Talk:Donald Trump

Current consensus

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

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

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

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: should we add a wiki-link to article subsection President Trump's statements on the Unite the Right rally?

Should we add this this wiki-link to the first two words (Trump's comments) of the below paragraph in Donald Trump#Racial views? starship.paint (exalt) 08:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters.

• Option A (proposed change) Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, condemning "this egregious display...

• Option B (status quo) Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, condemning "this egregious display...

We've had discussions with differing views so I thought it should be settled thus. starship.paint (exalt) 08:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Option A - the focus of the paragraph is Trump's statements, so we should wiki-link "Trump's comments" to the 3,000+ words "Trump's statements" subsection of the Unite the Right rally article. If readers click the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia link, they will either need to read through 9,000+ prior words to get to "Trump's statements", or they will need to find the 26th to 30th subsections out of 45 subsections'. Why make life hard for readers? Retain the link to the rally for those interested in the big picture, and add a specific link to his statements for those focused on Trump. starship.paint (exalt) 08:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

No, they don't need to read through 9,000+ prior words to get to "Trump's statements", or they will need to find the 26th to 30th subsections out of 45 subsections'. They just need to look at the table of contents. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a large table of contents and they wouldn't try to find something in it if they didn't know it was there. The very benign wikilink would direct the reader to the detailed discussion about Trump's comment. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Abstain. I don't think it has a significant impact one way or another. ––FormalDude talk 08:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• i.e. the status quo, longstanding article text reflecting Option B? SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• No. I have no strong feelings one way or the other. The day I start arguing over stuff like this is the day I stop editing Wikipedia. ––FormalDude talk 05:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• I expressed a similar reaction to this RfC in the discussion section below. Just saying here that without affirmative consensus to change or add the section link, the status quo Option B will remain. It's very unfortunate that this issue was elevated to an RfC, but I do think it is important to reject that model of escalating a failed proposal. SPECIFICO talk 06:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Option B. The link to 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia is more helpful to because it provides context for readers not familiar with or even aware of the events (nazi salutes and imagery, racist and antisemitic chants, armed militia groups, a vehicular homicide). We don't need a direct link to the subsection on Trump's statements since this article quotes the comments that were widely critized, and we cite the sources with the details of the criticism. Also, I took a long look at the comment's section which turned out to be a shaggy dog story kind of collection of everything anybody ever said about anything, including Bannon getting fired on August 18, on the heels of an American Prospect interview, in which he mockingly downplayed Trump's threats of military action on North Korea, and put down his administration colleagues and the far-right, which White House aides felt would likely provoke Trump. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees—serves to confuse readers rather than give further information. That's not a subsection we should be linking to (subsection to the "Reactions" section). I was trying hard to assume good faith but I got the impression that the purpose of all that verbiage is to hide the forest. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option C If we link to his comments section, why do we need to link to the rally as well?Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option A The proposed wikilink informs the reader of a Wikipedia section that is a detailed discussion of Trump's remarks about the rally. All we need to do is take what is already in the text, "Trump's comments", and make it a wikilink, "Trump's comments". Bob K31416 (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option B Per the consensus already reached in the talk thread prior to this RfC, a reader wishing further content about Trump's remarks will need to understand further context as to issues and events surrounding and at the rally. Cutting to the garbled and isolated subsection proposed in Option A provides no such critical information. Further per my comment in the discussion section below, I think this is an abominable misuse of the RfC process, which uses lots of editor resources and should be reserved for significant intractible disputes. SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option B, two wikilinks to the same article even in the same article, let alone in the same sentence, is redundant and discouraged. The article linked to already contains the section for any interested reader to view. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option A, Trump's remarks are a significant and distinctive aspect of the Unite the Right rally article. The remarks are significant enough that they would arguably merita a stand-alone article. Adding the link would allow the reader direct access to the discussion on the remarks, without having to read the earlier part of the article. Pakbelang (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option A - It would make sense to me that a link outgoing from the Donald Trump article would go to the relevant section about his statements about the rally. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• @PraiseVivec: Its not that simple. The issue is not his comment in isolation. It is how he described the rally, its participants, and the actions and events therein. This context is not within the narrow section link, which would be a whitewash (yes) of his messaging around the event. Btw, if you will read that section, you'll see it is not well written. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC) Repair @PraiseVivec:19:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Trump's five statements are discussed in that section and there is an intro that was recently added by Space4Time3Continuum2x. In fact, Space4Time3Continuum2x started working on that section after this RFC started and has made a considerable number of additions and changes. As is now and before, when the reader goes to click on the link to the section, they see a popup that is a preview of the whole article replete with a picture of people carrying Confederate and Nazi flags. And the wikilink to the article is in the same sentence. There's no whitewash as you say. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Option B - it seems extremely redundant to have both links go to the same article, especially when this is additionally filled with extra inline references as well. This appears to be putting far to much WP:WEIGHT on this issue. TiggerJay (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option B Linking to the same place twice within the same article is redundant and encroaches into the realm of "overlinking" WP:OVERLINKWritethisway (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option A - Firstly, this kind of a petty thing to have a RfC on, I agree with FormalDude that this is pretty insignificant. There are really two arguments against the inclusion of the comments link: that we shouldn't change longstanding text and it's redundant. MOS:REPEATLINK states duplicating links should be avoided; however, I don't see this really as a duplicate link since the go to different places, just within the same article. The Unite the Right Rally is a big article and IMO it would be helpful to readers to pinpoint Trumps comments and provide a general link in case their unfamiliar with the event. I understand that this is changing longstanding text, but I doubt any discussion before would be a powerful enough precedent to override this RfC's consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option B It just seems very redundant to have two links in the same sentence for the same article. Mgasparin (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option A - It's an "ease of finding information" link. I don't see how it lends extra weight, it just seems to be an accessibility thing here. Fieari (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option B - link to Trump's comments, aren't required. GoodDay (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• @Bob K31416, Slatersteven, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and SPECIFICO: - participated in Donald Trump#Very fine people, see above. starship.paint (exalt) 08:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• @FormalDude, GoodDay, and Firefangledfeathers: - participated in Donald Trump#Very fine people, see above. starship.paint (exalt) 08:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• @TFD and Pakbelang: - participated in Donald Trump#Very fine people, see above. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Abort trivial redundant RfC - We can't have RfC's for every little edit based on one editor's apparent obsession with a minor content issue. At most, @Starship.paint: if you think it needs closure, file a "request for closure". The issiue has been more than sufficiently discussed already and a compromise solution implemented by SpaceX. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  (1) There's more support beyond Bob. (2) I don't feel there was a consensus in the above discussion. (3) Obviously I feel that the compromise solution is not good enough. starship.paint (exalt) 15:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Your (1) is false. We already knew your other points (2) and (3). You did not address my two larger objective concerns. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  How can (1) be false when I support the change? That’s more than Bob already. starship.paint (exalt) 00:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  Adding two sources is not a compromise. The purpose of Wikipedia is to take information from sources and organize it for readers to be informed, not just supply a few sources. The section of the wikilink Trump's comments" does this with many references. There were 30 sources in the first subsection alone. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, I meant that getting rid of your "statements" link and keeping the contextualizing rally link is the valid compromise. SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  By statements link do you mean the proposal of this RFC? Then that's not a compromise. It's just denying the proposal. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• I stand corrected, I did not realize that the page link was longstanding consensus text. But now that you've pointed that out, everyone can see that there was no affirmative consensus to change the longstanding text and you should have given up this tempest in a teapot long ago. SPECIFICO talk 22:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Do as you wish. I've grown fatigued with the continuing content disputes at this bio article. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Re Seraphimblade's comment, "The article linked to already contains the section for any interested reader to view." — Without a link to the section with a detailed discussion of Trump's comment, the reader would most likely not know about the section. Another editor noted, "If readers click the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia link, they will either need to read through 9,000+ prior words to get to "Trump's statements", or they will need to find the 26th to 30th subsections out of 45 subsections'.[1] And they wouldn't try to find a section that they didn't know existed. Bob K31416 (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

they will either need to read through 9,000+ prior words to get to "Trump's statements", or they will need to find the 26th to 30th subsections out of 45 subsections' That's why articles have tables of content. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

They wouldn't try to find a section in the large table of contents if that they didn't know it existed. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: WTH? Kindly move my edit back to where you found it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: Kindly move my edit back as well.I hope the irony is not lost on you about readers not knowing where to find pertinent text. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Please note that at Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#Challenged_change_of_subsection_heading_"President_Trump's_statements", Space4Time3Continuum2x and Specifico are trying to change the heading of the subject section, in which case links to the section that were made in the RFC, survey and discussion won't work. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

This RfC is about linking to the subsection. If the heading of the subsection is modified and if the consensus of the RfC is to link to the heading, we can change the link to Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, condemning "this egregious display—the text doesn't look any different. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC) @Starship.paint: Or you could change the link in Option A now? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The heading change would disrupt the discussion here where the link is used in various places. The heading has been in the article over there for four years. It would take awhile to regain stability if it was changed and the links here would have to be changed each time the heading may be changed. Why can't you wait until after this RFC is over to try to change it? Bob K31416 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The heading change can be accomplished with no disruption using Template:Anchor. I added one at that article so "#President Trump's statements" links still work. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Well done! I accept that. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The original section heading change by Space4Time3Continuum2x that broke the wikilink discussed in this RFC, caused a disruption of this RFC, which is now back on track. Space4Time3Continuum2x is currently working on that section and I hope there isn't any more disruption as a result. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Feathers. I didn't know about anchors. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I've done about as much as I can to improve the article in this respect. It's taken a lot of my time and it's time for me to leave. I hope the RFC gets consensus. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Biased article

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

---

after reading the article if concluded that it seems quite biased please read it over and fix mistakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junger04 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Which mistakes? Everything is cited from reliable sources. - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Please point out these biases & mistakes, in order for any of us to fix. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The "bias" is that we follow reality instead of the pronouncements of Cheetoh Jesus. Duh. --Khajidha (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I Agree. Pages like this do suffer from heavy liberal bias. However, any attempts to change this result in reversion and scolding. Dswitz10734 (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

So point out what we say that is wrong?Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Please ping me when you reply. What about the national BLM riots? In the George Floyd Protests article, one of the causes is listed as "inequality and racism", and another "lack of police accountability", the latter being referenced by Politico, a known left-wing news outlet. When I attempted to add 'alleged' before the inequality and racism part, I was reverted and addressed on my talk page. Dswitz10734 (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It's human nature to be biased. Consider yourself among the elite if you can set your biases aside and edit objectively. Try to make an objective edit and don't worry about being reverted. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding examples of bias, there are lies by omission. No where in the article is there mention that Trump's daughter Ivanka converted to judaism and married an orthodox jew, yet there are implications in the article that Trump is racist. Also omitted from the article are Trump's condemnation of racists. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

What does his daughter's marriage have to do with his being racist or not? I know a lot of people in interfaith or interracial relationships whose parents are EXTREMELY bigoted. And clarifying that "no, I didn't really mean to say that the KKK were fine people" isn't really a condemnation of racism. --Khajidha (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You can also be a racist, and not hate Jews [[2]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." Bob K31416 (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

"After a public uproar, he disavowed Duke and the Klan".Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This very brief mention of "disavowed" is not condemnation as in Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists. Here's an excerpt from Trump's comments reported in that article,

"Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."

There's nothing like this in the Wikipedia article. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

There is now.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Re your edit [3], the 2016 election campaign is not when Trump said it. He said it in 2017 after he became president and regarding Charlottesville. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

That is the only mention of the Klan in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

When you added 2017, it's still out of place there in the section Pre-presidential political career., is incorrectly connected with another statement, and is limited to the KKK. Trump's comment is appropriate for the 5th paragraph of the section Racial views. I tried that before in various forms and it didn't get anywhere. It doesn't look like this is going anywhere either, so that's the end of it for me. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The reason this article reads biased does not lie within the scope of this talk page. Our job is to interpret "reliable sources" and apply appropriate weight, and I think we do a relatively decent job at it, mostly. The bias your seeing comes from the fact that we have no conservative sources listed as reliable. Like Fox News is a major news publication with literal seats in the White House press room, yet it's not a reliable source for Wikipedia. This means we never get a true balance. There really isn't an objective way in which a source is decided to be reliable or not, its pretty much just votes from editors, which are usually biased to the left. This leads to pretty much only liberal sources being considered "reliable sources". It's that which leads to the appearance of bias; therefore, in reality the bias is not in this article, but in this article. However, I see my job as an editor as to follow community consensus and precedent, and I remain as neutral as I can. Right now, consensus is to have no conservative sources, I will faithfully and without reservation follow that consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is that WP does not consider Fox a "conservative" source. It's deemed to be a fan fiction source. That is why it was tagged not Reliable. SPECIFICO talk 12:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

RSN has deemed Fox to not be reliable. If you disagree with that take it up at RSN. By the way, it is not just "vote from editors", we have to demonstrate making stuff up.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that "conservative" has come to be a code word for "blindly following the mad ramblings of a wanna be dictator". Any source that speaks out against Trump is immediately labelled "not really conservative" by him and his followers, regardless of what politics that source supports.--Khajidha (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I notice that FactCheck.org is not listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. One of their articles was Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

And?Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Junger04: If you can get CNN to shut up about Donald Trump for a whole month? I'd be grateful to ya. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

"WP does not consider Fox a "conservative" source. It's deemed to be a fan fiction source." I would object to that. Fan fiction has literary merits and offers alternative interpretations of established characters. Faux News is just a propaganda machine masquerading as a news source. Dimadick (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I think everyones commentary here, for example, regarding Fox News is why Wikipedia remains biased. I'm not an idiot, I know the consensus does not explicitly say Fox News is a "conservative" source, but when nearly every conservative source is deprecated it's a big problem . I don't think Fox is anymore "fan fiction" for the right than MSNBC and CNN are for the left. For example, CNN literally settled a multi-million dollar suit with Nick Sandmann for defamation against him because they were trying to propagate the Trump supporters are racist and bad notion. Every source is biased and every source reports misinformation sometimes—Fox, CNN, and MSNBC are not excluded. The truth is we hold Fox and other conservative sources to a standard not on the same level as liberal source. This is why Wikipedia has practically lost all credibility on the question of neutrality. This liberal bias is something that is not a secret or disputed anywhere outside of Wikipedia; there was literally a Harvard study confirming Wikipedia is biased to the left, its documented even in our own "reliable sources".[4][5] Until this source thing is fixed, Wikipedia will never be considered neutral on political topics. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like you should not be continuing to beat your head against the wall by editing politics-related pages on Wikipedia. I don't see anyone calling you an idiot here, so that bit was not constructive. SPECIFICO talk 03:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I never said anyone called me an idiot. I apologize if it came across as unconstructive. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

It was never really meant to be constructive, it was just the same, tired screed about literal media and the Wikipedia. Zaathras (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

If you disagree with the notion that Wikipedia is biased to the left then you must also disagree with the Washington Post analysis and Harvard Business Review study on this very topic. If you do believe them, you should actively be trying to fix Wikipedia's ideological biases to try an ensure WP:NPOV. Now, if you deny these RS, then you may have a problem with following reliable sources, which certainly could be problematic from an editors standpoint. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Just because the project may be, does not mean any one page is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Could you give links to the analysis and study? Bob K31416 (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC) I now see there were links in your message of 03:45, 13 November 2021. [6][7] Bob K31416 (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I just read the WaPo article you linked and it does not say that Wikipedia is biased to the left. It says that Wikipedia is biased towards covering males and politicians from wealthy countries, which is not news. This is known. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Check out the other article. [8] Bob K31416 (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. They cite WP:BREITBART, a deprecated source. That's not credible. Nor is Larry Sanger. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

From the article,

• A Harvard study found Wikipedia articles are more left-wing than Encyclopedia Britannica.
• Another paper from the same Harvard researchers found left-wing editors are more active and partisan on the site.

Bob K31416 (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That same author, Shane Greenstein, also says that people who edit this site more moderate their views more.[9] This issue is more complex than saying "Wikipedia biased to the left". And besides, none of this has anything to do with improving this specific page. Discussions about bias on Wikipedia belong elsewhere, not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Understanding bias in Wikipedia is useful in understanding bias in the part of Wikipedia that is here. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you name any instances of bias in this article? Looking through this thread, you mentioned the lack of mention that Ivanka converted to Judaism as having something to do with allegations of Trump being racist, even though the two are unrelated, and the David Duke / KKK episode that you said you were letting go. What else? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to rehash what I've already said, the examples etc., which differs from your characterization. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That's quite the op-ed. Everybody has biases, aka views and beliefs. Good journalism takes that into consideration (and sometimes bends over backwards to give equal time/coverage—see Hillary's emails versus Trump coverage). Fox News doesn't—see Seth Rich. Other sources report misinformation sometimes (unintentional, editors asleep at the wheel), Fox News disinforms (intentional, whatever—as long as it supports their preferred view). Due to contingency fee arrangements and a system where both parties are responsible for their own legal fees, claimants sue big companies for huge sums, betting on a jury of—uh—peers or a settlement for an amount that's relatively small change to the big company. Per CNN: The settlement will allow CNN to avoid a lengthy and potentially unpredictable trial. I've watched all those videos on the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation. IMO, the later reporting was as biased against Phillips (too flawed, not heroic enough, or something) as the earlier reporting may have been against Sandmann. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC) The All Sides blog you cite has some terrific sources: sashi and ExoticBeast on Wikipediocracy, and a Breitbart article citing a The Critic article citing the Harvard study and then saying bias is proven by WP deprecating sources like Breitbart, Epoch Times, InfoWars, Gateway Pundit, OAN, but not CounterPunch, AlterNet, and Daily Kos. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. ––Formal ^talk 08:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that. Thanks, that was overdue since that edit at 01:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

If ya'll believe or don't believe that this article, Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's articles are being given equal treatment? Then there must be some place else on this project, to have that discussion. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Can an admin please close this off-topic discussion that hasn't resulted in any content? Bob K31416 keeps reverting my closure. ––FormalDude ^talk 18:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • El C is an uninvolved admin who could oblige. Or is MelanieN around? Or Liz? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
    • It's an appropriate discussion and Muboshgu is continuing to participate in it, which is inconsistent. Let it wind down on its own, otherwise it's suppression of the topic of bias in Wikipedia and in this article, which may be making some editors uncomfortable. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Indeed, it is quite uncomfortable for me to have my watchlist cluttered with endless comments on Talk:Donald Trump that have nothing to do with Donald Trump. If you want to complain about Wikipedia's supposed biases, why don't you do so on a more appropriate page, such as Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia? Kleinpecan (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

        I pointed out examples of bias in this article and another editor brought up bias in Wikipedia which I thought was useful. With yours and other comments this is turning into a long discussion about closing this section instead of the topic of this section. If you want the section to end, let the discussion wind down on its own. This will be my last comment on the subject of closing this discussion. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I have tried to engage with you here on this. When it didn't look like anything would happen, I suggested uninvolved admins who could close this. Then you and I started engaging in some dialog, that you closed off when I asked for where you see bias in this article and you said I'm not going to rehash what I've already said leaving us at an impasse. We all have biases. This is not the place to address bias in general. This is the place to address bias on this specific article. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Another example of bias is being discussed in the section below #Russian Bounties claims. What was left out of the article was any mention that the claims were questionable.[10] Bob K31416 (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

We can hat this general Wikipedia discussion, a strange flurry in a couple of hours, and continue with the discussion directly about this article, such as the above example of bias in the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)}}

Huh? Do not hat my edit. See Response to claims of bias. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I see this all over Wikipedia: People trying to shut down conversation s and block people because it puts them out of their comfort zone. TheeFactChecker (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

People need to read wp:soapbox and wp:npa, and stop with the assumptions of bad faith.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not assumptions. It is reality. If the co-founder of Wikipedia is saying it, there has to be a lot of weight to that argument. TheeFactChecker (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

No there isn't. He has had no involvement in Wikipedia for years, to the point that he doesn't understand Wikipedia's core policies. He has no weight more here than any other editor would, if he showed up. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a violation of policy, both wp:npa and wp:talk. This page is not about wikipedia, its policies or its users. So stop.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Concerning US political articles, you might be more accurate suggesting a pro-moderate/corporate Democratic bias. But, what do you want me to do about it? I'm only one editor. I can't stop something 'negative' being put into 'this' bio's article or Bernie Sanders' bios, any more then I can stop something negative being barred from Joe Biden's or Barack Obama's article. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Larry Singer's opinion does carry a lot of weight as he has a far better understanding of how Wikipedia operates than the average user. How Wikipedia operates specifically affects this page as in the various sections highlighted by Bob et al. TheeFactChecker (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

TheeFactChecker, Larry Sanger left Wikipedia in 2002. He has no understanding of how things have changed in the last 19 years. Now WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop going off topic. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to this article and this article only. This is not the place to discuss bias in general. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I am merely agreeing with the points made by Bob et al. By removing the biases from this article, it will greatly improve it. TheeFactChecker (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Good luck. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Considering that Sanger has become a typical rightwing conspiritard complaining about muh liberals, "the left", Big Media, Big Pharma, vaccines, and other nonsense all the time, I would like to disagree with your claim that his opinion "does carry a lot of weight". Kleinpecan (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's vote on ending this discussion which has gone from "this article is biased" to "Wikipedia is biased". Shall we end this discussion?

• Yes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• No TheeFactChecker (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes with great obviousness. This discussion section has nothing to do with editing issues of this article, it has turned into a general tirade against "bias" by "TheeFactChecker" and "Bob K". TBH, an ANI filing against these 2 for disruption is long overdue. Zaathras (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. The discussion hasn't been on topic for 8 days. I wasn't involved but just read it, unfortunately. Teammm ^talk
  _email 03:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Clearly this section is going nowhere. The right way to do this is going on in other sections, like where editors are discussing the Russian bounty program and its place in this article. Create a section for each individual issue and keep it focused there, don't create a section to complain about bias in generalities. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Clear violation of talk page guidelines. ––FormalDude ^talk 03:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

No need for a vote, I am taking it to page closer requests, it is blatant soapboxing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Someone has just done it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

---

I had hatted the objectionable discussion [11] but it was unhatted by an editor who was paradoxically against the same discussion that they unhatted.

As a reminder, here's my last message.

• Another example of bias is being discussed in the section below #Russian Bounties claims. What was left out of the article was any mention that the claims were questionable.[12]

Bob K31416 (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

then-wife

"At least twenty-six women have publicly accused Trump of sexual misconduct as of September 2020, including his then-wife Ivana." President Trump has not been married to Ivana for 29 years. It is difficult to understand what that sentence is conveying.Easeltine (talk) 07:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Easeltine: I've changed it to "ex-wife." ––Formal ^talk 07:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I assume "then-wife" was supposed to convey that she accused him of having raped her while they were married—something to do with a scalp reduction to remove a bald spot on his dome. Ivana recommended her plastic surgeon who botched the job, Trump got mad and took it out on Ivana, allegedly. She retracted and got a hefty divorce settlement or was supposed to get it, but the bankruptcies got in the way. (It's been a loooong six years since 2015.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: - see above - your change now fails to describe that she accused him when they were married, in fact it seems to imply the opposite - that she accused him after they divorced. starship.paint (exalt) 06:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I've often found the "then-" prefex to be un-needed. The time period should dictate the usage. For example: "In 1951, US President Harry S. Truman, went for a walk", which reads correctly. Where's "In 1951, then-US President Harry S. Truman, went for a walk", just reads odd. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• I removed the Ivana bit altogether since she withdrew the allegation in 2015 (source). I don't think it's due weight. ––Formal ^talk 06:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I should have specified that she disavowed the term "rape" when Hurt's book was published in 1993 and then described the incident as having "marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage." She didn't walk back how she had described the incident earlier, i.e., that he threw her on the bed, yanked out her hair, ripped off her clothes, and had "marital relations" with her. The publisher pasted her statement on the flyleaf of the book, preceded by a notice to the reader saying that the "statement by Ivana Trump does not contradict or invalidate any information contained in this book, and it is included here only to give full expression to differing points of view on an important event." ( I have a "First Edition"—three bucks, used.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Amazon has a preview of the Kindle edition. If you scroll down, you get the full description of the liposuction, head-shrinking, medical-grade tattooing, and the marital relations. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I like the current wording. ––Formal ^talk 22:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think then-wife might be the best phrasing. Ex-wife isn't precise enough in getting the point across that they were married at the time; it leaves a certain degree of ambiguity. While I agree with GoodDay's assertion that the "then-" suffix is usually un-needed, in some specific cases, such as this one, it conveys a meaning. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "Then" is factually incorrect as she wasn't his wife then (September 2020). If it were saying that he was accused in 19XX (don't remember the exact year) by his then-wife, that would be correct. --Khajidha (talk) 12:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

    @Khajidha: The wording of the sentence has been changed from "As of September 2020" to "Since the 1970s". I still think "then-wife" is confusing. If there really needs to be clarification we could say "wife at the time". ––FormalDude ^talk 12:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

    Both "then-wife" and "wife at the time" have the same problem. You have to mention the actual time in question. If ether were to be added to the current formulation, the mention of "since the 1970's" would imply that she was his wife during that entire time. In either case you would need to say something like what I said above. "Since the 1970s, at least twenty-six women, including an accusation in 19__ by his then-wife Ivana". --Khajidha (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

She was married to Trump from 1977 to 1990. The "marital relations" happened in late October or early November 1989, Ivana mentioned the incident during the divorce proceedings, and the divorce was granted in December 1990 "in a hearing at which State Supreme Court Justice Phyllis Gangel-Jacob cited cruel and inhuman treatment by Mr. Trump as grounds for granting Mrs. Trump's divorce plea." She was his wife in 1989 and 1990, so "then-wife" applies in either case. I don't really see the necessity for adding an accusation in 19__ by to the sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC) We don't really need As of the 1970s, either. If any other women come forward, we can change the number. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Since the time period is specified as "since the 1970s", the phrase "then-wife" means that she was his wife during the entire time from the 1970s until the source was written. The source was written in 2020. As she was no longer married to Trump after 1990, she cannot be described as his "then-wife" for that time period. What you appear to try to be saying is that Ivana made the accusations while she was his wife. But that is not what was written. --Khajidha (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't quite follow your reasoning but decided to remove the term and, while I was at it, the year and the first name, and simply leave At least twenty-six women, including his first wife, have publicly accused ..., just the bare bones for his top biography. In the first sentence we say "has a history" without specifying a time period. I don't think it's necessary to specify a time period here, either, and the name of the first wife is mentioned in the infobox and the "Family" section. Using the first name feels a bit condescending to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Post-presidency activity to lede

What do you all think of any of the post-presidency content being mentioned in the lead? Considering the fact that it has it's own section, I feel it at least warrants a sentence or two in like the last lead paragraph under WP:DUE. I made an edit not too long ago mentioning how he has remained politically active including holding rallies and making endorsements, but it was reverted. Just thought a discussion might come up with some ideas. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: For reference, this diff was Iamreallygoodatchecker's edit to the lede:

  Following his presidency, Trump has remained politically involved, including holding rallies and endorsing political candidates.

  ––FormalDude ^talk 05:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that edit I was to lazy yesterday to find. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'd support adding something that mentions that Trump is still politically active, and possibly the fact that he is the current 2024 republican frontrunner too. ––FormalDude ^talk 05:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Something like the original edit or the actual edit looks OK, with something along the lines of the following excerpt from the post-presidency section,"Since leaving the presidency, Trump has been the subject of several probes into both his business dealings and his actions during the presidency." Bob K31416 (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Any mention would need to desctribe the unconventional form of his continuing political activity. SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• I wouldn't bother adding anything, until he announces his bid for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Right now, it's just CNN continuing their obsessive coverage of him. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think there is anything that needs to be noted at the moment. 2024 is a fair way away.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• I think we're good for now. It's been less than 10 months since Trump left office. Other former POTUSes build presidential libraries and podcast with Springsteen, Trump's on a golden-oldies tour for his fans, getting his adulation fix for playing his greatest "stolen election, deep state, socialist, CRT" hits and telling the fans to vote for the candidates who have most sucked up to him. He doesn't appear to spend PAC money on them, so that's the kind of support any popular influencer on social media gives, and he hasn't declared his candidacy, so we don't know what he's hoarding the money for (legal fees, pay for venues (maybe, eventually) and plane rentals?). Current RS coverage of Trump is mostly about more information being uncovered about his term in office. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Necessary unnecessary wording

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, your two edits (removing the comma and deleting "many as") changed the meaning of Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic. The consensus (item 51) was to add a sentence stating that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. The options were two separate sentences or a compound sentence with a FANBOY coordinating conjunction. I chose the latter and then removed some words from the second sentence that were not necessary for it to be understood (see ellipsis) because two sentences starting with Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as were rather clunky. Your removal of the comma and the two additional words turned the compound sentence into a simple one stating that his comments/actions were racially charged/racist and misogynistic which was the case sometimes but not always. BTW, weren't you one of the editors opposed to combining racism and misogyny in the same sentence ? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yea that's my mistake; grammar is not my favorite subject. I don't recall what I advocated for in an earlier discussion, but it doesn't make much of a difference to me if it's a separate sentence or a compound sentence. I think it's good the way it is now. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

U.S.–Russian relations, Igor Danchenko

This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "Please gain consensus on talk. These do not appear to be NPOV improvements." I believe the sources are reliable and per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP they should remain in the article.

The proposed text:

According to Russian President Vladimir Putin and some political experts and diplomats, the U.S.–Russian relations, which were already at the lowest level since the end of the Cold War, have further deteriorated since Trump took office in January 2017.

Trump has repeatedly praised and rarely criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin, but has opposed some actions of the Russian government. Trump imposed sanctions on Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany. In 2017, Trump signed the legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia; in 2018, however, the Trump administration lifted some U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia after its 2014 annexation of Crimea. Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7 and never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan.

In November 2021, Igor Danchenko, a Russian analyst who was a primary source behind the 2016 Steele dossier of allegations against Donald Trump, was arrested in connection with the John Durham investigation and was charged with five counts of making false statements to the FBI on five different occasions (between March 2017 and November 2017) regarding the sources of material he provided for the Steele dossier.

Reflist
References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Danchenko (third paragraph). Oppose including the material. The page doesn't mention the Steele dossier, Danchenko, or the Durham investigation. The dossier wasn't the reason the FBI started the investigation into possible Trump-Russia links, it was Australian officials reporting to U.S. officials what drunk Trump advisor Papadopoulos had said to an Australian diplomat at a London bar.

Putin said (first paragraph). Oppose including the material. The headline of the paywalled first Independent article (item 1 of your reflist) is misleading. Quote, courtesy of the Wayback Machine: The Kremlin continues to make a distinction between the president and his administration. Trump, by and large, is still viewed positively; he caused a breakdown in US politics, and that, for Moscow, can only a good thing. I didn't see the "political experts and diplomats" mentioned in items 1–3, just Putin and ambassador Antonov complaining.

Sanctions, etc. (second paragraph). Oppose proposed material. "Lifted some sanctions" is white-washing of what happened, for example leaving sanctions in place against Oleg Deripaska, who then officially transferred control of his companies to relatives and puppets, and lifting the sanctions against said companies. I haven't gone through most of the sources yet, I'll get back to this at a later time.

Sources.

• Item 10 is a paywalled Kenyan newspaper which begins with What you need to know: President Trump claimed that the Russian interference did not affect the result of the 2016 race. He said the US would counteract any election meddling. I'm guessing you didn't look at the article on the Wayback Machine where you get to read a little bit more that just the title.
• Item 18 is a piece from the National Review. It mostly slams "media outlets across the country" and Democrats and then mentions selected bits from a long NBC article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Putin and Trump shaking hands at the G20 Osaka summit, June 2019

Foreign policy – Russia: Current version:

Trump has repeatedly praised and rarely criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin, but has opposed some actions of the Russian government. The Trump administration lifted the toughest sanctions the U.S. had imposed on Russian entities after its 2014 annexation of Crimea. Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7 and never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan.

Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, citing alleged Russian non-compliance. After he met Putin at the Helsinki Summit in July 2018, Trump drew bipartisan criticism for accepting Putin's denial of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, rather than accepting the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies.

Reflist
References

Trump met with Russian President Putin at the 2019 G20 Osaka summit

Foreign policy – Russia: Proposed version:

Trump has repeatedly praised and rarely criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin, but has opposed some actions of the Russian government. Trump imposed sanctions on Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany. In 2017, Trump signed the legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia; in 2018, however, the Trump administration lifted the toughest sanctions the U.S. had imposed on Russian entities after its 2014 annexation of Crimea. Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7.

Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, citing alleged Russian non-compliance. After he met Putin at the Helsinki Summit in July 2018, Trump drew bipartisan criticism for accepting Putin's denial of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, rather than accepting the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies.

Reflist
References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Continuing my objections from above.

Trump imposed sanctions on Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany. Oppose including sentence. Your BBC source says the the sanctions target firms building Nord Stream 2. In 2019, Trump signed the defense bill that imposed sanctions on companies installing deep sea pipelines (engaged in pipe-laying at a time when the pipeline was almost completed. The targeted firms were mostly from the EU. Your Reuters source says that in January 2021 Trump vetoed the defense bill imposing further sanctions. Congress imposed sanctions, not Trump.

Image. The image of Trump and Putin shaking hands and looking deep into each other's eyes was part of a photo-op for news media, taken by the WH photographer and released by the WH. The handshake was the photo most often used and debated in the press. Why exchange it for something bland? Less bromancy? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

––Nord Stream 2:

• Euractiv, July 11, 2018 –– "US President Donald Trump launched a strong verbal attack on Germany on Wednesday (11 July) for its support to the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, aimed at bringing more Russian gas to Germany under the Baltic Sea. Trump said Germany was paying “billions and billions of dollars” to Russia, “the country that we are supposed to be protecting you against”, adding that NATO had to look into this. This is not the first time Trump has taken aim at Nord Stream 2. On 17 May, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump is demanding that Germany drop Nord Stream 2 as one of the conditions for a trade deal with Europe that would not include high tariffs on steel and aluminium."[13]
• Deutsche Welle, December 21, 2019 –– "Berlin and Brussels have criticized White House sanctions against companies involved in building a Russian natural gas pipeline to Germany. They accused President Trump of interfering in national and bloc sovereignty."[14]
• Financial Times, January 10, 2021 –– "Donald Trump administration’s decision to impose sanctions against the pipeline, while also promoting exports of its own gas to Europe, sparked intense arguments over Europe’s right to choose its own energy supplies and broader commercial relations with the US. Those sanctions have delayed the pipeline beyond its initial planned opening date of mid-2020, and forced Gazprom to adjust its approach to accommodate for the loss of foreign contractors, while Washington has vowed to keep imposing restrictions necessary to block its completion or usage. New US sanctions passed this month also apply to companies who insure and certify the pipe-laying operations, further complicating Gazprom’s efforts."[15]
• Reuters, January 13, 2021 –– "The State Department reached out to companies after Jan. 1, alerting them to the new sanctions risk after the Senate overrode a Trump veto of a massive defense bill that contained punitive measures on the pipeline, the spokesperson said. The Trump administration opposes Nord Stream 2, which would deprive Ukraine of lucrative transit fees, saying it would increase Russia’s economic and political leverage over Europe."[16]
• Reuters, January 19, 2021 –– "The U.S. Treasury Department said it imposed the sanctions on the Russian pipe-laying ship “Fortuna” and its owner, KVT-RUS, under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). The State Department said it would consider further actions in the near term, under CAATSA and under new sanctions expanded in the annual defense policy bill."[17]
• The Hill, May 21, 2021 –– "The Biden administration’s rationale appears to be that President Trump treated major ally Germany roughly, so we should give Germany what it wants — Nord Stream 2. Trump, the alleged pro-Russian president, fought the Nord Stream 2 pipeline throughout his presidency; in that, he, like Biden, enjoyed the strong backing of the U.S. Senate."[18]

-- Tobby72 (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for hatting the reflists but this section with zero input from other editors was taking over the Talk page. As for the six additional sources, four of them deal with the sanctions imposed contrary to Trump's veto in January 2021. The other two don't mention any sanctions against Russian entities, just Trump's general verbal attacks on Germany, and a Swiss company announcing the suspension of its pipe-laying activities hours after the sanctions were signed into law. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Trump's veto of the annual National Defense Authorization Act had nothing to do with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. According to Forbes, "President Trump vetoed the legislation on December 23 after weeks of insisting he would do so because it includes no provision to repeal Section 230, which effectively gives tech giants like Alphabet and Facebook a shield against liability for the actions and words of private citizens on their platforms."[19] Trump imposed new sanctions on Nord Stream 2 in January 2021. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

According to the NYT, the U.S. will impose sanctions on a Russian-owned ship involved in the construction of an undersea pipeline... The sanctions ... are the first action the United States has taken against the project. No other sanctions against Gazprom or any other Russian entities were ever taken. There were only threats of "secondary sanctions" against companies doing business with Russia and Gazprom, and at least one of those companies terminated their involvement with the project. Here's some information on the ship's owner per a German webpage,

Translation

According to the Russian international shipping register, the Fortuna pipeline-laying vessel changed hands from one micro-enterprise to another. The change comes amid widening US sanctions against the construction of the pipeline. Germany had previously allowed the ship to complete the work to complete the laying of Nord Stream 2. According to RBK, until October it was owned by Hong Kong Strategic Mileage, then Universal Transport Group, and now it's KVT-Rus. The exact date of the change of ownership is not given in the register. KVT-Rus is a Moscow-based company registered on the Register of Small and Medium Enterprises. In 2019 the company had no income, the cash balance was 1,000 rubles. The company employs one person - the general director and founder Sergei Malkov. It is only known that he runs ZAO JV Aeroprima - the company is registered at the same address as KVT-Rus. On December 10th, 2020 KVT-Rus switched its core business from "Wholesale of sanitary and heating products" to "Providing transport services". The secondary business "Manufacture of other pumps and compressors" changed to "Activities in sea freight transport". Maria Schagina, sanctions expert at the University of Zurich, suspects that the owner maneuvers are part of a complex scheme to shield the former owners from the sanctions. "It is possible that it has something to do with the desire to cover up the trail before Joe Biden's government takes control of the sanctions," she told RBK. On December 11, the US Senate approved the draft defense budget for 2021, which provides for the expansion of restrictive measures against Nord Stream 2. The State Department said the United States will continue to impose sanctions on Nord Stream 2 until the project stops. per Bloomberg and per a German webpage

and per Bloomberg—"incorporated 2/21/2021". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed version 2:

Trump has repeatedly praised and rarely criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin, but has opposed some actions of the Russian government. Trump opposed the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. In 2017, Trump signed the legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia; in 2018, however, the Trump administration "water[ed] down the toughest penalties the U.S. had imposed on Russian entities" after its 2014 annexation of Crimea. Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7.

Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, citing alleged Russian non-compliance. After he met Putin at the Helsinki Summit in July 2018, Trump drew bipartisan criticism for accepting Putin's denial of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, rather than accepting the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies.

Reflist
References

-Tobby72 (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC Russian Bounties claims

Should the article continue to include that Trump "never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan"? Firefangledfeathers 14:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Until my comment above (an attempt at a 'brief, neutral statement'), the top comment in this discussion was OgamD218's, just below. Firefangledfeathers 14:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Certain editors have insisted on retaining this content : that Trump "never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan." This wording fails to accurately convey the information and gives that section of the article an overly critical tone and the impression of bias. Trump maintained from the onset that allegations of Russia putting bounties on American soldiers fighting in Afghanistan were patently false. In fact from day one Trump referred to such claims as a "hoax". The citation this content uses barely touches the subject but is from the final days of Trump's presidency. Unlike many other instances where Trump labeled events fake news just bc he didn't like it-initial reports on the bounty subject admitted intelligence was not yet conclusive; as time has gone on there has only been increased reason to doubt the truthfulness of these claims. Trump never backed down from his original stance on the issue. Even still, Russia may have put bounties on American soldiers but the criticism, without relevant context, that Trump never confronted Putin on this issue is nonsensical as it implies it would or should be expected for him to "confront", a foreign head of state, over unverified claims he committed acts of war even though he publicly referred to such claims as untrue in the strongest terms. OgamD218 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• The December 2020 AP source used for the item was about hacking and didn't even have a full sentence about the bounties. An April 2021 AP article, after Biden was in office, was devoted to the bounties subject, White House: Intel on Russian ‘bounties’ on US troops shaky. The item in the first AP article and Wikipedia is misleading, especially by not mentioning that the bounty subject is based on questionable intelligence. Bob K31416 (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC) Delete the text. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this should be included. It isn't clear that the Russian bounties existed.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Support including the disputed text. This source sums up my thoughts: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/u-s-officials-say-intel-russian-bounties-was-less-conclusive-n1233199. ––FormalDude ^talk 09:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: I read that article, though it brings up some important and certainly relevant points I honestly don't see how it stands to prop up your position that we should include this specific content. If anything this source bolsters the ambiguity around the validity of the bounty claim and even states Trump has long called it a hoax. I ask again, why insist on retaining wording critical of Trump for not calling out Putin for something Trump did not even believe to be real? OgamD218 (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Since then, Ken Dilainian of NBC has revisited the subject: "While he was campaigning for president, Joe Biden treated as fact that U.S. intel agencies had determined Russia had paid the Taliban to kill Americans in Afghanistan....Such a definitive statement was questionable even then. On Thursday, it became more clear that the truth of the matter is unresolved."[20]

FormalDude, do you know if Biden has asked Putin about it? Maybe Putin can ask him if the moon landing was faked and where Obama was actually born.

TFD (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

"Biden raised the subject of the reported bounties on U.S. troops during his first call with Putin on Jan. 26, the White House said at the time. No mention of the topic was revealed by the White House after their latest call on Tuesday.

Defense officials and military commanders repeatedly said that the reports of bounties had not been corroborated by defense intelligence agencies and that they were not convinced the reports were credible. They also said they didn’t believe any bounties resulted in U.S. military deaths."[21]

Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - As the source claims the story is disputed. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC

• Oppose removing the text. Whether or not you call the alleged offers of payment bounty, incentives, or financial transfers and whether or not they resulted in actual casualties, it was still Trump’s responsibility as president and commander in chief to ensure the safety of the troops and to bring the alleged threats up in one of his "chummy chats" with Putin. O’Brien said that Trump was not briefed on the matter (the AP source BobK mentioned), while Haspel said he was (see hatted quote).

Hatting long quote

The suggestion of a Russian bounty program began, another source directly familiar with the matter said, with a raid by CIA paramilitary officers that captured Taliban documents describing Russian payments. Taliban detainee told the CIA such a program existed, the source said, although the term "bounty" was never used. Later, the CIA was able to document financial transfers between Russian military intelligence and the Taliban, and establish there had been travel by key Russian officers to Afghanistan and by relevant Taliban figures to Russia. That intelligence was reviewed by CIA Director Gina Haspel and placed in Trump's daily intelligence briefing book earlier this year, officials have said. The source described the intelligence as compelling, but meriting further investigation. Nonetheless, current and former U.S. officials have said, many CIA officers and analysts came to believe a bounty program existed. They concluded that the Russians viewed it as a proportional response to the U.S. arming of Ukrainian units fighting Russian forces in Crimea, the source said.

A sitting president not reading his intelligence briefings—if you believe that’s what happened—is dereliction of duty, not an excuse. Military commanders not changing their force protection posture in Afghanistan at the time—it’s not as if anyone was cavorting around the countryside sightseeing, shopping for souvenirs, and enjoying the local cuisine. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

All one has to do is read the article linked to in the above message [22] to see that the above message is a misrepresentation of that article. And by the way, editors should not express their personal opinions or advocacy regarding Trump. That's a symptom of bias. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. We don't want to know what some Wikipedia editor thinks Trump should have done. He certainly didn't have a duty to bring up every intelligence report with Putin.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - It's UNDUE. Please see WP:ONUS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. "The intelligence was based on notoriously unreliable “detainee reporting,” the official said on the call, meaning that it came from militants looking to get out of jail."[23] -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Retain text This narrative was well-covered by sources at the time, the subsequent and routine denials by the former administration do not really matter. Zaathras (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I agree that an RfC is a good idea here. The downside of a simple conversion from discussion to RfC is that the original post is not a "brief, neutral statement" as required by WP:RFCOPEN. While we're in the early stages, OgamD218, could you rephrase your opening comment? You might choose to copy your original below so later readers can reference what others were responding to. I'd suggest something simple like:

Should the article continue to include that Trump "never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan"?

Firefangledfeathers 13:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Being aware of the neutrality expectation, I would have preferred a different opening as well. I weighed this vs the appearance of being disingenuous and misleading as to how this post started, proceeded and got where we are now. I'll also admit to having somewhat limited experience in this area as well. If you think that that is how it is best to proceed then by all means. I personally see no issue. OgamD218 (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so would I be wrong to conclude that unless more editors weigh in within the next 24 hours then the consensus here is that the content should be removed? OgamD218 (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@OgamD218: You removed the text without even waiting for your 24 hours to elapse. There is no consensus above to remove the text. Please self-revert your removal. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I waited longer than 24 hours actually? OgamD218 (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

My mistake -- mobile edit glitch. But there are two more important problems. First, having reviewed this as an uninvolved editor, I see no consensus to remove in the above thread. Second, you have no standing to impose a deadline for others to respond further. Also, this having been a US holiday, there was little reason to think that any editor would take the time to reiterate views already clearly expressed above. Please continue to present your views on the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, there's no consensus to keep it. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt but I'm struggling to see how you honestly should be recognized as an "uninvolved editor" vs an editor very much on one side of trying to pass as independent. If I had in fact fact failed to wait the full 24 hours I think you'd be in the right, except I had, despite the mistake being on you, you chose instead to skip responding here and revert the change anyway=giving the impression you were going to find an excuse to do so regardless. But maybe I am wrong, it is easy to misinterpret one's motivation (we're editing the page for Donald Trump); it seems to me that the consensus is clear, 5 editors favor removal, 3 oppose removal/wish to retain. After almost 4 days of no other editors weighing I posted, *in the form of a question, that I would go ahead unless more editors contributed in 24 hours-at which time this discussion would be a week old, with all involved editors no longer posting/debating having voiced their respective positions for 5 days or more ago. After 24 hours, no other editors weighed, yes in light of the American holiday I waited an additional 16 hours-nothing changed. The only new posts to have been from you, who unilaterally reverted the change discussed here without discussion/under questionable circumstances. Another editor, @GoodDay: who has been involved in this thread since the beginning also weighed in agreeing that this should be removed, @Bob K31416 and Bob K31416:, who has also been involved from the beginning restored the agreed upon change. @Zaathras:, another involved editor, reverted-though and once again this is troubling, did not comment any further, instead putting in their edit summary let the debate continue-though they themselves did not continue debating or say/do anything else including post here or take advantage of or even object to the extended to 24 hour window. This was all hours ago and still no more editors have weighed in leaving the consensus still in favor of removal. Notably, no editor accepted my invitation to suggest even new wording. The debate has been had, I remain fully open to more debate but as the situation stands, the debate is over, a majority favor removing the text, editors that do not agree with this should at the very least take greater initiative than stubbornly insisting that this drag out just because they don't like the result. OgamD218 (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I had no participation in anything related to this issue, nor having reviewed it do I have any opinion as to the content or sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: I didn't make any edit on this topic, that was reverted. I think you meant Bob. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: sorry my mistake, thank you for letting me know, I just corrected it. OgamD218 (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Today you did participate, and your participation has been far from token. Yes, had you reviewed it then you would have been made aware that a consensus was reached. I say again, it is at the very least suspect that you go around thinking of reasons to retain content that you apparently had neither reviewed nor have an opinion on. OgamD218 (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• I just replaced the AP cite, which only mentioned the alleged bounties in a half-sentence, with a Politico article that discusses all aspects of the matter. I also replaced "confronted" with "brought up". It doesn't matter whether or not Russia had a bounty program or whether the alleged program resulted in American death's and/or payouts. Our sentence merely said that Trump "never confronted Putin over [Russia's] alleged bounties against American soldiers". I haven't seen any sources saying that he shouldn't have discussed the matter with Putin. The officials quoted in the sources merely said that the low to moderate certainty of the intelligency intelligence community did not warrant any military or other punitive actions. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I certainly have to disagree: It does matter whether or not Russia had a bounty program, it also matters whether or not the alleged program resulted in American death's and/or payouts for killings. With that said I’m not sure if these changes are at all substantial enough to matter as far as a significant enough change to overcome the consensus that the material should be removed but at least we’re making some progress. OgamD218 (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove this content. SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I just added Trump not discussing Russian support for the Taliban to the article, with the NBC source FormalDude mentioned here some days ago. Another instance where Trump argued that he wasn't briefed/informed and that he didn't bring it up with Putin because "we did it too". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't belong here. Barack Obama and Joe Biden, by the way, never brought up Iran's and China's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan with Xi Jinping and Iranian leaders nor their support of the Taliban with weapons, supplies, money, and propaganda.[24],[25] It's UNDUE and BLP violation. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

That's whataboutism, Toby. If you have an editing suggestion for the Barack Obama or Joe Biden articles, then make them at Talk:Barack Obama or Talk:Joe Biden, respectively. Zaathras (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Tobby72, your reversion has already been reverted but I'd still like to know where you see synth and blp in [Russia's] support of the Taliban with weapons, supplies, money, and propaganda. Please explain. As for Iran's and China's alleged bounties, where's your source on China? One of your two Iran sources, CNN, is about the 2016 "not-a-ransom money-for-prisoners" swap (Iranian money the U.S. had kept—possibly illegally—since the ouster of the Shah) and doesn't mention Afghanistan or the Taliban. If you think the 2010 allegations of Iranian payments for attacks on Americans (your NBC source) should be added to Obama's page, then that's the place to discuss it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the 2010 allegations of Iranian bounties should be added to Obama's page, per WP:ONUS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. As for Iran's and China's alleged bounties, see[26],[27]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal - the existence of these bounties are disputed. Saying that he never spoke to Putin about it creates a balance issue because it doesn't provide appropriate context. It might be ok to say that Trump denied the existence of these bounties and didn't mention it to Putin, but saying he just didn't ask him like he was just bad at his job is a WP:NPOV concern. As this text reads now remove it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, per others. Seems to be an attempt to soften the edges of some of the former administration's controversies, but the sources still exist to cover this, then as now. ValarianB (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Tally

It seems this situation has largely stagnated with very little momentum favoring a change in the content and almost all participating editors having by now only made clear their stance on whether or not the original sentence merits inclusion. This is the tally I am able to discern since the thread began 10 days ago. Please let me know if I make any errors.

In order of when each editor gave their position :

@Bob K31416: Favors removal/opposes retaining (1)

@Jack Upland: Favors removal/opposes retaining (2)

@FormalDude:: Opposes removal/favors retaining [1]

@The Four Deuces: Favors removal/opposes retaining (3)

@GoodDay: Favors removal/opposes retaining (4)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Opposes removal/favors retaining [2]

@Tobby72: Favors removal/opposes retaining (5)

@Zaathras: Opposes removal/favors retaining [3]

I also favor removal/oppose retaining the referenced content in its present form. (6)

By my count, this brings the tally to 6 editors in favor of removal/oppose retaining vs 3 editors in opposition to removal/in favor of retaining. I have pinged all involved in hopes that if anybody notices a material mistake in this summary it will be duly noted. New editors are obviously still welcome to weigh in but seeing as none have in over a week, if if no one does so soon, this needs to be closed. OgamD218 (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I see no consensus to remove this so I oppose removal. It is adequately sourced and significant. Note, it will not be up to you, Ogam, to determine the resolution of your own proposal. SPECIFICO talk 03:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Should be removed. Whether or not it will be, isn't my decision to make. GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Nor mine, but yes, erase that mistake (per the 70%). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@OgamD21:Just as a note, this hasn't been opened as an RfC, so there is no official expectation for a closure. If one is desired it can be requested at WP:RFCL, which would probably be for the best, either that or actually tagging it as an RfC which it has effectively become. BSMRD (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

This should really be an RfC in order to get sufficient community input. ––FormalDude ^talk 06:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@BSMRD:, @FormalDude:, I agree. I was attempting to resolve this less formally and without too much contentious back and forth or edit warring but it does not seem to be working out. From the beginning I've attempted to maximize input and to be clear I never acted as though I had final say in resolving this (unlike SPECIFICO, who not keeps lying and making up reasons to stop an edit that they don't like from being made, despite a firm majority of involved editors agreeing should be.) A clear majority of editors have agreed with me from the beginning and despite that fact I did not leap at the opportunity to have my way. OgamD218 (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Get off combat footing

Much of this article was written and edited when Trump was campaigning for President or was serving as President. Much of it has a combative stance to Trump in its language, structure, and emphasis. Let's say that's OK. But Trump is not the president any more. The text is simply dated. We now include a ranking of Trump as President. Can the article now be moulded towards a description of the Trump presidency (and everything else), not just a hard-hitting series of points about where Trump was wrong, failed, or fell short?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• This comment lacks any specifics of what you want to change and why. As a result, it's not very useful. Neutrality^talk 04:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• We don't engage in historical revisionism here. Instead we document the flow of history, and thus the POV and spirit of the RS as they spoke at the time. Newer events and evaluations may be described differently, so that content may sound differently,....or it may not. -- Valjean (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• I mean, that goes both ways; large parts of this article are a result of extensive compromises and back-and-forth related to the underlying political schisms, relying heavily on contemporary news reports that often tried to reserve judgement. Now that Trump's no longer president, we can take a longer view... and that view, according to the best sources, is that, as you referenced, Trump is broadly ranked as one of the worst presidents in American history. Stripped of the compromises and equivocation that were a product of that particular political moment, the article itself in many places naturally going look like a series of failures and a broad description of how its subject fell far short of the expectations that his job put on him. That's the current historical consensus; that's what a neutral descriptor of the Trump presidency based on the best currently-available sources will actually look like. Our articles shouldn't pass judgment, but they should dispassionately summarize the consensus of reliable sources, even when that consensus puts the subject in a starkly negative light; and the consensus of reliable sources on the Trump presidency is that it failed and fell short. That is the neutral, dispassionate description of the Trump presidency you're looking for. Trying to put our thumb on the scale and make it look better would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Aquillion (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Very well put. It is important that we frequently place dates in the text so readers get a feeling for the historical context of the subject matter. With time, more information and evaluations will shed more and maybe different light on previously added (and never removed) content. Although Trump has few redeeming character qualities, and a leopard cannot change its spots, the later judgments of some of his actions may well be softer. A defective clock is still right twice a day. We have seen this happen with other presidents and historical figures, so let's keep writing his history, keeping in mind that this is not paper. RS change their views, and so must we, but we must always remain "behind the curve". -- Valjean (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think the opening message makes a good point. Unfortunately, although the 2020 presidential election is over and there is no reason for a biased presentation in that regard, there are still the upcoming congressional and 2024 presidential elections, so that there is reason for some editors to continue to campaign against Trump. The anti-Trump sentiment here is very strong and it's very difficult for an NPOV editor to bring this article into balance. Personally, it's taking too much of my time. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Personally, it's taking too much of my time is an odd statement, considering you have made nearly 100 edits to this talk page in a little over a month. ValarianB (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Bob, don't make it sound like it's our fault that RS have a POV that we are REQUIRED to document accurately. That's NPOV editing. Two presidents have the fates of being at the top and bottom of the best and worst presidents lists because that's the "nature of the beast", and it is not our fault that TFG just happens to be rated the worst. It's his own fault; he is not the victim of a witchhunt, although he's a wimp who loves to play victim. RS document why he's the worst, and in turn it's our job to document all that without interference, neutralizing or censorship. I deal with that in my essay here: Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content#Censorship and whitewashing. BTW, that essay deals with what you call "an NPOV editor". That's an admirable goal to strive toward, just like it would be nice to be unbiased (in the bad "uninformed" bias sense), but I hope you aren't claiming you have arrived. -- Valjean (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• It's not the RS fault, it's what's being left out of the article that is in the RS. I gave various examples previously and I can repeat the last one, since a corresponding edit is currently under discussion. What I said was, "Another example of bias is being discussed in the section below #Russian Bounties claims. What was left out of the article was any mention that the claims were questionable.[28]" And if you want to discuss that further, go down to the section. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It's in the # Jack, to be more precise the # of editors. Open up an RFC on any matter you wish in relation to NPOV & it's likely not going to end in anyway, accept no consensus, leading to keeping the status quo. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

NPOV relates to sources. Are we not reflecting them neutrally? starship.paint (exalt) 05:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Just giving my 16 years of Wikipedia experience, concerning such matters across this project. I'm just one editor, so the content of this or any other BLP article, isn't entirely in my hands. GoodDay (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @GoodDay:, but can you answer the question...???--Jack Upland (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Your proposals aren't likely to pass. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

NPOV is even more about editorial behavior. Read my essay at WP:NEUTRALEDITOR. -- Valjean (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"Can the article now be moulded towards a description of the Trump presidency" The article is already overly focused on his presidency, to the detriment of almost every other aspect. The main article on his term is Presidency of Donald Trump, not the bio article. Dimadick (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Dimadick. This is the biography of a man who has long been famous and is now 75 years old. Of course, his presidency (and his campaign for it and his response to losing re-election) is by far the most important factor in his importance to history. And, we have articles discussing in great detail, various aspects of his presidency.

The current version of this overall biography devotes too little attention to his involvement with golf courses, professional wrestling, casinos and his numerous failed business ventures for decades. This article should be summarize his entire life and career, and should not over-emphasize the most recent six years of a 75 year life. Cullen328 (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, I agree. Much of the presidency content should be removed from here and moved to that article, ensuring that none is lost in the process. We need to follow WP:Summary style more carefully. -- Valjean (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I still wonder, if Pamela S. Karlan avoids walking by Trump Tower in NYC. GoodDay (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

G'day. Relevance?--Jack Upland (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a touch a humour to the conversation & highlighting the emotions & reactions Trump caused in people. He & Bernie Sanders, sure didn't have any friends on CNN or definitely MSNBC news. Feel free to 'hat', if you feel this doesn't add anything to the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

(Cullen328) I agree that the article should include his presidency and everything else, as I said originally.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I was asked for specifics, but all I can give is examples:

• Trump met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un but made no progress on denuclearization. Neither did any other president.
• The emoluments lawsuits were a failed attempt to remove Trump. Why mention them here? They are mentioned in other articles, but have no real significance to Trump's life.
• Lafayette Square: it has its own article, but it's not a major part of Trump's life.
• Protests: why mention them in the introduction? They didn't lead anywhere.
• Losing the popular vote: why mention this in the introduction? He won the election according to the rules. This makes Wikipedians sound like bad losers. Nothing can be done about this result. It's part of history.
• While conducting no nuclear tests since 2017, North Korea continued to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. This isn't known for certain, but, in any case, what has it got to do with Trump's life? The writer clearly doesn't know what "ballistic" means, but gee it sounds cool!
• Five weeks before the November 2020 election, Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Eight days before the election, after 60 million Americans had already voted, Senate Republicans confirmed Barrett to the Supreme Court without any Democratic votes. Many observers strongly criticized the confirmation, arguing that it was a gross violation of the precedent Republicans set in 2016. Sure, this was a talking point at the time, but is it really that important in Trump's life?
• The impeachment trial was the first in U.S. history without witness testimony. This isn't precisely true, as Clinton's impeachment trial had no live witnesses. This seems more about making a point, rather than presenting history accurately. Also, does this really belong in this article? It is really a testament to how the impeachment process has developed (or rather degenerated) over time.

Sure, these were all burning issues at the time, but will they still be burning issues in 10 years time? Will Trump go down in history with Stormy Daniels? I fear this article will be a museum piece of liberal angst and forgotten dreams.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• (1 and 6) Meeting Kim was a key part of Trump's presidency and hence, his life. Making no progress, or lack of progress, is what resulted, that's important. (3) Lafayette Square was a key part of Trump's presidency and hence, his life. (7) Nominating ACB was a key part of his presidential legacy, and thus, his life. (8) Clinton's trial had closed-door depositions. Trump's didn't. starship.paint (exalt) 02:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's an excerpt from the section Donald Trump#Early life. The excerpt starts with an item not from his early life and continues with a disproportionate amount of attention to the draft. All said, it takes up about half of the space in the Early life section.

In 2015, Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen threatened Trump's colleges, high school, and the College Board with legal action if they released Trump's academic records.[9] While in college, Trump obtained four student draft deferments.[10] In 1966, he was deemed fit for military service based upon a medical examination, and in July 1968 a local draft board classified him as eligible to serve.[11] In October 1968, he was classified 1-Y, a conditional medical deferment,[12] and in 1972, he was reclassified 4-F due to bone spurs, permanently disqualifying him from service.[13][14]

This can be fixed by replacing it with the text: "Trump was deferred from the military draft." And retain the given sources. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Take up the matter with what the sources have said extensively about the topic over the years. ValarianB (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

And how does that convey in 2015, Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen threatened Trump's colleges, high school, and the College Board with legal action if they released Trump's academic records. ? SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I used to think that the military draft shouldn't be mentioned, but now I see that is a "rite of passage" (if that is the right term) for US Presidents and aspirants. Some communities might be concerned if a person is circumcised, can grow a beard etc etc, but for US Presidents, the question is did they go to Vietnam and, if not, why not? How Trump won his spurs (or otherwise), is of vital importance to all red-blooded Americans. The release of his medical and academic records over the coming years will no doubt be akin to release of the Nixon tapes in previous years.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I can see that regarding the draft item. The item regarding a 2015 action by Trump's lawyer about not releasing school records is out of place in the Early life section. It's an action in Trump's later life. Also, the schools said it was unnecessary because they don't release records to the public and acknowledged that it was against the law to do so. Here's the 2019 NY Times source for the item: Michael Cohen Says Trump Told Him to Threaten Schools Not to Release Grades Bob K31416 (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the "time warp" in this article is problematic. The Vietnam issue was not very troublesome for the Don for most of his career, any more than it was for Sly Stallone. Unlike in WW2, it was normal (and to some extent accepted) that a HUGE slab of the eligible population did not go, "dodged the draft" (whatever that means), or even actively protested in a foreign land. (Note: there is no evidence that Stallone protested against the war - as far as I know.) But I digress. The point is that this kerfuffle did not haunt the Don in his early life at all, but only came to the fore when he emerged as "President Evil" (or a candidate for that exalted office), at which time it was heaped together with his many crimes, misdemeanours, and alleged naughtiness by the muckrakers of the press. Of course, I don't include Wikipedia editors in this for I know - nay trust - that every single editor of this page has fought and died for his/her/their country in a uniform - or is a foreigner. Peace to all!--Jack Upland (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Please review our article on Calvin Coolidge and other long ago presidents. They are replete with detail you might not consider burning issues of 2021 but that were and are significant to the subjects' lives. SPECIFICO talk 14:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the article on Coolage was constructed by editors on a "combat footing". Please point out examples if you disagree.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I referred solely to the content on the two articles. You should do the same. Please respond to the point I made concerning Coolidge content. SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Just did.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, Here's an edit [29] that you reverted that you might want to restore. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Take Paul Keating, former Aussie Prime Minister. We note there that Keating has a penchant for Mahler and French antique clocks. This is an interesting side of Keating's life that wasn't often displayed to the public, but he did cop a ribbing about his French clocks (2nd Empire, I believe). Keating was a lower-class boy from Sydney's West who left school at 16. He was fond of Aussie vernacular and had a combative attitude to politics. He was also a very cultured man who combined his love of Europe with a fiery Australian nationalism. He also used to take a trampoline with him on the campaign so he could destress (I think). In short, he was the Christopher Walken of Australian politics. A brief word picture gives you the measure of the man. I am not adverse at all to including "colour". But ad nauseum regurgitation of stale talking points does not add much. Less is more.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I've no objections to what you & Bob are proposing. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding my comments, it's not clear what you are referring to. Recently I did some editing to the Early life section. [30][31][32][33] Do you support those edits? Bob K31416 (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I've no problems, with any attempts to make this BLP neutral. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

For comparison, here's what the Early life section looked like before the edits [34] and here's what the section looked like after the edits [35]. Do you or anyone else support this? Bob K31416 (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Aren't you & Jack in agreement with each other? GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Why did you remove the sentence on Trump's lawyer threatening Trump's schools with legal action during his election campaign if they released his (presumably low) academic records which they were legally prohibited from doing in the first place? His academic records are part of his early life, and he was trying to hide something that presumably contradicted the claims he made about himself for many years. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep. It's a dilemma. Because while you can say this is early life, it is essentially US Presidential Circus. The Emperor and the Clowns etc. Babylon is falling, is falling. How would we deal with Watergate? Can Art Garfunkel speak for the Nation?--Jack Upland (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Did we ever get Dan Quayle's academic records? GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

His undergraduate grade-point average was 2.4 instead of the 2.6 required for automatic admission, and he used family connections to get an interview with the dean of the law school. Public knowledge since 1988, apparently. Other politicians also had middling to poor academic records but none of them referred to themselves as geniuses or threatened their alma maters. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with my retaining the current content re the draft. I'm a little rusty on the details but W's academic records were "leaked" without any legal repercussions for the school which pled ignorance as to how it happened but responded by releasing Jon Kerry's grades to balance I guess the injustice somehow. Some conspiracy theorist on right consider this to have all been set up by people at the schools who blindly assumed Bush wouldn't turn out to have equal/better grades than Kerry and Gore. I do not see how the reference to Cohen allegedly threatening his alma maters needs to be included given the article's length and the fact it post dates Trump's "early life" by about 60 years. If anything this content should be placed in sections related to the election or when he demanded Obama release his grades. But the fact that previously records had been leaked- they're legally prohibited from doing in the first place? but neither context is given, the sentence ends with it appearing Trump made random and redundant threats of legal action. His academic records are part of his early life, and he was trying to hide something that presumably contradicted the claims he made about himself for many years. Idk if it is up to us to presume as much though it is certainly more than likely that was the case imho @Space4Time3Continuum2x:.OgamD218 (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

American English

Trump has attempted to drastically escalate immigration enforcement, including harsher immigration enforcement policies against asylum seekers from Central America than any modern U.S. president.

Apart from the use of "has" which seems outdated, is the expression "harsher immigration enforcement policies against asylum seekers from Central America than any modern U.S. president" correct in American grammar? I would have thought it should be something like "than any modern U.S. president has implemented". Also is "immigration enforcement" the right term? Doesn't that mean forcing someone to immigrate? Also, what does "modern" mean? Every American president since the Renaissance? Of course "modern" can be defined in a number of ways depending on the context. But what is the context here? Since when exactly?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland:

1. "has" is redundant, can be removed.
2. You're right about the grammar, it should be changed to something like either what you said or "including implementing harsher..."
3. It is the right term in my opinion. Immigration enforcement is the act of compelling individuals to comply with immigration law. So forcing someone to immigrate legally/stopping illegal immigrants, etc.
4. I believe the "modern" era is post WW2. 1946-present. ––FormalDude ^talk 13:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I accept your first 3 points. I am interested in your belief, but don't think it helps improve the sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I have attempted to implement this...--Jack Upland (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland:What exactly constitutes the "modern era" of the American presidency is in fact something that remains uncodified. Some view it as beginning with FDR and even WikiArb rulings distinguish articles involving US politics pre vs post 1932 due to the risk of editors being motivated by contemporary partisanship. I think most would agree with @FormalDude: that it is 1946, though others would again bump back the time frame to the post civil rights era circa late 1960s, an growing group favors labeling the modern presidency as the post cold war presidents. I am not sure where I stand exactly but given the subjectivity I am not certain this was the best wording given the context. "Harsher immigration enforcement against Central American asylum seekers", would be completely redundant pre the last 1970s as no such issue existed. Tbh, pre the late Obama presidency, this really wasn't a political issue and I personally am unsure use of "any other modern american president" is best (it also somewhat implies pre-modern presidents may have been more harsh). With that said, I will admit that the issue has come and gone to a certain extent and it is extremely hard to show a stance harsher than that of Trump's. OgamD218 (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Before "Tricky" Dick Nixon and his henchmen left town, presidents seemed to have a certain heroic vibe to them in the press. Since then, we've read about the dumb one, the weak one, the corporate one, the spewing one, the unfaithful one, the abusive one, the darkest one, the unpresidential one and the old one. It's almost like the last clean-cut crop of good old-fashioned respectful mom's-apple-pie-on-the-Fourth-of-July Jimmy Olsenesque reporters died in Vietnam, stayed in Asia or at least came back with (what might be politely called) "mixed feelings" about The Man, man. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

True. In Australia, PM John Howard tripped much like Ford, but not as spectacular. Seasoned reporters said that in the past this was censored out. After all, it is not the measure of man that he tripped on a camera cable or whatever.--Jack Upland (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Aye, Tony Ferguson also tripped his way out of the race and went on to become a perfectly stable genius. I forgot Ford's Bob Dole moment even happened, was more thinking of his Trixon execution fumble, his phrenological profile and that time he meshed with Homer Simpson. Doesn't exactly scream "industrious German", "highbrow Italian" or "brilliant Japanese", now do it? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Impeachments of Donald Trump

The article conflates the 2 Trump impeachments and makes it appear there was only 1. The 1st arose out of his attempted blackmail of Ukraine, the 2nd came about because of his attempted insurrection. 130.45.73.155 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

How and where are they conflated? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump states:

After Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden, the House of Representatives impeached him for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in December 2019. The Senate acquitted him of both charges in February 2020.

It ascribes the cause of the 1st impeachment to the 2nd, and then moves to another subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.45.73.155 (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@130.45.73.155 I know that his is a talk page and not main space and there is a bit of leeway to certain principles of the guidelines, but WP:BLP still applies, even on talk pages.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

That is the first impeachment. The second impeachment happened in January and February 2021. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Muboshgu. I believe the IP is misinterprating the passage.JOJ ^Hutton 21:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

We might consider changing the wording on the first impeachment to "both counts", replacing the current "both charges". That would make it clearer the acquittals in the first lead mention were within one trial. SPECIFICO talk 21:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

BTW: I had to make a slight correction at the Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump article, as he was a former federal official during that trial. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Muboshgu, Jojhutton, SPECIFICO, and GoodDay: - I'm boldly changing "acquitted him of both charges" to "acquitted him of these charges". Fine? starship.paint (exalt) 08:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Space4Time3Continuum2x: - come explain why not when you're free, h'okay? Hic. starship.paint (exalt) 12:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, got interrupted. If we're going to go bold, we should replace "both" with "the". It was the IP address who conflated the first and the second impeachment, not the wording of the lead. I don't see how using "both" or "these" or "the", for that matter, is going to make a difference. IMO, both impeachments belong in the same paragraph. The first impeachment wasn't a result of the Mueller investigation, including the obstruction of justice, but putting it into the same paragraph in the lead appears to indicate that it was. He was charged with obstructing congressional attempts to investigate his attempts to blackmail Ukraine (WaPo). I went even bolder and rearranged the two last lead paragraphs into three, with minor changes like adding dates, where necessary. I think it's easier to understand for readers who haven't been immersed in Trumpiana for the last few years. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Visited by Rittenhouse?

I propose that this meeting be referenced in the post-presidency section, along with Trump being awarded an "honorary" black belt, despite not ever practicing tae kwon do. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I think both of those things are probably WP:UNDUE Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Does the Trumpster have a history as a martial artist?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm still trying to unsee that picture, and isn't that the old fist pump?. Both events are too trivial to be mentioned in Trump's biography. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, Trump is a Gingerbread Man. I think Trump's martial arts honour is something we SHOULD be documenting as part of our brief bio of this eccentric Emperor. After all he was involved in Wrestling...--Jack Upland (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Unsure what this adds.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

"But made no progress" or "and made no progress"?

SPECIFICO reverted "and" to "but", saying an extensive discussion about this is here. I see an extensive discussion mentioning this in the Combat section. Jack says no other president did, either. And Starship says making no progress is what resulted, which is important. I agree with both of those claims. Making no denuclearization progress is par for the course in general presidential meetings, and always the way it's gone between these specific countries. I maintain "but" suggests he failed to meet expectations somehow, which is absurd in light of said history. Or isn't it? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure anyone did expect this to achieve anything, and it did not. So "but " seems inappropriate.Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

"But" is in line with the North Korea section in the body. Trump failed to meet his own expectations and his very public claims that his special relationship (remember the "love" letters?) would lead to denuclearization of North Korea. Also, which other president has photo-ops in front of a wall with a picture of himself shaking hands with Kim Jong-Un ([36], [37])? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember love letters. I don't care to memorize photo ops, scathing remarks, leaked memos, chopper talks, new books, unearthed records or latest developments, either. No offense to you hardcore fans, but I'm more interested in wasting my time on cooler things, like learning to write universal English truth well before I die. As such, I insist you're using the common "but" like an ass. But with respect, good sir or madam, I will immediately defer to you on the inner mysteries of whether public handshakes can (or nay, do) reveal secret expectations. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, Clinton and Carter and Billy Graham went to North Korea. As did St Madeleine Allbright. There were photos taken. The Harlem Globe Trotters went there too. And so did I. Unfortunately since Brezhnev died there has been very little SALT to mine. But the silos of the DPRK are filling up with ICBM. Allegedly...--Jack Upland (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Neither Carter nor Albright were POTUS when they met with North Korean officials, neither one staged a series of elaborate photo-ops with great fanfare, and I haven't found any sources for Clinton bragging about a special personal relationship with Kim Il-Sung or Clinton having Kim's picture up on his "I love me" wall. Carter's 1994 trip "was successful in defusing the first North Korean nuclear crisis, paving the way for the 1994 Agreed Framework", Albright was doing her job as secretary of state when she went to NK in 2000 "to persuade Kim Jong-il, the father of Kim Jong-un, to suspend his missile tests." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

What on God's green Earth are you talking about Jack? Who frankly cares if you went to North Korea? When you become president I'll be sure to add it to your wikipedia page as well Anon0098 (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Last I heard of anything about American-North Korean relations, was Rachel Maddow of MSNBC news sounding like she wanted a war between the two countries. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the wording it overly NPOV. A change as simple as even "ultimately no long term progress was made/final resolution/agreement reached". The very absolutely worded "but made no progress" is unclear and sounds overly critical. I will say even in light of history it should still be noted as Trump is the subject of this article and he did give the impression that he believed his trip was/would lead to some greater achievements than it did. OgamD218 (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Second impeachment trial

Can we point out that Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont (as president pro tempore), presided over the trial (as Trump was no longer US president) & that constitutionally, Leahy was filling in for Vice President Harris, who (had she chosen to) could've presided over the trial? GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: Chief Justice Roberts presided over the first impeachment trial, as Trump was US president at that time. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

That seems like a relevant detail to Second impeachment of Donald Trump, and Patrick Leahy, but not relevant enough to Trump personally to belong on this page, IMO. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think that is significant for Trump's bio and what does it have to do with Trump's being out of office? SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It was a suggestion, as he was the first former US president to have an impeachment trial. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be a little trivial and insignificant for this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Why was MSNBC used as a source?

Wikipedia's disgustingly far left bias is very present, especially when a conspiracy theory website that's 100% opinion (literally) is used as a source. https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-denies-racism-most-americans-dont-believe-him-msna1259321 Whenever you go to it, it also claims "Most Americans consider Donald Trump racist. He's convinced, however, that these beliefs aren't his fault." That's not appropriate when you're trying to get factual content. Since there's a rule here, left wing news source only, this https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-biden-racism-debate/ would be a way more appropriate source to use. The same thing applies to about 99% of the content in this article. Very disgusting and is why Wikipedia isn't worth a dime (once again, literally). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superblaze27 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)