Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 131#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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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)

This can still be a large article without being as ridiculously large as it is currently. 450,000 bytes puts it as large as the other negligently largest articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the basis of your assertion of negligence? The content and length of the article have been discussed here for at least four years, and much editor attention has been devoted to managing it. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Far too little editor attention has been devoted to reducing the size of the article, clearly. The negligence is that it was ever allowed to get to this size. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That is startlingly unresponsive. I just told you that dozens of editors have been concerned with the length and balancing that with other editorial objectives. Please review the talk archive discussions about length. NPOV and V are core policy. Reducing length at their expense is not improvement. SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That is not what is happening here. Especially since most of the trimming is stuff that is already in other articles. I promise, NPOV and V are still safe. PackMecEng (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support tag It needs a good trim to remove trivia and move less important things into sub articles. Perhaps the tag will help dissuade efforts to pointlessly hamper the needed quality improvements to this article. PackMecEng (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose tag. Serves zero purpose here, and disruptive to our readers. We use maintenance tags to tag issues primarily for articles that may not be watched or on editors' radar; this biography, by contrast, is a highly watched article. Neutrality^talk 17:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

While that's an interesting hypothesis, it has now been thoroughly disproven. We have gone on without tag for a long time, and the issue has not fixed, in many cases getting worse. The purpose is to bring attention to the issue, which it clearly needs. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

There is zero evidence that slapping a big, intrusive tag on the top of the article will "bring attention to the issue" (which clearly is already on editors' radar). If editors advocating for the tag redirected their energy to actually proposing consensus-based changes, then perhaps the page size could be reduced. Neutrality^talk 21:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we need more editors advocating consensus changes to reduce the article size, which is why we need the tag so much. You can't possibly argue that something so "intrusive" isn't at the same time catching attention! If tags don't give any attention to anything, then there would never be a point to any tag at all, which is clearly not the case. The only things that have zero evidence are that not having a tag would bring attention to the issue, and that there is sufficient attention on this issue. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course it is possible for a tag to be both intrusive and ineffectual. See, e.g., alarm fatigue. Neutrality^talk 22:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be easy to conduct an experiment - the article gets 50,000-5,000,000 visits a day, the statistics are good! So, monitor the article for a week for new editors shortening the article, then place the tag there for a week and monitor for new editors shortening the article. Make a simple table and keep track. In two weeks we would have a quantitative answer! At least this issue could be put to rest. Bdushaw (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bdushaw: That's a good idea, but we've already had years of not placing the tag, so we can already do so. We would also surely need more than a week to measure. Once the tag is on the article, there probably wouldn't be consensus to remove it until the article was a much better size. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears there's consensus to remove it now -- so much for that idea. It's not helpful to attract well-meaning editors hell-bent on cutting the article without the context and subject knowledge to do it in an NPOV manner. That's a big waste of editor time and attention. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus against the tag. The weight of this discussion leans towards placing the tag. Making this article more in line with NPOV is another discussion entirely. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

That is simply not what's going on. The status quo is NPOV and most of the cuts have unbalanced it and needed to be reverted. It's absurd to say cuts do not entail NPOV policy. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support tag — the discussion on this article needs to move from whether to reduce the length, to how to reduce the length. The tag is useful for the reasons stated above. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose tag, again. Its not useful since there are already many, many editors on this article and all of them already know the article is too long. It takes quite a long time for a new editor to an article like this to grasp its organization, main points, etc, so attracting fly-by-night editors is counter productive; an editor coming in and hacking away is not helpful. The article receives a few hundred thousand up to 5M visits a day; the tag is merely an annoyance to quite a lot of people. I suspect those promoting the tag have the aim of that annoyance. And since we've had to revisit this issue time and time again, I do have to question the good faith of those raising and promoting the issue again (as noted above); this is a distraction and a waste of time. Bdushaw (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is currently averaging around 200,000 views per day. The high interest in this article only increases the urgency for this article to be reduced in size. If the price of getting the size down to a reasonable level is that some people will feel annoyed at a maintenance tag, which I have never heard to be the case on any other article, then so be it. I've also never seen disruptive editing occur as a result of this tag, and nobody has demonstrated any evidence of it. This article is currently restricted to editors who have made 500 edits over at least six months. There is clearly significant support for a tag, so it is fair that this matter be discussed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support I agree with Berchanhimez. In my opinion, this article has a bunch stupid crap in it, and we need to have serious discussion on shortening it and restoring it to a proper article. Oppose doesn't serve a purpose here, would only distract from content. Some articles justifiably have to be long, this is one of those exceptions.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support tag. This has gone on for months where any reductions are challenged and bludgeoned to the point nobody tries anymore. This article is too long, it is well over recommended length, and nobody cares to actually let anything be done about it. The tag should be there to convince people to actually get shit done, instead of ignoring the problem. Hiding the problem by not having a tag there doesn’t make it go away. Having the tag there may help people get the motivation to fix it. Thus, benefits outweigh any cons, and it should be placed until the problem is fixed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:06, 2 February 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.[3] Alsee (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I may be confused, but you all are just trying to throw that biased, irrelevant sentence onto the end of the 1st paragraph that discusses his business career? This proposer is clearly politically motivated. This article is already bad enough, lets not make it worse. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose His impeachments should not be added to the first paragraph of his article. It should remain in the lead as it has historical significance and is consistent with the placement of the other two impeached presidents. While he was impeached twice, it is not as significant as him resigning; ie Nixon or being found guilty of the charges that were brought up for articles of impeachment. In time, if he were to be found guilty of inciting violence and was therefore not able to run for future political office, than I would say that is a historic and significant factor that should be in the main paragraph such as President Nixon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.63.185 (talk) 09:02, 3 February 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)

Yes, the agreements themselves use "confidential", and this is how the agreements have been described. "Hush" is simply not a neutral term, even when reliable sources use it. It's a word being used to generate interest by implying that something is improper. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:21, 29 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.
• I: 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. Added SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• J: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics, he was a television and media personality. (Added by PyroFloe (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC))

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)}

Note to closer: This discussion is a continuation of the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 131#First paragraph on Inauguration Day, and there have been several other forks. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:58, 25 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)

  Looking at how this is developing, I urge the closer to keep in mind WP:NOTVOTE. MOS:WTW is a guideline, whereas the best argument in favor of "served as", that it is used for many past presidents, amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFF (and it's not even a good otherstuff case, as per the this very comprehensive analysis, plenty of past presidents have used "was"). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:05, 25 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)
• H (first choice), G (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) Reversed order of preference. Khajidha pointed out that "served as" can be read as loaded negatively. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:15, 26 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 (talk) 18:14, 25 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" [4]. 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 [5]. He still owns the business and is profiting from it, [6] whether he's involved in the day-to-day management or not. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Generally "Businessman" refers to managers, not just stakeholders, Trump has handed managment to his sons(which I also agree did not sufficently distance himself from them for COI purposes). I do not deny that Trump still holds stakes in businesses.Hazelforest (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Generally I agree but Trump never signaled any intention to step away from Trump Org for good. If you take a long sabbatical, do you stop being what you are? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:59, 26 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, E, 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)

If we aren't going to say "served as" in this article, then we're going to have to have a larger request for comment about removing that language from all presidential biography articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine with me. "Get it right here, then get it right elsewhere" makes much more sense than "well, its messed up everywhere else, so we might as well match". --Khajidha (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Rreagan007, is there an actual rule that says we have to follow the practice in other articles? Seems to me this was discussed a few times on this talk page and the answer was no. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, there is no such rule, and in fact WP:OTHERSTUFF advises against using precedent in that way. I also need to reiterate that it is not accurate to characterize "served as" as the general practice for other articles; per ONUnicorn's analysis, there is a bunch of each. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• E is succinct lead-appropriate language and NPOV. Strongly oppose "served as", for reasons widely noted at previous talk threads. It adds no meaning and some readers would understood it as implicit endorsement of his conduct in office. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC) I have added K J16:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC) that omits the disputed "is a politician" while keeping the important meaning of the opening. I endorse anything that is short and doesn't say "served..." SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC) fixed typo16:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

By removing the "is a politician" you have removed the explicit indication that he is still alive. --Khajidha (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, where did you add K? I don't see it in the list of options. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It's actually J. Though I'm not entirely sure why we skipped I. --Khajidha (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it: typo :) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Requesting that whatever the result of this discussion, it be retroactively applied -if not to all former US presidents & vice presidents bios - then to the more recent former prez & vice prez bios intros. It would be editorially sloppy, to make this 'one' bios different from the rest. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  It's been noted several times here that we have no such principle. SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  While we can't use this discussion as a direct basis for making changes elsewhere (because, per WP:CONLEVEL, a talk page only has jurisdiction over its associated article), there'd be nothing wrong with building on this discussion once it's over with a wider discussion about the use of "served as". It shouldn't be limited to just U.S. presidents/VPs, as there are lots of other pages on Wikipedia that use the phrase and perhaps should not. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Every other US president and vice-president in recent history has been a career politician, and so can reasonably be described as "X is/was an American politician who served as the Yth president of the United States" or some slight variant thereof. The one possible exception I can think of was Reagan, who is hardly remembered as an actor today and (I think?) wasn't even that well-known as such before he entered politics. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You're right, and I don't think Reagan is an exception (a politician for ~20 years, and two-term governor of California, before being elected president on his second try). See List of presidents of the United States by previous experience. Trump is the only US president to have neither served in public office nor the military before becoming president. That's why I don't support defining him as a politician in the opening sentence. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You’re both wrong about Trump being the only president in recent history who wasn’t a career politician before becoming president. (How do you define "recent history?" I’d say that’s at least as far back as WW II, a period quite a few people alive today remember.) Dwight D. Eisenhower’s WP article calls him an American politician, and he didn’t run for or hold any political office, either elected or appointed, before running for president. Whether someone served in the military or not is just a statistic; it has no bearing on whether he is a politician. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You've got "recent" mixed up with "modern". Eisenhower left office well over half a century ago -- that's not "recent". Moreover, even had the 1950s been within the scope of what I was thinking of, the distinction you make between "politics" and "military administration" is arbitrary and irrelevant to this article. It seems like you went back through the list of presidents to find the "most recent" contrary example you could give, without considering whether it would make sense to do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a mind reader and don't know what you were thinking of. Modern history is the period after the Middle Ages. You wrote "recent history" which usually refers to the last century or two, as in this example. "Recent presidents" depends on context and point of view, as in A ranking of 12 recent presidents from Dwight Eisenhower to Donald Trump ([7]). And where did I make a distinction ... between "politics" and "military administration" or even mention military administration, for that matter? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Modern history is the period after the Middle Ages. That depends on the context. In Japan, "early modern" (近世) refers to the period after 1600, and immediately follows, yes, the "middle ages" (中世), but indeed the word that most closely approximates "modern" in a Japanese historiographical context, 現代, refers to the period after 1945; but in secondary school in Ireland I'm pretty sure I was taught that "modern" meant either post-Enlightenment or post-Industrial Revolution, and while "early modern" in European history can refer to the Renaissance (i.e., "modern" can mean "after the Middle Ages"), this is something I definitely did not learn in school, and had to read specialist historical works after graduating university. Given that the US didn't exist during the European Middle Ages, it doesn't make sense to use that definition of "modern" when describing the history of the United States presidency, as George Washington would then be a "modern" president.

And where did I make a distinction ... between "politics" and "military administration" or even mention military administration, for that matter? You said that Eisenhower had not been a politician nor "run for or hold any political office" before running for president. Moreover, this isn't really the main issue -- Eisenhower is long dead, his life, pre-POTUS career, and presidential administration have been discussed in numerous historical books and articles, and we can use those to determine how to write that article, while Trump has only not been a former president for about a week and we are stuck either working his political career, such as it was, into the description that our article on him has used since c2004.

Anyway, why are we talking about this? Please stay on-topic.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Stay on topic? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment The options so far are missing the point. The issue is the combination of past tense with the number of president. Both "was 45th" and "served as 45th" are incorrect, since they use the past tense with the number. Jimmy Carter IS the 39th president. So those making the case that "was" implies Trump was dead are correct. I also am of the opinion that "served", irrespective of who, is a POV term - people "serve" in the military, whereas Presidents are pursuing their own political agenda (they are serving their own agenda if you will). I am not sure how to write it, but something like "Donald was president from XXXX to XXXX. He was a ..., before becoming the 45th president" would be formally correct. He was not "the 45th president from XXXX to XXXX", because he still is the 45th president (impeachment prior to ending his term is another story...). In short I suggest a different structure entirely, and avoid "served as", irrespective that Carter and Clinton articles use that phrasing. A curious conundrum, to be sure. Bdushaw (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

There won't be another 45th president—so I can keep my "45 es un títere t-shirt—but he's not president now, and present tense is incorrect. It's an unofficial numbering system which counts Grover Cleveland twice because his terms were nonconsecutive. Another numbering system (number of men who were president) lists Trump as 44. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The example you name explicitly says he served as the 39th president of the United States. "Barack Obama was the 44th president" gets thousands of hits on Google News, while "Barack Obama is the 44th president" gets only six that don't date to the time when he was actually the sitting president; the latter is ungrammatical unless, say, we are talking about numbered placement in a specific visible list. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It then boils down to whether the numbering scheme is per popular culture or formal correctness. I had in mind the Bush presidents noted as 41 and 43 in present, e.g., if you were talking of President Bush, you had to note whether you were talking of 41 or 43. If it is as noted that the numbering scheme is neither pop culture nor formal, then past tense is certainly appropriate, "was" or "served as". "Served as" seems universally used...perhaps time to throw in the towel and go with what everyone else is using? Sometimes it is difficult to fight word usage that is universal (however wrong). Bdushaw (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

In the case of the Bushes, it is neither pop culture nor formal correctness, it is simply a convenient means of disambiguation. --Khajidha (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• A or C – "served as" is fine; avoids "was" and "politician". Ewulp (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  NB Served is past tense, just like Wuzzed. SPECIFICO talk 17:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, and that's fine because he's not serving anymore, but is still the 45th US President. Ewulp (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• C or A Keep it consistent with how we do other presidents. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• I or E I think I is best. I do believe him being president should be mentioned first. I do strongly oppose the ones that put "television personality" before president or businessman because that is what he is least notable for. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment (J or A), The current lede is worded in a way where it seems that he is not a businessman anymore, even though he is still a businessman with his business conglomerate named "The Trump Organization". Referring to the "was" part. I think the choices from A - I before I added J are lacking a substantial information. HE IS STILL A POLITICIAN AND BUSINESSMAN. I would say match it with George W. Bush's lede with a slight change to "served as the __th president of the United States". Adding to that, the phrase "was the 45th president of the United States" is kind of misleading since he is permanently the 45th president of the United States even if he passes away. PyroFloe (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  he is permanently the 45th president of the United States This statement is ungrammatical. Describing a former president (whether they are alive or dead is irrelevant) as "is the Xth president" is wrong, unless we are talking about their placement on a specific, visible list, which the opening sentence of this biographical article definitely is not. No other article on a US president, living or dead, seems to disagree with this assessment. What's more, there does not seem to have been any confusion over this matter four years ago when Obama left office. Why are multiple editors making it an issue this time? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, I'll bite, how about this: he will always be the 45th president of the United States, and as such, saying "was" implies that he is no longer living? You're right - every other article on a living former president uses "served as" - why can't this one? Also made a minor edit to your indent per MOS:LISTGAP Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, that's not how the English language works. Virtually every single news source that describes Obama as "is the 44th president" dates to the period when he was currently the president; those few that don't are generally either poorly written or are saying things like "There he is, the 44th president".[8] It's theoretically possible to interpret "was the 44th president" as meaning that he has been retroactively expunged from the list of presidents and is no longer officially considered to have been the 44th (as happened in Japan with the Northern Court emperors, i.e., "Obama was the 44th president then, but now Trump is the 44th president and Biden the 45th"), but I highly doubt that that is what, say, The Washington Post, The Independent and ABC News mean. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

This article is definitely biased. However, I think it's more that the articles about liberal politicians are really biased towards the left. Like here's an example of bias in this article this quote is located in the last paragraph of racial views section, "White nationalist publications and social media sites praised his remarks, which continued over the following days". Everything about this is true no doubt, but Trump has nothing do with this. He can't help a white nationalist posts crap on the internet as much as Joe Biden can help Antifa members burn down Starbucks' in Seattle, but I promise you'll never see that in Biden's article (and you shouldn't because that wouldn't be neutral). That's just one of dozen of examples. This little discussion might as well just be ended because Wikipedia already made its mind up. Hell, I've been trying to get on Biden's page just a mention of his gaffes, which were extremely notable to his candidacy. However, I have given up because liberal editors don't want to mention what reliable sources say, so they just stop commenting and consensus never happens, they de facto win. It is what it is, so why don't we just go ahead and close this discussion down because it's not going to go anywhere like the dozens before it. Cheers, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC).

Biden has made far worse racial comments than Trump over the years. But don't you dare try to add these to an article abut Biden, even if you find his statements reported in "reliable sources", you'll be told its WP:UNDUE (ie. It makes Biden look bad and that's not fair). BTW, did you know Richard B. Spencer endorsed Joe Biden? [9] Trump has strongly condemned white supremacy many times, but because CNN etc. claims he's a racist, that's what we go with. Wikipedia does not care about what is true, just what the media claims is true. Trying to remove bias from this article is a lost cause. As long as left-wing biased sources are considered "high quality reliable sources" and any source with the slightest right-wing bias is banned, you will always have articles like this.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The facts in this article are correct and accurately describe Donald Trump and his presidency, but the article is written in a "liberal tone" which we could do without. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:11, 1 February 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)

• Trump has been out of office for little more than a week and already this section has three paragraphs. This is absurd.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

To bleach, or not to bleach...

Just looking at the recent dispute over "ingestion of bleach". I've looked over the sources, and I believe deletion of "ingestion" is correct. There are RSs that report explicitly on what Trump said, and "ingestion" wasn't stated. Biden said that Trump said that, and ordinary people interpreted it that way, such that there was an uptick in poisoning, and manufacturers felt compelled to plead with people not to ingest it, but Trump did not say that. As all things with Trump, it takes some explaining... Not sure how to frame the statement in the article, but the point about deleting that Trump said "ingest" is correct. Bdushaw (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I have removed "ingestion of bleach" from the article; he never said it. I left in "injection of disinfectants" which was his actual suggestion. Trump never said ingest or drink, and he never said bleach. Furthermore, he wasn’t making definite recommendations; he was thinking out loud about what he had just heard from his experts, that sunlight and disinfectants can kill the virus, and was suggesting to Birx some ideas that he thought should be tested. His exact words were: So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous - whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn't been checked but you're going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that too. Sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? So it'd be interesting to check that. Listeners and the media took the idea about internal disinfectants (itself a dangerous idea) and interpreted it as drinking bleach, but he never said it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN. The solution is simply to conform the text to the widespread sources -- BBC, NY Times, Wasington Post, Reuters -- that say he "suggested" injecting or ingesting disinfectants. The "ingestion" version is widely reported, although not evident in the video of the event. In reverting the removal, I did not carefully check the sources, but one would hope the text would initially have been conformed to the sources rather than blanked. SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The source in the article is the BBC, which does NOT say he suggested ingesting. Because he didn't. For that matter he didn't even directly suggest people do it - he suggested that Dr. Birx look into it. I think it's important that we not put words in his mouth, even if a lot of people thought that was what he said. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Also let's not revert edits when we haven't checked the sources. That way we don't violate BLP. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact is, any given week, Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, are swigging bleach. Some are drinking Kool Aid. Some are wearing tinfoil hats. Some are walking into pizzerias looking for the basement with assault rifles. Some are claiming that Kristallnacht has come again. This is the US of A. It is routine, and it doesn't have to have anything to do with Trump. It is just roadkill on the superhighway of American history.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Emoluments

The remaining two lawsuits have been dismissed by the US Supreme Court. As well as having their own articles, CREW v. Trump, D.C. and Maryland v. Trump, and Blumenthal v. Trump are already detailed in the Presidency of Donald Trump and are mentioned in Efforts to impeach Donald Trump, List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump, Foreign Emoluments Clause, and Donald Trump and golf. Do we really need to mention them here as well?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, the brief mention in this article is appropriate. The Emoluments Clause cases against Trump were the first time that these constitutional clauses were ever litigated; they have been the subject of years of scholarly attention; and they are obviously significant as they related to the conflicts of interest. The Supreme Court dismissed the cases only because Trump was no longer president (i.e., they became "moot" as a legal matter). That has no effect whatsoever on their biographical significance. Neutrality^talk 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, surely the cases would be more significant if the court had found against him!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Both of the courts of appeal did rule against him [10] [11] Neutrality^talk 03:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You know what I mean.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

These lawsuits did not have a major impact on Trump's life.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Explanation requested

The fact that Trump explicitly confirmed he was misleading the public about the severity of the Covid-19 pandemic ("I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don't want to create a panic"), and the fact that he was identified by experts as "likely the largest driver" of misinformation about a pandemic that's killed >420,000 Americans in less than a year, both seem unquestionably notable and worth at least one sentence fragment. Yet these sourced facts were removed in this edit by Levivich. Could someone please explain the justification for removing these pieces of information? MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I, too, have serious concerns about the omission of this content, particularly the Cornell study. Neutrality^talk 18:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• That seems kind of important SRD625 (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Needless to say, as the editor who reinstated that consensus text after it was first "trimmed," I was surprised to see the content quickly removed a second time without any substantive explanation. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with all users above; that seems exceptionally notable and is also well-sourced. I cannot find any justification in any WP policy to censor it. Jeppiz (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• A). This probably is better suited in a subarticle and B). The Hill reference admits that their piece was based on Cornell's comments that, "The study has not yet been peer-reviewed. Evanega told the Times the research was going through a peer review by an academic journal, but the process was taking too long, and the researchers felt they had to share the information sooner." Of course. Maybe Trump was, opinions vary...but odd this must go in this BLP? If that edit is restored, that last sentence isn't needed since it is not "peer reviewed" as that reference freely admits.--MONGO (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Perhaps User:Onetwothreeip and User:Levivich might wish to opine on this as they both removed the content.--MONGO (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  @MONGO: I agree with your analysis, and 123's original edit summary and their additional comments below, and PME's. Basically, I think most statements that need attribution are undue for this top-level BLP, and belong instead in the appropriate sub-articles (if it needs attribution, then it's not the consensus view of RS). The top-level BLP should contain almost exclusively statements in wikivoice. For example, w/r/t the Cornell study, an attributed statement highlighting a particular study is WP:UNDUE; we should stick to statements in wikivoice about Trump's covid misinformation (and there is no lack of RS consensus about that). So that Trump spread misinformation is something we can say in wikivoice; if we can't say that he was the primary source of misinformation in wikivoice, then the particualr study that says so is a detail and belongs in a sub-article. And of course, despite some claims to the contrary, this is not the consensus version (I don't see it on the consensus list at the top of this page), and WP:ONUS remains on those seeking inclusion of the content to gain consensus for it. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious about your assertion that only wikivoice statements can be included here, and that anything requiring attribution must be relegated to a subarticle. Is there any support for that in policy, or any precedent in best practices? Or is that an ad hoc standard that you've created and applied here? After all, your standard doesn't seem to be applied uniformly even in this article. At a glance, I see plenty of attributed statements (about Trump's net worth, his use of the "John Barron" sockpuppet identity, and so on. I mean, you don't have to read far to come across lines like: "According to the New Yorker, 'The book expanded Trump's renown far beyond New York City, making him an emblem of the successful tycoon.'". Does that belong in a subarticle? MastCell ^Talk 01:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY is probably the most-on-point-PAG, but the "say what you can say in wikivoice" principle is in WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:5P1, WP:5P2... I'd say "build articles based on saying things in wikivoice not based on attributed statements" is all over our PAGs. As for best practice, look at some FA bios like Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong: there are no statements attributed to news media or individual studies; the attributed statements are few and used for good reason (e.g., statements attributed to the subject of the biography). Yes, there are way too many attributed statements in the Trump article (along with a lot of other minutiae), and they should also be moved to a sub-article (or removed altogether, depending on the statement). The New Yorker attributed statement you quote above should probably be removed altogether. Who cares what the New Yorker says about Trump? That's not the level of significance sufficient for inclusion in a major top-level biography like this. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

By the way, "your assertion that only wikivoice statements can be included here" is a misrepresentation of what I wrote, which was: "I think most statements that need attribution are undue for this top-level BLP, and belong instead in the appropriate sub-articles." My expression of an opinion about best practice is not an "assertion that only wikivoice statements can be included here". You also misrepresented my edit in your OP. Please be more careful in paraphrasing me in the future, or just quote me instead of paraphrasing. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY says nothing of the sort, nor could I could find support in the other alphabet-soup you provided for the idea that top-level articles should be "almost exclusively" in wikivoice whereas attributed statements should be "almost exclusively" relegated to subarticles. Is there a specific aspect of these PAG's that you had in mind? Our policies explicitly recognize that both wikivoice and attributed statements are valid parts of well-written articles, which is why we have guidance for how to use both. I don't think that astronaut BLP's are super-relevant here, but looking at the last two Presidential biographies (GW Bush and Obama), both contain attributed statements, and both are high-quality (Bush is a GA, Obama an FA), so I don't see any support in practice either. MastCell ^Talk 21:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Onetwothreeip's original cut here. It's a suitable trim that retains that he tried to downplay it, no need to misrepresent what the edit actually is. Perhaps more notable in a sub-article. PackMecEng (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

There's likely to be such back & forth action between editors both here & at Joe Biden for months to come. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

While true, that's no reason to stop assessing such examples based on their merits. There are a number of editors here whose judgment isn't predictable (based on sides). I mostly pay attention to those editors. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion, as I was about to do so myself. Please don't mislead people who may not read the edit in question. I most certainly retained information about Donald Trump saying different in public what he said in private. If you have an agenda against the subject of the article, that is frankly not my concern. This article is far too large and need not contain as much detail as it currently has, even if all the detail is accurate and belongs on Wikipedia. The extraneous details can belong on other articles related to Donald Trump and to the events themselves. I also hope that editors will no longer be alarmed or astonished whenever merely 4000 bytes of content is removed from this article, as this is less than 1% of the total size. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, please focus on content rather than speculating vaguely about other editors' motivations.

The subarticle is a place to provide more detailed information on the topic, but this article still needs to provide a comprehensive summary of notable issues. It's not an either-or. A single sentence or two here on Trump's promotion of disinformation here seems, if anything, unduly minimal, given the pandemic's impact—I mean, >420,000 Americans have died, after all—with the understanding that additional detail may be found in the subarticle.

The Hill is a pretty low-quality source, and I'd suggest replacing it with something like this, from the New York Times. MONGO, our standard for inclusion is coverage in multiple reliable sources, not peer review. But I do take your point, and I appreciate the weight you place on peer review, so if that's your main objection I'm fine with omitting it, with the understanding that once it's published in a peer-reviewed journal you will presumably support the material's inclusion.

PackMecEng, I can't agree that Onetwothreeip's edit is an improvement. Trump "claimed to refrain from causing a panic"? That's poor writing and borderline incoherent; I'm not exactly sure what it means, and I certainly don't understand how that poorly-worded circumlocution is preferable to simply quoting Trump's own words on the subject. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any understanding at all. Did my comment "A.) This probably is better suited in a subarticle" go unnoticed? Bare in mind I was not saying none if it belongs on the pedia, merely that I do not think it belongs in this article. Maybe in the COVID article...? The Presidency of article?--MONGO (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I noticed your comment and responded directly to it in my second paragraph. Trump's role in spreading medical disinformation, and in misleading the public about the virus's severity, should be mentioned both in this article (briefly, 1-2 sentences) and in more detail in a subarticle. You seemed to be suggesting that it should be covered only in a subarticle with zero mention here, and I disagreed with that. MastCell ^Talk 00:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The COVID section is currently 41,000 bytes, which would be enough for an article in its own right, and certainly too much for a biography about a person's entire life or even an entire presidency. There remained plenty of information in there about Trump's misinformation, so it's simply incorrect to say that my edit removed most of that. Likewise, and I should have mentioned this initially, one random study with no particular notability isn't due for a biography article. There's just simply nothing special about this Cornell publication that rises it above all the other millions and millions of words that have been written about Donald Trump, which could just as well be included here. If you think "claimed to refrain from causing a panic" is poor writing, then please propose alternative wording. Would you prefer "claiming he wanted not to cause a panic"? Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer simply quoting Trump's own words ("I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don't want to create a panic"), as we did in the content you reverted. I thought I'd made that clear in my earlier comment. MastCell ^Talk 00:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean instead of quoting him directly, for which I apologise for not being clear enough about. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

123IP, sure hope you don't mean to be suggesting that the only reason anyone reverts your cuts is to push a POV. That doesn't even make any sense, because the article as it stands is NPOV as a result of many lengthy good faith discussions over the past 5 years. Many editors have told you for months now that some of your cuts are heavy-handed, too broad, and not easily parsed due to many of them comprising diverse content in one cut. The length of the article is no reason to remove longstanding text, most of it previously discussed on talk, piece by piece. In the first place, most of the bit length is due to templates and references, not article text. In the second place, when content such as the Covid detail is removed, the best practice would be to completely reconsider the section and replace current text with tertiary-sourced overviews -- many not available at the time of the original article text -- in place of a series of details or anecdotes that illustrate a certain narrative. This has been said this many times here, but this does not seem to be your approach. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm addressing the comments made by editors that clearly indicate negative sentiments towards the article's subject. If people want to have those opinions they are more than entitled to, but I am not motivated by either positive or negative feelings. The content I removed shouldn't be described as diverse as I typically stick to one section and few sub-sections at a time. Likewise, text being "longstanding" is no reason for it to remain, and most of it has not been discussed. If you would like to replace content with tertiary overviews, I would completely support that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

These are disappointing responses. The content had been stable in this heavily-watched article for many months. Yes, we do treat such text as consensus. And if you preemptively remove such context, it's on you and nobody else to ensure the article remains NPOV. Before making selective cuts in the future please consider whether the content can be more compactly cited to tertiary summaries. But that would be a prerequisite, not work assigned to others. Selective or arbitrary cuts unbalance the NPOV narratives here. SPECIFICO talk 00:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

What are the negative comments you refer to with respect to the content you cut? I don't see any. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Obviously the content isn't stable if I reverted some of it. I certainly ensured that the content that remained was neutral and appropriate for the article. I would certainly like to move to tertiary summary style but I have found much more resistance when I attempt to do so, which has lead me to only make edits that remove no more than a few thousand bytes at a time. The comments I am referring to are contained in this section and in many other sections of this talk page, and I don't wish to seem unkind on remarking about the views of editors. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You don't wish to seem unkind? That sure didn't stop you when you criticized me below. I'd like to see the comments you are referring to as well. Gandydancer (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Obviously the content isn't stable if I reverted some of it. What kind of crazy logic is that? Anyone can remove anything at any time; that has nothing to do with "stable". "Stable" means that it has been in place and unchanged for a long time, say months as opposed to three or four days. Yes, you can still try to change it, but that doesn't change its status as something that has been stable up to that point. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC) P.S. And btw, edits that "remove no more than a few thousand bytes at a time" are huge cuts and are very likely to be challenged. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer, I don't remember criticising you at all. Can you tell me what you are referring to? MelanieN, as this is such a contentious article, any edit at all has a likelihood of being reverted. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Merely ask oneself the question. If Biden was US president at the time & made the same statements, etc. Would said-information be in the Biden bio article or not? For the next several months, I suspect both articles will be under scrutiny, over whether they're are being treated equally. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, if Biden said it, it would be front-page headlines. The only reason it's not is that Trump just did so many questionable things that no-one really cared. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually at the time it was frontpage news, reported by dozens of sources including world-wide news outlets. That said, your comments are correct in that the amount of misinformation has been so great that even truly mind-blowing Trump comments tend to get moved along because in only a few days time another batch of misinformation comes out. However, as editors it's up to us to document the highlights and this policy resulted in hundreds of deaths, and if that is not important to cover adequately I don't know what is. Gandydancer (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Everyone agrees it should be included. The matter is how much should be included here, and how it should be written. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I said it should be covered adequately, which means to a satisfactory or acceptable extent. Given the fact that the Trump policies cost so many lives, I believe that it should be fully covered. Gandydancer (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

There is simply no way that the pandemic in America can be fully covered in this article. We can't include every comment he made. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Break for proposal

I absolutely think both the Woodward material and the Cornell material should be covered here, but with paraphrasing rather than detailed quotes (leave those for daughter articles). How about a trim like this (trimmed version of what is currently in the article):

Trump's public statements on COVID-19 were at odds with his private statements. In February 2020 Trump publicly asserted that the outbreak in the U.S. was less deadly than regular flu influenza, was "very much under control," and would soon be over. At the same time he acknowledged the opposite in a private conversation with Bob Woodward. In March 2020, Trump privately told Woodward that he was deliberately "playing it down" in public so as not to create panic. A Cornell University study concluded that Trump was "likely the largest driver" of COVID-19 misinformation in the first five months of 2020.

Sources

Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• We should not say "regular flu" because that implies that COVID-19 is a type of "special flu" (when it fact COVID-19 is not influenza at all). Other than that I think I am OK with this version, although I'd like to hear from others. Neutrality^talk 17:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  Agree with Neutrality, remove the word "regular" and I am 100% in agreement with that content. (And add a comma after "at the same time".) – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point. I'll change it. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC) I also added a separate reference for what he was saying in February. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you MelanieN. I think this is exactly the kind of editorial update we can now do with the benefit of time and new sources. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I could get behind this, though I would probably drop the Cornell deal for the reasons above. PackMecEng (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The COVID disinformation theme is one that is well developed in the section, and is mentioned in the "False statements" section. On the one hand, mentioning it here as specifically a Cornell U. study seems a sensible lead in to what comes below, on the other hand the statement could be broader than the Cornell statement about the disinformation. That issue is a principal aspect of Trump's pandemic response (or lack thereof, or counterproductive efforts thereof). If "Cornell study" is going to attract trouble, I'd be in favor of a more general statement, as is supported by quite a bit of RSs. Bdushaw (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

If the study is mentioned (and I believe it should be) I'd suggest adding "in a recently released but as yet unpublished study" to the wording. Gandydancer (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm good with this wording; thank you, Melanie. Personally I'm fine with mentioning the Cornell study, because it's been covered extensively in multiple reliable sources, although a caveat like the one suggested by Gandydancer would be reasonable. (Would suggest something like: "in a recently released study awaiting peer review...", if anything). MastCell ^Talk 18:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, replacing the current text with the proposed text would be an improvement, so I support it. But I still think it shouldn't be included as written, in that location (as the second paragraph of the intro of the Covid section). The intro of the Covid section should introduce and summarize the various sub-parts of the Covid section. "Trump's public statements on COVID-19 were at odds with his private statements" is not a summary of the sub-sections. It's not even important enough, in my view, to include in the Covid section intro at all. Is the most important thing about Trump and Covid that his public statements were at odds with his private statements? No! Trump actively and deliberately downplayed and spread misinformation about the pandemic. We should say that, in wikivoice, in the intro to the Covid section.

The lead of the article says He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. That's how this information should be presented. The intro to the Covid section should be an expanded version of that sentence, expanding upon (1) reacted slowly, (2) downplayed, (3) ignored or contradicted health officials, (4) promoted misinformation, esp. unproven treatments. Neither the current text nor the proposed text for the intro to the Covid section covers any of that. "Public comments at odds with private comments" is like a would-be #5 on that list that is so minor it shouldn't even make the list. In light of the first 4 items, it doesn't matter (and is obvious to the reader from the word "downplayed") that his private comments are at odds with his public comments.

Highlighting the Woodward statement makes it seem like that was the only one time he made a private comment at odds with his public comments. Woodward should be mentioned in Trump's bio because his books have had a big influence on Trump's life, but this one particular detail from Woodward's latest book is not important enough to include here. And, the Cornell study should not be mentioned for the reasons stated above re: attributed statements and because it's an unpublished unreviewed study. So while I support this as better than what's there currently, I still think 123's original trim was even better, and I would replace the entire current second paragraph of the Covid section with something that expands on those 4 points in the lead sentence I quoted. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Not seeing any reason to add that Cornell study where the NYT even says "The Cornell Alliance for Science, which spearheaded the study, is a nonprofit devoted to using science to enhance food security and improve environmental sustainability. One of its aims is to promote science-based decision-making. Dr. Evanega and a Cornell colleague, Mark Lynas, partnered with media researchers at Cision, a company that performs media analysis, to conduct the study. Dr. Evanega said the study was being peer reviewed by an academic journal, but the process was lengthy and the authors withdrew it because they felt they had compelling public health information to share." So they didn't want to wait for the peer review cause they are that certain they are correct. Of course they are...junk science is science that doesn't want to wait around for a peer review.--MONGO (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal, at least as a start, but without the Cornell study. Highlighting only one study is usually not a good idea, unless the study is notable in its own right. It's little factoids like this that the article really needs to do without. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we have consensus for the first two sentences. I will add them to the article in place of the current paragraph. For now I will leave out the Cornell study; discussion about it can continue. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Trimming Mueller investigation section

This relatively minor effort of trimming the article was reverted and should be restored. These are details that are more appropriate for other articles than the biography of Donald Trump. Please note that anything important still remained, even if something regarding it was removed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have put in a reworded version of the part about the Mueller investigation not being a subject of an article of impeachment, which I think is better than either the previous version (which was unsourced) or the version you propose. I oppose the removal of the content in the paragraph about the Barr letter (especially the part that indicates that Mueller believed it was misleading), as I think this content is important, biographically significant, and does not take up much space. I do think we need to mention briefly somewhere that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was subsumed into the Mueller investigation, since we mention both investigations anyway. I am OK with the other trims you proposed. Neutrality^talk 22:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this continual argument that "this content...does not take up much space". This is an outsized article, but it could be reduced to a number of component parts which are quite small. Any trimming of this article must of necessity affect some of these component parts.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think anybody would disagree with that truism; it does not, however, help us address the merits of including, or excluding, any given content. In any case, I have proposed a shorter and better version below. Neutrality^talk 23:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• You have continually repeated this nonsense.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Neutrality: This was exactly the sort of complaint I was trying to address. If you look at the edit in terms of what I removed, then it does look like I removed Mueller's view that Trump's assessment of the report was misleading. However, looking at the version I retained, it can be seen that there still was a reference to Mueller's view of Trump's claims being misleading. There are things in the article that are repeated, and when I remove one instance, it shouldn't necessarily be seen as me removing it entirely from the article, when they are mentioned elsewhere. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

On March 22, 2019, Mueller concluded his investigation and gave his report to Attorney General William Barr. On March 24, Barr sent a four-page letter to Congress summarizing the "principal conclusions" in the report. He quoted Mueller as stating "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Barr further wrote that he and Rosenstein did not see sufficient evidence to prove obstruction of justice. Trump interpreted Mueller's report as a "complete exoneration," a phrase he repeated multiple times in the ensuing weeks. Mueller privately complained to Barr on March 27 that his summary did not accurately reflect what the report said, and some legal analysts called the Barr letter misleading.

• There were two serious problems with 123's cut. First, by removing the Barr/Mueller bit, it undermined the former carefully balanced NPOV treatment of the narrative. Second, it bundled that serious damage with the other less problematic removal in a single cut. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't remove Barr/Mueller, I only reduced it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

A better version, shortened and updated

I would propose the following change, which would both shorten content (~120 words to ~70 words) and would also update content (among other things, replacing "some legal analysts" with what a federal court subsequently said):

Current Version

On March 22, 2019, Mueller concluded his investigation and gave his report to Attorney General William Barr. On March 24, Barr sent a four-page letter to Congress summarizing the "principal conclusions" in the report. He quoted Mueller as stating "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Barr further wrote that he and Rosenstein did not see sufficient evidence to prove obstruction of justice. Trump interpreted Mueller's report as a "complete exoneration," a phrase he repeated multiple times in the ensuing weeks. Mueller privately complained to Barr on March 27 that his summary did not accurately reflect what the report said, and some legal analysts called the Barr letter misleading.

References

My Proposed Change and Update:

On March 22, 2019, Mueller concluded his investigation and gave his report to Attorney General William Barr. Two days later, Barr sent a letter to Congress purporting to summarize the report's main conclusions. A federal court, as well as Mueller himself, said Barr had mischaracterized the investigation's conclusions, confusing the public. Trump repeatedly and falsely claimed that the investigation "exonerated" him; in fact, the Mueller report expressly stated that it did not exonerate Trump.

References

--Neutrality^talk 23:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I support this version. Nice work. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Well done. SPECIFICO talk 04:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This version also has more references though, so it's not really a reduction in overall size. Unless this version would also replace more content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Refs don't count toward article size targets. (Refs/footnotes are not "readable prose"). This version decreases readable prose size substantially. Neutrality^talk 16:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not true; (per WP:ARTICLESIZE) there are several measures of article length, and this article is too long both in references/templates and prose. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe we need to mention Barr's letter. It was just a passing incident. It wasn't a major part of Trump's life.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

123, you are prioritizing length issues over core policies of V and NPOV. That is not how we approach artice content, and it's led to lots of bad edits, as well as (I imagine) lots of frustration for you when your cuts are reverted over and over and over on this and the Presidency article. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

We can prioritise all these issues at once. I have not only made edits addressing length, I have also made edits addressing NPOV. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

123, please look up the meaning of prioritize. It is the opposite of what you appear to be saying. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Support, Barr misrepresented along with Trump, and several others, so it’s a common thread, but Barr did it at a time when the public couldn’t verify. starship.paint (exalt) 10:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely keep Barr's letter. It totally influenced the public and congressional understanding of what was in the Mueller report, from which the actual report never recovered. It was very important in Trump's life, in that it basically made the Mueller report go away. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That is simply not true. Barr's letter led to a lot of controversy. What did you think was going to happen with the Mueller Report anyway?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, if it led to "a lot of controversy" - i.e., reporting, coverage - that's an argument to include it here. I agree with that. We reflect what sources cover. BTW the controversy arose after the real report came out and people realized how much Barr had whitewashed it. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You're just being contradictory.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Decidedly not 'just being contradictory'. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Has anything to do with Trump not been controversial? This so-called Barr letter doesn't rate high at all on the events of the last few years. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I support this version as an improvement over the original, but I think it should be condensed further, with the details (including the Barr letter) covered in sub-articles. For the main bio, the key points about the Mueller investigation are that it happened, its conclusions, its relationship with the first impeachment, and possibly Trump's false claims that it exonerated him... all of which could be handled in 1-2 sentences. The Mueller investigation was a big deal in Trump's life, but not the Barr letter. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The inappropriate removal of the Barr/Mueller bit is the premise of this thread. I think we're past reinstating its removal at this point. SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Per Levivich, this may be a marginal improvement but still contains details that aren't relevant to his life as a whole. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Mention Trump being the oldest president at the time?

William Henry Harrison and Reagan have their headlines and articles mention they were the oldest president at the time. Trump was older than either. Just because it was broken one term later by Biden does not change the fact that at the time, Trump was the oldest president ever elected. I feel that it is important to bring it up in the article, to acknowledge a historical fact, even if it was out dated. I mean, let's not forget that we were only roughly 120K votes from four states away from having a second term with him, and therefore him remaining the oldest president ever (probably for several decades). So let's not pretend like him losing the record was a foreseen conclusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.187.160 (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe it's mentioned somewhere. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of allegations that he was a Russian asset

An editor has removed all coverage of well-respected journalist Craig Unger's new book American Kompromat that detailed allegations that Trump was a Russian asset:

• "'The perfect target': Russia cultivated Trump as asset for 40 years – ex-KGB spy". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 January 2021.
• "KGB groomed Trump as an asset for 40 years, former Russian spy says". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 30 January 2021.
• Former KGB spy claims Trump has been wooed by Russia for decades (The Independent)
• Donald Trump war offenbar jahrzehntelang auf dem Radar des KGB (Der Spiegel)
• Donald Trump, un atout pour la Russie, repéré il y a 40 ans par le KGB (Le Point)
• (just examples; there are hundreds of articles about this)

This widely reported information clearly needs to be mentioned in this article. --Tataral (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

No, one allegation does not need to be reported - none of the articles you present actually show any credibility to the claim, they simply report on it for clickbait purposes and to get their ad revenue. That is not due weight for this article at this time, and I stand by my reversion of the addition of a very controversial/negative claim on a BLP before discussion on addition based on a few sources which are all based on the same book. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• (apologies for the edit that I just noticed was made, was using the beta edit conflict resolution tool and it was not clear that would be changed) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian and the other sources are regarded by Wikipedia as reliable sources of good quality, regardless of your personal views about their advertisements outlined above. --Tataral (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

And those sources all provide absolutely no commentary on it of their own. They merely quote the book/book's author. I wrote an essay about this "source laundering" where people try to use "reliable sources" to report what ultimately is unreliable information simply because it's been republished in a reliable source here. That may be useful to read. Regardless, an exceptional claim made by one person in one book that has not yet been confirmed or collaborated by any other sources is not due for this article whatsoever. I'll note I have no problem with sites advertising - they have to make money somehow. But one must remember (and Wikipedia guidelines even encourage us to consider) that not all webpages/pieces of information which originate from a reliable source's website are the same level of reliability. I'm not saying this can never be added. But "any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources" and right now you have one source - it's a book - duplicated a few times in other sources, but at its core, it's one source, and it's not even high quality at that. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not the only source that has raised this concern. It has been reported elsewhere since at least 2018. [12][13][14][15][16][17] SPECIFICO talk 14:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, Trump's suspected Russia ties really define his presidency, and we need a section that presents an overview of his suspected business ties to Russia over the last decades and long-standing suspicions that he is either a Russian asset or trying to curry favour with Putin for some reason. There is a large body of articles that in different ways discuss Trump's suspected business or other ties to Russia. Some other examples: [18][19][20] --Tataral (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Saying he’s a Russian “agent” requires multiple sources to lend credibility to these claims. While the claims have been reported in multiple sources, they have not been confirmed or validated by any of the sources you link to. Feel free to start an RfC or seek other editors opinions, but per WP:EXCEPTIONAL this should not be included unless multiple high quality sources have confirmed such an allegation. As BLP is an exception to edit warring/revert rules, you should expect it to be removed again unless you find sources that actually themselves claim he was a Russian agent, as opposed to just repeating what one or two books have said without actually saying the reliable source agrees with that information. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a content and sourcing issue, not a BLP problem. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Claiming Trump was a Russian asset sourced to two books one of which cites a KGB operative (not reliable for this) does not comply with WP:EXCEPTIONAL, no matter how many reliable sources simply repeat those courtrooms, unless the reliable source is saying “we verified this claim ourself” which none of them do. You’re right - this is a sourcing issue, and exceptional claims require multiple high quality sources, which you have not met. As such, it is a BLP issue until the sourcing is resolved. Feel free to start an RFC or wait for other editors input if you wish. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

1) Nobody has called him a Russian "agent", that is a pure strawman on your part. 2) This discussion is concerned with the need for a section on his suspected Russian business ties, that have received a ton of coverage over many years, and the claim that it's all based on that one new book is false. Many of the examples cited in this discussion predate that book. Since you unilaterally removed the whole section, it hasn't been possible to develop it further, but it should include more than just the material on that one book, e.g. material based on some of the other sources cited in this discussion by SPECIFICO. --Tataral (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPPUBLIC. Note that nobody proposes calling him a Russian agent in Wikivoice. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the removal per WP:NOTNEWS, since this is a recent book. While its publication was reported in mainstream media, we cannot yet know how accepted the views will become. My guess is that based on the author's record it won't. See for example, "These dots don't join up," (David Leigh, The Guardian 29 Jul 2004.) The article says Unger assembled a number of facts to imply a conspiracy about 911 that did not exist. TFD (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• I also agree with the removal. If we can't say it in wikivoice, it doesn't belong in the top-level article, it's not significant enough for inclusion. This is one allegation, it belongs as an attributed statement in the appropriate sub-article. I also agree with the NOTNEWS rationale for exclusion, plus, this is absolutely a WP:BLP concern, as "Trump was cultivated as a Russian asset for over 40 years and proved very willing to parrot anti-western propaganda" is a controversial statement about a living person. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with the removal. Such claims can not be based on a recent book writen by author with such low credibility, or on reports in media which only repeat what was written in this book (without giving any proof to such claims). Felix558 (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• I support removal. We already have the Muller Report saying there was no credible evidence of Russian collusion. One poorly backed allegation doesn't deserve this much coverage within the page Anon0098 (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  No. Mueller did not say that at all, according to his report and RS. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• I support removal per WP:NOTNEWS. Also, I have to say: this likely won't hold up. For anyone familiar with how Intel/the KGB worked.....this story is just preposterous. (At least as it is presented in these articles.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• I disagree with the removal. It should stay because if a POTUS has been cultivated for 40 years by the KGB, then that's definitely notable. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 21:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • User:Thanoscar21 - big if. The allegations are flimsy at best, from someone with a shady reputation, and haven’t been confirmed or otherwise corroborated by any other sources than the original book. This is a BLP violation to include at this point - and that’s been agreed by multiple other editors. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    Berchanhimez, we don't need to call him an asset in Wikivoice; we can call it a claim or an allegation; if the Guardian and the Independent report it, then it's not a tabloid-y thing. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    No, we can’t, based on a single source. The Guardian and Independent aren’t “reporting” it, they are “repeating it”. They haven’t independently verified it, and that’s clear by the tone of their articles. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    First, the book is not based on a single person's statements. Second, this has been a longstanding subject of concern in mainstream RS accounts, including documented concerns of top former US intelligence officials. We do not need to cite that particular book or allegation, but the subject more broadly treated and with fine sourcing does belong in this article. It's certainly no BLP violation to cite well sourced widespread public discussion of his strange behaviors, campaign associations, and funding relationships. SPECIFICO talk 22:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY it isn’t appropriate to even make insinuations about this topic without multiple high quality sources, as this is an extraordinary and negative claim about a living person. You are in the minority here and multiple others have agreed that it’s a BLP violation, at least as currently sourced. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    We have many top RS discussing the concerns of many intelligence experts. Also, the secondary coverage of the book is what matters. We have books about atomic fission by authors who have not themselves achieved it at home. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    And you’ll note that the article on atomic fusion does not mention these people who wrote quack books with false claims based on shoddy logic/evidence in it at all - which is the more accurate comparison. The secondary coverage of this book/claim is nonexistent - the articles referenced thus far are merely reporting on the books release, not lending any credibility or extra “source quality” to it. There’s also a difference between concerns and “proof” - concerns with no proof/evidence aren’t due weight for an article at all, and there’s no claims/concerns with any reputable evidence right now. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Five deaths resulted => This resulted in five deaths

"Five deaths resulted", in the intro, isn't (as far as I know, as a native English speaker) correct, but I don't have the permissions to change it! --BobEret (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@BobEret: I changed it to "five deaths occurred during the riot" but if you have anything better to suggest, especially if more concise, please do so. I didn't want to use the ambiguous "this" because the position in the sentence would refer to the storming, and the five deaths weren't all due to the storming but the general rioting that included the storming. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Anachronist: - your version is factually inaccurate. The policeman died in hospital the next day, not during the riot. starship.paint (exalt) 08:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You're right. I made another small change to make it more concise, as "during or as a result of" is sort of redundant. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Mention of the deaths was removed by @Onetwothreeip: in this edit, however I have restored it as there was no consensus to remove it. Vrrajkum (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Vrrajkum: We really do not need to say how many people died at a certain event on the lead of this article. It's far too much detail for a summary of what is supposed to be Donald Trump's entire life and presidency, and is also complicated to explain in this case. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Trump bears a high degree of responsibility for the deaths and they will likely be a central feature of his upcoming second impeachment trial; difficulties of explaining them aside, they merit inclusion in the lede for at least these reasons. Other editors are welcome to weigh in. Vrrajkum (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all how much responsibility he has for it, or its involvement in the impeachment. This is simply something which does not matter nearly enough to be included in the lead of this article. And before anybody misrepresents what I am saying, this is purely about the number of deaths at the event, not the event itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It is not suitable for the lead. We do not list the amount of deaths in the Iraq War in the lead of George W Bush's article. In this case, there is no strong connection to Trump. I think this should be reviewed after the outcome of the Senate trial.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel that the Iraq War is a valid analogy because war obviously implies that people will die. Deaths during an ostensibly "peaceful" protest, on the other hand, are more noteworthy. For the time being I have changed the exact number of "five" to read "several" instead, in line with the imprecise language "dozens of unsuccessful legal challenges" above it. Vrrajkum (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

North Korea

Given the incredible size of the article, I trimmed the North Korea subsection (a subsection of foreign policy) of some extraneous detail, which are also found in other articles, in this edit. It was reverted and should be restored. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I support the trimming. I also don't think the last sentence of this sentence is necessary, as it doesn't tell us anything, and has no direct relationship with Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump met Kim, wanting denuclearisation. It didn’t happen. That’s the relevance of the last sentence. starship.paint (exalt) 08:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm undecided on the last sentence, which is why I left it in the article. It should probably say something linked to Trump though, rather than leaving it as an implication. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Japan Times Trump’s diplomatic endeavors did not result in an elimination of the North Korean nuclear arsenal — contrary to his initial assertions, Pyongyang has continued to develop its weapons program Source makes the connection. starship.paint (exalt) 09:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The source might make the connection, but we don't. Saying that the talks broke down is sufficient. Clearly if North Korea did scrap its nukes, we would say that.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually I think the trimming is fine (assuming that WP:V has been followed because I haven’t checked). starship.paint (exalt) 08:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The cuts removed longstanding consensus text that conveys the substance of the two leaders' engagement, including Trump's pleasure at Kim's love letters. The cut was not NPOV. Also, these cuts are not "trims" when they change the meaning of the narratives. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

However long the text has been in the article is not an argument for its retention. I also checked to see if there was a consensus on this, and found there was none. "Love letters" does not convey substance and the proposed text very adequately summarises the warm relationship between Trump and Kim. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Please review our Policies and Guidelines regarding consensus and longstanding content. Yes, it is consensus text and you'll need to convince us all that WEIGHT, sourcing, or other factors have changed. Trump used the "love letter" bit, which was discussed here on talk, I believe. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read the guidelines you are talking about. Just because something may have been discussed, does not mean there is consensus for it. And no, nobody needs to "convince us all" about anything, ever. There plainly isn't any consensus text about North Korea for this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the trimming improves the article. Trump uses hyperbolic language, which if quoted verbatim can seem confusing. The wording implies that there was a sexual or romantic aspect to the relationship, which per WP:REDFLAG would require authoritative sources. TFD (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't convey a sexual relationship. It conveys the context and understanding Trump brought to this dire threat, identified by his predecessor as the top foreign policy challenge facing Trump. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Trump's own self-description of their correspondence implies a "sexual or romantic aspect." It does, however, importantly show that Trump sought to use "personal diplomacy" with Kim in one of his signature policy initiatives, which as it turned out was fruitless. Neutrality^talk 00:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"Love" can imply a romantic interest, which is an issue particularly for readers who are not familiar with the article subject. Per WP:ASTONISH, The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read. Do not use provocative language. Instead, offer information gently. Use consistent vocabulary in parts that are technical and difficult. To work out which parts of the sentence are going to be difficult for the reader, try to put yourself in the position of a reader hitherto uninformed on the subject. Trump's own words cannot be taken as accurately assessing anything. If we want to say he sought to use personal diplomacy, let's just say that instead of implying it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with those comments about the letters. I also think that the previous text put too much emphasis on the letters. The summits received much more media attention and were considered to be the main front in Trump's diplomacy.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The remaining text 27 letters in which the two men described a warm personal friendship covers it well enough (it still shows personal diplomacy... ultimately fruitless). "Love letters" is just another Trump hyperbole. starship.paint (exalt) 15:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we have enough support to restore the trimming, but I don't want to do that myself this soon, so can someone else do so? The discussion can still continue. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

No you don't have support to change longstanding consensus text. Trump is a masterful communicator and he chose to say love letter to characterize the relationship. We follow verified RS. ASTONISH has nothing to do with censoring verified content. Don't misappropriate guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 10:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• You certainly do not have consensus to make this challenged edit. Neutrality^talk 17:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It's only one person who is opposing the change, or two including Neutrality. By any definition, consensus favours the trimmed version over the previous version. It's not unanimous support, but that's not required. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Trimmed version is sufficient, no need to wax lyrical on "love letters". A "personal diplomacy" characterization is more neutral, let's resist playing into Trump's love for hyperbole. — JFG ^talk 15:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  Personal diplomacy is Kissinger and Reagan. This is not described as such in RS. Let's describe a zebra. It's a white horse. Those stripes are just an insignificant detail. SPECIFICO talk 18:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This is quite a baffling analogy, as zebras are most definitely not horses. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Bingo! Just as mainstream RS do not call Trump's Korean adventures diplomacy or foreign policy. His approach is described as reality TV or clowning and dereliction of duty in the face of a dangerous threat. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you are confusing your own opinions with "mainstream RS". There are many sources which call Trump's activities diplomacy.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay we get it, you don't like Donald Trump. If you seriously think that is what the article should say, make a bold edit or propose it. Otherwise it's just more WP:POV WP:NOTHERE. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support trim as an improvement over the previous. It could be improved further (the first thing that jumps out at me is that Time is a poor source for this, but there are others that could be used). I think I weakly support including the last sentence, at least for now. The point should be made, although I think a good objection is raised about the implied cause and effect. I think that's another area of future improvement. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support trim Using Trump's description "love letters" could be very confusing and misleading for those readers who don't know much about the two leaders' engagement. I also think characterizations like "personal diplomacy" or similar are much better here. The new version of the text after trimming is fine, it is shorter and clearer. Felix558 (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support trim with no major concerns with it. I also think that SPECIFICO, among others, needs to take a step back and remember that this article is too long, and is not a bulletin board of every potentially negative thing that can be possibly said about Trump - it is an encyclopedia article - not the place for people to vent about how bad they think he is. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

An alternative trimming

I have made an alternative cut, which substantially reduces size but, I think, retains the meaningful information. What do others think? MelanieN, any views? Neutrality^talk 18:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I applaud the effort and will review this. What did I trim that you think should be kept? Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Combining the first two sentences is certainly good. I tried to do that but was reverted.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Question

Why does trimming the North Korean section attract so much attention as opposed to the rest of the "Foreign policy" section???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

North Korea (Kim) is featured in the lede as one whole sentence, so obviously editors consider it important. starship.paint (exalt) 15:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Briefly mentioning "Patriot Party" in the Post-presidency section

Hello! Now that the "Patriot Party" article has been redirected here per the recent dicussion, the Post-presidency section should probably have, like, a single sentence mentioning the fact that Trump is considering starting and might possibly start a separate political party. Even though the party hasn't been officially proposed yet, Trump's considering of it has been reported on in agreed-to-be-reliable-sources, and has significant ramifications. While there doesn't need to be paragraphs about it, there should probably be ONE sentence about it. How about:

"Following alleged criticism from top Republicans, Trump discussed with his aides the possibility of starting a new political party called the 'Patriot Party'."

Or something brief like that. Any suggestions? Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Weak support I suppose there's nothing wrong with adding it. My only problem is that this is just speculation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

There's simply not enough to it, especially for this article which is far too large currently. It's also far too recent, and probably not something that anyone will think is important in ten years. Do we have any articles about Donald Trump about his political positions? Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You raise a good point, it probably shouldn't be added. I don't feel crossing my old response out, so just note I'm opposed to this motion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose even one sentence because we don't know yet if it is significant that Trump considered a third party. Other, newer, news reports said he's no longer considering it (links are in previous discussions of this). In any case, we should not include what someone thought about doing, based on news media reports that were later contradicted by other news media reports. This is what WP:NOTNEWS is all about... we shouldn't report the day-to-day play-by-play of Trump's life. A biography is not a diary. Suppose we had three not-news RSes, like three biography books about Trump, pure secondary sources, and all three mentioned Trump considered but rejected forming a new party, then I'd support including it. History books, for example, will write that a general or other national leader considered some course of action but ultimately rejected it; this sort of thing we should include. But it's just too soon to know whether this third party thing is significant enough for inclusion; we have to wait for the history books to be written; and that's the point of NOTNEWS. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons stated.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2021

I would suggest that you edit the Donald Trump page to state that he “served as” (not “was”) the 45th President, which would be in the same style as all the other presidents on your pages. Thank you. 2600:1700:8B32:2DA0:555A:4488:AEED:5599 (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Haha. It's pretty much an act of congress to change the lead. We can discuss it though. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This sentence is being discussed ad nauseam on this page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Why not change the other pages to "was" and do away with the silly, overly florid phrasing of "served as"? --Khajidha (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Khajidha: Oooor, better yet, we can change this one article to match literally every other one. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Why would we want to match bad writing?--Khajidha (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Saying that he "was the 45th president" is wrong grammar because he is permanently the 45th president, even if he passes away. PyroFloe (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Khajidha: Exactly. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

No, he isn't the 45th President anymore. He is the person who held the 45th Presidency, but that is over. Done with. Finished. Past tense. Thus, he WAS the 45th President. --Khajidha (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Early actions/Conflict of interest

There is a partial overlap between the last paragraph of "Early actions" and the first paragraph of "Conflict of interests". I tried to resolve this, but my edit was reverted. As it stands, the text is quite repetitive. I think there is potential to cut down the word count here without any loss of content.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Try cutting the weaker second mention. SPECIFICO talk 00:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The issue relates to "Conflict of interest" and so belongs under that heading, as far as I can see. There is no reason to discuss the management of Trump's businesses during the Presidency twice.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You made dozens of edits lately. It would help if you mentioned which edit and revert you are talking about. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not about a particular edit; it is about an overlap between two paragraph which is clearly explained.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight

"In August 2019 it was reported that a man who allegedly assaulted a minor for perceived disrespect toward the national anthem had cited Trump's rhetoric in his own defense." This sentence is undue weight, since this one incident is trivial in nature. Violates WP:NPOV and falls under WP:RECENTISM.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a summary source that also discusses the many other accused criminals who have cited Trump? That would address the concern. SPECIFICO talk 03:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Just check the next sentence. It talks about criminal cases supposedly from Trump inciting violence on a broader scale. This one case is trivial, and should be removed, especially since this is already an article that's too long. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, this is a "factoid" and should be removed. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Obvious remove. Even if there wasn't already anything in the article about Trump inciting violence generally, silly things like this need to be removed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It's a minor incident with a trivial connection to Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree on removal - it was probably notable at the time, and seemed to be a rare occurrence, but it's been overshadowed by more serious events since then. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You made dozens of edits lately. It would help if you mentioned which edit and revert you are talking about. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is in reference to the following sentence,"In August 2019 it was reported that a man who allegedly assaulted a minor for perceived disrespect toward the national anthem had cited Trump's rhetoric in his own defense." Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Public profile

Does this really need to exist? The content could be folded into other relevant sections, resulting in a significant size reduction. Most of it is in fact about the Presidency, and it is misleading to mix in stuff that isn't related to the Presidency. And some content definitely should be elsewhere, such as the Access Hollywood tape, which was an event in the 2016 campaign. MOS:BLPCHRONO says biographies should be presented in chronological order, so this is a major violation. A lot of the material here seems designed to prove a point and takes a sledgehammer approach. There is a lot of detail here which is really unnecessary and repeats information better presented elsewhere.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump's public profile didn't begin or end with his presidency/candidacy. Only the Approval ratings subsection deals exclusively with the presidency. The others deal with events before and during the presidency, with later events likely to follow. The Access Hollywood tape, for example, was aired during the campaign but it's about Trump the person, not Trump the candidate or Trump the president. And the 26 women who accused Trump of sexual misconduct came forward during his presidency, but the alleged incidents didn't occur during the presidency. MOS:BLPCHRONO also says except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Very fine people on both sides

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: This edit of yours is not reliably sourced. One source is an uncommented transcript of the Trump press conference (good luck to anyone trying to parse that), the other one is an opinion by a right-wing opinion writer who thinks his pick of Trump quotes proves something different. The sentence about "very fine people on both sides" isn’t WP speaking, it’s citing RS. I could add more RS but that would be overciting. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, the edit was reliably sourced. One source was from USA Today and the other is Politifact, which are credible under WP:RSP. [21], the Politifact source yes does have the transcript, but that's not all it says, you missed a crucial part at the end when they rated the "very fine people on both sides" comment as "Full context is needed", which is the same as saying the comment is out of context. As for the USA Today source, yes the writer is right-wing, but WP:NPOV says that biased sources aren't inherently unreliable. Also, there are a crap ton of sources on this article that are written by liberals, so if we followed this no biased writers rule, we probably wouldn't have much of an article. Here's another source, [22], while not under WP:RSP, it does appear credible and is affiliated with the Annenberg Public Policy Center, that also says the comments were out of context. Overall, the comments have been taken out of context for political reasons, and for Wikipedia to pander to this lie is a text book example of NPOV being violated. I'm really not sure why this is a controversial thing. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

trump security

It needs to be in the article that as all past presidents he will have security on him for the rest of his life..the cost and the details of protecting him are relevant 00:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)107.217.84.95 (talk)

The cost of secret service is not relevant to this article, all presidents get protection past presidency, it's simply not notable for an already lengthy article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Good article nomination?

Since this is a B-Class article, and its subject is certainly notable (a former president of the United States), I was wondering if there was support for a good article nomination? Since I am not a major contributor, and therefore unable to nominate it by myself, I was wondering what the consensus is for a potential nomination. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would strongly oppose this being a good article. It is too long and biased. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Can you give an example as to the article's supposed bias? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Politicsfan4: There are a lot of examples. Go a couple discussions above and you'll see a discussion I started combatting undue weight in a sentence. That's just one, I plan on starting many more. Also this article is too long. It's simply not a good article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'd oppose, as long as the lead says .."was the 45th president...", instead of .."served as the 45th president...". GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Good luck working to get this article good, because it will take a long time for the controversy surrounding the former president to finally adequately die down and therefore for the edits to stabilize. FreeMediaKid! 03:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• No. The article is too long; it shouldn't be considered until it drops below 350KB or there's consensus here it cannot be trimmed further. It's also likely to be constantly updated, at least until the impeachment trial is done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• No. The article is too long. The article is biased and basically being stymied by cyborg SAPs who are obsessed with Russia. The article ignores the presumption of innocence. The article has a structure which violates WP guidelines and is completely illogical. The article neglects the first 70 years of Trump's life. This article features minor incidents and distorts major ones. No, no, no. If this article becomes a good article, I will be forced to abandon Wikipedia editorship and move to Baluchistan. Don't make me do it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)