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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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

Reverted edit

SPECIFICO, you reverted my edit. I would like to justify my position.

In January 2016, Trump retweeted a racist Twitter acount. He did, didn't he. I don't see why we care.

Trump not immediately disavowing comments from David Duke is a big deal. Much, much different than retweeting some random racist Twitter account. He didn't even retweet a racist statement. It was some useless Photoshopped randomness about voting. Is the retweeting of the racist Twitter account in any way notable?

Sentences like this contribute to the massive bloat this article is experiencing. It's trivial and, as I said, of little import to the man himself. He reposted a meme. The sources don't even tie Trump and the retweet to racism, it's just lacklustre criticism that seems to be aimed at Trump's tweets in general. There is no connection made between Trump and racism. This sentence doesn't even belong in the section it's placed in, if it belongs at all. I really don't see why you reverted my edit. Cessaune [talk] 08:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I hav e some sympathy with this, we do not need every stupid thing he has done. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

or yours. Tds Chestershaba2 (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Or my what? Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

"or every stupid thing you have done" is the implication, followed by "Tds", "Trump Derangement Syndrome". From their brief editing history, that user needs a WP:NOTHERE block. Zaathras (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ironic, as I have supported removing this negative comment about Trump. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Delete. It lacks substance and is far too "in the weeds", when there's a shit-ton of insightful "bird's eye view" scholarly material can be used on Trump's Twitter presence. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Trump_Twitter_and_the_American_Democracy/f1juDwAAQBAJ may be a good start. DFlhb (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

In the grand scheme of things, given all the actions that he's taken as a businessman, television personality and President of the United States (and given how huge the article is) a detail like this seems like such small potatoes that it can't be anything but WP:MINORASPECT. It might have a place on Social media use by Donald Trump though even that article already seems like it has some coatrack-y aspects. We also have an entire section already detailing criticism regarding racist comments, and another section detailing his Twitter usage. The one retweet isn't important enough to belong in this article, and certainly does not belong in the section Campaign rhetoric and political positions. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

What RS tell us is that his courting and encouragement and fear of offending ... racists ... is because they are politically valuable to him. That's why it appears in that section. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

If this is the justification for inclusion, then we shouldn't be including it per WP:OR. It doesn't say any of this in the sources. Cessaune [talk] 03:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, you shouldn't be justifying it with sources that aren't directly present as an inline citation next to the text. Any potential sources that agree with your above statement must be moved near the text in order to actually count. This assumes that there are actual sources that say this elsewhere in the article, but I'm too lazy to look for them, and, luckily, the ONUS is on you, SPECIFICO, to attribute this statement, not me. I really don't understand your argument for inclusion, and why you don't simply focus your efforts on improving the entire section, instead of keeping this random snippet of text. Your argument pertaining to rewriting is pretty sound. Cessaune [talk] 03:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The account wasn’t your ordinary racist dog-whistling account, it was an antisemitic Nazi account, complete with a pro-Hitler documentary, according to CNN. (First wife Ivana told Vanity Fair in 1990 that "Trump kept a book of Hitler's collected speeches, 'My New Order,' … in a cabinet by his bed." Trump said he thought it was 'Mein Kampf' but the man who gave him the book, Marty Davis of Paramount, told Vanity Fair that it was 'My New Order.' It looks as though Trump had as much use for it as he had for the Bible, reading-wise.) But saying that he retweeted a racist account in January 2016 makes it appear as though it was an isolated incident. He retweeted racist accounts numerous times, and the usual excuse was that he didn’t know what kind of an account it was. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and as I have commented on other such instances that reflect Trump's views and broader behavior, the alternative would be to make use of the increasingly abundant tertiary sources to substitute article text along the lines of "trump repeatedly courted the approval of his political base by means of veiled approvals, false equivalencies, and repetition of the narratives of neo-nazis, racist vigilantes, and white supremacists." OP, I would support a more explicit general statement rather than a key example, but the removal of this widely noted example is otherwise not justified per NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

What you're saying is true but as the text stands, it doesn't belong in the article. All the points you make are grounds for a rewrite of the sentence, but not reversion of the edit. A singular account of Trump retweeting a nonracist image from a racist Twitter account isn't notable. Maybe it is when taken into account with everything else, but it isn't. Cessaune [talk] 18:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't remove half the tires from my car and then lend it to a friend, telling them they can drive on 2 tires until somebody else comes along to replace the ones that I removed. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to present sources, and as long as no one presents sources, the text shouldn't stand, given the fact that you haven't actually provided any arguments for its unaltered inclusion. It's like if I were to remove faulty tires from a car, and you put them back, telling me that there's a tire pump and a can of Fix-A-Flat at your grandma's house in Yekaterinburg... okay? Go get it, then? I agree with everything you're saying, but so far it isn't supported by sources, and, as I said, the ONUS is on you, not me, to provide them.

Secondly, no one is going to miss the sentence. The ony people who care are us editors. It's so trivial of a change that the vast majority won't notice, or even scroll down far enough to reach it. Rewriting your example, it's like lending my car to a friend with a dent on the driver's side door. They don't care. They're just happy I lent them the car. A dent might even be generous. I dropped chicken and some french fries on the seat three years ago, maybe. Cessaune [talk] 03:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not assign chores to your fellow volunteers. You removed longstanding content so in this case the ONUS is on you for this accurate summary of the section content and sourcing. This discussion section provides ample explanation, including the inadvisability of pitching inaccurate edit summaries when removing longstanding article text. SPECIFICO talk 03:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

What? I'm not assigning any chores. I'm simply stating that since you're saying things like trump repeatedly courted the approval of his political base by means of veiled approvals, false equivalencies, and repetition of the narratives of neo-nazis, racist vigilantes, and white supremacists, What RS tell us is that his courting and encouragement and fear of offending ... racists ... is because they are politically valuable to him, and widely noted example without any sourcing, and then using as a justification for your argument, no matter how valid your statements are, they fall under the definition of OR until you provide sources.

Second, inaccurate edit summary? I said This feels trivial and of little import to the man himself. It was my opinion, which I have backed with reasoning. How can it be inaccurate? Maybe the 'of little import', but I read the sources and decided, based solely on my own personal opinion, that this specific issue as it is presented in the text is trivial. Disagree if you want, but how can my characterization be inaccurate, especially given the fact that you have not provided any sources to explain why said inaccurates are inaccurate?

Third, the fact that the content is longstanding has literally no bearing on this discussion. Length is only important on WP in the context of too soon. If anything, as we distance ourselves from Trump's presidency, statements that he made in the past can be seen in a new, better light, and trivials that seemed important back then can be removed now. Are you arguing that since I removed longstanding content, I have to try and prove my own edit wrong by actively seeking out sources that contradict my own statements? If I'm characterizing your statement—in this case the ONUS is on you for this accurate summary of the section content and sourcing—wrong, please let me know. Sure, I guess, in an ideal world, I probably should've done that. Cessaune [talk] 04:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it would help those supporting inclusion a lot if you found RS that says Trump repeatedly retweeted racist accounts. Then we could have a sentence saying he did it a lot rather than once in 2016. Otherwise, it's hard to try and justify the inclusion of one tweet of a President infamous for tweeting off-the-wall things frequently. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 21:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That's right, but for the record: Let's not equate "off the wall" with racism, promotion of cattle wormer, etc. We shouldn't call them off-the-wall, haha, as if they are harmless eccentricities. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I suspect Trump tends to merely blurt out what he believes his core supporters want to hear. Using that as a basis, should determine whether or not, or which utterances, should be included in his BLP. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you please state that in terms of V, RS, NPOV, and DUE? SPECIFICO talk 22:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

4-2 in favor of deletion, if we count Space4t's comment as advocation for inclusion. Is this enough to delete? Cessaune [talk] 04:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m not opposed to removing the sentence. I think mentioning that one retweet detracts from the general statement of the paragraph that Trump promoted far-right ideas and did not reject David Duke’s support during the 2016 campaign. A media analysis company analyzed his retweets during the last week of January 2016 and found that Donald Trump mostly retweets white supremacists saying nice things about him, i.e., 62% of the people he retweeted that week followed multiple White Supremacist accounts. As we say with the first sentence of our paragraph: Trump helped bring far-right fringe ideas, beliefs, and organizations into the mainstream. We also mention racist appeals, tweeted and otherwise publicized before and during the campaign and the presidency, in Racial views. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete — The sentence is clearly misleading because it implies that Trump retweeted a racist item from the account, whereas the item he retweeted was a manipulated image of Jeb Bush that was not racist. From the Time source, "Trump retweeted an image the account posted featuring the face of Jeb Bush manipulated onto the body of a gruff looking man with holding a sign that reads “Vote Trump” outside of the Trump Tower in New York." From the CNN source, "The tweet Trump actually reposted from the user, however, was a photoshopped image of the GOP front-runner’s opponent Jeb Bush, depicting him as a disheveled beggar outside Trump Tower." Bob K31416 (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Time for an RFC I think, we need fresh eyes. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Why? Nine participants in more than a week, six supporting removal, one (Checkers) unclear but not supporting the sentence as is, one (GoodDay) unclear, one opposed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Or ask for a formal close by an uninvolved edd so no on can claim the close was biased. Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

If it is removed, we need to provide a tertiary summary of his 70+ racist tweets in the campaign, e.g as discussed in this RS or [this one. Bob, since you have removed the text perhaps you will craft the replacememnt summary? SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

We have 13 uses of the word "racist". But maybe we can add a like like "And has retweeted racist tweets". Personally, I think mentioning racist 13 times is enough to demonstrate he was (and is) a racist. In fact (if anything) we need to use the word less, and rely on our reader's ability to understand that "and he is a racist" means the same as "he is a racist who has said many racist things and posted many racist tweets". It looks all too needy and desperate "DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH OF A RACIST HE IS, HE IS 14 TIMES A RACIST!". Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

From WP:SNOW,

The snowball clause is one way that editors are encouraged to exercise common sense and avoid pointy, bureaucratic behavior. The snowball clause states:

"If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process."

The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions.

The bottom line is that misleading anti-Trump statements die hard here. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

And here I take issue, they may be many things, but they are not misleading, and I can't support removal on those grounds. He did retweet it, there is no question of that, and it was racist (whitegenocide, OK maybe Trump did not know or notice, so, it's still a racist meme). Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You should have stopped at your delete post. The sentence is neither misleading nor an anti-Trump statement. He did retweet a racist account. He didn't care who sent the tweet; he retweeted it if it praised him, contained news/opinions favorable to him or unfavorable to people he disliked, or if he wanted to respond to insults. He once retweeted a Mussolini quote from a satirical account ("It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep"), and then said, "what difference does it make whether it’s Mussolini or somebody else? It’s certainly a very interesting quote." Interesting? Baa. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cessaune: I reckon it's up to you. If you want more input on this, an RFC is the way to go. Otherwise, I'd say there's no consensus for undoing the revert-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a really bad model. We do not pull an RfC every time we fail to gain consensus to change longstanding text. There's been no constructive alternative text proposed that might satisfy all the views expressed here. RfC is a last resort, not business as usual in a minor content discussion. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think that there is weak consensus for deletion; I'm not going to start an RfC. Neither should anyone. Cessaune [talk] 12:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's the sentence in question (In January 2016, Trump retweeted...), along with the preceding sentence and following sentence:

Trump helped bring far-right fringe ideas, beliefs, and organizations into the mainstream. In January 2016, Trump retweeted a racist Twitter account. Trump was slow to disavow an endorsement from David Duke after he was questioned about it during a CNN interview on February 28, 2016.

When I got this excerpt from the article and looked at the sources, I was surprised that it was such a mess of misrepresentation. For example, the source for the first sentence is about news media and far-right news media, not far-right organizations like the KKK, headed by David Duke. Bob K31416 (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
So far in this discussion, the article and its sources, there is no link that shows the image that was retweeted. Here it is [1]. So what we have is a non-racist quote and picture that were retweeted from a racist account, whereas a reader would presume from this article's description of the retweet that the items were racist, "Trump retweeted a racist Twitter account." Bob K31416 (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect please don't impugn the average Wikipedia article reader's abilities with your own misinterpretation of the matter. "Trump retweeted a racist Twitter account" vs. something like "Trump retweeted a racist tweet" are easily discernible. However, if we really did want to show that then-President Trump retweeted actual racist content, well that exists too. Donald Trump's 'Star of David' Tweet About Hillary Clinton Posted Weeks Earlier on Racist Feed. So what direction would you like to go here? Leave it as-is and admit the current text is fine, or should we go with how you're currently interpreting the text and concretely show that then-President Trump literally tweeted racist content? ValarianB (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

"Trump retweeted a racist Twitter account" and "Trump retweeted a racist tweet" are, yes, easily discernible, but, then again, are they? It definitely implies that Trump retweeted something questionable, especially with its location next to the David Duke stuff. It's not unreasonable to assume a reader might just think that Trump retweeted something racist. Cessaune [talk] 12:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Idea on how this might be rephrased

Current: Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.

-> Proposed: Some scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.

Just an idea unless maybe there has been a literature review pointing to a large body of scholar and historians at which point you could say many, but then again it is just an idea. DemocratGreen (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

See Consensus item 54 Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus can change. It's been long enough. That being said, no. I disagree. I have proposed something similar in the past: changing He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic to His reaction to and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was widely criticized, but it was shut down, due to the fact that I was attributing it to vague, non-specific entities. Simple, logical reasoning.

I would agree with a sentence like Many scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history, and then include four or five WP:RSs in the form of inline citation to back up that statement. Cessaune [talk] 03:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Replacing facts with weasels or inferring a categorical statement from a list of instances -- both bad ideas, and not improvements. SPECIFICO talk 03:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

'Many' is true and a WP:WEASEL, while the implication of the current sentence isn't. Pick your posion. Cessaune [talk] 04:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"It’s been long enough", "four or five WP:RS"? Our consensus version reflects the consensus among two large bodies of scholars and historians, the ones who took part in the C-SPAN and the Siena College surveys (see Donald_Trump#Approval_ratings_and_scholar_surveys). We'll revisit when there are new surveys (every four or eight years, depending on whether a given president gets one or two terms in office). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

We should not be whitewashing reality. So, no, "some" and "many" are out the window. Zaathras (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

'Many' is true, while the implication of the status quo sentence isn't. 'Some' is potential whitewashing, but I don't like that you characterized a good faith proposal like that. Cessaune [talk] 04:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The sentence as presently-constructed is fine and reflects the sources cited. "Many" is your personal characterization, and just because a suggestion is (apparently) made in good faith, doesn't necessarily make it a good proposal. Zaathras (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair. Cessaune [talk] 05:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Might we consider adding a statement such as 'although some scholars and historians have opinions to the contrary.'? Might the current statement be considered as non-neutral? DemocratGreen (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It would need to be sourced. The sources we have currently don't qualify this. And I really can't imagine a large body of reputable scholars ranking him anywhere below the bottom quartile. Cessaune [talk] 07:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Lafayette Square photo-op

(You again, Checkers? I reverted.) It had everything to do with Trump. He ordered Milley to accompany him on what turned out to be a photo-op from the Autocrat’s Handbook, bunker boy showing strength, affecting the Pentagon's response to the January 6 insurrection. William M. Arkin, Newsweek: "At the Pentagon, procedures were put in place to ensure that soldiers—or any Guard formation—would not be used in case of civil disturbance unless the responsible federal civilian agency, mostly the FBI or Secret Service, made a formal request." OIG report, page 18 The events leading up to the 2020 presidential election are important to the January 6, 2021 fact pattern we reviewed because witnesses told us that previous events influenced the DoD response to RFAs pertaining to civil disturbances before and on January 6, 2021. Page 19: Mayor Bowser ordered a 7:00 p.m. curfew for Washington, D.C., on June 1, 2020. During the early evening, Federal law enforcement officers cleared Lafayette Square of protesters before the President spoke at the nearby St. John’s Episcopal Church. … One media outlet, Politico, reported, "The optics of the past 72 hours are putting people inside the halls of the Pentagon on edge as images of U.S. troops on the streets of the nation’s capital dominate airwaves across the globe." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Incomplete page 18 citation, added date of insurrection. Page numbering refers to the PDF counter, not the page numbers of the OIG report. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It's important and needs to go in the article, and yes, it has everything to do with Trump. It's also kinda interesting. Cessaune [talk] 13:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

In the Trump bio the summarization of Lafayette Square, and all other aspects of his presidency, the text should be pinpointed to Trump's actions and the immediate reaction to those actions. Mark Milley's apology is important and 100% deserves to be mentioned at Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church and at Mark Milley, but when we're trying to make a concise summary in a big bio about a dude with a lot to talk about, an apology from someone besides Trump shouldn't make the cut. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 16:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The actions and statements of Trump in this incident are one of a handful of defining moments that reveal his personal stance and agenda. Like the Charlottesville march and the Putin/Helsinki. The statement by Milley, still in command of the institutions Trump sought to subvert, was an extraordinary and unprecedented action that gives definitive context to who and what Trump is about. NPOV is about framing the facts for our readers. This is one of the clearest examples of NPOV framing anywhere on Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Arson at a church across the street from the WH prompted Trump to go and express soliditary with the victims, and show he wasn’t cowering in a bunker. The protestors were cleared for other reasons. I’m with Checkers on this one, unless this is the official worldwide anti-Trump graffiti board. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That is an absurd and view, unsupported by the weight of mainstream narratives and directly opposed by the statement of the pastor of the church. Also, per prior discussion on this page, it is not NPOV or well-verified to call the flames "arson". SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Per George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C., “Before the curfew went into place multiple arsons occurred including attacks at St. Johns Episcopal Church in Lafayette Square and at the AFL CIO office building.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

WP is not a source. That claim is also irrelevant to the issue under discussion in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, and ”prior discussion on this page” is not an RS either. In any event, what does General Milley apologizing tell us about Trump? I don’t think it says anything. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I recant my previous opinion. Remove the sentence. I agreed in ignorance.

He ordered Milley to accompany him on what turned out to be a photo-op from the Autocrat’s Handbook, bunker boy showing strength, affecting the Pentagon's response to the January 6 insurrection is not shown anywhere in any of the sources, and seems to be OR/opinion. The OIG report says nothing about Milley in this context.

The Newsweek source provided doesn't tell us anything about anything acutally important. It states that Milley apologized and shouldn't have walked with him. Okay? Are we trying to make a connection between Milley's statement and a potential Trump goal/Trump's willingness to use military force as a tool? I'm sure something like that can be argued but not with what's there currently.

The Milley statement shouldn't stand. It's a really weak tie-in and only really serves as bloat.

Also, this, this, and this do not directly verify arson, but describe/show what would typcally be called arson in different circumstances (think that's the justification)? Cessaune [talk] 07:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

In the Opening Post, Trump was referred to as "bunker boy". I looked at Bunker visit and reactions and found that a few days earlier near the White House, protestors injured more than sixty Secret Service agents, and eleven were transported to the hospital. The Secret Service recommended that Trump and his family move to an underground bunker. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Trump didn't take too kindly to being mocked on Twitter as #BunkerBoy. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Cessaune, you may want to acquaint yourself with the events of that evening. The main article, Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church, has 300 cites. The cite for the Milley sentence in this article is right where it belongs, following the sentence. Quote: "As many of you saw the results of the photograph of me in Lafayette Square last week, that sparked a national debate about the role of the military in civil society," Milley said. "I should not have been there. My presence in that moment, and in that environment, created the perception of the military involved in domestic politics." The cites I provided above are additional background information on how the events that evening affected events down the line. Two of your links refer to the vandalism that occurred the night before, Sunday night, May 31. (Your third link, BBC, produces a 404 Not Found.) As a result, Mayor Bowser announced a curfew for 7 p.m. on Monday, June 1. The demonstration that took place during the daytime on June 1 were peaceful until the Secret Service, the Park Police, and other federal forces began to forcefully push back demonstrators half an hour before curfew and without a prior audible announcement to clear the streets. What caused Trump’s decision to "dominate"? On May 29, the Secret Service had moved Trump & family into the underground WH bunker, which news, it being the Trump WH, was immediately leaked, and Trump was mocked in the Twitterverse where he lived, hash tag #BunkerBoy. Trump was furious "that he looked weak and insisted he be photographed outside the White House gates, a demand that ultimately led to his visit Monday to St. John’s Church across Lafayette Square." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's the actual link to the BBC article. I wasn't using those links to justify my point. It was simply sourcing the statemnet by Anythingyouwant.

I understand all this. What I don't understand is how the specific Milley statement, as it stands now in the article, is relevant. Your justification for inclusion is more of a justification for expansion. Cessaune [talk] 12:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Fine, but whether it should be status quo or expanded, there is no basis for removal. SPECIFICO talk 13:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

There is plenty of basis for removal. If it's not good currently, you remove it, or you fix it. You don't keep it. As the sentence stands, it shouldn't belong in the article. Cessaune [talk] 16:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Re recanting your previous opinion: which source(s) did Anything present to convince you that Arson at a church across the street from the WH prompted Trump to go and express soliditary with the victims, and show he wasn’t cowering in a bunker? George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C. doesn't make that claim, and neither does Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church. The "victims" (the church officials who said the fire damage was minor) begged to differ since Trump neither contacted them nor did he enter the church to inspect the damage. He also didn't read from the generic Bible Ivanka pulled out of her $3,000 Max Mara bag and he pawed and held aloft like some sort of trophy while talking about the country "coming back strong. It'll be greater than ever before". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I never said I agreed with Anything's position. I just used sources to described it. I don't (in an verifiable sense) agree that it can be called arson. Cessaune [talk] 19:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

So, since everything from Anything is either false or unreferenced or both, do you have a proposed enhancement to the current text and sourcing? SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Not really. I advocate for deletion. Everything that has been talked about is IMO not specific enough to Trump, trivial, unsourced/weakly sourced, or already talked about in the article (the day before the photo-op, the day of the photo-op before Trump got there, bunkerboy, arson, the wider January 6 plan, Trump potentially using military force as a tool, etc). I don't know. I just don't really like the sentence. It's minimally relevant to Trump in its current state. Cessaune [talk]

20:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That last link is exactly what I was looking for in my minutes-old now-deleted comment; why doesn't this article mention the link between the Twitter bunker hashtag and the photo op? DFlhb (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I wish. There are even greeting cards and stickers commemorating the event. The section kept getting pared down because some editors thought Trump letting his inner Mussolini hang out wasn't that important for his top bio, not even after January 6. You'll find several discussions in the archives. There's more info with cites at Donald_Trump_photo_op_at_St._John's_Church#Bunker_visit_and_reactions. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, though I read that page before commenting here. DFlhb (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's the sentence.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, later apologized for accompanying Trump on the walk and thereby "creat[ing] the perception of the military involved in domestic politics".¹

1. Lamothe, Dan (June 11, 2020). "Pentagon's top general apologizes for appearing alongside Trump in Lafayette Square". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 5, 2020.

Bob K31416 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

According to the NYT article that uses that wording:

Mr. Trump’s walk across Lafayette Square, current and former military leaders said, has started a critical moment of reckoning in the military. General Milley addressed the issue head-on." “As a commissioned uniformed officer, it was a mistake that I have learned from,” General Milley said. He said he had been angry about “the senseless and brutal killing of George Floyd” and repeated his opposition to the president’s suggestions that federal troops be deployed nationwide to quell protests. [2] Sectionworker (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is the link in question [3], we do not need ref on the talk page, links are fine. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Again we see that the reason for including this trivia is that it shows that Trump is a fascist (like Mussolini). This is not a rational take on the incident.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Morocco

I suggest adding a paragraph in the foreign policy section about Morocco, in which we mention Trump's recognition of moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara, as well as his contribution to the normalization of diplomatic relations between Morocco and Israel. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Of far less relevance than the Abraham Accords, no. I'm sure it is already covered in the appropriate article. Zaathras (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no indication he could even find Morocco on a map. I have seen no extensive RS discussion of the proposed content. SPECIFICO talk 00:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps add it to the Trump administration page. if it's not already there. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That is unsupported opinion. There is no RS narrative as to the significance of this. SPECIFICO talk 11:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Trump delivers plastic bottles of water to Ohio

Wikipedia doesn't mention any of the thousands of good deeds Trump has done. Trump recently went to toxic wasteland, previously known as East Palestine, Ohio, after a devastating train derailment carrying tons of the most dangerous compounds known to man. The disaster happened Feb. 3rd, 2023, and Trump arrived 3 weeks afterward to deliver supplies and motivate the Biden Administration to deploy FEMA amongst other resources that the people of that community need. As of March 9th, 2023, Biden has still not visited the community nor deployed adequate assistance for the destroyed town. 169.136.195.25 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I have not seen any source that verifies Trump carried tons of toxins to the derailment site. At any rate, this has not received significant ongoing covverage in reliable sources, not even as much as his Puerto Rico towel-toss or his California forest grooming sojourn with his future daughter-in-law's ex. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

IP, you'll need reliable sources to back up your proposed text. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

There do seem to be plenty of sources giving significant coverage to his visit and giving out supplies, these were the first couple I saw: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Literally everything a president or former president, particularly this former president, does is covered in reliable sources, that's never really going to be an issue. Every year we get to know what the First Family has for XMas dinner. The point is relevance and weight. Did Donald Trump conduct a photo op to deliver supplies? Yes. Is it relevant to his biography? Certainly not. Is it relevant to a sub-article, perhaps some "Post-presidency of..." if such a thing exists? Probably. Zaathras (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, maybe it should be placed in the 2024 Donald Trump presidential campaign page. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Trump water "Trump's visit raised questions about his administration's rollback of rail safety regulations." SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

About that Trump donation: WKBN reported that Trump donated 9 pallets of 16-oz. Trump water bottles, i.e., the Trump Organization donated the stuff they serve at Trump’s clubs and hotels. Prices for a pallet start at $445, i.e., total cost of $4,000 to the self-professed billionaire's business, possibly tax-deductable. Value of free publicity for Trump’s 2024 campaign: priceless. The other 4 pallets and the transportation costs were donated by two moving companies, one of them based in Southern Florida and owned by enthusiastic Trump supporter Rourke who repaid Trump’s hyperbole about the size of his own and Rourke’s donation by repeating the BIG LIE and several more lies on the Tucker Carlson show . A huge donation, according to Trump:: Trump was pictured alongside several crates of water bottles bearing his name that had already arrived; he said more would be arriving on trucks. "We have big tractor-trailers full of water; I think you're going to have water for a long time maybe," he said. Maybe not very long - 12,500 16-oz. bottles of Trump water for a town of 5,000. The Seton Hill University soccer team collected and delivered twice as many. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

All of the above is really why we can't have this, as it would require a full paragraph to show the analyses of this donation, and reactions to it (oK, maybe more than one).It is one incident in one town. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, Trump may well be one of the most dangerous compounds known to man, but he actually went to East Palestine five days after this announcement by Ohio governor Mike DeWine (R) and FEMA. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

This is literally a scene straight from The Ugly American. ValarianB (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Mark Milley apology

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

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

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

References

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I like your CSPAN video showing Milley getting little attention among many civilians, and the part that shows the door and ground floor windows of the church boarded up [13], presumably as protection against protesters. I like CSPAN because it is unedited and gives a more realistic view. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No per Iamreallygoodatcheckers. The sentence is about Milley, not about Trump. Station1 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• No - per everyone else. Not about Trump the man, not a rebuttal of him, and not important enough to be on this article - belongs elsewhere, where it can be given context. Pincrete (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes it was a direct apology by an incumbent JSC Chair of an action taken with a sitting president. That sort of rebuke is massive compared to anything this side of Truman-McArhtur. It is eminently relevant, newsworthy, directly involved in the contemporary history of the period and Trump's life. Imagine if this happened to any other president. Volvlogia (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Absolutely it belongs here. I have spent too many years here working too hard to present articles for people that really want to understand the topics and not those that hardly even have time to finish reading the lead, let alone the entire article. SPECIFICO got it right as do the others that voted yes, for example Volvlogia and many others. Sectionworker (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Weak no. This strikes me as too much intricate detail. The sentence is not really about Trump – it's about Milley's comment on Milley's own participation in an event organized by Trump. Even the lead of the article about the photo op doesn't go into this much detail about Milley's comment. This is a long article, because there is obviously a lot to cover, so we can only go into the broad strokes of any specific incident. Milley's statement should of course be covered in other articles such as Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church that have more room to go into detail. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead Revert Reason Request.

Hello,

I made this edit and this edit to this page, a topic I have deeply studied since 2015. They were reverted by users @Zaathras: and @Cessaune:. I'm more than happy to elaborate on my edits, but I think they speak for themselves. I would appreciate rationale for your reflexive reverts beyond the dismissive "overlink" and the insulting "fringe" Volvlogia (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if my characterization was insulting. I never mean to do anything of the sort.

Here's the edit:

...he announced at CPAC 2023 to be his supporter's "warrior, [...], justice, [and] retribution".

a) Per consensus item 58, There is consensus towards using inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. This consensus should include an only somewhere. Consensus at this article has been to leave out citations in the lead, unless it's a controversial statement, per MOS:LEADCITE.

b) The lead as it is right now has zero quotes, from Trump or otherwise. It's more of an arbitrary style thing, I guess.

c) It just doesn't seem that important IMO. It's pretty standard and generic; Trump said something at CPAC to his followers. Why is it important enough to be included in the lead?

d) It's not specific enough. Trump said some stuff, but why? What was he referring to when he said this? The 'stolen election', likely? There's a weird dilemma here, also: if you make it more specific, then it isn't broad enough to be leadworthy.

e) I would support inclusion of something like this elsewhere in the article (if it isn't included already), provided that you characterize what he's talking about, and first bring the edit to the talk page.

I can only speak for myself; you'll have to ask User:Zaathras about the other revert. Cessaune [talk] 08:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• I would also have reverted your edits to the lead if the other editors hadn’t been faster. This edit: If it’s not mentioned in the body, it doesn’t go in the lead. I would also object to adding those quotes to the body. Trump says outrageous things and makes false claims all the time, and it’s
 going to get worse because he appears to be gearing up for large campaign rallies. This edit: I don’t think "authoritarian" and "demagogic" are in the body (is demagoguerie a political position?) In this article we don’t link dictionary words, and doing it turned the sentence into a WP:SEAOFBLUE. We had an RfC, in addition to quite a few prior discussions, on Wikilinks in the lead (see consensus item 60), and any additional links need to be discussed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Just a comment on terminology, it wasn't a WP:SEAOFBLUE, as one can see by reading the info there. The links were separated by commas (non-blue at that) and did not look like one link. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Technically, you're right. The effect is close enough, though: populist, protectionist, isolationist, nationalist, authoritarian, and demagogic. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Volv, yes, we have no FRINGE. But any new content, as in both of your edits, would need to be signiicant article text prior to appearing in the lead. As to whether the retribution bit is so important that it belongs in the article, you would need to make a strong case for that view in the absence of ongoing mainstream coverage of what's to date a single pitch of Trump's retribution branding. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It was best that those additions were reverted. If we were to include every quote by the 45th U.S. president. This BLP might become one of the longest BLPs on the entire project? GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Thing is, unlike past presidents, Trump speaks constantly about everything. And millions listen. An example is his statement that he will be arrested Tuesday. I don’t even see how that is possible as he’s not in NY. Even if he were in NY, he would be given the chance to negotiate when to appear. He has not been told this. The DA has not said this. And yet, many Republican leaders are making dramatic statements condemning the DA and the police are making preparations for violent protests. So, this article is likely to be large. Having said that, I think these reverts were correct. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Support the revert pretty much for the same reasons of Space4Time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 18:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Hereby, 🎈, a preemptive appeal not to launch an immediate RfC on reinstating those edits to the lead. SPECIFICO talk 17:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Supposed incoming arrest

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

---

According to recent media activity, Trump is expected to be arrested next week. If this does happen and it is not just Trump lying again about something insignificant, does it warrant a mention and an article? Here's some sources that better explain the situation: [1] [2] [3] Jennytacular (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If it happens, it definitely warrants at least a mention. Ex-presidents don't get arrested every day and so I'm reasonably sure it wouldn't be WP:RECENTISM to mention it. Loki (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

CNN reported on Friday that multiple "law enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity," told them about discussions between "senior staff members from the Manhattan district attorney’s office, the New York State Court Officers ... and the New York Police Department" on the logistics of handling a potential indictment. Apparently, the Secret Service is also preparing for a Trump press conference (natch) after a possible arrest, arraignment, and release from custody. How Trump arrived at "I will be arrested on Tuesday, click the donate button" from that is his secret. If he is arraigned, I expect we will add a sentence or two, and I'm pretty sure that a few editors are already drafting a new article to be the first out of the starting blocks. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The Doonesbury preview of potential developments potentially to come, maybe. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

However there has been no official announcement, and his lawyers do not seem to know anything about it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

That said, until it does happen, we probably shouldn't be adding much to the article about this. Right now, the only named official we have discussing any of this (especially the specifics of the date) is... well I suppose he isn't an "official" anymore, since it is Trump himself. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

We should not add anything about it, until there is an arrest. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Crowd-control weapons

I replaced a list of crowd-control weapons, "batons, rubber bullets, pepper spray projectiles, stun grenades, and smoke" with the term "crowd-control weapons", and it was reverted [14]. I thought use of the term, instead of the list, was more concise without losing the point. I mention it here so that editors can decide which version they want. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Must you head to the talk page every time an edit doesn't go your way? ValarianB (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that's an unjustified, improper, and disruptive remark that I probably should have just ignored, but what the heck. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with ValarianB. This article has nearly 400 watchers. If it needs to be discussed it will be discussed, but we don't have to bring every little revert here. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Why are @ValarianB and @FormalDude discouraging @Bob K31416 from utilizing the "discuss" portion of the Bold Revert Discuss cycle, which has been a central part of seeking consensus on this website since 2006? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not discouraging it per se, I'm saying it is not always necessary and effective on a highly visible page where WP:Silent consensus and WP:Bold-refine are frequently utilized. If every revert were discussed on this talk page, it would be at least five times as long, and the article would be much worse off for it. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Bob, I left you a note on your user talk page. I consider your removal of that article text indefensible and I see no substantive defense or constructive advocacy offered here. SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Click on the stun grenades link and read all of the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The generic term is less concise precise than naming the actual weapons. Except for water cannons and electro-shock batons, law enforcement appears to have used the whole range of crowd control weapons. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but could you clarify what you are trying to say? The part about less concise threw me off. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, this has generally been a strange response to a proposed simple edit that improves the article. Like stirring up a weird hornet's nest. What I see is a ridiculously uphill battle for a simple worthwhile edit which seems to have almost zero chance of being accepted. So I'll leave this discussion. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Though it may not be standard operating procedure. It's likely best to run potential additions to or deletions from this BLP, on the talk page 'first'. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't an improvement. Using stun grenades and rubber bullets against non-violent and lawful protesters — the specific weapons, as reported by RS, in this case are not superfluous details. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Bob, your edit removed the NPOV description of Trump's response to a peaceful demonstration in the public square - a response he used to pose himself as a tough leader ready to deploy similar militarized or military responses throughout the US. The content was longstanding in the article because RS have pointed out the degree and type of weaponry that was deployed. Calling a POV shift away from the central narrative of RS is not an improvement and this one was not a "simple edit". @ONUnicorn: since they have previously shown an interest in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 22:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2023

Should we remove "Donald John Trump" from | birth_name = parameter, per discussion via Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 30#Birth name parameter and Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 36#Birth name parameter. Surveyor Mount (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting point, although I believe you meant to start an RFC and not submit an edit request, so I've removed the edit request template because it won't work anyway. Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You're pointing to a 5 year-old discussion, and another with only one respondent. I looked through presidential articles back to Lincoln, and all but a handful use the birth_name parameter, and most have birth names matching their full name. I think you'd need a wider discussion than one just on this talk page. ValarianB (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The standard practice on Wikipedia (from what I've seen) is to include the birth_name parameter with the person's full birth name if the birth name is different in anyway from the title of the article, excluding some other reason such as MOS:DEADNAME. In this case Donald John Trump is different from the title Donald Trump. So, no, we should not remove the birth_name parameter. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 14:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op

I was surprised to find something significant about the Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op that is not in the article but instead there is an opposite false implication.

Police did not clear D.C.'s Lafayette Square of protesters so Trump could hold a photo op, new report says NBC, June 9, 2021

Report: Park Police didn’t clear Lafayette Square protesters for Trump visit Washington Post, June 9, 2021

Watchdog report finds Park Police did not clear racial injustice protesters from Lafayette Park for Trump’s visit to St. John’s Church last June CNN, June 10, 2021

Review of U.S. Park Police Actions at Lafayette Park Office of Inspector General, June 8, 2021

"The evidence we obtained did not support a finding that the USPP cleared the park to allow the President to survey the damage and walk to St. John’s Church. Instead, the evidence we reviewed showed that the USPP cleared the park to allow the contractor to safely install the antiscale fencing in response to destruction of property and injury to officers occurring on May 30 and 31."

Instead there is a false implication in the article that the protesters were cleared for Trump's photo op. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Cherrypicked, dated, POV. Nothing to see here. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It was a Special Review of the Park Police. "There are no standards for reviews, no verification by an independent reviewer, and no review for bias. In fact, the review plainly states its extreme limitations." They only reviewed the actions of DOI personnel, i.e., the Park Police, didn't interview demonstrators, journalists who had been at the scene, or "Attorney General William Barr, White House personnel, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) officers, MPD [Washington Metropolitan Police] personnel, or Secret Service personnel regarding their independent decisions that did not involve the USPP." The Park Police, according to the DOI's report, wasn't even in charge at Lafayette Square. "The USPP acting chief of police was in Lafayette Park on June 1 serving in his role as the chief of police, but he did not direct the unified command." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

No such implication is even made in the article. Next. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, In your message you presented excerpts from a Salon opinion article [15]. Regarding the issue of why the protestors were cleared, the author can only give his opinion, "The gassing of protesters at Washington's Lafayette Square in June 2020, by all appearances intended to clear the area for a photo op by then-President Trump, ...".

Regarding who was in command to make the decision to clear the area for fencing contractors, the IG stated,^[16]

"On May 30, the USPP and U.S. Secret Service established a unified command to coordinate the law enforcement response to the protests."

"The USPP, in coordination with the Secret Service, determined that it was necessary to clear protesters from the area in and around the park to enable the contractor’s employees to safely install the fence. The USPP planned to implement the operation as soon as the fencing materials and sufficient law enforcement officers arrived at the park. Six other law enforcement agencies assisted the USPP and the Secret Service in the operation to clear and secure areas near the park."

Bob K31416 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Political Bias

Upon reading this article, it is clear that whoever is responsible for the oversight or editing of this page is obviously biased. As someone who identifies as a more liberal-moderate--not particularly fond of Trump's words--I can very clearly see that this article is not objective. There is not a single section in this article that does not bash Trump in some way. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an unbiased factual source of information, not a political bashing-grounds. Take the page on Biden, for example. For the amount of controversy our President has been in--such as the Hunter Biden scandal or his questionable actions towards children or African-Americans--there is not nearly anywhere close to the amount of clear aggravation in his article as there is here. This is frustrating. I cannot even come to Wikipedia for an unbiased way to collect information for my University project without being subjected to obnoxious bias and subjectivity. I came here for sources and facts on Trump's pre-presidential life. I did not come here for whoever the editor's opinions are. I have my own opinions, most not fond, but I do not care to read subjective takes in a place where they are supposed to be objective. 131.187.254.3 (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)