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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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

Thoughts

While this statement in the lead is technically accurate, I think that it could be confusing to others.

"making him the first former U.S. president to face criminal charges"

President Grant was arrested while in office. Could it be edited to say something like "the first US president to be arrested since Ulysses S. Grant in 1872. Making note to be the only president arrested after leaving office..." Not stuck on the wording but I think the information is important. Michael-Moates (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

i don't think this article is the place for possibly-apocryphal trivia, no, even if the Grant "arrest" did occur, it was the equivalent of a traffic citation. ValarianB (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/03/1167683136/ulysses-s-grant-was-the-first-president-to-be-arrested

According to this article, Grant never faced criminal charges, although he was arrested. So, based on this, the current wording is fine IMO. Cessaune [talk] 17:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It isn't confusing. Trump is still the only U.S. president (former or sitting) to have been indicted on criminal charges. Grant was stopped and cited for "speeding" (racing a horse-drawn buggy down M Street). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Grant never faced criminal charges, so that's pretty irrelevant to Trump being charged with felony offences. Bill Williams 23:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

There is outdated information in the "Indictment" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4041:5A8F:2E00:AC72:D920:2091:FF73 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Abortion in lead

Hi, @Bill Williams:. I saw that you reverted my edit. Dobbs v. Jackson has frequently been cited as the most enduring legacy of Trump's presidency.

Not mentioning it in the lead is a bit strange. KlayCax (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is part of his enduring legacy, but can you point me to a single other article about a President that mentions anything their SCOTUS appointees did in the lead? This is an article about Trump, not the Supreme Court or its justices. They also made other landmark decisions regarding guns (Bruen), Native Americans (McGirt/Castro-Huerta) etc., as did the justices appointed by Obama, Bush etc. This content is not DUE for the lead in an already jam-packed article. Bill Williams 23:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean you could say Obama's judges vote in favor of Obergefell (same-sex marriage), or Bush's judges in Heller (2nd amendment). Obergefell and Heller were landmark, but created (not overturned) constitutional rights.

But Roe was almost 50 years old when Dobbs was decided 5-4, and Dobbs was leaked to press before being officially released (not to mention Whole Women's Health v. Jackson (2021) nullified Roe in Texas even before oral arguments in Dobbs). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I would mention it, though I would grammatically clarify that it was his 3 SCOTUS judges that overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Other judges, such as ongoing litigation over the drug mifepristone (i.e. Matthew J. Kacsmaryk) or in WWH v. Jackson (2021) (which the SCOTUS allowed pre-Dobbs being argued and released) shouldn't be included in the lead in my opinion. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• I've removed the new content about this because it wasn't sourced at all. Please find reliable sourcing that establishes that Dobbs is indeed part of Trump's legacy and then try and convince the community that it's a big enough part of his legacy to be included in the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Closing of RfC on Mark Milley apology

Moved to User talk:Szmenderowiecki Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

ping|Szmenderowiecki: You wrote that WP:ONUS dictates that it is up to those seeking to include content to rally consensus. As of the moment of writing, the sentence is included in the article. A discussion preceded this RfC. Were you under the impression that the sentence was added recently since you mentioned the discussion that took place a month ago? The sentence was added to the section almost three years ago. WP:ONUS says that "[t]he responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." That's a bit vague but I read that to mean "those seeking to add disputed content." The proponents of the RfC were seeking to remove long-standing content. The RfC proposer's question "Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now)" may have led some readers to believe that it is recently added content. The proposer should have asked whether "the sentence below should be removed from the article." Also, this cute move, u|Iamreallygoodatcheckers, really? I haven’t decided whether I want to do something about this or not, so for now I’m unarchiving the RfC to see what other editors think. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(This wasn't meant to be a private discussion, so copying my comment back to this page. Responses by Szmenderowiecki and Iamreallygoodatcheckers at User_talk:Szmenderowiecki#Mark_Milley_apology_close. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC))

• Bad close and canvassing Please reverse the close, restore the text, and await experienced Admin close. Also, let's not jump to immediate archving of significant discussions, even long ones that take up lots of talk page space. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• The closer was correct in determining that there was no consensus for the material, and yes they are correct in removing it per WP:BLPRESTORE which says, ...the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material... If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. WP:STATUSQUO is not a valid argument to keep because this is a BLP (it even mentions at STATUSQUO the BLP exemption). There should not be a push to include material that there is clearly no consensus for in this BLP. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  A very disappointing comment and pure equivocation. There was no BLP issue with this article text. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  How does WP:BLPRESTORE apply to the sentence in question (also, the closer didn't mention it)? To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections. WP:STATUSQUO: "unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material" in BLP's? Neither you nor any of the other supporters of your proposal questioned the neutrality and writing standard of the sentence or the reliability of its source. Your argument boiled down to "off-topic". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  When something is being mentioned in the article that is off-topic that means it inherently lacks weight, which falls under WP:NPOV; therefore, it is a NPOV violation. Yes, the closer did not cite BLPRESTORE, but that doesn't mean it doesn't apply. Furthermore, they did cite WP:NOCON, and the BLP exemption under NOCON is more or less the same thing as BLPRESTORE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close Speaking as an admin who was not involved in the original discussion: The close is fine. It's a reasonable reading of the consensus that WP:ONUS has not been established to include the material, and that's a reasonable reading of Wikipedia policy as well. --Jayron32 17:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Jayron, glad to see you here as an Admin who's also familiar with American Politics subject matter.

  Now, here's why I think you're wrong on this: First, "reasonable" is way too weak a test for the close of a month-long discussion on a contentious topic. Second, the closer cites those many who said this page is not about Milley, etc. But those !voters did not address the many explanations as to why this content is more about Trump than Milley the man, and further that its media weight had little to do with Milley man, and everything to do with his unprecedented and urgent rebuke of Trump. Finally, yes some editors view ONUS that way but as you know the interpretation of ONUS as to standing content is highly controversial and has been disputed for years on the V talk page. We have recently seen too many eager, inexperienced non-Admin closes on Contentious Topics. It's repeatedly led to trouble, wasting editor time and morale and though the closers are well-intentioned, it is not worth the waste of editors' time and morale or faith in consensus-building on CT pages. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, that's your reading of the discussion. That someone else interprets the comments and weights the responses differently than you would have doesn't mean they were wrong in doing so, especially since your analysis is colored by the fact that you have a pony in the race. The advantage of leaning on the side of the closer in a close call over your analysis is that they don't. --Jayron32 12:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  Wow, Jayron. Please don't suggest that my comment is intended or motivated by a POV or view about content. Maybe I'm concerned about inexperienced non-Admin closes on difficult issues in CT articles? That would be the simplest explanation. The close should not depend on their interpretation of the controversial issue RE: ONUS. Moreover, if I understand you correctly, you take a questionable position that the issue RE: consensus and ONUS should be interpreted in your and the closer's way notwithstanding that this article has functioned for years by observing established items of consensus, many of them implicit consensus, and protects reinstatement of longstanding text as such. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, it says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." If consensus doesn't exist, then it isn't included. That's only controversial when it's information you want in the article. Look, it's quite clear you intend to badger every that doesn't have an opinion that exactly matches yours. You asked for neutral, third party opinions on the close. I have not been involved in the discussion, or any related matters. I gave my opinion. I have no intention of allowing myself to be hassled anymore. You don't win just because you make more comments. Your opinion is the best documented opinion on the matter, but you are still only afforded the weight due to one person, no matter how many times you comment. --Jayron32 14:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  What would be most constructive, I think (if you wish to continue volunteering your time to this little issue) would be for you to provide a reasoned close that takes account of all the arguements, sourcing, and rebuttals of the removal-advocates. Who knows? Maybe the close was correct. But the closing statement and the "endorse" comments in this thread certainly give no solid reasoned summary and evaluation of the !votes and arguments. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  The closer left a multi-paragraph explanation of their evaluation of the votes and arguments; it would be difficult for me to add anything more that is worth saying. --Jayron32 15:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close - It's best we accept the decision & move on. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn close—while my thoughts do align with GoodDay's above, in that we should really be finding something better to do with our time, the close felt biased to me from the beginning. It did support the outcome I wanted, and I'm not too sure reclosing will change the outcome, but I think reversing it is necessary, if only to uphold policy. I don't have much to say; Space4T explains why it was a bad close nicely above. Cessaune [talk] 22:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Reminder — As indicated in the message by Szmenderowiecki at the top of this section, there is a discussion at User_talk:Szmenderowiecki#Mark_Milley_apology_close, where the closer has been responding to comments about the closing. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Recommend taking the closure challenge to WP:AN, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Why, Good Day? That is a last resort that has all the perils of any drama board thread, not least of which is a huge drain on editor resources for a relatively minor matter of detail. Why do you recommend that. A simple "recommend" does not have much weight. SPECIFICO talk 15:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems to have come to a stand still, on this BLP's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

And so you propose stirring up a swarm of nonsense at AN? I don't get it. Why would you recommend restarting what you think is a dead issue? SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's ask @Space4Time3Continuum2x:, what they wish to do next. Withdraw challenge or bring it to WP:AN. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t decided whether I want to do something about this or not, so for now I’m unarchiving the RfC to see what other editors think wasn't a challenge. So now two weeks later we have a few evenly split opinions, three "bad close" and three "endorse close". Looks like a dead issue to me until the arrival of Milley's memoir. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to clarify your position. Are you saying that you weren't challenging the close with your opening remarks and that challenging the close is a "dead issue" and should not be pursued now? Bob K31416 (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, yes, and yes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

First/only "officeholder" or "president" twice impeached by the U.S. House? Which word should be used?

Is this change agreeable? Changing the statement that Trump became the only president to be twice impeached to the (sourced/verifiable) statement that he became the only officeholder to be twice impeached by the U.S. House.

There appears to be disagreement of the gist of consensus that the last discussion this talk page had on it. I believe that the last discussion largely accepted broadening the claim when that was substantively discussed, but objected to using the word "individuals" (hence why this latest edit used the term "officeholders"

By limiting the statement to "president", we leave it unclear whether other officeholders have been twice impeached federally in the U.S. In fact, by the deliberate language that limits the claim solely to "president" it might reasonably be falsely inferred by readers that this wording choice was due to the existence of other officeholder(s) that have been the subject of multiple impeachments. However, by wording it as "officeholder", there is no mistaking this, and its is understood that this means he was the first president as presidents are entirely encompassed by the word "officeholder" SecretName101 (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I would say he's the first "person" to be twice impeached. "President" you correctly note is too narrow, but "officeholder" feels very clunky to me. Loki (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

As I've said in the recent previous discussion, the larger pool of eligible personnel doesn't make the two impeachments more significant, the importance of the office does. How many readers even know that officeholders other than the president are subject to impeachment and, if so, which ones? Why would some of those readers falsely infer that other officeholder(s) ... have been the subject of multiple impeachments instead of being removed from office or care about them? The NBC source is about the House impeachment managers bringing it up "as an example of the Senate holding an impeachment trial for an official who's no longer in office." (It resulted in the Senate determining in 1799 that senators are not "civil officers" and therefore not subject to impeachment). How is this important for Trump's two impeachments? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Too many paragraphs in the lead?

As of writing, the lead has seven paragraphs, and I'm unsure if they benefit the article. The final sentence of MOS:LEAD's lead paragraph recommends four paragraphs. I'm leaning towards suggesting that the paragraphs on his presidency be seen if they can be consolidated into one or two, and maybe consider putting his civil and criminal lawsuits in the same paragraph as his impeachments. What I see as the main issue is that the paragraphs are almost niche focused, and overarching "themes" should be condensed as appropriate. Maybe even see if bits and pieces can be placed into the first sentence and turn it into a multi-sentence paragraph? Just an idea. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Typo in the body of this article

It says "He Three Supreme Court Justices." I don't imagine that is correct. Hairsonfire (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Fixed; removed and I mentioned the intended content in the final lead paragraph. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments requested on draft Rewritten Lead

Should the lead of this article be changed to this rewritten version? This aligns with "current consensus" above.

DynaGuy00 (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I briefly read the rewrite and I think it flows and reads better then the current lead. From my reading of the rewrite I didn't notice anything removed (besides the Dobbs legacy which I've removed from the current lead anyway) and saw only 1 new sentence: Trump has been the subject of significant controversy and critique before, during, and after his presidency. Otherwise, it appears everything else was merely rearranged. However, I could have missed something; so I'll ask DynaGuy00: (1) What content, if any, is actually removed rather than just rearranged? and (2) What content is new? Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Which items of the current consensus does what part of your rewrite align with? The last time you brought up this rewrite, you said the lead is "poorly written". I just spent some time comparing the versions. If it is so poorly written, why are you mostly shuffling sentences around? Example:

Current version: He expanded the company's operations to building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos and golf courses, and later started side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice. Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies.

New: He expanded the company's operations to building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos and golf courses, and later started side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies. He also co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice from 2004 to 2015.’’

IMO, that’s not an improvement. The current version mentions his career(s), and then the legal actions he and his businesses were involved in. Your mention appears to make the point that the legal actions had nothing to do with the Apprentice, which, BTW, isn’t the case (discrimination, idea theft, pitching a failed videophone on the show, Zervos defamation suit).

Your rewrite is 44 characters longer than the current one. You removed "in an aggressive attempt to weaken environmental protections" (anything else?). What did you add? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Link the Trump Wall in lead?

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.

---

My edit was reverted by for WP:STATUSQUO reasons which linked "building a wall" in the lead sentence diverted military funding towards building a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border to the Trump wall. Would like to obtain consensus on adding this link per WP:BRD. I believe that this link can additionally be helpful for readers looking for more information not he wall itself as the link to the article on Trump's wall is more prominent is placed here. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Include the link. Obviously, it's relevant linking. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Include; it's one of the most prominent symbols of his presidency. This recent paper calls it one of two metaphors that animate Trump's rhetoric, and describes how it ties-in to everything else: the "President-as-CEO" metaphor, dealmaker symbolism ("I'll make Mexico pay for it"), nativism, protectionism, and soundbyte-as-policy. DFlhb (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, Trump wall says that The concept for the proposed expansion was developed by campaign advisers Sam Nunberg and Roger Stone in 2014 as a memorable talking point Trump could use to tie his business experience as a builder and developer to his immigration policy proposals. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's the edit [1] by User:Space4Time3Continuum2x that reverted the link. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: did you intentionally remove the link or was it just collateral damage to the removal of the other content? Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

It was intentional. The sentence already has two WikiLinks, and the second clause isn't about the wall that didn't get built but about President I-did-more-for-my-military-than-any-president-ever-in-the-known-universe attempting to divert $3.8 billion in funds allocated by Congress to the Defense Department's budget for (among other purposes) "buying equipment for National Guard and Reserve units, such as trucks, generators and spare parts, as well as fighter jets and ships." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the fact that the sentence already has two links really a reason to not include the link? That seems quite arbitrary IMO. Cessaune [talk] 00:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You know my opinion: the blue "ink" is distracting from the information. If we have to have some blue (item 60 of the consensus), then let's keep it to a minimum and off the PR stunts like Trump's wall. relevant to his presidency — about as relevant as the other PR stunts, the meetings with Kim Jong-Un, currently commemorated on Trump's I-love-me wall at Mar-a-Lago. They were all distractions from the real agenda, tax-cuts for the super-rich and further dismantling of the social safety net. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Source? Cessaune [talk] 14:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

For what, the social safety net? The proposal sunk by an election. Or for his PR stunts being a distraction ([2], [3])? I'm opining on the talk page, SYNTH doesn't apply. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikilinking as necessary is better than a quota. Plus, I would say that the Trump Wall is too big of a PR stunt to be grouped with all other PR stunts, considering that it was one of the most well known campaign promises of his as well as the center of a Steve Banon GoFundMe controversy. I don't think that a firm quota should be implemented for sentences; as long as an entire sentence isn't blue (or red for that matter), we should be fine. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Include it; it has obvious ties to Trump and is relevant to his presidency. Cessaune [talk] 16:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Neutral - linking or not linking to the Trump Wall, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per Link clarity: "The article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link." Trump's wall is "an expansion of the Mexico–United States barrier" begun under Trump. But Trump never explained what the wall would be except that it would be beautiful and Mexico would pay for it. TFD (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Stop !voting

Please don't treat every talk page discussion as if it needed an up or down !vote off the top. Horrible. And the link is silly, per OP. We need more tertiary sourcing and less holding up each individual action or controversy as if it is dispositive of some unstated conclusion about the subject. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not like you can WP:Bold-refine this specific edit. The ArbCom restrictions also make things a bit tedious. If it was deemed important enough to be reverted, it's important enough to bring to the talk page, and a !vote is a simple, easy and relatively quick way to gauge conesnsus. I don't see what other option there is. Cessaune [talk] 16:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I read your response as confirmation of my concern. There are thousands of alternatives that do not take the form of yes or no. I tried to suggest one in my post, without any specific article text proposed. Namely, the article needs to use more tertiary sources, not editor-curated lists of sins and outrages. Tertiary RS by expert mainstream commentators are increasingly abundant. The upshot is that this man was unprepared for the office -- even outside the very wide range of all but one or two of his diverse predecessors. That he lacks the knowledge or personal character to assume such responsibilities, that he routinely misapplied and misapproriated the powers of the US executive, etc. etc. That is more what's needed, with RS citations rather than a mere collation of "smoking gun" gotcha's like the wall, the Bible fiasco, etc. Not that some of those may not be noteworthy in themselves, - the Neo-Nazi equivocation, e.g. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Re "That is more what's needed, with RS citations rather than a mere collation of "smoking gun" gotcha's like the wall, the Bible fiasco, etc." — What Bible fiasco are you referring to? Bob K31416 (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree. ...holding up each individual action or controversy as if it is dispositive of some unstated conclusion about the subject is something we're all guilty of on this page. The article definitely needs to use more tertiary sources, especially now that many tertiary RSs exist on the man.

However, to bring up a full scale overhaul/rewrite in a routine talk page discussion about whether to link three words or not seems kind of... excessive. I don't know. And since this potential tertiary source rewrite isn't going to be finished any time soon, what you're saying just seems kind of irrelevant to the discussion IMO. Cessaune [talk] 20:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Silly side comment: given what article this is, I find this subsection title to be unintentionally humorous. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 05:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose --Jayron32 15:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

We need to begin closing discussions like this

This is the type of discussion that is so typical of this page. We have a minor content dispute of relative unimportance and it leads to some discussion among editors and nothing will ever be accomplished from it because everybody is too scared to act on it. Now of course, it doesn't make sense to escalate this further into the dispute resolution process (noticeboards, RfC's, etc.) because it's just not that important. So it results in status quo being aggressively kept in place. This unfortunate reality creates an environment where nothing will ever be readily accomplished and literal hundreds, or thousands, of hours of editor time is sunk for nothing. I understand that I'm involved in this dispute and can't be a fair closer or judge of this discussion, but most closers would probably find a rough consensus or so for inclusion. But, this can not and will never be implemented because on this article status quo is king unless you damn near got a RfC result closed by admin or something equivalent. Frankly, it's analogues to a form of filibuster. WP:Closing would seem to suggest not closing discussions of this nature, but it's written under the pretense that those involved in the discussion saw the consensus and understood that it should be respected, whether they like or not. I sincerely believe that standard can never be successfully applied onto this talk page, and from my experience it rarely happens. That is why for this article, we should have a practice of uninvolved editors going through these simple threaded discussion to determine if there is a consensus of any kind. I believe this would be a effective way to make progress on this article and a more efficient way of ensuring consensus prevails over the status quo. It would also be a reasonable way of avoiding time being spent on time-draining, contentious RfC's, which may be reserved for the big, clearly defined questions or perhaps when a smaller discussion was closed with no consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. On a heavily edited page the status quo has substantial consensus. In this case there's 2-3 editors who care to change it and hundreds who have not agreed. Also wrong is the suggestion that we should impose or rely on uninvolved editors unfamiliar with all the reasons for the status quo and have them make decisions instead of the most experienced and knowledgeable cohort here. "Most closers would..." = an assertion that cannot be verified or falsified and therefore a meaningless statement. SPECIFICO talk 12:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that, since this page is so heavily edited, anything currently in the article (status quo) has a sort of 'silent consensus' of, at least, the hundreds who watch this page? Just asking for clarification. Cessaune [talk] 15:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but it would be better to say a rebuttable "substantial degree" of consensus. so a small insubstantial dissent means relatively little. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't like this line of thinking. If we shouldn't rely on uninvolved editors unfamiliar with all the reasons for the status quo and have them make decisions instead of the most experienced and knowledgeable cohort here, why would you care about the silent opinions of those who watch the page but don't contribute to discussions or the article to any meaningful degree? If someone raises an issue on the talk page, people should have free rein to !vote on it, and, if they choose not to, I don't like the idea that we should assume silence is a form of consensus. Cessaune [talk] 16:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Note, I said a rebuttable degree of consensus for the status quo. This is very well established practice on Wikipeda. If you are interested you can read the dozens of discussions of such consensus on various discussion pages. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

If you would like to change any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, I would suggest that you discuss it on those talk pages. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair, I guess. Cessaune [talk] 18:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This is pretty sensible, despite obvious downsides (and dubious alignment with our policies except WP:IAR). It would have prevented the mess currently ongoing at United States, for example. (full-protected, with such a rapid-fire rate of major changes that it's impossible to keep up or properly scrutinize them). DFlhb (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It's been a week now. Perhaps we can have an outsider close/hat the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved. I'll hat it if you like. SPECIFICO talk 20:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 20 April 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.

The "this article is part of a series about"-box should lie right below the info-box.

This is the standard. Would someone please fix this? Ramanujaner (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Someone moved it into the Donald_Trump#Russian_election_interference section "to avoid image stacking at the beginning of the article". I just moved it back. Doesn't cause any crowding problems in Vector 2010. In Vector 2022, it pushes Trump's high school photo down into the "Health habits" section but that's the only "stacking". IMO that's preferable to the series box way down in the body. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Ivana Trump’s nationality (consensus item 34)

I have no problem with the consensus, but I want to add this correction as a second source. The consensus is based on this discussion. Two editors stated in that discussion that her mother was Austrian, based on information in Ivana Trump’s article at the time (I corrected it in this edit). That was disinformation the Trumps had fed to the press to hide the fact that Ivana had married Austrian skier Alfred Winkelmayr to obtain an Austrian passport and be allowed to legally leave communist Czechoslovakia. They officially admitted it in 1990 during the divorce proceedings. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to clarify what you want to do. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I just did it. If anyone objects, I'll revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: After a bit of thought, I'll object to that. It wasn't subjected to discussion, so can't be a part of the consensus, so shouldn't be a "source" of consensus 34. It's little different from creating a new consensus item containing nothing but your own comments. I suggest you save that for when #34 gets challenged, if ever. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mandruss: That's assuming I outlive Wikipedia or the internet or electricity. I reverted. Maybe I should inform JFG that WP is not a reliable source. So, you're semi-back? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Problem

There is a problem with the infobox, specifically on "Criminal charges". - Someone, please fix it. Felixsj (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Which is? Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I think Felixsj speaks of the following wikitext:

|data1 = Criminal charges

data1 does not appear to be a supported parameter in the infobox because it is rendered as {{{blank1}}}. I have no idea how to fix this. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Flouting of democratic norms

I proposed a Democratic backsliding section in January, which was not discussed in depth. I'm now presenting an improved version. This section is not about Trumpism, but about Trump's direct impact on America's democracy. It is sourced solely to scholarly sources, which is far better than most of our article. And it uses these sources to put forward an analytical appraisal, which our articles needs more of. I use two sources: a study by Yascha Mounk and Stefan Foa, published in the high-impact factor Policy Studies Journal. And a book written by two scholars, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, called How Democracies Die, which The Economist described as "the most important book of the Trump era", and which we don't currently use. The heading could be "Flouting of democratic norms", or "Abandonment of democratic norms".

Political scientists have analyzed Trump's presidency as both a cause and a consequence of America's increasing polarization. Levitszky and Ziblatt say that Trump benefited from a democracy weakened by "extreme partisan polarization", and was the first U.S. president in the last century to meet all four criteria of their "litmus test for autocrats": a weak commitment to democratic norms, delegitimization of political opponents, toleration and encouragement of political violence, and a willingness to curb the civil liberties of opponents and critics. Foa and Mounk say Trump disregarded democratic norms through his tacit or active endorsement of vigilante groups, his lack of commitment to respecting electoral outcomes, and his lack of repudiation of political violence, which weakened the country's "institutional equilibrium", and may "prove to be his most damaging legacy".

Please don't just treat this as an up-or-down vote, which would make it hard to reach a consensus.

DFlhb (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

References

I’m not convinced this adds much to what’s already in this BLP. For example, this BLP already discusses the problem respecting electoral outcomes. It may be worth pointing out that political polarization created fertile ground for his election in 2016, but perhaps political polarization is already common knowledge. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

We do already cover election denial and incitement to violence, but we lack anything about the resulting hard-to-reverse damage to American democracy, which is echoed by many other sources (I just picked the two WP:BESTSOURCES, which happen to frame it the most conservatively rather than calling him an "authoritarian" like many other WP:RS). The word norm doesn't appear in our article, despite plentiful sourcing. DFlhb (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Your proposed paragraph appears to be an example of what it mentions, "extreme partisan polarization", since the paragraph reads like a one-sided attack piece. However, in that regard it is somewhat consistent with the rest of the article, so it's hard to exclude it for that reason. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Focusing on norms would be fine, but then it would be necessary to discuss other norms, like the norm of not indicting a former president, or repeatedly impeaching him, or marshaling the intelligence community in an effort to label him a foreign agent, etc etc. Norms work both ways. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

They do work both ways, as Foa & Mounk describe (it's on Sci-Hub), which is why norm violations are dangerous. My previous version included a (peer-reviewed) analysis by Steven Simon that made this point more explicit; I'd be happy to re-include him. But I don't think sources support the idea that the things you list were partisan efforts by Democrats. DFlhb (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Please don't write nonsense like "norm of not indicting a former president." SPECIFICO talk 01:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

“ "The expected prosecution of Trump shatters an unwritten American political norm and brings the United States more in line with dozens of other nations, including democracies such as South Korea, Brazil, France, Italy and Israel, that have criminally charged, convicted and in many cases jailed former leaders."

References

”

This statement about norms is not nonsense at all, User:SPECIFICO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I would definitely use the scholars' first names. Who is "Foa"? No first name makes it harder to look them up online, and stylistically, it's just weird IMO. Secondly, I kind of hate it. Though these four may be subject-matter experts, I don't think their opinions on Trump are relevant enough to include as a broad chacterization of the man. I would grab a bunch of subject-matter experts, preferably 8-10, and do something like this (I just made up stuff that scholars might say for the sake of example):

Several political scientists have analyzed Trump's presidency... Steven Levitszky and Daniel Ziblatt say that Trump benefited from a democracy weakened by "extreme partisan polarization"... [Person C] and [Person D] argue that Trump's practice of hiring far-right advocates and "often implicit, occasionally explicit" support for far-right causes "emblodened the far-right and alt-right to a degree unheard of in contemporary American politics, one that sets a dangerous precedent"... [Person E] argues that "[Trump's] systematic subversion of the traditional notions of American presidency, and the excessive amounts of lies, falsehoods and denials told to further his false narratives... may be the most damaging parts of his legacy"...

Something like that. Cessaune [talk] 02:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)