Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• Talk:Donald Trump#Second interim proposal - To decide what the first paragraph should read after the inauguration, to be followed by discussions about further changes.

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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

Long tag

There has been some back and forth on the article about whether this tag should be on the article. It seems clear to me that this article suffers from length issues and this should be brought to mind when editors seek to make changes to the article. Are there any objections? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Prior consensus on the talk page states to leave the article alone, so I wouldn't add it. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Are there any objections? – Beg pardon? You know very well there are objections. You have been a participant as this tag has been rejected again and again at this article, as I said in my edit summary,[1] and you don't get another bite at the apple every time a passerby drops in unaware of that fact.[2] I am not going to debate the merits yet again, and I'm asking you to drop this, preferably by self-closing this discussion as "withdrawn". ―Mandruss ☎ 10:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean if there are any objections presently. If there aren't any objections at this present time, then the tag should go ahead. I'm aware in the past there has been more opposition than support for it, but I am gauging if that is still the case now. I apologise if that wasn't clear. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Just gauge intermittently -- like every 6 months or so. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I continue to oppose the tag with the same reasoning as all the previous times. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Should we add this to the Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus? Something like:

050. Do not include the {{long}} tag at the beginning of the article. (link)

Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

There isn't a consensus on this talk page section, but there may be one. So far only I have indicated support of it, and only Mandruss has indicated opposition. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. SPECIFICO talk 04:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. We all know it's too long, no need to state the obvious. Besides, having maintenance tags on articles gives them the appearance of being poor quality. Mgasparin (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

We clearly do not all know this, by the fact that the article is too long, otherwise it wouldn't be. Those who participate on the talk page may overwhelmingly know that the article is too long, but many editors of this article aren't checking the talk page, and most of the readers who are all potential editors don't check this talk page either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I had the same thought, and it looks like that will be necessary. Since some editors in this thread are wisely refraining from engaging the debate yet again, the list item should probably link to one or two of the earlier discussions. I think this one is the most recent one. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Agreed. This is a controversial issue, so it should be included in the current consensus. Politicsfan4 (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Compromise/alternative idea - the editnotice for the page currently is itself too long and isn't going to be fully read by anyone probably. The "want to add new information" section is in smaller text than the other three sections of the editnotice, and is at the very bottom. Personally, I don't even know where the first red box comes from, but if nothing else we should put the "want to add new information" in larger text and at the very top so people who try to edit the article see that statement first. It also doesn't include all the other articles there are - that needs updating. Maybe that will prevent people from adding more while future discussion here can work on paring down what's already in? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support tag.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support tag. At 122 kB readable prose size there is a problem. Fix it and you'll get to remove the tag. Maintenance tags are not badges of shame. They alert editors about a specific issue and serve as a call to action to fix/discuss it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support tag - It won't hurt to make it official. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Given your more recent comments about drastically reducing the size of the article, are you willing to reconsider your opposition to the maintenance tag? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we can tentatively place the tag into the article, as the default circumstance when a tag is applicable to the article, until or unless there is a consensus against doing so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be placed on the article. The opponents say it will have no effect — which might be true — but that's not a strong reason not to have the tag. At worst, it might not do anything. But it just might encourage editors to stop inflating the article. It is inconsistent for editors to bemoan the size of the article and to remain silent or actively encourage an expansion of the article. I have not seen a strong argument against having a tag. If no one presents a strong argument that a tag would be bad, rather than just ineffectual, I will impose the tag and enforce it as far and as much as I can.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I recommend you go ahead with it. The clear sentiment here is that there should be a tag. There has been plenty of opportunity for opposition. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Jeepers - if at first you don't succeed, try again, and again, and again, and again ---? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The tag should be on the article, but I am now also looking into adding something in the edit notice. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Certain articles require to be chunky. Des Vallee (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Historical View of Trump’s Presidency

As per every other article about US Presidents, they all include a link to Historical rankings of presidents of the United States and how historians view the presidency. With his term wrapping up, I’m assuming we would do the same for Trump. He’s generally viewed very unfavorably, and in some cases, the worst president we’ve had thus far. Is there a consensus on when this can/should be added to the article? ChipotleHater (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Whilst I agree he will be viewed "unfavorably" it's to early to really judge how historians will view him.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

For goodness sake. He hasn't left office yet. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The historian Victor Davis Hanson's works include The Case for Trump (2019), presciently pointing out that Trump has been too outspoken for his own good, and his fall is comparable to a protagonist in the tragic dramas of ancient Greek literature. Qexigator (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• @ChipotleHater: If you want this to be included, your best bet is to collect a bunch of historians describing his presidency and propose specific text aligning with those materials. Even so, it'll possibly fail per WP:TOOSOON, but without sources and a specific proposal it's all but guaranteed to fail. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

We should have something on his legacy pretty soon, as in the coming weeks and months, certainly before summer, and it's a good time to start thinking/working on a section (given that it will take some time). Quite unlike other presidents who left office Trump already has a very well-established legacy in scholarship, rankings and coverage in RS that typically describes him as the worst president in U.S. history, or in similar terms. It might be relevant to include the historical assessment of his presidency by his own successor Joe Biden[3]: He has been an embarrassment to the country, embarrassed us around the world. Not worthy, not worthy to hold that office (That assessment is particularly notable because it's not the norm for U.S. presidents(-elect) to offer that kind of negative assessment of their predecessor; for instance Obama didn't say anything like that about George W. Bush). --Tataral (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's way too early to be talking about this while he is still president, or in the immediate aftermath of his presidency. Passions are running too high, memories are too recent, no perspective has been developed yet. I notice that in the Historical Rankings article, the most recent survey results are from 2018. We should wait until the next such survey comes out - possibly this year, possibly next year. In any case we should not add anything on the subject to this primary biographical article until it has been recorded and reported in one or more daughter articles, such as Historical Rankings or Presidency of... -- MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"no perspective has been developed yet": That is simply not true. We have five years of extreme coverage of him in RS (as in being the person on the planet covered the most by RS), both scholarly and other RS, we have rankings, huge amounts of scholarly assessments and discussion, and a clear RS consensus on a number of issues. His legacy is firmly established, at least to the extent that we can say something (although RS consensus may of course, in theory at least, evolve over time, and then we'll adjust the article accordingly). When we could add material about the legacy of a normal politician who didn't do anything spectacular after a couple of months, we'll certainly be able to add something about the legacy of Trump. There is consensus among RS about his legacy (or at least key aspects of it) to a degree that didn't exist at all when Bush or Obama or Clinton left office. --Tataral (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Look, I get it. The verdict of scholars is almost certainly going to be that he was so far-and-away the worst president ever, that there is no one in second place. (Like the first America's Cup race, when Queen Victoria was told the American boat was winning by 8 minutes, and she asked who was in second, and the reply was "Your Majesty, there is no second."[4]) But I still believe the reputable scholars will wait, and we will have to wait, until his presidency is over by at least some months before evaluating it. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I was just curios if there was a consensus on when this should be added. Does anyone know when this was added to Obama's lead?ChipotleHater (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think in reality the verdict of historians changes with time. Churchill's reputation has risen. Mao's has fallen.Nixon's has recovered somewhat. I don't think anyone would have predicted the fall from grace of Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein. We need to wait on this. In reality, Trump's style is very brash, but there is very little in his policies, such as negotiation with North Korean or building a wall on the Mexican border, that is genuinely unique.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In regards to both Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein, their reputations were upended because of information we learned later. I cannot fathom any piece of information coming out soon that could possibly salvage Trump's presidency.ChipotleHater (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

If the economy, COVID-19, or foreign relations got much worse under Biden, then this might change the view of Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump had more legal votes than all previous presidents before him. To say he failed as a president what is the grading criteria? More people voted for him then all past presidents; while the entire time the mainstream media was against him entirely and viciously. Never have we seen the entire media forces demonize a president and still out vote all past presidents. 71.197.223.134 (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I knew there would be a response like this. Amount of votes =/= job well done. Also, he's gotten the second most votes for president, the first being Joe Biden. Regardless, his administration compared to administrations before has done a lackluster job. His largest campaign promises, i.e. repealing Obamacare and building the wall, both failed. He mishandled a pandemic, he incited a coup on the capitol, he frequently fired advisors and cabinet secretaries that disagreed with him. Did the media have a bias against him? Sure, but for good reason.ChipotleHater (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@ChipotleHater: @MelanieN: @Tataral: By February 20, 2017, Obama's page had more or less "settled" to reflect his historical ranking. There was some variation between edits as to whether it should be in its own section or in the intro, but the consensus at the time was clearly that it should be listed. On that note, come inauguration day (after 12:00 PM, I suppose), I believe we should add this at the end of the last leading paragraph. Something to the tune of "in the limited number of scholarly surveys of U.S. presidents conducted during or after his term, Trump's presidency has been ranked as one of the worst in American history." This is wholly representative of the rankings we have, and it makes it clear that there is only a limited amount of data. Yes, in 2017 it took a month or so to add this information, but as far as I can tell, that small delay was simply because it was an uncoordinated effort, and not because we had any reason to wait. So if we decide this in advance, I see no reason or precedent to wait well past inauguration day. Cpotisch (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think, T**** is exceptional in ways even Obama never has been, historically and currently, and I agree with Melanie, let's wait a bit. We don't know yet what will unfold. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

What is going to magically unfold that will somehow help Trump's presidency? The most likely thing to happen is that he is the first President convicted by the Senate.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of magic, nor was I anticipating events helping his presidency. I just thought we could wait a bit longer. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump's final day of his presidency is today. Therefore, I think it's fair to discuss the historical view of Trump, as is with every President. I do not think it's too early to give an overview of his Presidency according to historians and political scientists. He's the first President to be impeached twice and failed to handle the COVID-19 pandemic (according to sources in the lede). Obama, who left office is just 4 years ago, also has a statement about how historians view his Presidency.

I took a snapshot of the John Hopkins COVID-19 statistics page for today (last full day of Trump's presidency) with the over 400,000 deaths total number, in case someone wants to mention that figure in the article ("downplayed the pandemic... bla bla... resulting in more than 400 thousand deaths during his term" or sth). Guss77 (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

See historians views on Trump. He is viewed as one of the worst Presidents in American history. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].

Additionally, a poll by PBS found that nearly half of Americans believe Trump will go down as the worst President in American history.

A simple sentence such as "Historians and scholars generally rank Trump as one of the country's worst presidents" seems like it would apply. I would support such a measurePennsylvania2 (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we get a vote on what we're doing tomorrow? I believe that, until we get a clearer consensus, it should be totally uncontroversial for me to add that "in the limited number of presidential surveys of scholars and historians that have been conducted during or after hist term, Trump's presidency is generally ranked as one of the worst in American history." WP:TOOSOON covers the creation of dedicated articles, which is radically different than the addition of one sentence in a massive existing article. We added the equivalent info to Obama's article less than a month after his term ended, and there wasn't remotely as clear a scholarly consensus then as there is for Trump now. We've had these rankings in Historical rankings of presidents of the United States for years. Furthermore, frankly, Trump's terribleness (at least in the eyes of academics) kind of defines his presidency. The proposed sentence makes it clear that it's early and that the analysis is only in the eyes of scholars and historians. But withholding it, given the sources and surveys we have, seems unrepresentative of what we know now. Can we agree that this is reasonable, considering all those points, and that citations will of course be included to show exactly what we are taking this from? Thanks so much. Cpotisch (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I can concur with this request. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to add something now?

Let’s take stock here. User:Cpotisch believed it would be uncontroversial to go ahead and add something to the article right now, about Trump being ranked as one of the worst presidents in history. User:Pennsylvania2 concurred, so Cpotisch went ahead and added something. I removed it pending further discussion here. Let’s determine where we stand: First question, can we add something right now or should we wait a while for scholarly evaluations/rankings? Second question, if we agree to add something now let’s agree on a wording. On the first question, here’s how I read the discussion up to now:

• Add now: Cpotisch, Pennsylvania2, User:Guss77, User:Tataral, User:ChipotleHater.
• Wait for academic ratings: me, User:Sluzzelin, User:Jack Upland, User:Slatersteven, User:GoodDay, User:Qexigator, User:Jonmaxras, User:Felix558, possibly User:Sdkb.
• Opinions on content rather than timing: 77.197.223.134.

Wait for academic ratings. (Actually, my response to GoodDay was not 'on content rather than timing'.) Qexigator (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for misinterpreting you. I have moved you to the "wait" section. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn’t look to me like there is consensus to add something at this time, though opinions are pretty evenly balanced getting less even as feedback comes in. Note that I am not a neutral party, since I have expressed an opinion. Also note that at this Donald Trump article I function as just another regular editor, not as an administrator, due to WP:INVOLVED. BTW I have re-titled the section below this, to be about exactly what and how much should we say when we do add something -- MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What exactly does worst US president in history, actually mean? Furthermore the guy just left office 'yesterday'. Are we gonna go by CNN & MSNBC news' embarrassing biased evaluations? GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The sources aren't there to justify a legacy or other historical assessment section (yet). In my view the few sources put forward in this discussion so far are substandard (media, not scholarship). Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it's better to wait for academic sources, which of course will take time to manifest. It's been 26 hours with him out of office, far too early for including this IMO. Jonmaxras (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Just confirming that I support "Wait for academic ratings". Such ratings have to take into account the entire presidency, up to its last days (quite unusual days for a so-called lame duck period). And such ratings will be made from a certain distance, not necessarily a year or even six months, but enough time to assess everything in as much context and with as much factual knowledge as possible. These assessments of legacy and accomplishment will appear sooner than later, and I think we should at least wait until then. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree, better wait. Polemic hyperbole (for whatever motive) unworthy of Wikipedia criteria will continue to be unduly publicised for some time until the dust and commotion of the second impeachment proceedings have past, and by then some other crisis is quite as likely to make Trump's time while POTUS be re-assessed. Qexigator (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I also agree we should wait. Also, I am not sure how many scholarly evaluations are needed before such historical assessment should be included in the article? 5? 10? 25? Because there will be probably different scholarly viewpoints regarding this subject. Felix558 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

When we do add something, what should we say?

The following sentence currently appears as the last sentence of the lead (complete with an invisible quote citing this discussion):

In the limited number of scholarly surveys and evaluations of U.S. presidencies that have been conducted since the start of his term, Trump has generally been ranked as one of the worst presidents in American history.

Sources

Nothing on this subject appears in the article so it should not be in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I am going to remove it. If consensus develops here to say something, it must go into the article text first. And only after the subject is accepted as a significant part of the article text can there be a further discussion about including it in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@MelanieN: OK, I wrote up an entire legacy section to reflect all of that. Wanna take a look? Thanks. Cpotisch (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, so I didn't notice the 1RR and now realize that I broke it at least once. Really sorry 'bout that, y'all. Self reverted my last edit. Can we try to get a consensus on this, though? Here is what I am proposing. In the lede, I would like to add the following:

In the limited number of scholarly surveys and evaluations of U.S. presidencies that have been conducted since the start of his term, Trump has generally been ranked as one of the worst presidents in American history.

And in the post-presidency section, I want to add the following section:

Scholarly analysis of Trump's presidency has been highly unfavorable, with many historians and scholars considering him one of the worst, or the worst, president in American history. The Siena College Research Institute's 2018 survey of U.S. presidents ranked as the third worst president in history, above only Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan. Also in 2018, a bipartisan survey of 170 scholars and political scientists by the American Political Sciences Association found that Trump was the worst president in American history. This poor ranking mostly belied scholars' personal ideologies as well. In the survey, Democratic aligned scholars ranked Trump as the worst president in history, the independently aligned ranked him the second worst, and Republican aligned ranked him the fifth worst. A similar survey conducted by University of Houston professor Brandon Rottinghaus amongst nearly 200 scholars also ranked Trump worst.

In a January 2021 piece released shortly before the end of Trump's term, David Nakumara of The Washington Post interviewed several presidential historians and professors who felt that Trump would be remembered for "harm[ing] the country," and that he would be ranked among the worst presidents. In a piece for The Atlantic, NYU associate professor of history Tim Naftali made similar points. Naftali argued that Trump's presidency is the worst in history, in large part due to his poor response to the COVID-19 pandemic as well as his perceived abuse of power, conflicts of interest, and incitement of violence and the January 6 storming of the Capitol. The Australian Sydney Morning Herald talked to several historians and found very similar analyses.

References

I believe that this sufficiently and necessarily articulates the consensus of reliable sources on his presidency, and is entirely consistent with what we've done in the past. I also don't think it's too soon to add them here, considering two of the rankings I added have been in the historical rankings article for years. Is the primary issue for those of you objecting that it's too soon? Or is it on substance. Thanks. Cpotisch (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Way, way, way too much information for the article. This is a biography, we can give it at most a sentence or two - and then only after there is consensus here. This is not the way we do these things anyhow - quoting a random scholar here and an opinion piece here. We need to wait for actual, scholarly evaluation by panels of scholars, not what this person or that person thinks. At least that's my opinion. I'm not the one you need to negotiate with. You need to go back to the general discussion above and get consensus 1) to include something and 2) what wording to use. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Actually I have created sections here for discussion the two issues. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The first part of the above proposal is mostly fine (although some adjustment may be needed), but the rest of it goes into too much detail, and for now we need a more concise text. However, I vehemently disagree that we (as a matter of principle) "can give it at most a sentence or two" in the body of the article. There is definitely room for a nuanced discussion, but it will take time and effort to develop that, and for now we should only add a couple of sentences on what is already widely agreed upon by sources (scholars, rankings, commentators). Perhaps 3–5 sentences (for now), plus one short sentence in the lead. In time, when RS have further digested his presidency, a more extensive section on his legacy will probably be warranted. --Tataral (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Verb tense in the lead

I've been squeezing out outdated verb tenses in the article today - the annoying "has been", etc. I think that's for the better. In some cases it is modestly premature, but seemed innocuous to change now. I post here because I see such verb tenses (unsure of the precise wording to describe "has ...") are also in the lead; it would be a simple matter to correct such verbs to a simple past tense. But it is the lead, so I solicit something like a green light to just do it. e.g. "Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist." should be left alone, but "His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. Trump has made many false and misleading statements..." to "His election and policies sparked numerous protests. Trump made many false and misleading statements...", etc. Bdushaw (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest we wait until after the 20th (at which time I suspect it have all its changes made at once, by some who has them all lined up and ready to slam into the article the minute Biden says "so help me God". I also suspect the page will be full-protected on that day to stop people from changing it prematurely.) After the inauguration-day changes have been made, we can then decide about any remaining verb tenses. In your example I would agree with changing "have sparked" to "sparked", but not with changing "has made" to "made" false statements, because that is likely to be ongoing. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggested changing "have sparked" to "sparked" some time back, but there was no consensus. Editors argued that someone in Australia raising an eyebrow counted as a protest. Hence, so long as there are eyebrows somewhere, and the infamy of Trump continues to be noised abroad, the protests will continue.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The tense is called Present perfect (simple) - it tends to be ignored more often in US English where simple past is relied on more, especially in spoken or informal English. Pincrete (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "have sparked" should be changed to "sparked". "Have sparked" makes it sound like he's still in a position to implement policies. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The first paragraph

The first paragraph of the lead normally serves to briefly summarise the key aspects of the article. The current first paragraph doesn't do a very good job at that. It says nothing about how his presidency is not viewed as a "normal" presidency; he wasn't just a boring businessman who was elected to some office, did nothing spectacular, and then left, like a lot of elected officials. You have to read endless details about his beauty pageants and golf courses and so on and so forth until you get to the truly important material in the last paragraph of the lead, his violent insurrection against US democracy, his two impeachments, the things that really made history, the unprecedented scandalous nature of his presidency.

Therefore, I propose that we add a short sentence at the end of the first paragraph that briefly summarises the extraordinary aspects of his presidency, including his two impeachments. I tentatively propose:

Throughout his presidency he has been widely accused of abuse of power and corruption, and he has been impeached twice.

--Tataral (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Tataral, what do you think about the second paragraph? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Normally, a lead section is structured somewhat chronologically and/or thematically, with the exception of the first paragraph that serves as a mini summary of the article. The second para discusses his background and business career, and that's ok as long as the first para adequately summarises the lead and article. --Tataral (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I mixed up first, second and third paragraph. I didn't count the first paragraph as paragraph. I thought your proposal was to add something at the end of the second paragraph, immediately before the third paragraph, adding redundance. Never mind. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support — his presidency will be perhaps best remembered for this. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 00:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for 70 years he was known as a buisnessman and an entertainer. How it is writen is a good summary of his life and not just the last four years of it Anon0098 (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia articles are written relative to the importance of the material. His pre-presidential career owning a couple of beauty pageants is dwarfed in importance by his presidency a million times over. I hadn't even heard of him until 2015. --Tataral (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Just because you hadn't heard of him before doesn't mean no one else had. He was a relatively major social figure prior to his presidency, which is partly why it was so shocking that he was elected. Saying he was a buisnessman and entertainer as well as president is a suitable introduction before chronologically detailing his life. Nothing more in depth needs to be added to the lede. Anon0098 (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree with Anon0098 — we have to acknowledge his first 70 years. And this has recently been discussed. See above. An impeachment without a conviction — or two impeachments without a conviction, which looks like being the case — doesn't amount to much. It is the equivalent of being charged with a crime but being acquitted. I don't believe anything Trump has been involved in will be remembered as much as the Watergate scandal. Most people now do not remember why Bill Clinton was impeached — if they ever knew. Yes, Trump has had a turbulent term, but it's only four years of his life, and he hasn't been convicted of anything.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  That is stunningly contrary to published sources, opinion polling, and the nature of this encyclopedia. His recent fame as a TV personality is one among thousands of these - they come and go. Tell us about Arthur Godfrey, Bill Cullen, and John Daly -- all more famous than Trump in their heydays. Your personal opinion about Trump vs. Nixon is not only irrelevant, but like the notability stuff it's also contrary to RS narratives. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support adding "impeached twice", without comment on his political career. Yes, he had 70 long, divisive, years before politics. But, and I don't think this is really CRYSTALBALL, he will be primarily remembered for getting impeached twice. It would probably be wrong to mention he (is/was) president without that footnote, even. Kingsif (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The notability of T****'s presidency, corruption, and impeachments dwarf his ancient business career, so include it all in the first paragraph. -- Valjean (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Ancient??? How is it ancient???--Jack Upland (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support: We do need to acknowledge that they were doing something, (real estate work?) before their presidential term, and early life/ background sections serve this purpose sufficiently. Their presidential term, public perception of it, and their creating history by accomplishing two impeachments in a single term are the most notable highlights that make this subject notable for a Wikipedia article, and I would expect to see them in the introductory paragraph in any article about them. _morelMW^illiam
• Comment: Today, a sentence describing Trump as the first American president of the United States to have no prior military or government career, and was at the time the oldest first-term U.S. president was added to the first paragraph of the lead that we are discussing here. This is not what I would prioritize in that paragraph, and the material about his age is almost trivial here. I would rather see a sentence that said something of substance about his presidency, as proposed above rather than pointing out his age or his background (which is discussed in detail in the very next paragraph). --Tataral (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose that claim made in the first paragraph falls afoul of WP:UNDUE weight, in addition to this being a WP:BLP. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any reason why the first paragraph should change. It does its job fine and follows the past several presidential articles in being a simple, fact based overview of the person's life. The language suggested for the sentence would also make the article appear even more biased than it already does, by trying to realign the lead to focus even more on purely negative aspects about Trump. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  "fact based overview of the person's life": Except that it doesn't, it leaves out the most important aspects. Other well-developed articles on heads of state, especially those who weren't considered "normal" or "routine" officeholders, include something about what they are famous for. E.g. the first paragraph of Adolf Hitler (Note: not a general comparison of Trump and Hitler, just the structure of their articles), which doesn't just state when he was chancellor and his former profession, but the key aspects of his rule as well. The current paragraph was essentially written before Trump took office, before there was much to say about his presidency. It does no longer adequately summarise his life, after he has become known as the "most corrupt" and "worst" US president in history, the only one to be impeached twice, for inciting an insurrection and so on. --Tataral (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Being the first president to be impeached twice is not merely noteworthy, it's historic. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support this is one of the main things that trump is known for. (t · c) buidhe 22:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose This is simply not the kind of thing that belongs in the first sentence/lead paragraph of a biography. That section defines, in the most concrete and neutral manner, who the person is or was, and what they have done. And that's all. The lead paragraph is absolutely not the place for throwing in a judgment call about how they performed during the last four years. If something like this is to be added, it should be at the END of the lead section, where we are talking about his presidency. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support "twice impeached" in the first paragraph somewhere, as it's (per sources) probably the single most significant thing that distinguishes him from other presidents, historically. Although it's really too soon to be making such an assessment, I think it significant enough for the lead paragraph. Oppose "widely accused of abuse of power and corruption" because that is true of every president, and really every politician. There are other, more-significant things about Trump than accusations of abuse of power and corruption (such as racism, divisiveness, profiteering [which is more specific than "corruption"]). Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose The sentence which summarises the aspects of his presidency belongs to the end of the lead, where we are talking about his presidency, not to the first paragraph. Felix558 (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral I think it could be worded better to comply with NPOV. Trump's presidency is very broad. With that in mind if that is the consensus amongst the Scholarly sources, the US population sure. I am not sure there is enough consensus on this however. We really, really need to not use hyperbolic statements. I personally hate Trump but still, we can't write an article on how he is a complete demon. Des Vallee (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support "impeached twice" That is extremely historic and therefor should certainly first paragraph material. Des Vallee (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The wording will surely evolve, but it's clear that this is an historic headline of his biography. For comparison, Encyclopedia Britannica allocates 132 words - more than half of their first paragraph - addressing Trump's double impeachment and related election loss:

  Trump was the third president in U.S. history (after Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998) to be impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives and the only president to be impeached twice—once (in 2019) for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in connection with the Ukraine scandal (he was acquitted of those charges by the U.S. Senate in 2020) and once (in 2021) for “incitement of insurrection” in connection with the storming of the United States Capitol by a violent mob of Trump supporters as Congress met in joint session to ceremonially count electoral college votes from the 2020 presidential election. Trump lost that election to former vice president Joe Biden by 306 electoral votes to 232; he lost the popular vote by more than seven million votes.[12] Alsee (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Language copied from thread above

I propose the language proposed above by @Neutrality: be combined with the language under discussion above and be placed in the first or second paragraph of the lead. To wit, let's combine this

Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat. Trump attempted to overturn the results by making false claims of electoral fraud, pressuring government officials, mounting dozens of unsuccessful legal challenges, and stymieing the presidential transition. During Congress's counting of the electoral votes on January 6, 2021, Trump urged supporters to march on the Capitol, which they then stormed, forcing Congress to evacuate.

with this,

Throughout his presidency he has been widely accused of abuse of power and corruption, and he has been impeached twice.

SPECIFICO talk 18:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Still against the "has been" verb tense...unsure what "widely" means...

Throughout his presidency he was regularly accused of abuse of power and corruption, and he was twice impeached.

 ? Bdushaw (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Investigations

I trimmed the investigations section in these two edits but was reverted. It was only removing tenuous and extraneous detail, and doesn't change anything about Donald Trump's associations with the Russian government. The sub-articles contain all these details. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You removed a large chunk of the section on hush-money aka non-disclosure payments with the edit summary "minor trimming." Reliable sources, content had been thoroughly discussed - that's not minor trimming. You removed another part of the non-disclosure payments section but didn't mention it in the edit summary. Why? And you state that Manafort and Stone's Russia connections and federal agents overhearing Russian agents during the campaign saying they could use Manafort and Flynn to influence Trump (also with reliable sources and thoroughly discussed) must be removed because there hasn't been a trial. Indeed, there hasn't been, there being that little obstacle of Trump being president. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

There is an entire article on the non-disclosure payments, and all I did was trim the content that was on this article. All the main facts that anybody would need to know if they wanted a brief analysis remained in the article, as supported by the fact you haven't raised what parts I removed. If you don't actually object to the removal on that but object to the edit summaries then that is a separate point and I don't mind discussing that. The edit summary clearly names the section that I was trimming.

Extended detail about Russian agents overhearing Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn belongs on articles about those individuals, and on articles about those particular events. Trump being president doesn't prevent Manafort or Flynn from being tried and convicted in a court, but I'm not sure what point you're making there. I certainly don't think that the only content that can be here is from courts which have convicted individuals.

Most of all, don't misrepresent the edits either, as there are talk page readers who may not go through the links and rely on an account such as yours. You say And you state that Manafort and Stone's Russia connections and federal agents overhearing Russian agents during the campaign saying they could use Manafort and Flynn to influence Trump must be removed because there hasn't been a trial., but my edits clearly show that the article still said, after my edits, Russian agents were overheard during the campaign saying they could use Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort and former National Security Advisor Michael T. Flynn to influence Trump. I ask you to withdraw that comment. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

My apology for the Russian agent sentence. Wasn’t expecting part of the text highlighted as deleted in the left column to show up as added text in the right one (or whatever was going on there) and didn’t see it. While taking another look at your edits, I also noticed that—prior to the two edits Specifico reverted—you had already edited the "hush payments" section (original title), changing the title to non-disclosure payments and deleting all mention of AMI. However, Karen McDougal had a contract with AMI, not with Donald Trump or Cohen’s EC, LLC. Neither of the agreements was a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) (Forbes, and none of the sources refer to it as such.

McDougal entered into a Name and Rights License Agreement with AMI (parent company of the National Enquirer) which had an amendment that prohibited McDougal to speak or write about her alleged relationship with Donald Trump (McDougal's complaint). In Daniels’s case, it was a "Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release; Assignment of Copyright and Non-Disparagment Agreement" (they misspelled disparagement), and the parties were Peggy Peterson (whose signature reads Stephanie Clifford, Daniels’s legal name) and EC, LLC (the company Cohen had set up for the sole purpose of paying Daniels) and/or the pseudonymous David Dennison (Trump) who didn’t sign it (Daniel's complaint).

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, hush-money is the colloquial expression for a bribe to secure silence and the expression used by the sources. I haven't found a single source for "non-disclosure payments." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, this confidentiality provision is not what's meant by NDA. Full stop. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course I removed mentions of AMI. This is a biography article about Donald Trump, and the intricate details about how these agreements were made aren't due here. All that is relevant here, if anything, is that these payments were made to two individuals to hide their sexual relationships to Donald Trump. Michael Cohen's role would also be relevant, but not everything about it.

"Non-disclosure payments" is a far more proper title than "hush money", which you admit is colloquial. If editors think that "non-disclosure" sounds too much like a non-disclosure agreement, then I suggest we move to calling them confidentiality agreements. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"Admit?" Makes it sound as though I think it's improper and/or unencyclopedic language which isn't the case. It's pertinent and to the point. The section is about the pay-offs, and the heading needs to reflect that. AMI also admitted having bought the rights to McDougal's story to influence the election, and their records have been subpoenaed by the Manhattan District Attorney. Tomorrow Trump will lose presidential immunity. What's your rush? Let's wait and see if and how this plays out in court. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I have been editing this article for at least a year now, what rush are you referring to? We can report on any of the details about this, even if they are only allegations or not proved in a court, just not on this article. This is an article about the entirety of Donald Trump and this only deserves a couple of sentences as most, so the role of AMI is completely undue for this article, but is absolutely justified to be in articles specifically about the topic of these payments. As for the title, the issue is that we need to have encyclopaedic titles, so it should be "confidentiality payments". Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

123, you are repeating your stated position without providing any policy-and-sourcing based rationale and without responding to the arguments of the editors who oppose your view. Without a specific rebuttal there's no need to repeat your opinion. The role of AMI to proxy for Trump is a highly noteworhty example of his frequent modus operandi and is widely discussed and reported by RS as characteristic of "the entirety of Donald Trump." SPECIFICO talk 22:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You are expecting me to show sources that say AMI was not significant in Donald Trump's life? I don't mind saying that a proxy entity was used, but it's really irrelevant exactly how the payments were made. What's important is that the payments were made, and reliable sources give far more attention to Michael Cohen's role than AMI's. I didn't think anybody actually rejected these assertions about the balance of sources, but I'm willing to provide sources. Likewise with policy, is anybody seriously rejecting that this article should only summarise his life, and not describe every event in detail? If they are, of course I'll link to policy for that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

1. That's a straw man. 2. Nobody agrees with you. SPECIFICO talk 10:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

There hasn't been much explicit disagreement either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Really? This explicit enough? If you think "hush money" is too colloquial for Wikipedia, how about "Payoffs to formers lovers"? A lot more to the point than "confidentiality." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes as in saying what parts you disagree with and why. "Payoffs" is also colloquial, although better than "hush money", and McDougal and Clifford aren't "former lovers" either. Do you have any issue with "confidentiality payments"? It's the same as "hush money" but far more professional. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

That wasn’t a serious proposal. No idea what to call the participants in extramarital affairs and one-night stands, except for the married adulterer, and no intention to research the matter. It's the same as "hush money" but far more professional. Do you have a source for that bold contention? There isn’t a single source for "confidentiality." They were payments to keep the alleged affairs secret, and the sources called them by the generally known term, hush money. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

March on the Capitol

The line should read "he urged his supporters to peacefully march to the Capitol, which some of them then stormed" . But seeing that people who have "4 days until the nightmare is over"-banners (refering the the Trump presidency) on their user pages are allowed to edit and others are not, I know you won't agree with me no matter what. --212.35.8.114 (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

He said a lot more than that. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

As this is subject to a trial in the Senate, and other legal action, I don't think it's appropriate for us to cast judgment on this point.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

RS reported what he said. That has nothing to do with a trial. SPECIFICO talk 08:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

No need to quote him, let's just say that reliable sources consider Trump to have done X, Y and Z. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

He also said to "fight like hell". Is that peaceful? Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 19:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Peaceful people say things like that all the time.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

As do violent ones. Peaceful people don't generally have lawyers calling for "trials by combat" to decide elections at the same event. However, one should leave personal judgment out of this when we have RS, and we have plenty. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Agh, I heard Rudy Giuliani's voice right there. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Presumption of innocence?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law. We follow RS and, as applicable, WP:BLP. The section of that article on presumption of innocence doesn't say that we sanitize and remove everything reported by RS until a guilty verdict has been reached. Indeed, especially for public figures, it is specifically outlined how to word it. Feel free to add "allegedly" if you would like, but the "presumption of innocence" doesn't mean sanitizing well reported, reliably sourced, serious allegations. As it stands, he has been impeached (so essentially indicted) on the charge of insurrection. That the trial has not happened yet doesn't mean we don't report his impeachment on the charge of insurrection, and such content would need to include what RS have to say about it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. See WP:BLPCRIME.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I both linked to and paraphrased/quoted both of these policies. You don't get to ignore the latter because the former exists when the latter is specifically about cases like this. The presumption of innocence does not mean we sanitize and not cover issues that are widely in reliable sources, as this one is. Drop it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

No one has said we shouldn't mention the allegations. It is not possible to document the impeachment without explaining what it is about. But we can avoid presenting the prosecutors' points as facts. You keep saying "sanitize". What do you mean by that specificially?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"Peaceful people say things like that all the time" followed by "presumption of innocence?" What did you mean by these statements? Are you using this talk page as a forum for your own personal views on Trump, in violation of Wikipedia policy, or were you discussing possible edits to the content of this article? If the latter, sanitizing would mean removing the well sources allegations of speech inciting violence and inserting a belief that his words were entirely peaceful in their place. If the former, please educate yourself on WP policies regarding using talk pages as forums. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I am supporting Wikipedia policies, not violating them. It is clear that Wikipedia supports the presumption of innocence, as quoted above. Editors like you are clearly trying to prosecute Trump using Wikipedia as your mock courtroom. Please desist.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Intro section needs work, please.

Just an example, "Five people died in the melee" is inaccurate and fails npov.

Later and older sections stick to the facts, and illustrate the paradoxical and ephemeral quality of this president's accomplishments, like the quote "The New York Times reported in 1973 and 1976 that he had graduated first in his class at Wharton, but he had never made the school's honor roll." That section is well-written and careful. It correctly leaves as an open question why on earth the New York Times did that, it is just a fact that they did.

The first section reads like an angry middle-school student being a bully or ranting against a bully. It contains untruths also. Createangelos (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, what's the issue with "Five people died in the melee"? Is it the use of the word "melee"? — Czello 10:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It was certainly a melee...I believe the issue is "in the", which, there is a point there. I think four people died from other health issues, while the policeman died afterward - at least there are details to the deaths, and they did not die "in the melee". I am trying to move away from this article (again), but suggest "died as a result of the melee" as perhaps more accurate; we try to be succinct at our peril. It is notable that a policeman died, and there were other injuries; I am unsure of the RS, however. Bdushaw (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

About the 5 deaths/CNN I forgot about the lady that was shot. Bdushaw (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

His 2000 presidential run should be included in the article's lead, as it denotes part of his political history. Also, "Hours before the ceremonial counting of the electoral votes on January 6, 2021, Trump rallied his supporters and exhorted them to march to the Capitol, which they then stormed. Congress evacuated, and five people died in the melee. Seven days later, the House of Representatives impeached him again, for "incitement of insurrection", making him the only federal officeholder in the history of the United States to be impeached twice." is overly wordy.

An alternative could be "Hours before the ceremonial counting of the electoral votes, Trump rallied his supporters, exhorting them to march to the Capitol, which they then stormed, forcing Congress to temporarily evacuate and resulting in the deaths of five people. In January 2021, the House of Representatives impeached him again for incitement of insurrection, making him the only federal officeholder in U.S. history to be impeached twice." MrloniBoo (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's overly wordy.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Changed to which they then stormed. Five deaths occurred,[c] and Congress was evacuated. starship.paint (exalt) 09:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sentence in lead not supported by body

the only federal officeholder in the history of the United States to be impeached twice is not the same thing as the (apparently -- sorry, I don't have an NYT subscription) sourced statement in the body that he is the first U.S. president to be impeached twice. The majority of federal officeholders in the United States to have been impeached were not presidents so the statement in the body doesn't imply the statement in the lead, and the lead is not allowed make different claims from the article body. Since it does seem that he is both the first U.S. president and the first U.S. federal officeholder to be impeached twice, I think a sourced statement to the latter effect should be incorporated into the body and the lead left unchanged, but what do others think? Since I don't have access to the source in the body to check whether it supports both claims, and since I don't advocate changing the lead, I can't make this change myself, but given the article I'd probably have taken it to talk first anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this discrepancy. The lead is correct; I have fixed the text. What happened is that all the initial reporting said "first U.S. President," and it wasn't until later that people searched the records and discovered that in fact this is the first time that ANY U.S. officeholder has been impeached twice. I added a source.[13] -- MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Trump isn't the first US officeholder, as HuffPo.au and now the body of the article claim. It's only a narrowly defined subset of US officeholders who can be impeached. The above-linked List of formal impeachments uses the word officers per the Constitution. Under current statutory U.S. definitions, all of the individuals listed are federal officials, and a few of them are also federal officeholders. Per 11 CFR 113.1, a "federal officeholder" is defined as an individual elected to or serving in the office of President or Vice President of the United States; or a Senator or a Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress of the United States.. Per 44 USCS § 3315, a "federal official" is any individual holding the office of President or Vice President of the United States, or Senator or Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress of the United States, or any officer of the executive, judicial, or legislative branch of the Federal Government. Other officeholders receive notices of termination. The lead says "federal officeholder" which is correct but currently only refers to four people. We'd probably be better off to stick to "first president," less chance for confusion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The link you posted shows that Federal judges can be and have been impeached by the House and tried by the Senate. Cabinet secretaries too. Altogether the House has voted 21 impeachments of federal officeholders, or officials if you prefer; whatever you call them, they were impeached by the House and tried by the Senate. Only four of them were of presidents. And only one of them - Trump - has been impeached twice. I am open to changing "officeholders" to "officials" if you think the distinction is important. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"only federal officeholder in U.S. history to be impeached twice" - removed from lead

The statement that Trump is the only federal officeholder in U.S. history to be impeached twice was recently removed from the lead section, with the edit summary "Reverting recently added trivia."

I disagree with this removal, and find it frankly baffling. His unprecedented second impeachment seems to me to be an obviously defining feature of his presidency and his life. Notably, the Encyclopedia Britannica mentions this exact fact in the fourth sentence of its entry on Trump ("Trump was the third president in U.S. history (after Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998) to be impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives and the only president to be impeached twice...").

Given that this is a high-traffic article and is on the main page right now, I'm seeking views of others with a view to an expedited restoration of this content. Neutrality^talk 23:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Restore (as OP). Neutrality^talk 23:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Restore At worst, it's innocuous, but it is just a few words and widely noted in RS. SPECIFICO talk 02:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't need this kind of trivia here. It's more than sufficient to say that he was impeached twice. We don't need to astonish readers with peculiar facts. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is not a baseball card.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: per Jack Upland. JLo-Watson (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Restore It is historic and encyclopedic. A defining characteristic of this period--Akrasia25 (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Restore. This isn’t a trivial statistic. It’s an important fact that distinguishes Trump from all other officeholders, including the two presidents who were impeached before him. I would prefer the term "president," though, which is also used by Encyclopedia Brittanica. In the body we can mention that he was the only president and federal officer who was graced with this honor. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The lead is not a place to dump trival statistics about he is the First to do X or Y or the only X to do Z. We summarise meaning content in the lead not first Xs or Ys which have little or no encylopedic value. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Restore While I fully appreciate the arguments being made by those voting oppose (I guess it does fall under the "trivia" banner a little bit), I feel that this is so significant that it does require a mention. That said, I think the lead is currently way too big so I'm not super passionate about it being there. — Czello 12:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Restore It is not trivial in the slightest to note in the lead, it is the defining aspect of the man's presidency. There have been 4 impeachments in 232 years; one man holds half of them, nearly within a single calendar year. ValarianB (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Restore per nom and ValarianB. lovkal (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Restore to the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Restore/keep this is hardly trivia; and actually yes, it is common practice to "dump stuff" like this in the lead. Are we going to exclude from the lead that Obama was not the first African American president now, or Harris is not the first female in the executive branch? Being impeached twice, especially since there are so few that are impeached at all, is extremely significant, and certainly stands out from ever president prior. Aza24 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I think whoever closes this discussion should be mindful that at least some participants are mistaken about the disagreement, as Aza24 is here. This is not about whether Trump was impeached twice (which we all seem to agree should be included), it is whether we say he was the first/only president/office holder to be impeached twice. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Restore per nom. Mgasparin (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Restore per nom and ValarianB. starship.paint (exalt) 09:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Restore If Trump were the only federal officeholder in U.S. history to accomplish something positive, no one would be arguing for that fact's removal from the lead.

Comments

• There are plenty of sources for first and/or only president, but none for "federal officeholder" that I could find. There is one source (HuffPo) for "only US officeholder" which is how Donald_Trump#Second_impeachment_(2021) now reads. I'm probably overthinking this (see my edit in Talk:Donald_Trump#Sentence_in_lead_not_supported_by_body), but wouldn't it be better to just stick to the RS and "first president" or "only president"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

See the section above. There have been 21 impeachments by the House and trials in the Senate; only four were presidents. We could say "officials" instead of "officeholders" if you think the distinction is important. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Replace old signature?

Current signature in infobox, from 2009.

Newer signature, from 2016.

Currently, File:Donald Trump Signature.svg (shown on the right) is displayed as Trump's signature in the infobox. This signature's source is from 2009, while File:Donald J. Trump signature.svg's source (file is shown below) is from 2016, which is 7 years more recent. Should the signature be changed to the more recent version? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why not. People's signatures can and do change over time. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

There is another discussion about this change as well, from 4 years ago. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, in my opinion, signatures change from time to time however the signatures here look the same to me, the only difference I noticed is the thickness of the pen used to sign. PyroFloe (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The signatures are very different, so this and other "opposes" on similarity-grounds maybe should be discounted. Look at the horizontal lines, the uniformity of signature strokes, and the second signature is a much smoother version than the first, which looks hurried (it was sold by an Indiana autograph firm, and the link on the signature page is labeled 'dead link' so there is also the question of authenticity). In any case, the second signature is the more familiar of the two, and not written in a hurried manner as the first seems to be. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support, the more recent signature is much smoother (notice the horizontal-line of the 2016 example), and the thicker pen is what people are used to recently seeing in news coverage of Trump's bill signings. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, the newer signature is more contemporary and noticeably different from the old one. Jonmaxras (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

*Oppose, aside from the thicker pen, it really doesn't look all that different. Mgasparin (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Chaheel Riens. It does make sense to use the most recent signature. Mgasparin (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - while signatures do change over time, this is more a variant than a change. A "change" would be to include a middle name, initial, or something significant which this isn't. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I've thought about this, and have changed my opinion. Arguments seem to be in two camps:
  • The signature is different to his old one. If that's the case, then is surely should be updated to the new one.
  • The signature is hardly any different. If that's true, and the two are essentially the same, then it makes sense to use the more recent version.
  • Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - my signature from seven years ago is certainly different. This new variant is also used in all of his bills as president. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 13:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. We should be using the most current signature. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Remove the signature field here. And from all pages on Wikipedia. This is not encyclopedic material. --Khajidha (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Farewell Address of US President Trump

Farewell Address of President Donald J. Trump-6h5 d3DUdR4

Can we add the Farewell Address? -- Eatcha 04:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This would be more appropriate in the Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2020 Q4-January 2021) article or presidency article. Mgasparin (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think just adding the video would be fine. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 13:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

See the section in the presidency article presidency of Donald Trump#Farewell address and transition of power, citing version that is held in the national archives.

However, it may be approprite to split these into two sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredscribe (talk • contribs) 22:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• No More appropriate: a summary of Trump's post-insurrection post-twitter messaging and the filmed, scripted communications strategy. The individual videos have not been reported as significant. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Caption

It seems like this is the only article about a president that doesn't include a caption in the infobox. Most presidents use "Official portrait, {{{year}}}" as their caption, so Trump's would be "Official portrait, 2017". His infobox seems empty without it, and as far as I can tell, his is the only modern president to not include a caption. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD. Go for it. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 18:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The caption was redundant when it was the official portrait of the sitting president. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Legacy section

To be fair to the conservative viewpoint, do you think that we should include his appointing three Supreme Court justices as part of the legacy (at the moment, the section feels a bit one-sided)? Kokopelli7309 (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's certainty fair to say that Trump shifted the federal courts, including the Supreme Court to the right wing — appointing 30% of federal judges on the bench — but isn't Donald_Trump#Judiciary the natural place for this? Neutrality^talk 18:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Seems premature to have a legacy section. It's been an hour and seven minutes since Trump left office, and right now the section consists of the opinions of four or five people whose credentials I, for one, will have to look up. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • How much time that has passed is not important for Wikipedia; what's important is whether there are reliable sources out there that support the inclusion of such material. It seems clear that reliable sources, to an even greater degree than I expected (we have discussed this many times before), support the inclusion of a legacy section now. Appointment of judges is, normally and in itself, considered routine in most parts of the world, and it's clearly of secondary importance to the broader impact of his policies, assault on democracy, and so on, so I don't think it should figure prominently in a legacy section; it's also already mentioned several times in the article in a more appropriate context (and even in the lead, which seems rather UNDUE), so there is no need for it be mentioned once again in a legacy section. If appointment of judges is relevant for this article at all it's only because of the perceived abuse and politicization of the judiciary, in the same way that we've seen in Poland and Turkey, so it's certainly not a positive legacy to have politicized appointments of jugdges instead of having appointed the most competent jurists as is the norm in Western democracies (in the same way that the only countries where you can buy ambassadorships is the United States and the Central African Republic and comparable regimes); rather, such politicized appointment could be seen as part of (one of many examples of) his assault on democracy. --Tataral (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    • The problem with that is that Trump has had an impact on the Supreme Court, and it seems likely that that's going to impact on the US legal system into the future, especially considering Amy Coney Barrett is only 48. The other stuff you're talking about is extremely vague, and you don't provide any evidence to suggest that this — whatever it is — is going to continue into the future. That's what legacy means.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus #17

Mandruss is taking a short Wikibreak, so I have taken the liberty of modifying Consensus item #17 per the consensus in this discussion. I don't know how to proceed from here. My proposal is a moratorium for a month or so, see what Trump is up to, and then start a new discussion about the first sentence and/or paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for updating 17. I don't think a moratorium is necessary; we haven't yet had a properly-structured discussion about this (meaning a ranked choice straw poll, as opposed to serial proposals), and I think we could probably get to either consensus or a two-choice-finalist-RFC in like a week's time through such a discussion on this page. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Why has the current consensus no been restored? SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're referring to the one decided yesterday, that was a temporary one because in the thread I started people had disagreements over Levivich's proposal, and I didn't want an edit war. So I found one which wouldn't get instantly reverted. Space4Time3Continuum2x replaced mine with Levivich's later, and since that one had stronger consensus and there have been no issues, I see no reason to change it back. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 08:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Giraffer: @SPECIFICO: No, I didn’t replace your edit with Levivich's. This is my edit, i.e., the wording of the interim solution in consensus #17. It was "reverted" in two edits by Spark1498. Then AleatoryPonderings edited the sentence to comply with consensus #17, ForerunnerAT45 showed up and "corrected", SkyWarrior reverted to consensus 17; Abdul Muhammad1, and finally Ritchie333 "per suggestion on TP". Also pinging Sdkb and Levivich.

Three editors started new discussions here, here and here (pinging those I haven’t pinged yet Foxhound03, Golfpecks256). Sdkb, you proposed discussing the individual parts of the first paragraph instead of several complete proposals. The three discussions actually do that, with editors deciding that 8 comments in a 6-hour period is discussion enough and that the version they personally like best goes into the article. Is there any way we can get an actual discussion on a permanent consensus 17 going? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The dispute here seems to revolve around certain words (i.e. 'served as' vs 'was', 'media personality' vs 'television personality', etc.) Building on Sdkb's idea, maybe having an RfC deciding which phrasing should be used in each context would work? Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 12:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm beyond frustrated at this point. All that needed to happen was for an experienced, uninvolved editor to come in before noon yesterday and close the giant prewriting discussion as "no consensus, so default to interim proposal 2 as the closest thing to the status quo". That would have settled the issue enough that all the talk forks could have been closed and changes away from that version reverted, and we could've revisted the question in a productive, structured way in maybe a week, when things are a little more settled. I asked for a close a week in advance at ANRFC, and then yesterday more urgently at AN, but no one stepped up, so now we've got at least four discussions, a live version that again is misaligned with the status quo/prevailing consensus, and wasted energy here at talk trying to battle out the question in the absence of a framework that would make that discussion productive. I'll try to be as clear as I can: the only thing responsible editors should be doing right now is reverting the page to current consensus item 17 (even if they're not personally a fan of that wording) and shutting down talk forks. Debates on the ideal wording are putting the cart before the horse—we can have those productively once we've gotten the status quo settled. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 13:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me that #17 no longer has consensus at all and should just be stricken in its entirety for now (and the HTML comment removed from the lead of the article). (TBH, when I said thanks for updating #17, I didn't anticipate that it would be used as a tool to freeze the lead, as it now has been. I don't agree that the "second interim proposal" actually had consensus, or that anything has consensus post-inauguration. I thought the update was more a clerical notation than a new rule we must all follow.) The conversation about the lead seems productive to me, it's moving closer to agreement, with the remaining sticking points being "was/served as" and "businessman/real estate developer". Either way, let's let that convo continue, we'll get to consensus soon enough (at least on a lead sentence), at which point we can update #17. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

United States Space Force (USSF) section should be added to presidency?

Should there be an article added to presidency section about trump and the United States Space Force (USSF)? Mrmattu (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure why, OK he authorized it, but so what?Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Being it’s part of the force’s history, I would of thought it would of been added in somewhere e.g. authorised when Trump was in office. Etc. Mrmattu (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Media personality instead of just television

Would it not be better to use "media personality" instead of "television personality" this can potentially be misleading (due to what it connotates) and it doesn't make mention of his broader media career including books and radio shows he attended. Just some friendly advice for consideration. Foxhound03 (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

In terms of media that were his own, was he on anything other than TV and books (which he didn't write, either, he had ghostwriters)? We wouldn't generally think of people who have been guests on various radio programs and even TV shows as "media personalities," or even as radio or tv personalities. I mean, Malala Yousafzai was on The Daily Show and My Next Guest Needs No Introduction, but I don't think we would consider her a "television personality" or any sort of media personality. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Totally get you but unlike Malala, Trump has had much more media coverage in his lifetime, he had been a guest at Howard Stern's show, for example, about 24 times. Not quite prolific to much an extent but it isn't exactly a territory he isn't familiar with and he was also in a decent number of films (see:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_filmography) as compared to appearances on television.Foxhound03 (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The one benefit I can see of using "media personality" would be it includes potentially his use of Twitter - he was the 6th most followed Twitter account at the time of his suspension, and a significant portion of his time was spent Tweeting. Just a consideration - it's neither here nor there - but he was a personality on more than just TV. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Small club of presidents who lost the popular vote twice

Not sure if it's worth mentioning: "Trump joins [John Quincy] Adams and Harrison to lose the popular vote twice" sourcesource

Also there's an interesting Venn diagram at https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-venn-diagram/ - Trump is the only one-term president to be impeached and lose the popular vote. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Probably trivial. This article is already overburdened, at almost half a million bytes. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

We have discussed this before:[14].--Jack Upland (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

And too many statements like this that make the overall tenor of the article a biased broadside. Mark Toal (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"Donald Trump's mental health" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Donald Trump's mental health. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 21#Donald Trump's mental health until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sun8908──Talk 04:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Was"

It seems we need renewed discussion on the use of "was", per Special:Diff/1001750800. Prinsgezinde cited WP:BLPTENSE for the claim that it's necessary to add "is a politician who" before "45th president of the United States" in the lede. I think the pure "was" here is fine, because BLPTENSE is not actually unequivocal (… should generally be written in the present tense) and it avoids the need to define Trump as a politician or businessman or whatever before "was". And Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus item 17 clearly states that the current preferred language is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I know that BLPTENSE isn't 100% unequivocal, but oh my I can't stress how much I dislike reading was at the beginning because it makes it seem like he died. I'm personally a fan of Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a television personality and former businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, which was originally proposed by @Hazelforest:. One sentence, summarizes that he's still a TV personality (I doubt that will change for the rest of his life), he's mostly if not entirely severed his personal business connections, and he was the 45th president. It does not call him a politician, which would imply he's had a political career outside of his presidency (he hasn't). If he picks up his business dealings again we can easily remove "former". Extremely concise. Jonmaxras (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"...  is an American media personality and former real estate developer who [was or served as] 45th president ..." Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think he still is a businessman and has been since his youth. He has not severed his business connections. Setting up a trust does not stop him being a businessman. Trump now lives off the Trump brand. Trump Tower. Trump hotels. Trump golf courses. Trump steak. Trump presidency. He apparently now intends to live in Mar-a-Lago, which is a Trump resort. During his presidency, he continued to present himself as a deal-maker and spruik the real estate opportunities in places as unlikely as North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Real estate developer" is more precise than "businessman". The hotels, resorts, golf courses, casinos, commercial and residential properties, etc., are all part of a real estate business. The steaks, vodka, ties, etc., were marketing for that business (the brand) (and those products/businesses failed anyway). I'd support it with or without "former", and I suppose "former" isn't really accurate since he still owns some of that real estate. Also, "is ... was" is awkward, so I'm favoring "served as". So:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and real estate developer who served as 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

That lead sentence could replace the current two-sentence first paragraph. Levivich ^harass/_hound 08:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The first source I pulled up was this one which describes Trump as a "former television reality show host", so I think Levivich's proposal makes sense. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I also like Levivich's formulation except that it should say "... media personality and businessman who served.." "Real estate developer" was only the first years of his business; since then he has branched out widely into things like sports teams, beauty contests, franchising his name to all kinds of unrelated products and properties - "real estate developer" is way too narrow a description of his business interests. I also don't think either of those career descriptions should be described as "former" since there is a good chance he will keep up both activities. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, Levivich's wording is the best I've seen yet. I'm indifferent as to whether it says 'businessman' or 'real estate developer', but leaning towards businessman since he's had a variety of ventures. Jonmaxras (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I was frankly close to going to sleep and although I noticed the discussion, I was honestly surprised at what I saw. Nowhere else on Wikipedia is "was" ever used for a living person. It's incredibly confusing no matter what the reason is, and squarely in conflict with a major guideline. I just noticed the user Abdul Muhammad1 made the same change, which probably doesn't look good on me, but I'll still go ahead and assure that that person is not me. I support any variation that doesn't have "was" in the first sentence. Can we still consider him a politician if he is very likely to run again in 4 years? Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Only thing he'll be running for is out of the country. Ya'll get ready for a new Donald_Trump#Criminal_Charges section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.59.73.203 (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

He still is & always will be the "45th president of the United States". No matter how much CNN wants to kick him out of the 'former presidents club'. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing to remove the "45th president of the United States" line, just merely a grammatical issue. But as cited above (WP:BLPTENSE), "was" should only be used if the person is deceased. As the precedent set by George W. Bush and Barack Obama, "served as" works perfectly fine. However, if another article on Wikipedia references a part of Trump's presidency, using past tense only makes sense. ChipotleHater (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The examples given at BLPTENSE don't seem relevant here. If the article said "Donald John Trump was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021", you would have a point. (I think the article actually was worded this way at the time of the original objection). But the wording "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and real estate developer who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." seems perfectly fine. Trump "is", so we know he is still living, but he "was" president. --Khajidha (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This is where I'll agree with User:GoodDay. Trump was not previously the 45th president, he is the 45th president. That title was not stripped away from him upon him leaving office. Why does "served as" not work in this situation? ChipotleHater (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"45th President" is not a title. It is a description. He was president of the United States. His presidency was the 45th in the series. Therefor, he was the 45th president. --Khajidha (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

As for "served as", it seems to be too close to "acting", implying that the person in question wasn't really the president. --Khajidha (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

No, because if someone was in an acting/temporary role, it would state that clearly in the first sentence (Chad Wolf). I fail to see how "served as" implies it was a temporary role. And again, citing WP:Precedent, all former living presidents use "served as" in the lead. ChipotleHater (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you meant "all living former presidents" or "all currently living former presients". --Khajidha (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Oops, yes I did. ChipotleHater (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPTENSE says Biographies of living persons should generally be written in the present tense which leaves room for exceptions. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Should we change Trump went to Sunday school to "Trump goes to Sunday school" then? Every living person has a past that is talked about in the past tense. Anyway, as has been pointed out repeatedly, here and here, for example, it's just a temporary solution until we find a permanent solution for the first paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:BLPTENSE does not equivocate about the first sentence. It says BLPs should "generally" be written in the present tense, but leading the lead with "was" on a living person is incorrect, period. If a person is living but has retired, use is a former or is a retired rather than the past tense was. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

See 'below' survey/discussion on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence proposal

So are these four choices what we're down to at this point?

• A: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
• B: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and businessman who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
• C: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and real estate developer who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
• D: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and real estate developer who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
• E: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.
• F: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.
• G: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American television and media personality, businessman, real estate developer, and politician who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
• H: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American television and media personality, businessman, real estate developer, and politician who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

If so, what's everyone ranked preferences? Mine are C, D, A, B. (If not, what options would folks add? Or remove?) Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Update: I'd support with or without "the" in front of "45th". Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
^{Options E and F added by {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Options G and H (the only difference between them is served as/was) added by Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)}

• A or F - per my previous arguments. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• ACBD, but add "the", i.e. "who served as the 45th...". ValarianB (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• A - per above. Businessman is more encompassing. In order: ACBD. ChipotleHater (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• F - Changing vote to F. The last two are very clunky and don't read well, but I think that we should mention he's an American Politician first. ChipotleHater (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• ACBD, adding 'the' after 'served as'. Jonmaxras (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• A B, with 'the' in front of '45th'. Qexigator (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

But agree with comment below "...is an American businessman, media personality and politician who served as..." would be even better. Qexigator (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• F, as it more closely matches the style of the into sentence in similar articles such as Barack Obama. A, with 'the' in front of '45th' is the best choice among these 4. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• A - per above. throast (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• A first choice, B also OK, don't like C or D. Agree with adding "the". -- MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Additional comment: I oppose E, F, G, and H. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment — This doesn't have all of the options discussed here. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 20:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't, because none of those options gained consensus. These options are built around incorporating the comments from that month+ of discussion. If you think there's another option that's more likely to gain consensus than these 4 (or, at this point, than A), please add it, and please let us know which option you think is best. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• He's not a media personality, businessman or real estate developer. He is a politician. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• B,A,D,C.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Note: I have added options E and F, which received substantial support in the prior discussions. I'm not too hopeful that this new survey is set up well enough to give us a definitive result, but I guess here we go. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  To expand on why I'm not hopeful, this makes the same mistake we made at the earlier discussion of trying to introduce wholesale options rather than consider individual components. That works when you only have one or two questions, but it doesn't work when you have more than that. And we have substantially more than that: "was" vs. "served as", "businessman" vs. "real estate developer", "the 45th" vs. "45th", what and how to wikilink over his presidency, "is a [politician]/[businessman and media personality]", etc. Every time someone wants to introduce another question, the discussion will spiral further until we have the same situation as we had above. Each question needs to be considered on its own terms, not bunched into wholesale proposals. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but it doesn't look as though anyone is listening. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• E. Being president of the United States makes you a politician. Everything he did prior to that was notable, but not nearly as notable as his political activities, so those should be what primarily defines him. "Was" is more neutral than "served as", which is listed as an example of non-neutral euphemistic language at MOS:WTW. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• E - I agree with Sdkb that E is the most neutral. Also, the structure of the sentence places emphasis on his presidency, which no doubt will be his legacy, and most likely what people will visit the article to read about. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 22:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Still A for me; calling Trump a politician implies he's had at least a somewhat notable political career outside of his presidency, which is not the case. Jonmaxras (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • F then E. Fundamentally is a "politican" (as in a person who holds a political office) even though he is not considered the the typical politian (i.e. only serving as president with no prior government experience like representative/senator/governor) and that is what is most notable for now. I prefer "Served as" as because fundamentally he is still the 45th president just that that 45th is longer in office in any capacity (like notice how Obama and George W. Bush were introduced at the Inarguartion they introduced as the 44th and 43rd president), in addition to keeping consistency with every other president bio I see no reason to stop using it here. Moreover, "served as" is netural and no such notice (I can find) is on WP:WAF and if it was not is should not be on any other politian's bio. Regardless of whether he served president poorly/excellently he fundamentally still served in the office (also was makes it seems like he is deceased). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• A A politician by definition is someone who is in politics professionally. He only served as president for 4 years. If he seeks or holds a different office I would consider labeling him as a politician but a single office for a single term does not warrent the title imo. Plus, I don't see many RS labeling him as one. The first option is the most straightforward and neutral. Anon0098 (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Reliable sources don't call Trump a politician? What? It seems we've been through this before, so I'll just refer you to the list Scjessey easily compiled offhand; plenty more are available. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If being President of the United States = being a 'politician', no need to add 'politician'. but Trump's only notable participation in political activity has been running for, holding, and leaving office as POTUS. Qexigator (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

He wasn't POTUS when he ran, and he isn't POTUS now. He was and is a politician, per RS (New Yorker, WaPo Someone running for office isn't a politician? An elected official isn't a politician? How does that work?) and per Trump himself when it suited him (same WaPo source). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• A, C, F all okay, my preferences go in that order. Anything that says "was" with "president" is unacceptable as he always will be the 45th president - and the use of "was" thus implies he died. This is pure english grammar/definitions - it is appalling that this requires a discussion and that some people refuse to accept "served as" as appropriate here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'll be honest, I honestly don't care how he is labeled (business man/politician/etc.) However, A, C, and F should be the only ones we should consider since they all use the verbiage "who served as 45th President of the United States". The majority of US President articles use that wording, so we should be consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:446:400:7F10:2976:5E8C:8F7F:EC9F (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• G (first choice), H (second choice), in order of importance for Trump’s life trajectory. Television, i.e., The Apprentice made him a household name; media (press) helped him sell himself by treating him like entertainment for decades; media (social) - I don’t think I need to explain; businessman and real estate developer - see Trump Org. see below; politician - one term as president, ran at least one time prior to 2016. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Real estate developer: It's a special subset of "businessman" and what he was doing from the early seventies to the early nineties, with spectacular success and failures. Businessman: President of Trump Org. which also had and has other business than real estate development (brandname licensing, golf courses, vineyard, hotel management). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose A, B, C, D. Second sentence of E and F: The second paragraph deals with that, so it's not needed here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Space4Time3Continuum2x: I'm not sure what you mean. Do you oppose A, B, C, and D? Or are A, B, C, D your top choices? I'm confused... :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused by this entire process 8-). I oppose A, B, C, and D (and the second sentence of E and F, but I'm OK with the first one). My choices are G and H in the preceding bullet point. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Opppose A is the best here. Although I dislike refering to him as a businessman in the present tense, during his presidency he divested himself of his business intrests and he remains a media personality, perhaps Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality who served as 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics he was a businessman and real estate developer. Might work as a good compromise? Hazelforest (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

he divested himself of his business intrests No, he didn't. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump certainly did not divest from his business interests while in office. Neutrality^talk 22:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x:@Neutrality:Trump removed control of his businesses to his sons, meaning he no longer meets the definition of "businessman" because he no longer (directly) controls any businesses(and by removing himself from direct control he has divested himself of his business, allbeit partially). Due to the fact this is contensious I softened my stance from "former-businessman" to just mentioning he was a businessman before his presidency Hazelforest (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump stated that he transferred "his business holdings to a trust run by the sons. He refused to sell his ownership stake, a step that many ethics lawyers say is critical to avoid conflicts of interest" [15]. He didn’t divest himself of his business interests like previous presidents did, i.e., sell or close his businesses or put them in a qualified blind trust to avoid conflicts of interest [16]. He still owns the business and is profiting from it, [17] whether he's involved in the day-to-day management or not. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hazelforest: I'm not sure what you mean. I guess your "Opppose" means you are opposed to all options, but "A is the best here" means you find A the least bad? — Chrisahn (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: Yep that's exactly what I mean(although, I mistyped and added an extra "p" Hazelforest (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support D or E as the best and most straightforward wording. Second choice B. Oppose A, C, F, G due to the totally needless "served as" (the term "was" is shorter, simpler, accurate, and neutral, and being concise is important for space reasons). Mildly oppose H due to wordiness and redundancy (a real estate developer is a type of businessman, and a TV personality is a type of media personality). Neutrality^talk 22:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• F (first choice), G (second choice). Felix558 (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• H. He's not primarily a politician, and "served as" is quite a stretch. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

"Served as" is pretty standard language for presidential bio articles. Not saying "served as" in the first sentence of this article when all the other presidential articles use that verbiage shows a clear bias. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• D or E per Neutrality. Mgasparin (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: The argument over "was" vs "served as" is one of the strangest things to argue over. An analysis here shows that "served as" is used for decent/good presidents and "was" for worse/less known presidents, which is interesting. With things as they are, I'm afraid it would be seen as biased to use "was" for Trump when the modern presidents all use "served as" except Nixon, who many people think was not a good president. I agree, a subtle POV push, or something which could be reasonably construed as such, in the opening sentence of the lead is unacceptable. As this semantic difference is otherwise meaningless, we should probably aim to be consistent with other recent presidents and use "served as". How good or bad Trump was as a president is irrelevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  I dare say this survey shows the "was" argument is dead. All of the options that use "served as" (ACFG) are favored over all the options that use "was" (BDEH) by a margin of 17-7 so far. Similarly, "businessman" is beating "real estate developer" by a wide margin. FYI right now it's polling at 11x A>F, 5x F>A, 2x A=F, and 6x neither A nor F. At some point when participation slows down I was thinking we might ping the "neithers" to see if they want to express a preference one of the two leading choices (A and F). Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

How are you going to count the votes for "C > A > F" and "A, D, F, G," in that order, e.g., not to mention "Oppose A, C, F, G", e.g.? Wiki table with "support as first to fifth choice, opposed?" or just disregard all that and just count first choice, as your comment suggests? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Short answer: "C>A>F" counts for A, because C is not getting enough support to be a finalist. "A,D,F,G in that order" counts for A, first choice. "Oppose A, C, F, G" counts for neither A nor F (nor C nor G, but those aren't getting much support anyway), it's a "neither" vote.

Long answer: As of now, I count 27 responses, including 12 for A as first choice (e.g. "A,D,F,G in that order"), 4 for F as first choice, and 2 for A or F as equivalent first choice. The other options each received fewer than 4 first-choice votes. So out of 27 respondents, 18 think it should be either A or F as their first choice, while 9 think it should be something other than A or F, as their first choice.

Looking at those 9 who didn't pick A or F as first choice, 3 of the 9 picked A as a second or third choice (e.g., "C>A>F"), ahead of F, and 1 picked F (or the first sentence of it) ahead of A. So we can count those as 3 additional "A" votes and 1 additional "F" vote, bringing the "A" total up to 15, and the "F" total up to 5. That leaves 5 votes that opposed both A and F (e.g. "Oppose A, C, F, G"), or that didn't express a preference for one over the other; those are the "neither" votes.

Altogether, out of 27 votes: 15 for A>F, 5 for F>A, 2 for either, and 5 for neither. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Would be so much simpler and clearer to put up the six proposals (media personality, businessman, real-estate developer, television personality, politician, media and television personality) individually, ditto the two verb proposals (served as/was), and ask for a simple support/oppose on each one separately. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It was obvious to me from the start that the majority of editors who insisted on "was" were driven by animosity towards the man who is the subject of this article. They don't like the connotation of "served" since they despise him (for example, see comment above by AleatoryPonderings). However, those editors forgot one of the main rules we have here: Content must be written from a neutral point of view. I agree that a bias would be obvious in this article if "was" stays in the first sentence, since we are using "served as" for practically all other former officials. Also, as Levivich said, we can not use "was" in the first sentence since he will always be the 45th president. Felix558 (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I oppose using "serving" for any political figure, not just Trump. I happen to think Trump didn't serve anyone but himself, but I also think that "serving as" is an inappropriate convention. See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_221#"Serving_as"_in_lede_of_politics_articles. I also think it's silly to include ordinals like 45th as, IMO, they add no helpful context or meaning. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

They're both neutral expressions. "Be" is one of the synonyms for "serve as." If you go back far enough in the editing history for each president, you'll find different editors replacing "was" with "served as" and vice versa, based on personal preference. Teddy Roosevelt, one of the analysis's examples for "served as" is also an example for "was". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with ProcrReader, Levivich, Felix558. Also, that analysis is flawed. For Richard Nixon, we have "was the 37th president of the United States, serving from 1969 until 1974", and from April 2019 to January 2020 we had the standard "was an American politician who served as". And even for James Buchanan, who is consistently ranked as one of the worst presidents, we say "served as". — Chrisahn (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• C > A > F - he was President, but he still is the 45th President. starship.paint (exalt) 14:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Like the Highlander, there can only be one. Trump is a former president who was the 45th one. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• A, C, F in that order. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• A, C follow our guidelines and the precedent set in hundreds of other articles.--Moxy 🍁 17:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• A, C, F, G – but "...is an American businessman, media personality and politician who served as..." would be even better. Rationale: 1. Occupations should be sorted in order of chronology and duration in his life. 2. He has only been a politician for a few years, but that's what he will be most remembered for. 3. "real estate developer" and "television personality" are too specific, he's done lots of other stuff; "businessman" and "media personality" are better. 4. Definitely "served as" – it's the standard wording for former officials of all kinds. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Problem I have with "was" as the lead currently reads is that he is and will always be the 45th president of the United States. Saying he "was the 45th president from 2017 to 2021" kind of misses the point then, which "served as" or "serving" would resolve. I'm genereally not opposed to "was" in leads of living people but in this context it feels inadequate. throast (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• A, C, G, F; in that order SRD625 (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• F, E, G, H, A, B, C, D. I'm partial to "served as". Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 23:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• A or B "real estate developer" is WP:UNDUE and potentially misleading given how much of his business history has nothing to do with real estate development (he calls himself, and his allies call him, a builder or a real estate developer, but third-party sources are more likely to refer to the franchising of his name/image, scams like Trump University, etc.). Prioritizing "politician", as the article currently does, is similarly problematic, as he never worked in politics before becoming president and likely never will again, so out of a notable career spanning roughly fifty years he was only a politician for four; on top of that, arguably he was "better-known" as a Twitter personality than as a politician even while president, and there is no shortage of press referring to then-president Trump as a reality TV star. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• B, D, F, H - "served as" is overly florid language and borders on false, as it implies (at least in my dialect) that he was not the actual president but was only filling in. --Khajidha (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Residence

@Politicsfan4: Re this edit. His official residence is Mar-a-Lago now. Residences of Donald Trump lists a lot of real estate Trump owns but has never lived in. I can't change it because of 3RR, so would appreciate it if you did. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: - Understood, will change! -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure about that, Space4Time3Continuum2x? He has only just got there and doesn't have a legal right to live there.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure, per RS NYT, 2020/12/16, NYT 2020/11/24. It's his legal residence for now. We'll see whether Palm Beach will enforce the agreement they entered into in 1993 that noone is allowed to stay there for more than 21 days per year and no longer than 7 days at a stretch. Before he became president, his legal and main residence was the Trump Tower apartment. He probably exceeded the limits numerous times but nobody cared or was paying attention at the time. If and when RS report that he's living at Trump Tower, we can also add that - I read somewhere that he wasn't pleased with Melania's Mar-a-Lago renovations. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Neither of those sources use the term "official residence" or "legal residence". You seem to be able to obtain certainty with very little evidence, Space4Time3Continuum2x.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

These two do: NYT2019/11/01 and NYT2019/10/31. Full-time residence, domicile, legal residence = primary residence. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Um, those were written when Trump was living in the White House and suggest his "move" to Florida is questionable.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump owns the Mar a Lago Club and property. He can live there. Mark Toal (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Apparently not, long term.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

He can only live there 21 days in a year, according to NPR. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 23:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2021

Change "Donald Trump was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021" to "Donald Trump is an American politician who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." The "was" implies that he's dead. Crucialpounds13 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Y — We're trying to come to a consensus. See above. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 20:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

While we come to a consensus, could it at least be changed to one of the other suggestions in the meantime so that it doesn't say "was"? I feel like using "was" is the least effective choice, even if it's temporary! 100.15.176.110 (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we please change this first sentence?

When I was reading the article today, I got scared.

Now, "What made you so scared?",you ask?

Look at this sentence.

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021."

See the part that says "was" after his name and birth date? Yeah, the reason I was scared was because the person reading could possibly make a mistake and think that the subject in the article is deceased.

How to fix this?

Well, actually, it's quite simple.

Maybe say, for example:

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a former businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021."

That way, it will be convenient for people to read the article without the fear of thinking that the subject in which the article is talking about is deceased.

Thank you for your time.

God bless,

--97.118.137.11 (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Brayden Clark

Opposed See previous discussion here from last month on this same suggestion. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 23:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose; the first sentence already tells you that he’s alive since his death date is not included; there’s no need to change the wording of that sentence SRD625 (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course, there are many discussions about the lede. IP, you can chime in the discussion here. The way you asked for the change was interesting, though. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 23:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Second Senate trial?

The Senate trial will begin once the article of impeachment is formally transmitted to the Senate, after he left office.

I removed this, but it was reinstated. There are three tenses in that sentence, and "after he left office" seems to be tacked on very awkwardly. We don't know whether there will be a Senate trial. But, putting that aside, I don't think this sentence says anything.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

There will be a Senate trial. The House will transmit the articles on the 25th (Monday), with the trial part not beginning until February 8. BBC article verifying that there will be a trial, just not this month. Mgasparin (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

What's your point?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, you said that you weren't sure that there would be a senate trial, but now there will be one. That's all. Mgasparin (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It still says "was"!

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.

---

This is a little ridiculous. The lead sentence still says "was"! I understand there have been ongoing discussions about this, but how is it that the default result in the meantime is "Donald John Trump was. . ." anything, which seems to be the worst possible option? Aren't the discussions more about whether to include politician, businessman, real estate developer, and/or media personality? While that is being debated, I don't think anyone was disputing that Trump "IS" something, and is not deceased. There seemed to be consensus to not begin the lead with "was." Please, for the love of god, change it so that he "is" something, even if it's "Donald John Trump is an American man who served. . ." -- SOMETHING! 100.15.176.110 (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I changed it. MOS:BLPTENSE is clear. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: There is also clearly not prevailing consensus to use "served as", as you changed it to, per the section above. I'm disappointed to see an admin making an edit that clearly goes against consensus and against current consensus item 17. I warned that I would take the next person who modified the lead against consensus to arbitration enforcement, and I'm very tempted to carry through with that. This is also yet another (are we at a half dozen yet?) talk fork that you should have closed rather than replying to. Splintering into a gazillion sections is certainly not helping this mess. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, I'm disappointed to see MOS:BLPTENSE not being followed. No other page on the wiki starts with "was" for a person who is alive. This seems to be a case to WP:IAR to me. I only just now noticed that appendage to consensus #17. It was not well formed, IMHO. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Fully agree with Muboshgu's edit, it was in good faith (and the wording with 'was' was truly the worst interim option to settle on). I think that opening arbitration would be a massive waste of time and does not in any way help or improve the situation. Sometimes rules are just dumb. WP:IAR totally applies. Jonmaxras (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Muboshgu: Alas, there's nothing well formed because no one answered the call I put out for it to be closed. But in the absence of something solid, we default to the status quo or the prevailing consensus, both of which point to "was" as opposed to "served as". Now that I have pointed this out to you, please switch back to using "was" (keeping "is an American politician" at the front is alright with me, as I don't see prevailing consensus against that, and it solves the tense complaints). If you decline to do so, you will be in violation of the discretionary sanctions for this page and I will respond accordingly. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Sdkb, I don't believe I have violated DS as I haven't reverted anything. However, is an American politician who was is fine with me. I don't care about "was" vs "served as", but I do care about MOS:BLPTENSE. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm just going to note that the consensus in the section above tends towards "served as" options over "was" options - and I'm unsure of any other consensus that Sdkb is referring to, but the current consensus trend above is towards a policy based "served as" as opposed to was. I think in this instance, any editor warring against "served as" would be in violation of policy and forming consensus, but I won't be the one to take them for sanctions nor to readd "served as". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, I linked to the consensus I referenced. That consensus formed during a discussion that was active for nearly a month, so in my view it takes precedence over the messy scramble we're currently enduring. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're referring to this, then no. Absolutely not. I will never consider "consensus" on a specific set of sentences to be binding in this manner. Consensus for words, sure, but consensus for sentences as a whole is never "we all agree this is the best". That is a failure on yours, and others', parts, in trying to "force" people to not edit things. "Served as" is the precedent here, and you have provided no good policy-based reason to go against that precedent. I'll also note that my reading there does not show some massive consensus for "was" over "served as" - if you do feel so, please feel free to post an explanation of why you do - otherwise, anyone editing the article otherwise cannot be reverted (by you) based on your reading of the consensus, as you're involved. TLDR: the discussion was muddied by attempts to enforce full sentences instead of narrowing the questions down to what their base is - and as such, it has become impossible to find a consensus for any particular word(s) in the "was" or "served as" space from that discussion. This discussion, OTOH, is forming a quick consensus for served as. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I argued forcefully for exactly that sort of segmentation but was ignored, so I'm rather skeptical you actually fully read the discussion above you are characterizing (the current multi-option discussion is no more segmented, though, so it's no better.) None of the discussions here have been formally closed (despite my strenuous calls for them to be, which could have averted this mess; Starship.paint's non-close close above notwithstanding). In that situation, the proper route for us to take is to fall back on the language that is closest to the status quo until we figure out what the consensus is. The status quo language is "is", which we obviously can't use, but "was" is a lot closer to "is" than "served as". It does not violate any MoS rules or give the appearance Trump has died when preceded by "is an American politician", and it's frankly astonishing some editors are continuing to make that ridiculous claim. I am reverting the unjustified edit warring away from "was", and I continue to be frustrated by both the editors causing disruption by warring on the page in the absence of consensus, and the fact that no closer stepped up before noon Wednesday despite my loud and repeated warnings that exactly this dispute would arise if they didn't. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Am I the only person aware that "served" is past tense as well as "was"?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • He still is the 45th president, as he is still alive. Saying he *was* the 45th President implies he is dead, because there is no other way for him being the 45th president to be past tense. He will be the 45th president, alive, until he dies. The tense is not the problem so much as the word choice is. “Served as” is a neutral way to say “was prior, is still alive, but is not x any longer” in past tense, and this is used on other politicians articles. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't accept your view of the English language, Berchanhimez. Can you provide a source to support the claim that "was" means someone has died. For example, if I say that John Smith was the third husband of Elizabeth Brown, does that mean he is dead??? Alternatively, would it be correct to say John Smith is the third husband of Elizabeth Brown, if they divorced years ago???--Jack Upland (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: It’s not about whether you agree or disagree with the rules, WP:WAS very clearly states that it’s inappropriate to use “was” in this situation. It even uses Barack Obama’s article as and example! ChipotleHater (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who works professionally to correct bad grammar, Jack is 100% correct. is an American politician who was the 45th is perfectly good grammar and does not violate WP:WAS. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I saw your comments on User:GoodDay's WP:AE, and I strongly disagree that the discussion is leaning for the use of "was." Based on the vote above, there are 13 people in favor of using "served as" in some capacity, and 4 people in favor of using "was." I am not sure why it was changed on the main article, especially since it does not have broad consensus (or even majority support). (Sidenote: Please stop making me defend Trump :P) ChipotleHater (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the latest change to Consensus #17. I didn't see any formal closure of Talk:Donald_Trump#Second_interim_proposal. Meanwhile there is Talk:Donald_Trump#Lead_sentence_proposal. starship.paint (exalt) 15:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Right. Also per WP:LOCALCON this talk cannot override BLP. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Trying to put common sense into the intro of this article, is always so frustrating. For goodness sake, the lad is still alive & so using "was" is a bad comedy. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

PS: BTW some of the dead former US presidents & vice presidents bios, also use "who served", oddly enough. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If we are using "served as" for practically all former government officials, I do not see any reason for using "was" in the article about Trump. Felix558 (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears I messed up earlier & so have been reported at WP:AE. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Should use standard convention that the community has been using for other articles of this nature for over a decade as per MOS:BLPTENSE.--Moxy 🍁 01:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Independent of the "was" controversy, I think defining him as a politician (and not a businessman or television personality) in the first sentence is UNDUE and inaccurate. I would favour the following. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and television personality who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

I think there's already a consensus or discussion somewhere that explains why American politician is the only one in the lead. His 4 years as president trumps (ha) all of his previous work, and should be mentioned first. ChipotleHater (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Tweak that to "...served as...", as Trump is still alive. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Aleatory, I would be alright with that, and I'd like to see it given serious consideration. Getting that to happen might be a challenge, though, as #Lead sentence proposal above seems to be where people are trying to have the main discussion now, and that's already well under way. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This is very simple folks. Trump is an American businessman and TV personality who was the president. And no, he did not "serve as" the president. No one drafted him into servitude. And he was not standing in as if president (well, not legally speaking; a counter-argument is often enough made when it comes to duty/responsibility). So "served as" would not make sense here. I know that some people like to use this silly phrase in reference to government work, but it's a WP:NPOV and WP:TONE problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I wish we could come to an agreement on this for all the former US presidents & former US vice president. But saying he 'was' the 45th president of the United States, is incorrect. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Biased article

This may be the most biased article I have ever read on Wikipedia. There are too many subjective, editorial statements and they’re not supported with any citations. I’m happy to edit it to rectify the situation. But Wikipedia runs the risk of looking like another outlet only concerned with trashing Trump if this article is not significantly edited to make it more objective and less biased. Mark Toal (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Mark Toal, have you read past the lead? The citations are in the article body. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"There are too many subjective, editorial statements and they’re not supported with any citations." Examples, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Mark Toal, this page has the most citations/references out of any biography on Wikipedia. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 15:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Which is fitting, since it is the most viewed article out of any biography on Wikipedia. Aza24 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not the number of references, there are plenty of them in this article. It's the choice of references. More than half of the references are from the media which were always openly against Trump and pro-Democrat, so if the text in this article is based on such references, it's no surprise if bias is present. I just analyzed for fun one randomly chosen block of 160 consecutive references in this article: 80 are from New York Times, Washington post, CNN and Guardian, and 79 are from all other media (NBC, CNBC, ABC News, USA Today, Bloomberg News, Politico, Reuters, etc. It is also interesting that only 1 reference in this block is from Fox News). Felix558 (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The Fox News citation should be removed. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions." Dimadick (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a great opportunity to quote something said by one of our esteemed fellow editors in a similar context some time ago: The so-called "liberal media" is biased towards reality, and the alt-right is biased towards anything that supports their ideology, which is, generally speaking, not reality-based. We are an encyclopedia, therefore we reflect reality, not any ideology. The right sees this and says "Ah, see, Wikipedia is supporting what the liberal media says, therefore Wikipedia is biased towards the left," but that's only because they see things through the filter of their POV, while we do our very best not to be biased towards anything except what is real and verifiable. The alt-right media are not, for the most part, reliable sources, since they have been shown to have been wrong again and again and again, and have an overall tendency to report whatever they believe, regardless of its relationship to reality. Thus we are forced to use reality-based media, which the alt-right sees as liberal or "leftist", which is actually ridiculous, since no mainstream American media outlet is anywhere near being left-wing -- but, then, the alt-right makes no differentiation between "liberal" and "leftist".

In short, it is wrong to point the finger at Wikipedia as being the genesis of the problem, which originates in the minds of the ideologues of the right. There is no "leftist view" to Wikipedia, that's an artifact totally created in the perceptions of rightists. Our viewpoint is centrist, just as that of the "liberal media" is. The fault is not in us, it is in those who cannot differentiate their ideology from reality. Mgasparin (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Felix558: - if conservative media were as reliable as the Wall Street Journal news section (which is unfortunately paywalled), I would be glad to include them. Unfortunately, popular online conservative media is quite shoddy nowadays. starship.paint (exalt) 00:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"no mainstream American media outlet is anywhere near being left-wing" - This is simply an absurd statement... I fully agree that the journalistic integrity of so-called conservative media often leaves much to be desired but to say that "liberal media is reality and everything else is not therefore conservatives should get over it" is just an astounding display of ignorance. The sad truth is that Wikipedia uses the reliable sources guideline as a gatekeeper to keep non-conservative viewpoints out of articles. I wish it was different, but it appears to me that that's what it comes down. I don't blame Wikipedia for mainstream media being biased, but I do blame Wikipedia and its editors for refusing to acknowledge the problem and instead hiding behind the typical elitist argument of "reality has a liberal bias." Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I would not say that liberal media is reality, but I will say that Wikipedia has a reality bias, and the chips fall from there. For more on this, Basil the Bat Lord, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-11-29/Op-Ed. starship.paint (exalt) 14:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias". And I'll say that's true. The truth is that there wasn't any ballot fraud, but if you say there wasn't, then you're a liberal. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 17:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia uses the reliable sources guideline as a gatekeeper to keep non-conservative viewpoints out of articles." Ummmm.... I think you've managed to confuse yourself. I know you've managed to confuse me. --Khajidha (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No it does not, we allow plenty of conservative sources, we just do not allow ones that tell outright lies.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2021

I suggest that information about Trump's approval rating from Gallup poll upon leaving the office be added to the last paragraph in the introduction. He left office with an approval rating of 34%, while the average approval rating during his presidency was at 41%. Here is the link: https://news.gallup.com/poll/328637/last-trump-job-approval-average-record-low.aspx Ppt91 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

While I think this would be good information to have in the article, I don't think it should be in the (already bloated) lead. It would be far more appropriate under Donald_Trump#Approval_ratings. I'll leave it to other editors to speak their opinions before any changes are made, though. — Czello 16:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 22:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Czello. Good information, but not for the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Why does loser.com lead here?

Should we change this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.83.19.158 (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

We have no control over this, its not anything we can do anything about.Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's a news story about loser.com – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no control over that, someone simply created a redirect, using a domain space. Wikipedia is a nonprofit and also silenced under Creative Commons, so we literally can't remove it. We don't have control over if people want to create redirects to Wiki articles. I do fully agree with it however. Des Vallee (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Incorrectly formatted wikilink in lead

The link to obstruction of justice is missing a bracket, so it doesn't work. Someone with the extended confirmed user access level might be able to fix that. Thanks. MTardigradum (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. SkyWarrior 22:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Post–presidency (2021–present)

To explain why I said this heading was ridiculous, it's "2021-present". Um...??? And I think "Post–presidency" is too vague. You can defend it all you like but I don't think this heading will last the year.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland Well, what would you suggest as an improvement? Mgasparin (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

What’s so weird about it? SRD625 (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The present is 2021.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but it won't be 2021 next year... Again, do you have any suggestions for an improvement, because I can't think of any. Mgasparin (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

But as I said, I don't think this heading is going to last the year. There's no point having a heading that will be silly for many months. The dates are completely unneeded at the moment, and they will probably never been relevant. I don't think we need this section at the moment. It looks like the next event will be the Senate trial. The article is already outsized, and we don't need a Trump blog detailing what he's doing each week. We can create a section when there's something substantial to say.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

But the heading is accurate. I wouldn't bother with the (2021–present) bit, though. GoodDay (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Since 2021?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This is pointless. "Post-presidency" is fine. In 2022 it might make sense to use "2021–present", but 2021 right now is the present, and "Since 2021" is ambiguous and confusing (implies 2022+ to too many people, depending on their dialect). There's no reason to even change away from "Post-presidency" in 2022 unless there's so much material i needs to be broken up into year subsections. A decision made on a section title now has no implication for what heading title to use next year; just discuss it again. WP:NOT#PAPER and all that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Legacy section?

So I was thinking that we should write a long section on "Donald Trump Presidential Legacy". Before we write this I would let to get consensus and thoughts. Is it to early to be writing a legacy section? Should we wait perhaps another month to let everything cool down to view it within a neutral framework? Donald Trump according to recent polls Donald Trump appears to be one of the most disliked presidents of recent history only being surpassed by George W. Bush*. With Donald Trump never having 50% approval rating, so should we write a legacy section? Or should we wait for hysteria to die down a bit?

I highly doubt however the policies of Donald Trump will be viewed as positive, or that they will change from what is currently viewed, in fact it's likely Donald Trump will be viewed more negatively as time progresses. I therefor think we should write an "early legacy" section detailing Donald Trump's immediate legacy which seems to be fairly negative amongst both academic and popular positions and then write more later legacy detailing it overall. Or is the section to early to write, therefor we should hold back a bit?

Thoughts? Des Vallee (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"only being surpassed by George Bush" Which one? Dimadick (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Dimadick George W. Bush* Des Vallee (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It's too early, passions should cool down first. Writing legacy sections requires clear view, and some aspects of his legacy might be viewed more positively or negatively as time progresses (for example, if it becomes clear that the current administration isn't much more successful in combating Coronavirus compared to the previous administration, in spite of the fact that vaccines are available now, that part of Trump's legacy might be viewed in different light). Felix558 (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say no and seems like WP:RECENTISM he has only been out office for a few days. Wait some years for more scholary sources and public opinion polls, etc.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

See [18]. This is already being discussed.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hilarious

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.

---

I am not American, however, I came across this page.

The page about Trump is vastly opinion-based with many connecting pages that are also opinion-based.

Wiki is supposed to be accurate to (facts) and impartial, note that public opinion & public news is not evidence of facts.

There are many other pages of people who have committed racism, yet the wiki pages have not permitted the data entries.

I am not personally a fan of Trump, however, I believe general statements are acceptable such as Trump was accused of racism, but opinion based entries should be removed.

Wiki is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a personal biography of individuals with data based on individual opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C7A:4A00:3173:4A46:FEC8:29DC (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem confused. This is Wikipedia, not Wiki. A wiki is ANY hypertext publication collaboratively edited and managed by its own audience directly using a web browser. This talk page is for discussing explicit improvements to the Donald Trump article. Generalised sweeping criticisms such as yours above are unhelpful. If you have specific concerns about a part or parts of the article, please let us know. HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually the only way to avoid wp:or is to use third-party published material. By the way, all sources are just "opinions".Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Unpopularity in lead

I think it might be worth including at the end of the lead that Trump was one of the most unpopular presidents in the history of modern job approval polling (his approval rating was under 50% for essentially the entirety of his presidency). Other presidential biography articles include statements about their public favorability rating(s) and this fact is unique enough to Trump that I think it's worth considering including. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)