Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• None.

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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

Proposed shortening of one sentence in the lead section

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.

---

Any thoughts on shortening a statement in the lead section as follows?

CURRENT VERSION: 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.

PROPOSED NEW VERSION: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.

This would go down from 33 words to 22 words; it would preserve the most important bits (i.e., the level/rate of falsehoods is unprecedented) while omitting the unremarkable/obvious (the fact that these falsehoods have been documented - obviously they have been or else we wouldn't be making a reference to it in the Wikipedia bio). Neutrality^talk 01:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This seeks to alter #Current consensus #35.

the fact that these falsehoods have been documented - obviously they have been or else we wouldn't be making a reference to it in the Wikipedia bio - I'd disagree with that statement. We might be saying that because reliable sources have said that without any documented fact-checking (or at least without anything remotely approaching the scale of what WaPo et al have done). We do that kind of thing all the time. We generally don't require sources to prove the truth of what they say. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• On the actual proposed rewording, do you support or oppose? It was not clear to me from your comment. Neutrality^talk 13:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

That's because I'm waiting for other comments. I could even end up abstaining, and you'll know that by the absence of a bullet with my name on it. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I would like to see some discussion about the need for "the media have widely described" wrt NPOV. And whether the change is due to a change in situation or due to differences in policy interpretation. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Minor note..."his campaign" is singular, whereas he has had two campaigns now. (Though "false and misleading statements" doesn't begin to cover the situation...) Perhaps an opportunity to finally change "The statements have been..." to "The misinformation has been..." Bdushaw (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support the proposal with "campaign" changi7ng to "campaigns". I've long thought the extra stuff was really just there to deter edit warring, but as long as it is clearly spelled out in the body of the article I don't see the need for the longer version. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• That's a good catch. I just changed "campaign" to "campaigns" --Neutrality^talk 13:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support. No need to tiptoe around the facts. François Robere (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support this improvement. It's a fact, so say it plainly. -- Valjean (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support This is definitely an improvement. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support The statement is accurate with no need to substantiate it. Gandydancer (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not seeing a need to overturn long standing and well participated consensus.[1] PackMecEng (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  There is no need. I have no idea why this is even being discussed now. Efcharisto (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Economy is always good. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Trump said this is the best economy ever. Question: That comma bothers me, but I see why the wording felt awkward without it. Is there a way to improve the sentence structure? SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the comma seems awkward because the sentence ought to begin with "To a degree..." Bdushaw (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose so blithely replacing a consensus resulting from an RfC that was open for six weeks and ran to over 10,000 words. I wonder why the decision is so much easier this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC) (Eighteen days later, "blithely" no longer applies. Replaced with "oppose" at the bottom.) ―Mandruss ☎ 06:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  Note that discussion was closed in February 2019. François Robere (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Why? Because in the 18 months since the press and numerous recent books have resolved any doubts they formerly may have held. SPECIFICO talk 20:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Quoting Paul Krugmann: Of course, we’re learning that Donald Trump and those around him lie about everything and don’t care at all about endangering other people. But that’s more of a confirmation than a revelation — we basically already knew that, although we didn’t expect such graphic evidence. I wonder why the statement is restricted to the two official campaigns and the presidency. This is his general bio, not the "Presidency of" article, and he's been making documented false statements since at least the 80s. If we remove the fact-checkers, shouldn't we remove the campaigns and the presidency, as well, and simply say that he's made many false and misleading statements before and during his presidency (to be changed to "before, during and after his presidency" sooner or later?) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  The question is whether sources provide a statement to that effect. If you can provide enough sources that do, then we can. François Robere (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

One of the things the statement says implicitly is that he is lying while president. It is one thing to lie as a real estate developer or steak salesman, another to lie to the American public as president about such things as pandemic response. Perhaps the statement ought to more explicitly reflect this more consequential lying as president? I note that since the original statement was included in the lead, the section on Veracity was substantially expanded. Bdushaw (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would support total removal from the lead. I would also support changing the proposed removed wording into a footnote. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support the proposed change. Regarding the former RfC, I note that the process can be rather bizarre, and not altogether logical. The existing sentence has, essentially, "weasel words" in "the media have widely described" - we have had considerable recent discussion on the use of such words (and recalling my recent RfC where my attempt to use such words in a misguided attempt a compromise went over like a lead balloon), with the solid consensus that they should be avoided. Just state the thing; the problem in this case is that just stating the thing is to use Wikivoice to convey a clear flaw in Trump, which gets perceived badly, by some. The proposed wording states the facts clearly and economically. I suspect for better English the sentence ought to start with "To a degree unprecedented...", however. Bdushaw (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support: precision and concision are beautiful things soibangla (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment It might be worthwhile to try a different sentence structure, to avoid "to a degree..." Something like:

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, a tactic unprecedented in American politics.

Or using a semicolon to make a substantive statement about how unprecedented the misinformation is (corrosion of democracy?). Bdushaw (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

"Tactic" is interpretational, suggests planning. François Robere (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it was unplanned? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't like the alternative wording. I disagree that tactics imply "planning", because a tactic can be reactionary. Planning would imply a "strategy", but I would argue Trump's lies are habitual and are only occasionally part of some sort of overall strategy, otherwise we would have reliable sources to support the idea Trump's lies are part of a plan. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Trump has made more false and misleading statements than any other American president or presidential candidate in history. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Do you have a WP:RS for that? Or is it alternative wording you are proposing? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Isn't that a paraphrase of the initial suggestion above? However, I think this is better: Trump has made more false and misleading statements than any other president or presidential candidate in American history SPECIFICO talk 17:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: The many false and misleading statements Trump has made during his campaigns and presidency are unprecedented in American politics. ??? Bdushaw (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: The degree of false or misleading statements made by Trump during his campaigns and presidency is unprecedented in American politics. ??? (need "or" rather than "and") Bdushaw (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality's wording is correct: "to a degree unprecedented". "All politicians lie", but Trump doesn't just lie more than others, he rarely tells the truth. He is in a different universe, where hardly a single molecule of truth exists. It's a foreign concept to him. -- Valjean (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom, as well. I let the issue sit overnight, and the nom's original proposal seems best. I thought of changing "many" to "an extraordinary number" ("torrent"?), but we perhaps should not belabor the issue. But it should be "false OR misleading". Bdushaw (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, regretfully since I rarely disagree with Neutrality. Even as the sentence is we are constantly getting complaints about it at the talk page. If we change it to a simple assertion in Wikipedia's voice, without any explanation about what we are basing it on, we will be getting dozens of complaints a day, every day - and to some extent they will be justified. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  We should never be concerned about the number of unjustified complaints, but I don't necessarily disagree with to some extent they will be justified. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  I totally disagree with "let's go ahead and change the article in a way that will justifiably offend lots of readers, rather than keeping it as it is giving the basis for our statement." As you know, we hashed out the existing wording over a long period of time, and it has been stable for several years now if I recall correctly. The existing wording makes it clear: this is not something we are saying arbitrarily or because we are biased; we are saying it because is one of his most defining characteristics and there is overwhelming evidence for it. The proposed wording WOULD sound like we are saying it arbitrarily or because we are biased. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  The article is loaded with things that sound like we are biased – to readers who don't understand our policies (and some editors who don't understand our policies). The only question for me is how to best comply with those policies – and they are so vague, convoluted, and seemingly self-contradictory that there is no clear answer, leaving things wide open to editor bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  @MelanieN: - the existing wording has a problem though. It's not only the media which is saying that Trump's behaviour is unprecedented. It's academics. The mega-citation with the bundled references has six instances of that: (1) McGranahan is an academic source, (2) the NYT source refers to the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, (3) the WaPo source refers to presidential historian Michael R. Beschloss, (4) the LA Times source refers to political scholar George Edwards, (5) the Toronto Star refers to presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, and (6) Skjeseth is also an academic sources. Given that academics believe that Trump's behaviour is unprecedented, I believe that Wikipedia can reflect it in wiki-voice. Does this change your view? starship.paint (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't. Thanks for spelling all this out, Starship, and I'm glad it is in the article text. However, it does not make "Trump is an unprecedented liar" into the factual equivalent of "the sky is blue". IMO we need to supply support, even in the lead, for such an inflammatory statement. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Factcheckers have confirmed that Trump has made more false and misleading statements than any other president in American history. -- Isn't that readily Verifiable? SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, but, per policy, not all that is verifiable must be included in an article, let alone in its lead. If it's included, policy is sufficiently vague (flexible) that editors can reasonably disagree about how to word it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  Huh? This discussion is about shortening it, not removing longstanding consensus content. Emir asked to be sure it's Verified. Yes it is. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  It helps to put replies in context, or use {{tq}}.

  Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fact-checkers (WaPo, Toronto Star, et al) have not actually compared Trump to his predecessors. I don't know that anybody has at the item level, as if that were even possible or useful given that presidents haven't always made multiple public statements per day that were immediately fact-checked. That wasn't even feasible until the widespread use of computers, roughly 1980s (or maybe advent of the internet, mid-1990s). Any "verifiability" we have that Trump is unprecedented is from sources other than the fact-checker databases, and we accept their analysis without actual proof. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  Then why do we currently say that in the article? I don't recall being involved in the initial consensus, because at the time I did not feel comfortable with what might have sounded partisan. However MelanieN without discounting your argument, I think it is the case that the press has been more willing, over the course of the most recent year, to emphasize Trump's false statements and even to call them lies. And we have a number of books in the past year that go into great detail on it. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  Then why do we currently say that in the article? That's my point, which may have been unclear. I was responding only to your bolded comment, and the article does not currently say that Trump's "unprecedence" has been confirmed by fact-checkers. It says that the media have widely described Trump as unprecedented and the false and misleading statements have been documented by fact-checkers – not the same thing. You may be equating fact-checkers with reliable sources, and I'm not. That was not the intent of the phrase in the 2019 discussion, as I understood it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  No, actually for the purpose of the current discussion, it is the same thing. Otherwise, you should have shared your concern at the top of the thread. Let's stay focused on the matter at hand. SPECIFICO talk 23:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Alternative: "Media outlets have widely considered Trump as largely unprecedent in making false and misleading statements during his 2016 election campaign and his presidency." We could do with sounding a lot more neutral about the matter, and not seeming like Wikipedia shares that a view, while also being far more concise. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would strongly oppose that. The fact of Trump's unprecedented level of false and misleading statements is a fact, not a "view," and we do not hedge on that. Neutrality^talk 01:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I never said it was a view. It should be paramount that Wikipedia appears neutral. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You wrote that you wished to avoid "seeming like Wikipedia shares that view." Neutrality^talk 04:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Neutrality: No worries, what I meant was that it seems like Wikipedia has a view. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, Wikipedia (that's us) is not supposed to choose sides, but it is unabashedly, because of our RS policy, on the side of RS when there is no doubt about a matter. Wikipedia (editors) is unabashedly on the side of the fact that the sky is blue and that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale. That's not opinion or a "view", it's a well-established fact backed by the vast preponderance of RS and huge amounts of measurable data. Few facts are more firmly established by data and data analysis. You can bank on this, because experience has taught us that, quoting David Zurawik, we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards" because he's a "habitual liar".

You see, facts are not like opinions. They aren't mushy. They can withstand the onslaught of fact checkers and scientific analysis. They are falsifiable. They survive. Our duty is to make sure we don't present facts as opinions (and the converse). This is about the fact that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale and manner, and opinions that doubt that fact have little due weight and should only get passing mention. NPOV does require we document disagreement with that fact, but due weight tells us to do so in a very limited manner.

Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopedia. It is neutral when it documents what RS say, even if what RS say appears to be biased (to the uninformed). NPOV requires that we document that bias and not censor or neuter it. Bias isn't always bad, and it's actually good to be biased for the facts. The facts are not central in politics, but are often held more firmly by one side more than the other, hence the famous quote "Reality has a well known liberal bias", or, as Paul Krugman put it, "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias". -- Valjean (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia (editors) is unabashedly on the side of the fact that the sky is blue and that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale. There are a number of editors who are unable to check their POV about this at the door. Somehow that POV never makes it into mainspace, which suggests that "Wikipedia (editors)" is not unabashedly on the side of it, your view notwithstanding. Apparently "Wikipedia (editors)" feels that such strong statements are not supportable by Wikipedia policy. I happen to agree that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale, as well as a number of other really bad things, but I know my opinion is irrelevant here and it's crucial to understand that. I save that for discussions among family and friends. I happen to agree that RS supports the kind of content currently in this article about that, but that is quite different from wildly irresponsible statements about blue sky "fact" that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that not all Wikipedia editors are on the side of RS. I would never state in Wikipedia's voice that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale., but our sources would justify saying that Trump has made many false or misleading statements on a scale described as "unprecedented" in American politics. -- Valjean (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

If you would never state that in an article, to say it on an article talk page is to voice your POV opinion, violating NOTFORUM and distracting from policy-based discussion. Not to mention at least giving the strong impression that you are unable to leave your POV out of content decisions. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Neutrality. Let's reboot and get back to the source for the "unprecedented" wording. It isn't used in a willy nilly fashion.

• It has long been a truism that politicians lie, but with the entry of Donald Trump into the U.S. political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented [...] Donald Trump is different. By all metrics and counting schemes, his lies are off the charts. We simply have not seen such an accomplished and effective liar before in U.S. politics. Bolding added.

That is the sense in which we should continue to use the word. Trump isn't even close to anyone else. He's off the charts dishonest. -- Valjean (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

References

You are far from the only offender, but statements like Trump isn't even close to anyone else. He's off the charts dishonest. are pure POV and have no place in any Wikipedia content discussion. That one simultaneously cites one source – or a hundred sources – does not make that appropriate. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me for agreeing with RS and paraphrasing them. -- Valjean (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The point is that:

• Whether you or I agree with RS is completely irrelevant for our purposes, as Wikipedia editing is not about our opinions.
• You didn't say you were paraphrasing RS, you presented it as objective fact. Those are not the same thing.

This is not hair-splitting. What we say affects how we think about these things, and that makes it important. In my view it also demonstrates how we're thinking about them. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: Then let's say Media outlets have widely considered Trump as largely unprecedented in making false and misleading statements during his 2016 election campaign and his presidency., because this is what reliable sources say. We shouldn't go beyond objective reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That wording is grammatially awkward, at least to my American ears. Above I suggested that our sources would justify saying that Trump has made many false or misleading statements on a scale described as "unprecedented" in American politics. I have stricken "many" as "scale" covers that aspect. "Described" refers to the fact that sources do this so we don't need to mention them. When we say the "sky is blue", we don't say that "reliable sources say the sky is blue." -- Valjean (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: I agree with that wording, with some minor changes. Trump has made misleading and false statements on a scale described as "unprecedented" by various media outlets. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose this change as a way to backdoor a controversial claim into Wikivoice. How many lies did Andrew Jackson tell? There is no way to have this material without attribution because there is no way to actually prove it. It will lead to endless disruption on the article and talk page as drive by readers and editors change it to something else. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  Far from endless disruption, changes to consensus content are easily reverted without counting against 1RR. Persistent re-reverting by the "drive by" would earn a DS block, although that never happens when they are referred to the ArbCom restrictions and/or the #Current consensus list; the first revert is almost always enough. This has been proven to be a non-issue at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  And I haven't seen any readers who have WP:ECP status. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  Since the RfC on this statement, which was prior to the pandemic, yes?, there has been a significant change in the landscape. There are new sources, e.g., 'You’re Gonna Beat It.' How Donald Trump’s COVID-19 Battle Has Only Fueled Misinformation or From COVID-19 to voting: Trump is nation's single largest spreader of disinformation, studies say I would say a revisit to the consensus statement is warranted, in any case. An important factor here is he is acting as the nation's leader with this misinformation - which is different than misinformation at other times. The lead statement should reflect that factor (drop "campaign", ignore misinformation prior to presidency?) As I've noted before, Trump's use of misinformation is one of his most notable characteristics; certainly a suitable, definitive statement in the lead is necessary. Voting and Covid-19 could be noted as two primary topics of misinformation. Bdushaw (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  We could abandon "unprecedented" and its complications for a statement like:

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: While president, Trump has made many false or misleading statements, becoming a significant source of disinformation on voting practices and pandemic responses in 2020.

(Interesting to note the difference between "disinformation" and "misinformation" in this context.) Bdushaw (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This fails to describe the outstanding nature of his falsehoods and misleading comments. Over long careers, plenty of politicians will have made "many false or misleading statements". starship.paint (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you are right - it is a curious problem how to describe, in a NPOV way, such incessant, voluminous disinformation and propaganda. I am not sure "unprecedented" does it either, while being a lightening rod for objections. I find I am, frankly, at a loss.

Bdushaw (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Could a statement like:

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: To promote or defend his image, policies or projects, Trump has regularly employed incessant, aggressive campaigns of falsehoods, disinformation or propaganda in public rallies and on radio, television, print or social media.

be supported? I believe this is getting closer to the truth of the matter, maybe. Bdushaw (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

(Needs three serial commas per convention in this article. Following policies, disinformation, and print. Best to get such minute details taken care of before the text makes it into the consensus list, not after.) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

At this point, our efforts are in retrograde, with each attempt worse than the preceding. I think we should leave the current text alone. None of the subsequent attempts is without problems. The first one (that I foolishly criticised for a misplaced comma) was OK, and there seemed to be consensus for that one. I would not object to using that one, but it's clear there's a little too much meaning to be gracefully crammed into a single sentence. Let's go with v.1 or v.0. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, well, perhaps my thrashing was still a useful exercise...people have been complaining how we never think outside the box. :) I have no objection to Neutrality's PROPOSED NEW VERSION, which I think is an improvement, given the difficulties. I think including "factcheckers" is of no value now; I have modest objections to the troubles "unprecedented" raises (also based on the troubles we had with the word on another article Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy; first sentence), but know of no better alternative (I tried, as all can see). As an aside, I noted the article is rather weak at describing Trump's use of political rallies during his campaigns and presidency. Such rallies are part of Trump's identity. Bdushaw (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

While I agree on the revised statement, a continued discussion of it is still warranted, IMO - the statement falls well short in that it misrepresents what are deliberate, massive campaigns of disinformation (following the Russian model?). I revise the statement above, just for kicks, and give a few citations on the massive disinformation campaigns that are going on, and have gone on. Its quite a bit more than what Donald Trump says or tweets out from time-to-time; its industrialized disinformation. All not unrelated to his hour-long call ins to friendly radio or TV programs.

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: To promote or defend his image, views or policies, Trump has employed aggressive campaigns of falsehoods, disinformation or propaganda in public rallies and on radio, television, or social media.

Billion dollar disinformation/Atlantic, Misinformation Machine/Sci. American, Trump's billion-dollar "Death Star"/Salon, Disinformation machine/CNN etc. The attacks on basic science are particularly disturbing, and have been notice. Bdushaw (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, skimming over the above, it seems that this is (unsurprisingly) leading to a lot of discussion about potential modifications to the clause. Trying to stay on topic, I'd suggest a guiding question might be this: Would it be possible to make the passage more concise without fundamentally altering its meaning?

The concerns raised above about the switch to Wikipedia's voice are reasonable enough to warrant consideration, but they apply only to the "unprecedented" part, since the first part is already present in the page. That'd leave us with something like Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree the media has widely described as unprecedented in American politics. But for that, the distinction between what's widely present in secondary sources and what we're willing to state in Wikipedia's voice shouldn't exist, since per WP:V/WP:NOR/other core policies, Wikipedia's voice is supposed to reflect what's been widely present in secondary sources. So that leads to Neutrality's proposal. It might seem like it's saying something stronger, but fundamentally it's really not; it's just cutting out statements that don't need to be there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "unprecedented": The first bullet at WP:WIKIVOICE reads:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

Does widespread RS agreement make "unprecedented" a "fact" for the purposes of this bullet? Apparently not, or we wouldn't have the passage "However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be [...] where justified, described as widespread views, etc." Since it's entirely unproveable, "unprecedented" will always be an "opinion" for the purposes of this bullet, despite the fact that the opinion is widely held. So I disagree that that qualification doesn't need to be there. In any case, there is nothing factually incorrect about the status quo language and we are beating our heads against a wall in an effort to save 11 words in the lead, a lead that many or most editors insist is not overly long. Those 11 words certainly do not constitute undue weight for this issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The RS agreement that Trump's willingness to speak falsehoods is unpreceded is exceptionally strong, as was established when current consensus item 35 was added. I'd say the more pertinent line in WP:WIKIVOICE is not the one you quoted, but the one that follows: Avoid stating facts as opinions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support - per the nom and soibangla. Neutrality's original proposal seems like a distinct improvement to me. I disagree with the basis of Mr Ernie's opposing rationale in particular - not just for the reason that Mandruss cites, but also because, to my understanding, it's an accepted fact among RS that Trump has used misleading statements to a degree not seen before in US politics, not a "controversial claim". Jr8825 • Talk 02:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This essentially removes The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as, which is partially WP:PEACOCK stuff (it hypes how important it is) and partially describing facts as opinions ("the media have widely described"). Also, the current wording is inaccurate in that academic sources have also described it that way; but more generally, when something is essentially universally described a certain way by high-quality sources, it is inappropriate to characterize it as "described." Some people above have argued that this fact must always be framed as an opinion, but they haven't presented any actual reason why this would be the case (and, notably, they seem to implicitly concede that it is treated as fact by the overwhelming majority of sources.) If we go by that standard, any editor could, based on their personal feelings, term any fact covered by sources as a mere opinion and insist that we cover it as such - the flipside of "don't state opinions as facts" is "don't state facts as opinions"; and we rely on sourcing to determine which is which, not the gut feelings of editors. The sourcing here indicates that this is a fact. --Aquillion (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Insufficient justification for a change to the text resulting from six weeks and 10,000 words of discussion. See also my previous comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: I noticed that you didn't respond directly to the points that SPECIFICO and François Robere raised earlier, that the RfC dates from almost 2 years ago and there's now a much greater body of published media on Trump's exceptional use of false/misleading statements, allowing the statement to be given with more brevity and as widely accepted fact. Jr8825 • Talk 00:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  Re the use of wiki voice for "unprecedented", see this comment. No one has responded to that, and I don't require them to do so. I remain unconvinced by those arguments, and I generally don't consume discussion space to say "I remain unconvinced." ―Mandruss ☎ 10:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  On current consensus 35 (the long discussion you refer to), the point being amended is #3 from the close. The close says itself: Slight Consensus was for substantiating the "unprecedented" claim by citing fact-checkers. This was argued for mainly to avoid WP:WEASEL. Most seemed receptive to this logic. It was only part of the discussion, and there was only slight consensus for it. A full discussion just on that part has taken place here, and editors feel WP:WEASEL isn't a problem. So I personally disagree there is insufficient justification to overturn that consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  "See also my previous comments." (which have nothing to do with WEASEL) ―Mandruss ☎ 14:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support new version. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
• Recent citation Today in the NY Times Dishonesty Has Defined the Trump Presidency. The Consequences Could Be Lasting "Whether President Trump wins or loses on Nov. 3, the very concept of public trust in an established set of facts necessary for the operation of a democratic society has been eroded." Unprecedented, indeed. Bdushaw (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for brevity + link to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump for details. — JFG ^talk 07:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nominator for brevity amongst other reasons. I would also support JFG's suggestion that a link be included. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)*
• Oppose. As per statements by MelanieN and BlackBird1008 (and possibly others above), removing the phrase that indicates these lies have been looked at by professionals with the specific purpose of determining the truth of his statements weakens it and leaves the reader with the impression that it's just "general opinion" without a clear factual basis. Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 22:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, the media needs to be mentioned to maintain some resemblance of objectivity in the statement. I’d support removing the statement all together because many of the “false or misleading” statements he has made are subjective BlackBird1008 (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  many of the “false or misleading” statements he has made are subjective Um, no. We don't peddle in alternative facts here. (Your editing history appears to be nearly entirely POV-pushing in favor of Trump.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, though noting campaign should be revised to the plural "campaigns" to reflect the 2016 and 2020 campaigns. The change in word-count by shortening it is minor. Additionally, to preserve neutrality, explicit reference to the fact that the media is widely reporting the unprecedented nature of these statements is necessary. It should not be stated as an unsupported statement of fact, particularly given how contentious the statement is, and the fact that accusing someone of making misrepresentations is potentially libellous. Such statements should always reference external factual support. KJS ml343x (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Closure

Does this need an RfC? Opinion above appears to be split, with most supporting the proposal (numerically, about 9 or 10 editors), but a substantial minority (numerically, about 4 or 5 editors) opposing it. Neutrality^talk 22:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, your proposal has consensus. SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I've listed this at WP:RFCL, as I think everyone would benefit from an uninvolved close. Neutrality^talk 02:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

"during his campaign"

I note the present lead has "campaign", singular, while the suggested text was corrected to "campaigns", plural. (And I note to all that it is lead, rather than lede. WP:Manual of Style/Lead section) The lead wikilinks campaign to Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign. Might I suggest a revision to "2016 and 2020 campaigns", where now the years wikilink to the appropriate article? (There could be a 2024 campaign, but we can defer that problem to a later date.) Alternatively, and redundantly but more clear, one could write "2016 campaign and 2020 campaign". Bdushaw (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2020 (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.

Temporary suspension of WP:1RR rule

In order to give regular editors the leeway they need to deal with an increase in unhelpful "drive-by" edits, I am temporarily suspending the one-revert rule that has been on this article. The "24-hour BRD" rule listed in the Discretionary Sanctions template at the top of this page still applies. Here's what this means in practice:

• Every editor may now make up to 3 reverts per day per WP:3RR. BUT...
• You may not make the same edit or revert more than once per day (per the BRD rule) and after your first time making that edit or revert, you must discuss it on the talk page and wait 24 hours before attempting that edit again.

Put another way, reverts are linked to content. You can revert up to 3 different edits per day, but you can't add or remove the same content more than once per day.

Again, the purpose of this is to allow regular/experienced/content editors to deal with legitimately unhelpful or POV edits. It's not to give people more leeway in edit warring over content disputes that are under discussion or to engage in "tag-team edit warring" where editors take turns reverting the same content over and over. If I see that going on I will start blocking people's accounts, starting with the editors who are reverting against the status quo ante, those reverting against emerging consensus on the talk page, and those who are not using helpful WP:Edit summaries that clearly describe what they're doing and why they're doing it. ~Awilley (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the reverts you're exempting are already exempt per WP:3RRNO anyway as either BLP issues or overt vandalism. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Page size again

 Question: isn't the whole article way too long? i mean, we got nearly 1,000 sources! i'm all for verifiability, but that's a touch too much. This article is enormous, things should be cut and/or moved to other articles, i think. Coltsfan (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Coltsfan, the article is vastly oversized. See our discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland, I saw that, but still, it never went anywhere. This article needs to be trim down pronto. Coltsfan (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

What's the fastest way to lose 50 pounds? Have a leg amputated. Not many people go that route. It never went anywhere, nor did any of the preceding dozen or so discussions about this spanning several years. Things look a bit different when one has been around to witness all of them and their net result. In the end, the article will do what a majority of its editors want it to do, and this article may be reduced to a more reasonable size when most of its editors have moved on to the next political battlefield. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

What's the best way to cook pasta? Jump 4 times in a lake. Anyways. It's not even a matter of the topic being contentious or lack of historical perspective. It's lack of will. The article being ginormous is a strong enough deterrent. Coltsfan (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually the article did shrink between July 2019 and April 2020, but this was overwhelmed by an inrush of information about the election and COVID-19. I think it will be quite possibly to cut the article down if and when Trump stops making headlines every day.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

It is much more likely that good cuts will be made with the perspective of months or years' time. I agree we should not be raising this question over and over. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

If it is a problem, then we can't expect people not to raise it. I think we should try in January to cut this article down. It's not a matter of cutting things out. It's a matter of summarising what happened. The detail belongs on other articles.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and now is a good time to add the length tag to the top of the article. The departure of Donald Trump as president should make it easier for editors to trim the article. This should be the number one priority, although there is likely to be news about Donald Trump continuing for years. Please be bold and trim the article where you see value in doing so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not a matter of trimming. It relates to fuzzy editorial understanding and conflicting views as to the the subject and how to describe it. It is not like, all the jellybeans will be in the jar next month and we can start culling the stale ones. SPECIFICO talk 13:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure it will be easier to improve the article in years' time, but that is no reason not to do anything now.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The article is too large, but I have no intention of making any substantial edits until February 2021. Some of the sections I think are too large, and will probably propose reducing if not done before then:

• The entire "Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op" in its current form should go, possibly replaced by a paragraph about his reactions to Black Lives Matter protests.
• "Migrant detentions" should be reduced and merged into the higher-level "immigration" section.
• "National emergency regarding the southern border" should be at most 1 sentence in the "Trump wall" section.
• "Impeachment" can be reduced by 30-50% in size.
• "2017 FBI counterintelligence inquiry" is probably unnecessary, but could be mentioned in the Firing of James Comey section if need be.
• "Associates" is about other people, and should be reduced to 1 paragraph.
• "2019 congressional investigation" seems not important enough for this article.

There's probably more; for example the COVID section feels long, though I'm not sure what to remove. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with all that. Now that Trump has been defeated, this is certainly redundant, and no sensible editor would support it. I think we should move on this as soon as we can.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You're an experienced and competent editor and I would have no issue with you or any other experienced and competent editor making BOLD trimming edits that do not violate existing consensuses, obviously subject to BRD challenges. I probably don't need to tell you why more smaller edits is preferable to fewer larger edits, and please don't overwhelm the process with more than can be reasonably discussed at one time. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I have no interest in dealing with the stress of editing this article while Trump is still president. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

It really would be best to workshop this sort of thing here on talk, both as to the goal, the approach, and the specific text, before editing the article extensively. With 1RR etc. we could get backlogged and any talk page discussion hamstrung if it's done after the fact.

I continue to think it's not so much a need to cut less DUE detail as it is a need to provide summary sourcing and characterization by secondary and tertiary sources and analysts. So, for example, each of the Associate mentions by themselves may be UNDUE. But the pattern of Trump's entourage and trusted top associates being convicted of crimes and of Mueller's investigation being obstructed -- that is the DUE and bio-worthy content for Trump. Similar levels of detail can possibly be pared elsewhere in the article, but the larger issues should be more clearly and explicitly stated -- as RS increasingly are doing. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Uh, workshopping this on talk is exactly what I'm starting to do here, isn't it? Regarding "Associates", I agree it's relevant that the Mueller probe did find wrongdoing among his associates, we just don't need to say so much about them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood that editors were proposing to make bold cuts prior to discussion. At any rate, I would expect we'd shorten the Associates section to something like "X# of Trump's associates were convicted of felonies related to the campaign and transition. Special Counsel Mueller found... obstruction of justice." With links to pages that narrate the detail. SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Editorializing in the Lead

"Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic." There's no citation here or evidence. It's fair to say that he has undergone criticism for his response to COVID-19, but, I don't there's much evidence to say the initial response was objectively slow. After all, he did react in the beginning by closing down borders while Pelosi and Biden were criticizing that move. That's not exactly a slow response. Let's be more objective here and say he underwent criticism for a botched response, but slow is just patently false. The editorializing in this lead is actually quite disgraceful. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Ambrosiaster, there are no citations in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. Everything that is in the lead is (or at least should be) in the article's body with citations present there. In the case of Trump's response to COVID-19, see Donald Trump#Initial response, where there are citations for the statement. Also see #Current consensus #48, which includes links to the discussions about the use of the word "slow". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The response to COVID-19 was a multi-frontal response. According to NBC News, some elements of Trump's response, were timely, but the messaging was mixed and there was other clear mistakes in his response. Just because one front of the attack on COVID-19 was slow (the one you're referring to in the NY Times and LA Times articles cited) is not enough to mean the entire response was objectively slow. Some parts of it were slow, while others were effective; other parts of it were botched, while others, such as "Operation Warp Speed,' were effective; the messaging was poor and mixed. This just seems like a lot of editorializing to me. "Slow" implies the the entire response was slow. That's at variance with other sources. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a broad summary of what the sources say, as is appropriate for the lead; the body has a more detailed breakdown. But the LA Times says eg. In that key early period, many of the Trump presidency’s most deeply ingrained characteristics — its distrust of the federal bureaucracy, internal personality conflicts, lack of a formal policymaking process and Trump’s own insistence on controlling the public message — severely hampered the federal response, according to current and former White House officials and public health experts. ... Weeks were lost that could have been used to test and isolate the first infected patients, purchase medical supplies, prepare makeshift hospitals and enlist corporations in quickly ramping up production of badly needed respirators and other supplies. The NYT summary is An examination reveals the president was warned about the potential for a pandemic but that internal divisions, lack of planning and his faith in his own instincts led to a halting response, and their article reflects that; the other piece I just added states that that was just one of several examples that underscored the price of the Trump administration’s slow response to evidence as early as January that the coronavirus was headed to the United States - that is to say, they make it clear that his entire response, overall, was slow and halting in a way that had severe costs. The fact that Trump was slow to react to COVID-19 is well-covered in the sources and is broadly uncontroversial among reliable sources; we have to summarize key points like that in the lead. This is especially true in this case because Trump's mishandling of COVID-19 likely cost him re-election, so it's a core part of his biography. --Aquillion (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion, but write to add one more point. Ambrosiaster: You state that parts of [the response] were botched, while others, such as "Operation Warp Speed,' were effective but the statement that Warp Speed was effective is at odds with the sources. Washington Post December 5: "Trump’s Operation Warp Speed promised a flood of covid vaccines. Instead, states are expecting a trickle. The administration pledged several hundred million doses in 2020. Companies will actually ship about 10 percent of that." Or the Associated Press Nov. 15: "Trump ... tried to take full credit for drugmaker Pfizer Inc.'s news that its COVID-19 vaccine may be 90% effective and suggested the mission was basically done. ... His assertions on both matters are untrue. ... Pfizer notably did not accept government money to develop, test or expand manufacturing capacity under Trump's Operation Warp Speed initiative." Neutrality^talk 20:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

#Current consensus #48 does not say there is consensus for "slow". I think a better adjective would be "chaotic".--Jack Upland (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

_ In a recent interview with AFP, Dr Anthony Fauci has actually praised Operation Warp Speed. I quote: "Operation Warp Speed has been very successful and I'm certain that we will continue the pathway of Operation Warp Speed. I think, in credit to what has gone on in the current administration, I think that is a quite successful endeavor. I mean, to come up with a vaccine that is ready for distribution in less than a year, from the time the virus was identified is really an unprecedented speed". Fauci's feedback is probably a more reliable source of information than the rants of reporters in the Washington Post. Ambrosiaster is most likely correct on Operation Warp Speed. Mcrt007 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

"Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden"

This is just straight up false, as the election has not been settled yet. If we had a concession from Trump then we could say with certainty that Biden won the election, but not now as there is no concession and clearly legal disputes. The electoral college decides the official winner of the election, which happens at December 14th 2020.

One might not like Trump's accusations of fraud, but that does not mean one can simply deny the fact that no winner has been officially declared yet. At Wikipedia we strive for neutrality, so I think it goes without saying that integrity should be a bare minimum.

Alternate phrasing: "Biden was projected as the winner by the media but Trump refused to concede defeat." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekanel (talk • contribs) 11:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

RS say he won, so far no court case has said he has not.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Concession is not a legal mechanism in any way. Giving a concession speech neither prevents you from winning an election should a recount change the results, nor does giving a concession speech mean you cannot mount legal challenges. The existence of lawsuits, especially frivolous ones, does not constitute true legal challenge or dispute. President-elect, as a title, is never mentioned in the US Constitution, let alone reserving it for only after the Electors have sat. However, the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 does use the phrase "president-elect," and so United States law explicitly states that once the General Services Administration has ascertained the winner of the election (and the law was explicitly created so that the transition could begin well ahead of the seating of the Electors), the person ascertained is the president-elect. That can be superseded by the Electors doing something different, but until they do, the law clearly states that GSA ascertains who is the president-elect. The GSA did so on November 23rd, meaning that after that date, there was no legal argument to be made that Biden could not be called the president-elect. None of this matters much in terms of Wikipedia, where my arguments could be deemed original research or synthesis, but fortunately, my arguments aren't even needed. All reliable sources call Biden the president-elect, and we do what the reliable sources say. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

And now the EC has found Biden won, what more do we need?Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Addition of National security subsection to Domestic policy

I propose a new subsection related to National security in the Domestic policy aspect of the Presidency heading:

National security

See also: Trump Tower wiretapping allegations

As president, Trump repeatedly claimed the Obama Administration had wiretapped communication at his Trump Tower office during the end of his 2016 presidential campaign and amid his transition into the presidency. Due to this belief, Trump sought to deny the FISA Court from targeting resident Americans, which came ahead during the approaching deadline to reauthorize the Patriot Act, of which expanded the authority of the FISA Court in the domestic sphere. Due to Republican resistance after public urging from Trump, efforts to reauthorize FISA Court surveillance authorities were pulled in May 2020.

MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• No mention of the wiretap without his 2019 admission that it was bullshit. [2] ... a long time ago, very early on I used the word ‘wiretap,’ and I put in quotes, meaning surveillance, spying you can sort of say whatever you want ... I said that just on a little bit of a hunch and a little bit of wisdom maybe ... It was pretty insignificant I thought when I said it... starship.paint (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  The claim itself is structured in the way to emphasize he doesn't have evidence for it, the main reasoning for including it is it's regarded by sources to have influenced his decision to block renewal of the Patriot Act. Inclusion of "claimed without evidence" would likely remedy the situation. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  This detail is better suited to the sub-articles. For this bio, the salient point is how it relates to the large number of his other various conspiracy theories and personal grievances. SPECIFICO talk 15:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  Even if we add “without evidence”, the key problem is Due to this belief. If we cut the motive, left out the wiretapping claims, just discussed the FISA actions, I wouldn’t oppose. starship.paint (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  Actually I’m sure this could be done more succinctly. Trump attempted [some sort of FISS reform] from [year], but Republicans ultimately blocked that effort in 2020. starship.paint (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)|

  But the personal motivation was significant. SPECIFICO talk 02:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• It's just another one of the conspiracy theories promoted by Trump (the Greatest Political Crime In the History of the U.S., the Russian Witch-Hunt), in this case coupled with his Obama obsession (you provided the link to the LA Times article containing a list). Ironically, it helped to do away with Bush administration legislation whose renewal a big faction of the Democrats had opposed in March but IMO that's a little thin for a new subsection. It's not at all clear that it would have passed even without Trump's involvement. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  The crux of the subsection is blocking legislation in relation to National security interests, of which the Patriot Act has been well-regarded as one of the most well-known and impactful of the past 20 years; the allegation is not the center-point but added context, otherwise I'd have listed it as Main article and not See also. Harkening back to a comment left by @SPECIFICO: in which the content of the majority of the article relates to the large number of his other various conspiracy theories and personal grievances, it also serves a fitting purpose in the grand scheme.

  The collapsing of the vote to renew it has been regarded as a bipartisan affair by sources covering the story, in which Trump is often named as having played a key role, with his threatening to veto it had it been passed otherwise often referenced. As The New York Times writes here, the president has a history of erratic intervention in FISA legislation politics. I believe it's noteworthy of inclusion for this reason alone. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  For that reason -only-, if at all. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Bias information.

“He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.”

This is more an opinion than it is fact and is up for debate. It should be changed to say something to the effect of some have criticized him for x, y and z while others would argue x, y and z.

I think that would be better because it gives readers both view points. But what is currently there is undeniably bias. 23gaydosg (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable, independent source that supports your view. HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

(For future reference, the word you want is "biased". Information cannot be "bias".) ―Mandruss ☎ 10:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is that up to me? I don’t even have the capability to edit the Wikipedia page. Plus if you go and read the paragraph it doesn’t cite any reliable source that would suggest that he reacted slowly and so on. So it seems like a double standard that it is my responsibility to provide a source when the paragraph that is currently there doesn’t even cite a reliable source.

Better yet just get rid of that part all together, problem solved. 23gaydosg (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

23gaydosg, the lead is not supposed to have citations per MOS:LEADCITE, because all of the information in the lead is supposed to be in the body, where it has its citations. Look to the body and you'll see that it's in the body and there are reliable sources covering that information. Why is it up to you to find sources? Because we already have WP:CONSENSUS, so the WP:ONUS of changing it is on you. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

First paragraph on Inauguration Day

It's highly unlikely anything will happen between now and January 20 that will affect the changes to the first paragraph on that day. Therefore, for the sake of an orderly "transition", I think it makes sense to go ahead and establish a new consensus for that paragraph. paragraph, to be implemented at noon Eastern Standard Time (5 p.m. UTC) on January 20. Otherwise there will be a lot of instability in the most visible part of the article, likely lasting for a number of days.

As a procedural note, any consensus here should modify, not supersede, #Current consensus #17 on the 20th. I think that's preferable to a new list item, as some of the discussions linked in #17 will still apply.

No discussion is needed for the infobox changes on the 20th:

• |term_end=January 20, 2021
• |successor=[[Joe Biden]] (if not already done by local or community consensus)

Current first paragraph

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.

Proposed first paragraph

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.

• Support as proposer. I am deliberately NOT looking to Barack Obama for guidance (much), per TINO (Trump Is Not Obama). ―Mandruss ☎ 09:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• I cannot support the proposed wording. Trump is not like previous presidents who were only/mainly known for being presidents, and who spent the remainder of their days as "retired presidents" (like Bush or Obama). There is no evidence that Trump plans to retire from a public role, and he is known for more than his four years as president. As we have discussed before, he is widely and increasingly seen as a conspiracy theorist (just look at his Twitter account which is almost exclusively devoted to peddling conspiracy theories from far-right Breitbart). A new first sentence would likely need to reflect that he is still active as a political figure and the world's most prominent conspiracy theorist; he is even speculated to possibly establish a far-right TV channel. A more realistic wording would probably read more like Trump is an American far-right politician and conspiracy theorist who served as president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, followed by a sentence about his possible current activities (e.g. if he runs a far-right, Breitbart-like TV channel). --Tataral (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Granted my proposal doesn't say anything about what he is "now" (after the 20th), and it probably should until he no longer is anything in the earthly realm. Open to suggestions there. But good luck getting a consensus for politically loaded labels in the first paragraph. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  That Trump is a conspiracy theorist and that he is far-right is not loaded, but reflects the consensus of reliable sources. Especially if Trump becomes a major "media mogul" who runs a Breitbart-like TV channel or other media company, that peddles the kind of material that Breitbart peddles (which isn't much of a stretch considering how he constantly retweets material mostly from Breitbart and similar sources), we cannot leave out what he actually does and how the world perceives him just because he was president for four years in the past. --Tataral (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not going to debate you about consensus of reliable sources, since it's irrelevant here. There are plenty of consensuses of reliable sources that are not reflected in the first paragraph because they don't belong in the first paragraph. Even the first paragraph of Adolf Hitler refrains from such characterizations, and a reader who knew nothing about Hitler would have to read further to discover what a stain on humanity he was. That's called "being encyclopedic". ―Mandruss ☎ 09:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Trump is not Hitler either. Hitler was only a politician, and did not have a media career before or after politics, like Trump. If Trump now becomes some kind of Alex Jones with his own TV channel, except a thousand times more prominent as a conspiracy theorist than Alex Jones, there is no reason not to describe him as a conspiracy theorist in the same way that we describe Alex Jones in the first sentence as "an American far-right radio show host and conspiracy theorist." --Tataral (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Now you're talking in pointlessly speculative "ifs", so I'll await comments from more reasonable editors. This is a discussion about what the first paragraph should say at noon on January 20, not if and when Trump does x, y, or z. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Isn't this just WP:CRYSTAL, what he does or doesn't do after being president shouldn't matter, on inauguration day, which is what the proposal is seemingly referring to, he'll mainly be regarded as an ex-president/ex-businessman. Even in that circumstance, him being a former U.S. president is more notable than him being a conspiracy theorist, so the placement in your proposed text is off the mark. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Just do it when Biden actually becomes president, I doubt it's going to much of a struggle. Trump is still the president, using past tense "served" is simply false. Trump could start a war between now and then, did Biden declare it cause Trump is seemingly not the president anymore? Just have some patience, it'll happen eventually. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Reading comprehension on my part needs improvement, yes this is fine for inauguration day but obviously shouldn't see implementation before that. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thank god you beat my blowtorch response by a few seconds; it wasn't pretty. I have modified the initial comment to hopefully improve clarity on this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  That's a relief, don't use Wikipedia when you just wake up folks. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support- as that's roughly how we do it for the other former US presidents & former US vice presidents. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A stricken !vote, a misplaced alternative proposal, and a discussion about moving it to a new section. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Support. Sums up his life until noon, January 20, 2021, very nicely. As for his future endeavors, he may be too busy with lawsuits he did not initiate to do much else (WP:SPECULATION). And he'll also be househunting; his Mar-a-Lago neighbors are suing for him to stick to the agreement that won't allow him to live there for more than 21 days per year and not more than 7 days at a stretch. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC) After further thought—or any thought, really—I'm submitting a proposal of my own. Donald Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, television personality, and politician who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017-2021. His presidency was marked by high turnover of cabinet members and senior White House personnel; a flood of insults of foreign leaders, countries, and perceived opponents; … - sooo many highlights to choose from. The second sentence stating that "Before entering politics, he was …" has rubbed me the wrong way for a while. He didn’t divest himself of his businesses and actively promoted them when he was president, and IMO someone doesn’t stop being a television personality just because he doesn’t have his own show or pageant at the moment. He became a politician the moment he entered the presidential race. He’s formed a personal Political Action Committee (PAC), a clear indication that he has no intention of allowing himself to be put out to pasture quietly. Also, he’s been hinting at running in 2024. I could even live with who served as in the transitive definition of "to perform the duties of (an office or post)" but I prefer "was" because people not familiar with US politics or conventions of speech might think "service" like Mother Theresa and not just another word for "job". With the new second sentence we'd have both a link to "President of the United States" and Presidency of Donald Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC) @Space4Time3Continuum2x: Why not put that in a new subsection? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC) The proposed new second sentence? That would be OK with me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC) @Space4Time3Continuum2x: Not just the second sentence but the entire proposed first paragraph, since it has to be evaluated as a unit. I'll leave the move to you since it's your proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC) Having a dense moment—you mean adding the proposal as a subsection like "Wikilinks" below? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC) A compromise, for the linkage issue? GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC) Well, yes, I guess you could call it that. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support Not sure what else we'd say at that point. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support He may well do "important", "lead-worthy" things next, but I would argue those would not rise to the level of his presidency and should be summarized later in the lead (if at all, whatever those things may be, etc.). The suggested revised sentence will be fine to start off the lead (the lead of the lead). (Unless there is a coup after noon on the 20th, in which case all bets are off...) Bdushaw (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – @MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, GoodDay, Space4Time3Continuum2x, ONUnicorn, and Bdushaw: – Please have a look at the two amendments below and comment there if you have an opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I've commented on both. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the two suggested revisions: (1) wikilink to Presidency of Donald Trump, per the easier wikilink path to President of the United States than the other way, and (2) "was" rather than "served" per puffery, better NPOV, and shorter. Bdushaw (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Per MOS:SPECIFICLINK, the first sentence ought to link to Presidency of Donald Trump, not President of the United States, as the former is more specific and much more likely to be useful to readers. To avoid a MOS:EGG issue, we could make the link over 45th president of the United States rather than just president of the United States. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Consenus already changed that back in July [3]. This way it meets MOS:LINKCLARITY. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

We didn't have the option of including "45th" in the link in July, which remedies the egg/clarity issue. The July discussion also had limited participation and suffered from a number of procedural problems (see my comment below it), so it's perfectly ready for revisiting. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Please don't. Just don't. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I support that, I guess, per much more likely to be useful. Also notable is that a reader can easily navigate Donald Trump -> Presidency of Donald Trump -> President of the United States, but not Donald Trump -> President of the United States -> Presidency of Donald Trump (particularly after January 20). Procedurally, I have no problem with opening up the entire paragraph for CCC discussion, which is one of the reasons to start this a month in advance. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - as we link to President of the United States in the intros of the other US president bio articles. STOP with trying to make this 'one' article different from the others, in that manner. GoodDay (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, but please STOP with insisting that cross-article consistency is the only thing that matters and overrides all other considerations, absent any policy, guideline, or other community consensus that it should have any weight whatsoever. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Why can't you leave well enough alone. If this were a hard-cover encyclopedia? an editor-in-chief would reject such proposals like Sdkb's. Would you be content, if we had a mixture of showing & not showing successors-to-be in these bio article's infoboxes, too? GoodDay (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Why can't you leave well enough alone. Well, we disagree that it's "well enough". Obviously. So you are resting on a premise that is itself your opinion. That's not how reasoning should work. an editor-in-chief would reject such proposals. By design, Wikipedia does not have an editor-in-chief. We go by consensus instead. If you want to play editor-in-chief, go start your own encyclopedia with my best wishes for success. Would you be content, if we had a mixture of showing & not showing successors-to-be in these bio article's infoboxes, too? Probably not, but I'd say that consistency is more important than this minor linking difference, which would be noticed by few readers and cared about by virtually none (which is not to say it wouldn't be an improvement). That's why I pursued a community consensus on |successor=. Without a community consensus, I certainly wouldn't be seen insisting on cross-article consistency in that usage, and implying that everybody who disagrees with me was an incompetent idiot, as you incessantly and tiresomely do. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

We're going to have to disagree on the intro of this article & leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose We link to Presidency of Donald Trump in the Presidency section. We can also link it in the intro, perhaps linking it to 45th (although having two links next to each other can be confusing for readers) or in what is currently the third paragraph, beginning "During his presidency..." ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Didn't we already have this discussion in April? The decision there was to link to "Presidency of Donald Trump." Or was there a later discussion that changed that? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC) Never mind - shoulda read to the end of #17. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

He held the office of president of the United States, not the office of presidency of Donald Trump. Thus another reason for me to 'oppose' linking to the latter. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

"Served as" vs. "was"

MOS:PUFFERY uses "public servants" as an example of loaded language, and served as is a little better but still not preferable when we could just use the perfectly neutral Donald Trump was the 45th... instead. Let's please not adopt the loaded terminology that politicians use to try to escape the connotations of their profession. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

"was" is much better. Neutrality^talk 22:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and I almost proposed "was" instead. Then I thought about the "we should do x because other U.S. presidents' BLPs do x" faction (which includes a few of our most experienced editors), and decided to avoid that. But Wikipedia would do well to deprecate the idea that things are Good merely because they are widespread. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

We use "served" in the intro to Barack Obama, so we can use it here, as well. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

"Served as" is used for every president going backwards from Obama until you get to Nixon. For Nixon we say he "was" the 37th president. "Served as" is then used again for every president until you get to Truman, who we say "was" the 33rd president. FDR again "served as" president, as did Hoover, and Coolidge, but Harding "was" the 29th president. For Wilson we're back to "Served as", but Taft goes back to "was". Theodore Roosevelt returns to "served as" while McKinley "was". "Was" is used for the next couple, but then Chester Arthur "served as". Garfield "was" and Hayes "was", but Grant "served as" while Johnson "was". Lincoln and Bucannan "served as" and Franklin Pierce "was". From Pierce backwards we use "was" until Martin Van Buren, who "served as" the 8th president. We then use "served as" language for all the remaining presidents.

In general, it seems like the trend is to use "served as" for the early presidents and the most recent presidents, and a mix of "was" and "served as" for those in the middle. Interestingly, although this isn't consistent (Hoover "served as") and which presidents were "good" or "bad" at their jobs is up for some debate, it seems for presidents with good reputations we are more likely to use "served as" whereas those who are controversial or widely viewed as "bad" we are more likely to use "was".

Frankly, I think "was" is more neutral, and it would be a good idea to use "was" throughout all U.S. president articles, but I'm not about to run around and try to force that kind of standardization, and I recommend against trying it. With things as they are, I'm afraid it would be seen as biased to use "was" for Trump when the modern presidents all use "served as" except Nixon, who many people think was not a good president. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Was is the NPOV statement. All sources agree on that. It's not yet clear whether, what or whom he "served". SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It's called self-service, I believe. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Salad bar. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Nobody ever seems to have objected to "is" or suggested changing it to "serves." Was is the logical continuation and NPOV, also shorter than "served as." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

We've variations throughout the US presidents bios, on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Devil's advocate alternative

• Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) was a businessman and television personality, who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

  This makes it sound like he's deceased. Placing his business/media careers first also makes no sense, since his presidential career is unquestionably more impactful on the world. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

  As I expressed early on, it would make sense (and seem natural) to say he "is" something as long as he still breathes. In the BLP for an actor that hasn't been heard from in 20 years, we say either "is an actor" or "is a former actor", not "was an actor". We switch to past tense only when they do. Trump will continue to be "heard from" probably as long as he can speak, as it's his nature to be heard from. I'm just not sure what to say Trump "is" after January 20, and we are obviously not going with loaded labels in the first paragraph regardless of any RS support for them. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say "is" a businessman. He still will be a businessman after January 20.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but he won't still be a "television personality" by the usual definition, at least not on January 20. We have to formulate something that makes sense on that day, without thinking about what might come later.

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

Or, maybe the "former television personality" bit could be dropped now that it's over five years old. Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

In either case, I think the comma preceding "who" is grammatically incorrect, even if it provides what might be considered a helpful pause in the sentence.

This would reduce the paragraph to a single sentence, which is not a sin of writing but should be noted anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, OK. No comma. No mention that he is/was a TV personality. It will presumably be true that he is a businessman on January 20. This will probably cover subsequent events, and will probably provide a succinct account of who he is. I don't think that summing up his life by saying he was American President for four years makes much sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Good, then I hereby support this instead of my initial proposal: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Awaiting overwhelming support for that, leaving the "Wikilinks" amendment as yet unresolved. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

What is the "president of the United States" part, being linked to? GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

This section does not address the linking. As I said just above, ...leaving the "Wikilinks" amendment as yet unresolved. If that was unclear, it was referring to the #Wikilinks section above. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok let's give it the pretty blue background like the rest. Still omitting the linking since that's a separate and independent question being handled at #Wikilinks.

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

• Support per discussion in this subsection. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - as this is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Second alternative proposal for first sentence

After further thought—or any thought, really—I'm submitting a proposal of my own.

Donald Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, television personality, and politician who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. His presidency was marked by high turnover of cabinet members and senior White House personnel; a flood of insults of foreign leaders, countries, and perceived opponents; …

- sooo many highlights to choose from.

The second sentence stating that "Before entering politics, he was …" has rubbed me the wrong way for a while. He didn’t divest himself of his businesses and actively promoted them when he was president, and IMO someone doesn’t stop being a television personality just because he doesn’t have his own show or pageant at the moment. He became a politician the moment he entered the presidential race. He’s formed a personal Political Action Committee (PAC), a clear indication that he has no intention of allowing himself to be put out to pasture quietly. Also, he’s been hinting at running in 2024. I could even live with who served as in the transitive definition of "to perform the duties of (an office or post)" but I prefer "was" because people not familiar with US politics or conventions of speech might think "service" like Mother Theresa and not just another word for "job".

With the new second sentence we'd have both a link to "President of the United States" and "Presidency of Donald Trump." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Acceptable - as this satisfies my concerns about 'consistency' across these US president bios articles & the misdirection of wiki-linking the 'presidency' to an individuals administration. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Opposed - typically the opening line of an article such as this gives only the basics of the man and not his tenure, I'm looking at past U.S. presidents when I say this such as George W. Bush and Barack Obama, as such, the attempt at a rundown of his presidency is a no go for this proposal and is what the succeeding paragraphs in the rest of the lead are for. Also the use of a hyphen is messy, simply say from 2017 to 2021. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

As I said when I misunderstood what Mandruss had written, I'd be OK with moving the second sentence into a new paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Probable trolling or WP:NOTHERE. Definite non-starter. Besides, we don't oppose a proposal by making a new one, for obvious reasons of organization. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose- this is too soft. new suggestion" Donald Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, television personality, high-stakes grifter, politician, and con-artist who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017-2021. He is almost universally regarded as the worst president of all time. His presidency was marked by rampant corruption and nepotism, attacks on democracy, tax cuts for the wealthy while gutting social services for ordinary Americans, government sanctioned torture of immigrants, the construction of concentration camps on US soil, impeachment, fealty to foreign leaders and dictators, the bungled handling of a global pandemic, an economic depression, high turnover of cabinet members and senior White House personnel; a flood of insults of foreign leaders, countries, and perceived opponents; …}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC) I was thinking more in terms of personal behavior and turmoil at the WH for the second sentence and a bit more in-depth coverage for the—uh—governing. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Your second sentence is the kind of thing we have in paragraphs 3 and 4 and doesn't belong in paragraph 1 in my opinion. As I've previously said with some support from others, the first paragraph should answer the very basic question, "Who is Donald Trump?" for readers who have never heard of him, and nothing more. And I certainly don't care to get into debates about what few things "marked" his presidency. sooo many highlights to choose from. – Exactly!
  I'd be OK with moving the second sentence into a new paragraph. I'd object to a single-sentence second paragraph (first paragraph is a different animal) and, again, we save broad evaluations of his presidency for paragraphs 3 and 4.
  He became a politician the moment he entered the presidential race. Disagree with that narrow definition. In my view a politician devotes at least a large part of his adult life to serving in public office. Trump went from businessman and reality show host to president and back, effectively only dabbling in politics after 69 years of life. Even Schwarzenegger is borderline, and he served twice as long – and we're currently calling him a "former politician".
  Merriam and Webster largely agree with me here:[4]
  • 1 : a person experienced in the art or science of government.

    Trump had no such experience when he started, and didn't gain much in four years, as evidenced by his failure to be re-elected.

    • especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government

      Not after January 20. Debatable that he ever was.

  • 2 a : a person engaged in party politics as a profession

    Clearly and objectively not.

    b : often disparaging : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons

    Ok, but let's not be disparaging in the first paragraph.

I assume you dropped his middle name by mistake since that would violate MOS. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

While we haggle out the intro of this article, in preparations for Trump's departure on January 20, 2021. I've opened up a discussion at Joe Biden, concerning that article's intro, which will also change on January 20, 2021. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

new proposal (best proposal yet)

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.

---

"new suggestion" Donald Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, television personality, high-stakes grifter, politician, and con-artist who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017-2021. He is almost universally regarded as the worst president of all time, by relevant experts. His presidency, informally known as the "Dark Ages" by American historians, was marked by rampant corruption and nepotism, attacks on democracy, tax cuts for the wealthy while gutting social services for ordinary Americans, government sanctioned torture of immigrants, the construction of concentration camps on US soil, impeachment, fealty to foreign leaders and dictators, the bungled handling of a global pandemic, an economic depression, high turnover of cabinet members and senior White House personnel; a flood of insults of foreign leaders, countries, and perceived opponents; …}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Not sure what you're trying to prove, but it's not helping. Please, take your personal politics off Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2020 (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.

Mar-A-Lago Residence Dispute

It appears there is a legal dispute over Trump's declaration of Mar-A-Lago as his residence. Not yet covered in this article... https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/16/politics/donald-trump-mar-a-lago/index.html IHateAccounts (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

But... should it be? Not every little thing should be covered, and I'm not sure the dispute about him moving to Mar-A-Lago full time is significant enough for this article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Its a "there might be", and frankly I think it will blow over. If it becomes a major court case, maybe.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

That source is all of a day old. Don't be so reactive to the continuous stream of daily headlines about Trump – not only because that isn't encyclopedic, but because this article already has a serious size problem and can't afford that. Please propose new content about something that happened two years ago and has received enough press coverage since then to satisfy WEIGHT. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There's already a notation that Trump declared his intention to make Mar-A-Lago his primary residence in this article, so this seems to be related. Also, more sources:

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/trump-mar-a-lago-neighbors-dispute/2020/12/15/bc2ce1d0-3ed4-11eb-9453-fc36ba051781_story.html
2. https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/trumps-move-to-his-florida-estate-challenged-by-neighbor/
3. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/17/trump-mar-a-lago-club-neighbors-florida

WP:DUE level seems to be there with the story hitting international-level WP:RS coverage. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

He'll probably make a deal or tie them up in court for years. Not DUE at this point. O3000 (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Most Trump coverage hits international coverage in the short term, so that's not a useful test for WEIGHT. Wait and see if it's still being widely talked about after a month or two, as that's when it becomes suitable for this one-page biography. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The guardian seems to say it one household sending out one warning letter. So its not a court case, its not an official body, and its not even a large number of objections (and given the town has allowed him to abuse the agreement for four years I am not sure the town will do anything).Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Trump's neighbors appear to have deeper pockets than him, so they may sue him and/or Palm Beach if he doesn't comply with their demands. But that is only speculation at this point and shouldn't be included in the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It's covered at the Mar-a-Lago article. At the moment, nothing much has happened. It might become a court case, but if it does it should probably just be classed under Legal affairs of Donald Trump. As a resident of Australia, I agree that most Trump stories are covered internationally. This doesn't make them particularly important.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Not yet significant enough for this biography. If it escalates into an actual legal challenge we might (or might not) add a sentence. If he winds up actually moving somewhere else we will definitely include it. But right now it's just talk. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Can I change the picture for Trump

I have a really cool one I want to use Nex Carnifex (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you can!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Depends on what the new picture is. There is a long-standing consensus on the current picture. Mgasparin (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

How is it better than the one we have?Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The current image is the product of massive discussion (see #Current consensus item 1) and won't be changed easily even after he is no longer president. "Really cool" will not carry much weight as an argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2020

{{subst:trim|1=

I want to add good thoughts about Donald Trump. All tho I may not support him but all people should get a chance to have somethings good written about them.

You need to say what it is you want to add, not just a vague assertion. Do you have any ideas about what we can add?Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible Bias

Asking to remove things such as "unsubstantied", or saying that the attempts to change the election results were meant to sow chaos. As evidence is debated upon, I don't think this is a definite fact that can be stated, and stating that, "legal claims were aimed at causing chaos and confusion", is claiming that, this is his intention, is fact. I don't think it's correct for an article, like this, to be giving opinions on trump's legal battles to this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isben99 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

What is in the text is what is in the reliable sources. Additionally, the evidence isn't being debated upon. The Trump campaign is at 60+ cases, losing all but one. A number of these cases were considered on merit and evidence, and they still lost. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source source that says that there is voter fraud/whatnot? It's not an opinion. It's the truth. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 19:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@OurborosCobra The Trump campaign has filed about 5-6 lawsuits. The others are from individual citizens. Stop being dishonest. MostConcernedVoter (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request

Hi, could we please add "grifter" to the list of descriptors of Trump, apropos of this news? https://www.businessinsider.com/jared-kushner-trump-campaign-shell-company-family-ammc-lara-2020-12?utm_source=reddit.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

While true, this is not appropriate. Otherwise I would've added vexatious litigant as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

“Ordered non-cooperation”?

This is completely false and misleading, seeing as he gave the go-ahead to the Biden transition team weeks ago. You need to cite your source if you’re going to claim that he ordered non-cooperation. MostConcernedVoter (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

MostConcernedVoter, there are citations. See Donald Trump#2020 presidential election, where it says Trump blocked government officials from cooperating in the presidential transition of Joe Biden.. Also, just today, we have new reports about DOD hating cooperation with the Biden transition. So, there are sources. Where are yours? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

References

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/23/us/politics/trump-transition-biden.html MostConcernedVoter (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)