsED (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The lead section is a summary of the most important contents of the article, and this article doesn't—and shouldn't, IMO—mention Trumpism. According to its WP article, people have widely differing opinions on what Trumpism is; some dispute that it exists. As for "Reaganomics", the Reagan article uses the term in scare quotes in the lead and the body. It's GOP PR for Reagan's economic policies that were either great or awful, depending on whom you ask. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

As other have said, its not really a coherent movement, but by the same token, it maybe what he ends up being remembered for. Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

One more interesting piece of information, WP has an entire category for Trumpism, with Donald Trump listed within that category. Vivek Ramaswamy's WP page also has him in the Trumpism category, not to mention the page List of politicians associated with Trumpism which I think shows how Trumpism has spread beyond Donald Trump himself, and is further indication of its importance to mention in the lead of the article. If the consensus is against putting it in the lead, I believe that it should at least be more explicitly mentioned within the body of the article itself beyond the current "See also" mention, most potentially as a sentence within the "Campaign rhetoric and political positions" section at the end of the first paragraph. Again, there are many academic journals that talk about the impact Trumpism has had on American politics and the Republican Party writ large. BootsED (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources you linked are interesting but don't show widespread use in mainstream peer-reviewed scholarly sources. Based on your knowledge of the term and its application, how would you describe "trumpism" in a sentence or two? SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how best to describe Trumpism beyond what I have already stated. The WP page on Trumpism provides a broad description of the term and its uses, and itself links to many sources describing the phenomenon. The Cambridge Dictionary defines a basic version of the term. I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the "sources you linked are interesting but don't show widespread use in mainstream peer-reviewed scholarly sources." There is widespread use of the term in academic peer reviewed sources. Let me link to this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, or this one. Some good definitions of Trumpism include, "Generalized structural equation modeling (GSEM) of 2021 US survey data tests Trumpism (approval of ex-president Trump) as an emergent political-identity indicator, descendant from the classical divisions by party and ideology but exerting its own distinct influence" from this resource or "We argue that Trumpism is a disunifying symbol in our respondents’ self-narratives. Specifically, right-leaning collegians use Trumpism to draw distinctions over the appropriate meaning of conservatism" from this resource. As you can see, Trumpism is a new self-identifying label among certain identity groups wholly independent of mainstream conservativism brought into existence by Donald Trump. One interesting point on this is former Speaker Newt Gingrich giving a speech hosted by the Heritage Foundation on "Understanding Trump and Trumpism" which shows the widespread adoption of this term even within leading conservative thought circles. With that said, Trumpism therefore deserves greater mention within the body of this article itself, and preferably a mention in the lead of this article. BootsED (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Well there's no disputing that it's a turn of phrase. But the sources you have found are not really very strong, I think trumism - while notable as a matter of language and speech -- is not a well-defined policy or course of action that goes beyond him personally, changing every time he speaks, that would add to readers' understanding of him on this bio page. SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The first link above does have some engaging language, -- "unimpeded horizontality" etc. but it also has a link "click here to join our editorial board" -- that makes it look like an artifact of a biased google search. Interestingly, the linked essays don't appear to have clear definitions of their own, despite lots more fancy language from the academic study of communications -- "discursive ambiguity" etc. Because we have a WP page on Trumpism, there might be no harm giving it a one-sentence mention as a term of speech somewhere in the Rhetoric section, where we already have a see also link. The main point is that Trumpism is a communications phenomenon ratheer than a political ideology. SPECIFICO talk 13:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I recommend not putting 'Trumpism' in the lead of this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that there is more than enough coverage of the topic to warrant further mention in the body. Do you have a wording in mind for something that could potentially go in the lead? Cessaune [talk] 03:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Besides the one you inculded which I find kinda 'meh'. Cessaune [talk] 05:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Jan 6th Capitol riot DEATHS?!

Why does it continue to say that several people died at the Jan 6th, Capitol riot...the specifics on WIKIPEDIA show BEFORE, DURING & AFTER the riot... 5 people died! 1 person, Ashli Babbitt, a protester, died on that day at the Capitol, due to the riot...at the hands of Capitol Police. The other deaths were of drug overdoses & natural causes, including the Police Officer it refers to...who died on a different day completely. NOTHING to do with the riot or the attack itself. Saying that several people died at the Capitol riot & not clarifying the specifics is outright falsehood & propaganda! 70.52.181.171 (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Babbitt is not described as a "protester" SPECIFICO talk 03:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The contents in this article are summary-level, per consensus #37. For readers who want to read more, the Capitol attack section has a link to the main article, January 6 United States Capitol attack, underneath the section title. Our text, which says resulting in multiple deaths in the lead and five people died in the body, is supported by the cited and other sources. See also consensus #62 with the linked RfC and this long discussion that preceded the RfC. Babbitt wasn't a protester, she was one of the rioters. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Ashli Babbitt was not just a protester or a minor rioter. As I read the reliable sources, she was among the group of the most violent and aggressive rioters who penetrated deep into the Capitol Building, endangering members of Congress and countless other innocent people. She was warned to back off, and refused to do so. Her death is a tragedy that she brought on herself. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Party Political Offices

@Woodensuperman: Why did you move the navbox, if that is the correct name, "Office and distinctions" into the prominent position above the other ones? Was that intentional? The new title "Party Political Positions" isn't an improvement either, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

They were succession boxes hidden inside navbox markup. That is incorrect usage of the functionality. Navboxes and succession boxes are two separate things and we should not be using a hybrid of both when succession boxes have their own method to collapse. --woodensuperman 13:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I just looked at Trump's predecessors Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. They're all using navboxes with succession tables for various political offices. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

They are using the markup incorrectly then. That's not a good reason not to correct it here. --woodensuperman 13:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there a WP/MOS rule on this? There must be hundreds of articles using this "incorrect" format then. I just looked at some random U.S. senators' articles. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure there needs to be an MoS for this, it seems to me fairly obvious that navboxes should use navbox markup and succession boxes should be using succession markup! Perhaps someone didn't like the way that succession boxes are formatted and decided to hide them within navboxes and others have followed suit. Personally, I'm not a fan of succession boxes (or excessive navboxes for that matter), but shouldn't we be using the tools properly? Anyway, maybe WP:SBS? --woodensuperman 14:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, note that anything hidden in navbox markup cannot be seen on a mobile device. --woodensuperman 14:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

fascism

There, I said it.

Everyone knows Trump has always used incendiary rhetoric, which many have observed that in some cases comes real close to fascist-speak. Until recently, reliable sources have apparently determined the rhetoric does not quite cross the line for them to report it as such. But this has changed in recent weeks as Trump has sharply escalated his rhetoric, such that multiple reliable sources have now explicitly reported his rhetoric echoes that of fascists such as Mussolini and Hitler. And now significant reporting has emerged about plans he and his allies are making for a second term. This NYT lede alone is particularly stunning in drawing historical parallels to fascism:

Former President Donald J. Trump is planning an extreme expansion of his first-term crackdown on immigration if he returns to power in 2025 — including preparing to round up undocumented people already in the United States on a vast scale and detain them in sprawling camps while they wait to be expelled.[3]

And there's a lot more than that. I believe the sourcing is now sufficiently DUE for this to be mentioned in the BLP and not merely relegated exclusively to his 2024 campaign article.[4] soibangla (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

There continues to be an overriding NPOV fail on this page in its presumption that Trump was a successful businessman and a patriotic politician. These are not thecurrent views of the best RS. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggest this be discussed to elicit compelling reason why I should not restore this edit[5]:

In the fall of 2023, Trump drew criticism for stating undocumented immigrants were "poisoning the blood of our country" and characterizing his political opponents as "vermin." The statements echoed dehumanizing rhetoric of white supremacists and fascist dictators such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung sought to downplay the significance of the remarks, saying of critics that "their sad, miserable existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House."

soibangla (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

(The better term is "Nazi rhetoric", and I used it at Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign.) "In the fall of 2023" is still a year away from the election, WP:NOTNEWS. What’s the enduring notability of Trump and his spokesman/campaign spokesman’s unfiltered speeches, and do we want to turn this article or the 2024 campaign article into a platform for every outrageous thing Trump/his campaign utters until the 2024 election? He’s now playing high school auditoriums with a capacity of a few hundred, not convention centers. He’ll repeat the material his rally attendees love, and he’ll say anything that will get him headlines in the "fake news" — it’s going to be a long year. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

This should be reinstated but in a very summarised trimmed way, just mentioning "vermin" and "crushed" and that it's Nazi rhetoric. It bears mention but it's little more than a way to get attention, and we shouldn't focus on that at the expense of covering his overtly authoritarian 2024 plans (Agenda 47, Project 2025; deploying the military against civilians and replacing the executive branch with loyalists). We could do all this in fewer words than what's being proposed for reinstatement. DFlhb (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

"Nazi rhetoric" seems unduly inflammatory and less on point than "fascist rhetoric" - the cited sources do make the connection with Nazi wording - our users can see that from the cited sources - but "Nazi rhetoric" gets close to the kind of labeling that we try to avoid and that is likely to alienate readers without giving broader context. SPECIFICO talk 14:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree that avoiding the word Nazi is the better part of valor. Mentioning Hitler and Mussolini is also problematic, no matter how accurate. Just mentioning Mussolini I think works better. Fascists of the mid-20th century is another option. Has to be some way of saying Nazi without using the word. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better - DFlhb (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

"poisoning the blood of our country" The statement reflects Nativism in United States politics, which has centuries of history in that xenophobic country. The main article cites xenophobic texts and policies by the politicians Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton in the 18th century as the foundations of American nativism. Dimadick (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It`s text book Know Nothing politics Anonymous8206 (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

can we move toward a consensus on phrasing and inclusion? here's another source: "Trump's Dire Words Raise New Fears About His Authoritarian Bent". The New York Times. November 20, 2023.

Recommend the proposed paragraph be placed in the his 2024 campaign page. If he becomes US president on January 20, 2025 & then implements or attempts to implement such policies? then we could add the paragraph here. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Trump currently presents these totalitarian, xenophobic narratives and the agenda of converting the US government to his personal instrument of retribution against whomever he chooses. It is his personal core. It is extensively sourced and discussed in secondary and tertiary RS. It should be prominently placed in this page. The question is whether the proposed wording should be inserted or whether it can first be improved. SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The US Constitution is the law of the land, not the president. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

That is unintelligible. Please read recent references and comment on the arguments in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 01:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I already have read them. Again, the proposed paragraph belongs in the Trump's 2024 prez campaign page, not here. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This relates to the man. We don't need to wait for a second presidency to include significant well-souurced content about the man that is known now. soibangla (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. This relates to a potential second term in the White House, for Trump. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's say this is about anyone but Trump. Would you agree that with the extensive reliable sourcing here that this rhetoric would and should be included in anyone else's BLP? soibangla (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

If this was about (for example) Joe Biden? I would recommend such a paragraph be added to Biden's 2024 campaign page, not Biden's bio page. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Even if the person has a long history of highly incendiary rhetoric that multiple reliable sources now explicitly report has crossed into the realm of fascism, regardless of his presidential candidacy? soibangla (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

His promises/proposals belong in his 2024 campaign page & again, what he believes he can do & what he can actually do, are different things. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

"poisoning the blood of our country" and "vermin" are not campaign promises/proposals, they are dehumanizing rhetoric that are classic tells of fascism, as multiple reliable sources have reported. soibangla (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, the statements belong in his 2024 campaign page. I think we few have given our input on this. So, it's best to allow others to give their input, as a circular discussion, just goes... in circles. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

References

How does it not relate to the present time ? it needs to be in the article Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

soibangla, the NYT lede fails rs, per WP:NEWSORG. It's hyperbole. It's not what fascism experts say. TFD (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

did you take a deep dive into the first NYT article, it's a major article, and dive into the second NYT article I've cited here to see remarks by people such as Ruth Ben-Ghiat and Jennifer Mercieca? have you googled Trump fascist rhetoric? soibangla (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Nov. 19

please mention how he disgraced Jimmy Carter on the day his wife died. 24.19.192.53 (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

We would need to see any such event receive widespread coverage in published sources. SPECIFICO talk 03:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

That shouldn`t be too hard Anonymous8206 (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTNEWS. How cumbersome would this article be if we included every Trump offense? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Article content

After reading the complete article and checking your sources for your information, I'm very disappointed that you only used biased sources as reference material. It also explains the numerous errors and disproven misinformation on many sections as well perhaps as your own personal biased political views.

Whenever you write about a person keep your personal feelings about that person should never be used when researching the information. The truth is found between sources of opposite view points. Also, you should have extended your research to sources from all decades that cover your subject, not just a majority of sources from 2015 to present.

Overall this review is one of the most extreme, one sided, misinformation filled, severely biased and very badly researched articles that's more akin to propaganda than an actual unbiased, honest and neutral report.

I suggest, reworking the whole page and expanding your research to include more neutral sources and sources from same time period you're presenting in a particular sentence or paragraph.

Consider this particular page a rough draft with potential to be a good one after a few revisions. 2600:8807:2003:A200:6CCD:2C7B:F7E3:A314 (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)