Talk:Donald Trump

Current consensus

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

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

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

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow-up to Russian bounties

The NBC source, dated April 15, 2021, added and removed today was also mentioned in the RfC. It contains a paragraph that is not supported by their linked sources: They still have not found any evidence, a senior defense official said Thursday. And the Biden administration also made clear in a fact sheet released Thursday that the CIA's intelligence on the matter is far from conclusive, acknowledging that analysts labeled it "low to moderate confidence." The link "still have not found any evidence" links to an NBC article written nine months earlier in July 2020, not a source for a briefing on Thursday, April 15, 2021. The linked WH fact sheet says this unter the section title "Reporting Afghanistan Bounties": The Administration is responding to the reports that Russia encouraged Taliban attacks against U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan based on the best assessments from the Intelligence Community (IC). Given the sensitivity of this matter, which involves the safety and well-being of our forces, it is being handled through diplomatic, military and intelligence channels. The safety and well-being of U.S. military personnel, and that of our allies and partners, is an absolute priority of the United States. That does not sound as though they're walking back much, if anything. There was a briefing by a senior administration on another Thursday, May 7, 2021. The NY Times wrote that Afterward, some commentators treated the bare line about confidence levels as a new development that amounted to the government walking back its suspicions from 2020.

Hatted quote from NYT

Ultimately, newly declassified information shows, those analysts discovered a significant reason to believe the claim was accurate: Other members of the same Taliban-linked network had been working closely with operatives from a notorious unit of the G.R.U., the Russian military intelligence service, known for assassination operations. “The involvement of this G.R.U. unit is consistent with Russia encouraging attacks against U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan given its leading role in such lethal and destabilizing operations abroad,” the National Security Council said in a statement provided to The New York Times. The statement was originally drafted and declassified to serve as talking points for officials to use in briefing reporters last month about U.S. sanctions and other punishments against Russia. The White House took diplomatic action — delivering a warning and demanding an explanation for suspicious activities — about the bounty issue, but did not base sanctions on it. The Biden administration did impose sanctions for Russia’s SolarWinds hacking and election interference. In briefing reporters, a senior administration official noted that the intelligence community had assessed with “low to moderate confidence” that Russia had offered bounties. The official, focusing on other complex issues, skipped over most of the newly declassified information that had been prepared to explain what the government knew about the bounty issue. Afterward, some commentators treated the bare line about confidence levels as a new development that amounted to the government walking back its suspicions from 2020. But The Times had reported last summer that different intelligence agencies, while agreeing on the assessment itself, disagreed on whether to put medium or lower confidence in it. The evidence available to analysts — both alarming facts and frustrating gaps — essentially remains the same.

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Put it all in the Trump administration article. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't planning on adding anything to this article, just explaining why the added cites weren't just "not on point" for our WP text but also mistaken about the facts. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I added Trump questioned the existence of the alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan and didn't mention it to Putin., with a reliable source (BBC), to the article here, see also RfC Russian Bounties claims -- User:Chess: Another discussion will likely be necessary to workshop a better wording that may be agreed on by the participants here.

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It's just one of those stories that flares up for political reasons then dies down. Intelligence receive many rumors that they must investigate and evaluate, most of which turn out to be false. If the president spent all his time addressing these rumors, nothing would get done. The sudden collapse of the Afhgan government should tell us how unreliable raw intelligence can be. TFD (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thats your OR. SPECIFICO talk 12:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:OR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." Editors are supposed to use their analytic skills in order to determine what belongs in the article. If we included everything that happened or didn't happen during the Trump administration this article would be very long indeed. Don't abdicate your responsibility to distinguish between what is or is not important and worthy of inclusion just because you think that process is OR. Now please provide your OR on why it should be included. TFD (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say OR is prohibited. But sorry, my comment apparently was too succinct for the occasion. Rephrasing: When posting your opinion or assessment of sources and context, please support these opinions with facts and analysis that might convince others of your view. The trivial observation that intelligence agencies evaluate diverse reports from the field does not address the sourced reporting of the significance of this event.The opinion you expressed about flareup and diedown does not invalidate the article content under discussion. I should have said "that's merely your OR or whatever. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

Indeed, one thinks back to 2003. When the Intelligence community claimed the existence of WMDs in Iraq. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC) Yeah, no. One needs to read The Facts. There were serious problems in the intelligence, some of which were relegated to dissenting footnotes. But the Bush administration also chose to highlight aspects of the intelligence that helped make the administration’s case, while playing down others. amd multiple CIA reports dismissed the claim that Iraq and al-Qaeda were cooperating partners — and that there was no intelligence information that supported administration statements that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaeda. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The edit you cite above was just one of three.

• The first one is the one you mention above. Reliable sources disagree on the facts. The NY Times article written three weeks after the BBC's and after another briefing is also a reliable source—see my above edit.
• The second one replaced the image once again. I had previously objected to the replacement.
• The third one changed the sentence preceding the one about the bounties. The text you added is incorrect, per the source you cited. The other countries mentioned were never in the G-8 and didn't need to be returned to it. Trump wanted to return Russia to the G-7 and add a number of countries, to enlarge the current G-7 to a G-10 or G-11. He had no right to initiate that unilaterally, and his plans were nipped in the bud. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x:: I had previously objected to the replacement. Please see WP:OWN: No one has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). The image of Trump and Putin was part of a photo-op for news media, taken by the WH photographer and released by the WH.-- Tobby72 (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Tobby, when you post an ad hominem instead of respionding to the substance of the concern, you make it extremely unlikely that editors will step in to endorse your POV on this edit. If it's any comfort to you, I believe that I have made the same or similar reverts to your content on a variety of articles. Most of them are simply off-topic, undue, poorly sourced, or fail NPOV. If these reverts are frustrating to you, try sticking more closely to our content PAGs. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If an edit has been objected to, you should discuss it on the talk page before repeating it. Wikimedia Commons has ten images of Trump and Putin, by themselves, at the G20 in Osaka. In most of the pictures Trump is smiling at or with Putin. You selected one of the two where Trump looks grumpily off to the side, and not the one where Putin barely smiles but the one where Putin smiles widely at the camera. Why? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This image was in the article for quite some time, between 2020-2021. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

So was the one that replaced it, unchallenged, on March 27, 2021, with the edit summary "better image". I also think that the current one is the better one for his bio. Trump's grab-and-yank handshakes made the news, e.g., NYT, WaPo, and others; this one would be the alpha-male stand-off, I think. Both images were taken by the WH photographer and released by the WH. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC Russian Bounties claims – better wording

22:34, 29 December 2021: User:Chess wrote: "I've been brought here by WP:RFCL to close, so here I am. Looking at the rough survey, this seems somewhat evenly divided in terms of !votes. ... I'll close with a consensus of retain, but add context. ... Another discussion will likely be necessary to workshop a better wording that may be agreed on by the participants here."

The sentence currently reads:

and never brought up Russia's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan with Putin.

I would suggest replacing this with:

Trump expressed doubts about Russia's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan and never discussed it with Putin.

or

Trump expressed doubts about Russia's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan and believed that the intelligence assessment was leaked to media to help Joe Biden's presidential campaign or to prevent the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.

My edit was reverted here by SPECIFICO with the following edit summary: "No consensus for these changes."

Your comments and suggestions will be greatly appreciated. @Chess:, @Bob K31416:, @Jack Upland:, @FormalDude:, @The Four Deuces:, @GoodDay:, @Space4Time3Continuum2x:, @OgamD218:, @Zaathras:, @Firefangledfeathers:, @ValerianB:, @InedibleHulk:, @Fieari:, @Iamreallygoodatcheckers:, @SPECIFICO:, @LM2000:, @Wuerzele:, @Adoring nanny:, @Alaexis:, @LondonIP:, @Neonorange:

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Put all of it into the Trump administration article, no matter what version is decided on. It doesn't belong in his bio article. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If it's found to be verified, I think it belongs in both articles. Indeed many members of Trump's administration were reported to be concerned and very much in disagreement with his behavior toward Russia and Putin, It was reported as a personal distinction of Trump's. And I am not talking about any of the unproven allegations about prostitutes and hacking conspiracies. Just that his behavior toward Russia and Putin was at odds with US policy, congressional mandates, and the advise of his own inner circle. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

For neutrality, we should mention that the claims were not adequately supported. To be fair, if Trump asked Putin about every rumor leaked to the press, he would have spent a lot of time talking to him, which of course would itself become an issue. TFD (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point. The issue that Trump was close to Putin is worth mentioning. Listing things that Trump didn't raise with Putin is a bit silly.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, many people who !voted to include this in the RfC wanted it with the context that the claims were disputed. One of the proposals mentions that Trump doubted it but he's a biased (and frankly unreliable) narrator.LM2000 (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Since I got pinged, yeah, figure out a consensus. I won't really take a side here on the actual dispute but SPECIFICO is somewhat right that there's "no consensus for these changes" which is why I recommended that you have a discussion on what form the "added context" should take before adding it into the article. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ditto. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Chess. Agree, but there is no consensus that the article should continue to include that Trump "never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan", so the disputed text should be hidden until the dispute is resolved and better wording is agreed on by the participants here. - diff -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. The text remains while under discussion. ValarianB (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I support "Trump expressed doubts about Russia's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan and never discussed it with Putin." It's short and sweet and adds all the context necessary. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Opposed to first proposal. The BBC source says that Trump tweeted "fake news" and "fake issue", the AP source mentions NSA O’Brien saying that Trump has not been briefed on the matter. IMO, neither one supports expressed doubts. The New York Times wrote that commentators had misinterpreted the 2021 briefings. Opposed to second proposal. First proposal plus speculations on what Trump believed about motivations for alleged leaks. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Proposal #3. The context isn't that Trump believed or didn't believe the intelligence. The WH had offered two different explanations anyway, that he didn't believe or that he wasn't briefed, i.e., he didn't know. I propose the following alternate wording to follow "Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7"

and did not confront Putin over intelligence information of varying degrees of confidence that Russian operatives had offered "financial incentives to reward attacks on American and allied troops."

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I would just say "about an intelligence report that..." -- The NYT article is consistent with that representation of the state of knowledge at the time. SPECIFICO talk 18:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Proposal #4: :

  and did not confront Putin about an intelligence report that Russian operatives had offered "financial incentives to reward attacks on American and allied troops."

  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support #4 a brief, straightforward representation of the source. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Pinging ValarianB—name misspelled in notifications of RfC participants. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Considering that this is about something Trump *didn't do* about the bounties which might or might not have existed, I don't think it should be included in this article. I see that GoodDay has suggested moving it to Trump administration.

I understand that the consensus is to include it, in which case I support any of Tobby72's proposed wordings. I like Proposal #1 more as it's more concise. Proposals #3 and especially #4 indeed constitute a "straightforward representation" of the NYT article, but that's actually a problem: due weight should be determined by a broad range of RS. Alaexis_¿question? 11:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You are advocating for proposals that have been rejected. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment any proposal that does not clearly say that these supposed bounties are in some way disputed or that Trump didn't believe they existed is not providing appropriate context. The consensus in the past discussion was pretty much to add the context that these bounties are disputed. This is primarily why Proposal #3 and Proposal #4 are not adequate at addressing the consensus from the previous discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not the way the sources report it. For example, he also said he didn't believe the Russians hacked the DNC. Not sure what you mean about addressing a previous decision that is now being overwritten? SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

RS says that there is not conclusive evidence that these bounties exist.[1] The bounties were disputed then and they are disputed now. Frankly, this discussion has already happened before and the consensus was to provide this context. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

And another RS says that some journalists misinterpreted what administration officials said. The consensus is that there seems to be rough agreement that some coverage of the Russian bounty controversy and its relation to Trump be maintained, but that the current wording of the coverage could be altered or contextualized. It doesn't say that the context is what Trump said he believed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not about what Trump said he believes. It's about the fact that these bounties existence are disputed, not just by Trump, but by RS. Trumps belief is rationally based with RS and this is an article about Trump, so what he believes certainly is relevant, especially if it's based in RS. That's the contextualization needed. A good compromise might to just say the bounties are dispute and not that Trump necessarily believed they didn't exist. I think the fight at that point is just petty. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

A good compromise might to just say — why don't you propose a sentence? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, the only real way of providing this needed context is to mention Trump had doubts of the bounties existence. That has to be the context that consensus showed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That isnt the mainstream narrative. By the time of this event, Trump's statements about his beliefs were rarely taken seriously. We can't parrot his words when RS dont treat them as credible. SPECIFICO talk 02:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning Trump's beliefs isn't treating them as credible. We are not saying or even implying that Trump is right, we're only stating his position on a topic which is what this article is supposed to be doing. This is not different than saying something like "Trump doesn't believe in climate change". We are not implying that climate change isn't real, we are just stating Trump's position. The same applies here. RS does speak of Trump's doubts. See these sources: Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

No. the point is that the mainstream does not assess that those are his true beliefs, so they are UNDUE. Few to none affirm that he believes what he says. Beliefs do not appear useful, so he does not need any. SPECIFICO talk 03:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

No one's saying or implying those are his "true beliefs". We are merely advocating for what RS has said, that he "expressed doubt". Now what Trump truly thinks in his mind I have no clue and neither does RS, but we do know he "expressed doubt". Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Right -- so what is the significance of what he expressed when it has nothing to do with what he thinks? Can of worms and irrelevant. SPECIFICO talk 02:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

(1) It's been reported in RS, so really thats all you need. (2) What Trump comments about an issue being mentioned in this article is inherently relevant to the article because this article is about Trump. (3) The last discussion mentioned that context is needed, and the revision you're supporting (prop. 4) does not address the contextual concern that the last discussions consensus had. The proposition your supporting is marginally different than the one that exists now. I would say it's even worse since it doesn't say the bounties are "alleged", which is a fact supported by RS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That's seriously and fundamentally incorrect. See ONUS and NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 03:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It's been covered enough for inclusion. Several sources have been cited above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal #5

Trump expressed doubts about Russia's alleged bounties to Taliban fighters for attacking American soldiers in Afghanistan and never discussed it with Putin.

@Chess: One thing is for sure, the current version is against the consensus of retain, but add context. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me. It addresses every angle and provides the needed context. Trump's opinion expression is absolutely relevant and not WP:UNDUE because this article is about Trump and Trump only. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Checkers, I think it's been established above that, while we know Trump's statements we do not know his opinions or beliefs. Self-serving statements not treated as credible by RS may certainly be omitted, and this is such a one. SPECIFICO talk 23:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This proposition in no way at all says what Trump believes. It says what he has expressed, which is covered in RS. I described it as opinion in my statement above. I will correct it to expression. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Tobby, that's your very first proposal, from a month ago, and—as one of the editors responded back then—Trumnp is still a biased (and frankly unreliable) narrator. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support — Improvement over what is presently in the article which falsely implies that Trump should have brought it up by not mentioning any doubt by anyone. Trump, the military and intelligence services had doubts about the existence of the bounties and later even Biden had doubts. See for example [2]. For reference, here's what is presently in the article

"Trump ... never brought up Russia's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan with Putin."

Bob K31416 (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

State-controlled & largest Chinese bank's offices at Trump Tower

I added this sentence to Manhattan developments: The state-controlled Industrial and Commercial Bank of China has been a tenant since 2008, initially leasing three floors. It was deleted with the remark that the building has had scores of tenants since 1998, not to do enough w/Trump to merit incl. The building probably had more than scores of tenants since it opened in 1983 but most of them didn't pay almost $2 million in annual rent for three floors directly below Trump's offices and in the same building as his primary residence. The lease ended in 2019, and a new one was negotiated while Trump was negotiating with China on various tariffs and while other tenants left or couldn't pay the rent. Tenants Gucci or Ronaldo—meh, foreign government-controlled bank—noteworthy. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be well sourced over many years in multiple RS. I think it warrants inclusion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: all chinese banks are majority owned by the central government-if they were suspected of engaging in illicit activity that would be one thing. I meant to say 2008-not 1998. This specific entity paid market rate and Plenty of Trump Tower tenants have given millions over the years. The reference to the specific location of their offices seems like a mix of OR and an attempt to insinuate something not substantiated by any reputable sources. With all that being said, the relationship between this and the potential violation of the Emoluments Clause is what warrants inclusion in my opinion-maybe not even specifically on this page but if not on the Presidency of Donald Trump page (some may argue both). However the current inclusion of this content, in location and wording carries a tone of underhanded criticism of Trump just bc he owned a business that leased real-estate to a Chinese corp 8 years before he became President.OgamD218 (talk) 07:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You would need to show that the lease had received a lot of attention in reliable sources. Also, based on your comments, you believe that China bribed Trump. If we want to put that accusation into the article, it must explicitly say that rather than just hint it. TFD (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The image of Trump, per RS reports and accounts of those who know him, is that an explicit bribe is not always necessary to influence his perception of his self-interest. E.G. would be his apparent belief that currying the favor of NKorea leader Kim might get him development rights to some NK oceanfront property and his flattery of Putin due to an unfounded belief that the Trump Moscow tower would soon be built. I see no claim of bribery here. It's simply good business to cozy up to the rich and poweful. SPECIFICO talk 20:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll rephrase then: "Also, based on your comments, you believe that China influenced Trump. If we want to put that accusation into the article, it must explicitly say that rather than just hint it." And if you think it's telling that Trump rented out luxury office space in Manhattan to the rich and powerful rather than the poor and powerless, then you need a source that makes that conclusion. TFD (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• I just added more details and cites at current tenants at Trump Tower, BTW. OgamD218, you're reading meaning into the sentence in Manhattan developments that isn't there, and no, TFD, I don't know whether and didn't insinuate or imply that China bribed or "influenced" Trump or whether they're paying market rents. They were the third-largest tenant after Gucci and the Trump Corporation, and with the two floors they are currently renting they're probably still one of the top 3—5, considering that average occupancy has fallen below 80%. Would that make Trump feel beholden to ICBC? I really don't know, do u? Anyway, I just amended the sentence to read that ICBC is the third-largest tenant after Gucci and the Trump Corporation, i.e., the second-largest non-Trump entity. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose this is an attempt to smear Mr. Trump by association. It is not nearly important enough to include in this overly long article on the merits - there are hundreds of entities Trump has done real estate deals with and there is no particular reason this one is notable. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to take the most neutral stance possible and fact is violations of the emoluments clause is something that is was rarely ever even discussed as a possibility forget could realistically been violated. The rule does not require a bribe be made or influenced received it strives to prevent such from ever materializing. Due to Trump's resistance to placing his business assets in a blind trust, his administration was the only modern occurence when the commission of an EC violation was actually seriously discussed in public discourse-this is the one and only way the reference to the Chinese bank becomes potentially relevant enough to warrant inclusion. The fact a discussion has materialized over whether or not this specific lease influenced Trump's presidential policies to be more favorable towards the Chinese gives credence to the argument it was only added in the first place to insinuate as much. The key word being insinuate as no reputable source exists that would outright make such a claim. To be @Space4Time3Continuum2x: clear, it is clownish to think Trump felt beholden to the ICBC as President based on this lease. No reasonable person should draw such a conclusion but unfortunately reason all too often flies out the window when matters of contemporary politics are concerned-especially when Trump is involved. Without any other context or issues being raised, whoever the third largest tenant happens to be in one of Trump's real-estate properties, is not information that even comes close to warranting inclusion on this page. OgamD218 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Among the reasons you may not have seen ongoing discussion about emoluments was that it was noted and undisputed early in his administration. Not much to discuss. Please do not use this page to disparage other editors, and please review my comment in this thread above, which explains the misapprehension that underlies your rejection of this content. SPECIFICO talk 22:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If you say that Trump rented to the Chinese-owned bank, you are implying there may have been some influence otherwise why mention it? Why not mention all the tenants at Trump Tower? This tactic incidentally is one that Trump himself used successfully. "I'm not saying that Ted Cruz's father knew Oswald, I'm just saying that he looks like the guy in the picture with Oswald."

We cannot say that Trump might have violated the Emoluments Clause in this case without a source that says that. Although there are various definitions, one is that the term emolument means income paid to an employee. According to the DOJ, which interpreted it more broadly, it meant income in return for services to a foreign state. Only the broadest definition was any payment whatsoever.

TFD (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any suggestion we discuss emoluments in the proposed text, but I do think there could be some well-sourced content about mingling of personal and official relationships. The lease is significant not because Trump received cash income from the lease but because either party might have thought it could benefit from the wider relationship fostered by such proximity. Similar to what happened with the Trump Hotel in DC or the dinner table at Mar a Lago, where members regularly had the POTUS' ear. SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The criterion to determining whether something is significant is not editors' opinions, but the degree of coverage in reliable sources. That policy is necessary because different editors will have different opinions on what is important. While that is not the only possible policy, some policy is necessary and that's the one we have. Other wikis, such as Conservapedia, have different ways of determining due weight. But until you get Wikipedia's policies changed, we're stuck with existing policies. TFD (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I hope you'll take some time to broaden your view of this issue. I'm confident that if you care to read as many referenes as I have on this subject you will understand that what I've stated above reflects the central narrative of the most informed and respected available sources. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Ogam, you were the one in this discussion who brought up the emoluments clause, so were you referring to yourself with "clownish" and "no reasonable person"? Trump Tower is owned by GMAC Commercial Mortgage. It has 232 units, and 231 of those are residential. Trump owns at least one residential unit but its size is 10,000 square ft., not 30,000 as he claimed until recently, and worth a lot less than the $30 million he claimed. Trump owns the one commercial unit, i.e., the retail space in the atrium and the space on the 13 non-residential floors. According to the NY Times, they generated more than $20 million in profits annually, for a total of $336.3 million since 2000. He took out a personally guaranteed 10-year, $100 million mortgage loan in 2012; the master servicer of the loan, Wells Fargo, issued a debt warning in September 2021 when the occupancy rate dropped from 85.9% in September 2020 to a lower-than-average 78.9% in September 2021. The average landlord would probably want to avoid losing their third-largest tenant under these circumstances, by offering incentives such as lowering the rent, for example. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: the source discusses the emoluments clause-indeed a possible emoluments violation is literally the only reason any source considers this information relevant. Without making a case grounded in such this content simply doesn't belong in this article. What you have done instead is make a nonsensical argument based entirely on your original research about the business viability of Trump Tower-once again this content if it belongs somewhere it would most appropriately be on the page for Trump Tower. The situation might be different if this bank's lease was an essential source of revenue for Trump personally but such is not the case. OgamD218 (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That is a line of argument that's already been discused and rejected. What is the expected value of daily proximity and personal interaction with POTUS and his family? Google "trump hotel DC" for starters to see how RS have covered this issue. SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I have already put my comment above, but I would like to respond to some opposers. The Four Deuces, says "You would need to show that the lease had received a lot of attention in reliable sources". This subject has received numerous RS over a period of years. At first I though this was going to be a WP:NOTNEWS issue, but it clearly is not. Here's a source from 2016. 2017, 2020, and 2021. This is sort of significant when it comes to RS, per WP:DUE. Some editors have concern that inclusion is like hinting that Trump is bribing or something. RS has mentioned this with concerns over conflicts of interest. I personally, see no implication of bribing in the statement. However, with all that said, I do understand maybe the argument that it's just not really significant because it kind of isn't. This really hasn't bubbled up to be much for Trump. I think whatever the result is here it's not that important. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

"Donald Trump: A list of potential conflicts of interest" (BBC 18 April 2017) has sections for Trump International Hotel, 40 Wall St., the Dakota Access Pipeline, Deutsch Bank, the FCC, the National Labor Relations Board, the Secret Service, Stocks, Foreign Holdings, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the Dominican Republic, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Turkey and UK Golf Courses. One sentence is devoted to the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. For someone who has received the degree of news coverage he has, probably more than any other person in world history, this fails weight. And yes, saying that Trump rents to a Chinese owned bank with any commentary implies wrong doing, which is the only reason one would mention it. Why otherwise would you single out this tenant? Why not mention that Starbucks is a tenant? TFD (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware those have not been extensively covered in RS like the China Bank tenant. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe cuz Starbucks also has hundreds of other leases in New York? SPECIFICO talk 04:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That's one source from April 2017, there's plenty of coverage in other sources—adding one more. The tenant was no longer "singled out" after I added Gucci and the Trump Org. Largest non-retail and non-Trump or Trump-affilialed renter of office space with a lease renegotiated at a time when commercial occupancy rates are down and Trump Tower's occupancy rate is even lower than average. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I had added the two tenants who occupy more space than the bank, Gucci and the Trump Corporation (Gucci is a special case since their customers enter from the street and not from inside Trump Tower), so if we're not counting "renting to self" then the bank is the second largest tenant. Speaking about "renting to self", there are also Trump's PACs and the RNC. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Adding archived non-paywalled version of Bloomberg article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Trump's habit of destroying documents

There is more and more information coming out about Trump’s habit of tearing up or otherwise destroying documents while president, or taking them with him when he left the White House.[3] [4] [5][6] This needs to be documented somewhere in Wikipedia - maybe not in this biographical article specifically, but somewhere. Any ideas about where we could put this information? Or do we already have it somewhere? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't appear like anything out of the ordinary, concerning US presidents, TBH. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the scale of it is quite unusual for US presidents. I would think a mention in the article on his presidency would be warranted. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, is this a joke? You think every POTUS takes 15 boxes of documents, many of them labeled TOP SECRET, to their private residences after they leave the White House? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Not every single one of them. But, I highly doubt only one of them. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It is orders of magnitude different from the minor violations committed by other presidents. Trump made it a habit - a routine he did all the time - to tear up documents after he had read them. (It was actually his lifelong habit, he had done it as a businessman.) No other president has had aides whose job it was to gather up the ripped pieces and tape them back together so that they would be in the archives as the law requires. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, person familiar with the National Archives process calls this "unprecedented". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

As another editor mentioned. Put the info in the Trump administration article. This BLP needs trimming, not expansion. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay on this. Not important enough for the BLP. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a developing story—not enough information on what he ripped up or tried to flush down the toilet, what kind of classified documents were shipped to Mar-a-Lago and how they ended up being shipped (who had access to "top secret"?). For now, maybe a new paragraph "Alleged violations of Presidential Records Act" in Presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Ethics? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed per WP:BREAKING. If this develops to the point where it becomes clear that it's biographically significant (hearings, charges) it'll belong for sure then. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a good suggestions, SpaceTime. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It will probably never come to charges, Muboshgu. The presidential records law makes it a crime to destroy or otherwise remove any presidential documents at all - important or not. But AFAIK the law has no enforcement provisions. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

As with many of these laws it seems, Hatch Act etc., toothless. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There's jail time and disqualification from future public office. I think the issue is more whether the Biden Administration would shy away from prosecuting him (should solid evidence be found) for fear of political backlash and a fraught precedent given Republicans' recent vows to impeach Biden and presumably future Democratic officeholders should the elephants ever regain the House. SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I back the wait and see approach, if this becomes a major issue we can wait until then, if not we have lost nothing by waiting.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The scale of this is truly unprecedented, so I do think that it warrants a short “Alleged violations of presidential records act” section here. However, that would have to be very concise, maybe with a “for more info” link to a more extensive section in the presidency article. Cpotisch (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I think if we want to do that the more extensive section should be added to the presidency article first, then the short summary added here. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I just discovered there is extensive reporting on Trump's practices at the article Presidential Records Act. BTW our article doesn't say anything about jail time or disqualification from future office. I had read that there are no enforcement provisions or penalties at all - that it was assumed the rules would be honored by, well, honorable presidents. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph on this subject to the Presidency of Donald Trump article, under the section heading “Transparency and data availability”, which I changed to “Transparency, data availability, and record keeping”. We might later add a sentence to the text of this article if the subject turns out to have staying power. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, the violations of PRA itself are not a crime, but there are other statutes under which, if recent allegations are proved, Trump could face criminal penalties. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

And when and if he is charged we can revisit this, until then wp:blp applies. He is not guilty until a court finds him so.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I can see you want to put this in for propaganda. You should research this thing further and see what actually happened. Jake pres (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

North Korean progress in the lede

Trump met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, but made no progress on denuclearization.

As it is right now this reads overly negative. Trump was the first sitting president to meet with a North Korean leader at all and that should warrant a mention despite the overall talks failing in the end. As it is, it reads like his administration took three meetings for no progress at all, when the fact there were meetings at all was already notable. Suggestion:

Trump met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, the first sitting president to do so, but made no progress on denuclearization. --95.91.247.87 (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but was he the first president not ask?Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I assume you meant "to" and not "not"? I don't think that should play a role here, the article on the peace talks points out these summits being a first in several ways prominently as well, and so do sources from the time.--95.91.247.87 (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Well it would be as it would put why he was first into context.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Being the 1st is already mentioned in Donald Trump#North Korea. We don't need to cram every detail into the opener. Zaathras (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The lead should serve to summarize the article, and right now it makes it sound like the administration failed to make progress when the fact a president met with a North Korean leader was in itself considered progress and as of now is probably the most historically notable thing coming from these events. In either case it's definitely more notable than how often Trump and Kim Jong-Un met. --95.91.247.87 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The lead does summarize. Just meeting with the NK leader is not a success nor is it progress by any measure, if it led to nothing. Zaathras (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

More interesting is the recent RS reporting that sources close to Trump say he's continuing to exchange love letters with Kim from his Mar a Lago retirement home. SPECIFICO talk 14:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

As he is no longer president, yes this might be more relevant to this article. But I think we would need to see a bit more traction.Slatersteven 14:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, when Trump is reelected, the US might have its own Duke of Windsor thing. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This was recently discussed and resolved -- please refer to the talk archives and to Consensus #22. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• More concise and significant than what's in the lead is,

  Trump was the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean leader.

Bob K31416 (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that's better. The "no progress on denuclearization" is overly negative and ambiguously worded (what does "denuclearization" mean?).--Jack Upland (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Denuclearization, via a handy dictionary. Zaathras (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Leave it alone. Was already discussed & decided. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I know this discussion has probably been run into the ground already but sweeping absolutes such as he made no progress on denuclearization are often inherently untrue as it is very easy to overcome absolutely nothing. The sentence should be changed to something more like "made no long term/permanent progress on denuclearization". If not then the sentence should just be removed from the lead altogether, making no progress on denuclearization after 3 meetings is obviously not relevant enough to warrant inclusion there.OgamD218 (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I reopened this discussion after it was closed without good reason. In my edit summary I wrote, "premature close; active discussion with at least two new proposals pending; next lime wait several days for no discussion before closing". I mention this because there's too much of this going on and it gives the appearance of suppressing legitimate discussion of ideas that the closer is opposed to. Such suppression has also occurred by archiving. There's no reason to archive a discussion that has recently had comments, and unfortunately such inappropriate archiving has been done. Archiving is for sections where discussion has stopped for at least several days. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Archiving is sometimes done to prevent disruption from those who continue to beat a dead horse over a settled discussion. Zaathras (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, your comment has no basis in policy or guidelines. Archiving is for reducing excessive bulk of a talk page by removing old inactive discussions. The use otherwise may be a sign of abusive and disruptive editor behavior. Note that the current section is neither old or inactive. It appears there are new ideas being presented. For example, I suggested a change in the lead from

"Trump met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, but made no progress on denuclearization."

to

"Trump was the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean leader."

which is more concise and significant. So far one editor responded directly and was in agreement. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

My comment is in line with common practice across a wide variety of contentious talk pages. As for as your suggestion goes, I heartily disagree with it. Zaathras (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It's beautiful, I love it and we're doing this. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

No, we're neither lumping nor leaving it. It's meaningless and less concise. Three meetings, zero results—that's concise. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Zero results? Since the meetings North Korea has tested no ICBM and no nuclear bomb.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

When did anybody make any progress with North Korea, concerning nuclear weapons. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's a valid question. Superficially, however, the hiatus in ICBM/nuke tests could be seen as progress from a US point of view.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggested Edits to Donald Trump Page

Hi!

I noticed while reading through the page there are sections near the bottom for propagated conspiracy theories and misogyny, etc. I feel like it is biased against him in those several sections near the end. Though nothing stated there is strictly untrue, I think many of his supporters would contend it. To solve this, I would suggest just having the direct quotes and maybe changing the title to something broader like "Controversy." If you leave the quotes open to interpretation then it would be more neutral and harder for others to argue that it is inaccurate. Thanks for considering my suggestion! Clash2022 (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

As reliable sources extensively cover the propagated conspiracy theories and misogyny of the former president, the Wikipedia reflects that. ValarianB (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Remove this sentence

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No new argument was made in favor of removal, and the RfC in question that gave us consensus item #54 specifically decided the exact wording. Because this discussion is exactly as unproductive as all the other ones we've had of late, I'm closing it. Cpotisch (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Can we please remove the sentence "Scholars and historians generally rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history"? The thing is, it is bringing up a fact that is opinionated. It sort of bypasses on the line of being technically true, but brought up to give an opinion. I do not see this as acceptable because a whole article could just be full of opinions by doing this, but because they are facts it is somehow allowed. Honestly, you could put anything there and it be true. I could put "Some historians believe Trump was a great president." It is still true, but just as dishonest as the sentence that is in the article. Thank you. Master106 (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Name a historian who thinks Trump was a great president and we can consider adding it. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It's sourced in Donald Trump#Approval ratings. There is a big difference betwen saying "generally" and "some". When most surveyed scholars and historians rank him os one of the worst, it makes sense to give the quoted statement. It's not dishonest to correctly state the general view. If you are able to dig up a couple of people out of hundreds or thousands who rank him as great then it would be misleading undue weight to just say "Some historians believe Trump was a great president." PrimeHunter (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's just a correction to the reasoning in PrimeHunter's message, "When most surveyed scholars and historians rank him os one of the worst, it makes sense to give the quoted statement." A necessary condition for it to make sense is if it has been established that the scholars and historians in the survey have been selected in an unbiased way. Otherwise it cannot be said that the survey represents the opinion of scholars and historians in general. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Doesn’t matter. Sentence is staying, Bob. Cpotisch (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The consensus to include the sentence was established by an RfC in September/October 2021—see item 54. In the last few weeks it has been brought up again and again, without any of the—mostly IP address or red-signature—editors with few edits citing any reliable sources. If anyone has the reliable sources to establish why the consensus should change, please present them. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2022) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Bob K31416 and PrimeHunter are kind of right. I supported inclusion of this sentence in the original RfC, but I have never thought of it in the way they presented it. We maybe shouldn't use the word generally or any definite language because all we've done is pick a handful of academic sources that say Trump's the worst and now we've put this statement in. That's is the definition of WP:SYNTHESIS. Unless there is RS, in abundant amounts that is, that says scholars and historians rank Trump low this sentence should probably be removed. I seriously think this consensus needs to be reconsidered in light of this analysis. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

"We" didn't pick anything or anyone. Guess what? I did not support inclusion in the original RfC, and now I'm defending the consensus tooth and nail, and if there is a new RfC I will support inclusion. Are these RS abundant enough? [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] (Thanks for the workout. And for the record: I think you misunderstood PrimeHunter.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It looks like they're about the same C-Span survey and said so. The subject sentence in the lead here doesn't say it was a C-Span survey. It just says "Scholars and Historians". Bob K31416 (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Read the RfC closer's remarks. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Your message is unresponsive to my point. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Checkers, please give a careful look at WP:SYNTH -- it appears you are misapplying it here. SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The RFC in question specifically decided on the phrasing. "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in United States history". I ended up replacing 'United States' with American because it reads a bit better, but other than that, this is precisely what was agreed upon. Because, as always, no new argument is being made for removal, I'm closing this. Cpotisch (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2022 (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.

Cpotisch Closing this was uncalled for in the middle of active discussion. If you don't want to discuss you don't have to comment, but don't shut it down. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has occurred literally 20 times this month. Every time, it’s the same result. If anyone here was making any new argument in favor of exclusion, I’d fully support the conversation running its course. But this has happened so many times already that it’s a waste of space. Cpotisch (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't like the sentence & its addition to this BLP, either. But, the RFC was held & enough editors wanted it there & in that wording. GoodDay (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Add my vote towards getting rid of it. I don't think these historical survey blurbs belong in any of the presidential article leads. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Unless you plan to open another RfC on the matter, complete removal is not an option here. Zaathras (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding "survey" instead of removing sentence

Well I was going to suggest changing the sentence to "A C-SPAN survey of historians ranked Trump one of the worst presidents in United States history." I think providing the source is important since RS also indicates the source of the survey. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really necessary. Time to move on. Zaathras (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

If you would kindly look again at the RfC, you would see that the C-SPAN survey is in fact *not* the only survey we considered, it was just the primary one because it was conducted after his presidency. Again, this was the exact wording chosen, with dozens of editors offering input. Cpotisch (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

See the section Discussion (Historical evaluations) of the RFC for the following excerpt.

"...Are there any ratings/rankings other than the C-SPAN Presidential Historians Survey 2021? The only one I found was Brookings, 'Comparing Trump to the greatest—and the most polarizing—presidents in US history' from March 2018. Space4Time3Continuum2x "

See in the closer's remarks,

"There was general agreement to base rankings only on the C-SPAN-2021 survey, since it was taken after the conclusion of his term and is highly regarded."

Also, adding a mention of "survey" as suggested by Iamreallygoodatcheckers was not discussed in the RFC. I basically agree with that suggestion, although we might consider a simpler change of just adding "A survey of" to the beginning of the sentence that is in the lead,

"A survey of scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history."

Bob K31416 (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not based on C-SPAN alone, there's multiple RS that state that historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents. See our article on the matter, the 2018 APSA survey, the 2018 Siena survey, and the 2019 Northwestern CSDD survey. ––FormalDude talk 04:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

We don't have to qualify it specifically to C-SPAN. In my first stament I had believed C-SPAN was the primary one, thats why I said it should be qualified to C-SPAN, but as you pointed out there are others. I'm primarily contending that this statement be qualified to these surveys because that is what is done in RS, such as the numerous ones provided by Space4Time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact that literally every reputable survey had him near the bottom was why we didn’t qualify the statement. Until that changes, I don’t think that this should change. Cpotisch (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

What matters is how RS is displaying this, and they almost always use it with qualification to the surveys. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

To not base it on the C-Span article alone is going against the consensus of the RFC, as stated by the closer. Here's the closer's remarks again,[21]

"There was general agreement to base rankings only on the C-SPAN-2021 survey, since it was taken after the conclusion of his term and is highly regarded."

Bob K31416 (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe you are putting words into the RfC closers' mouth that are not in evidence. Their statement on using only the C-SPAN-2021 survey was not a directive that the article's text had to state this explicitly. ValarianB (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

My message was responding to the false notion that "It's not based on C-SPAN alone", which is contradicted by the above quote of the closer. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy intelligence briefings for former presidents

I removed this sentence: Days after leaving office, his successor Joe Biden barred Trump from receiving intelligence briefings, the first former president to be excluded from the customary practice. I’m sure that wasn’t Soibangla’s intent but the text sounded as though Biden was just being mean to his predecessor. If we include the info it would need context—why former presidents receive security briefings in the first place,(… part of a long tradition of former presidents being consulted about, and granted access to, some of the nation's secrets. … They are provided access to secrets as a courtesy, with the permission of the current president. Typically, former presidents are given briefings before they travel overseas, or in connection with an issue about which the current president wishes to consult them, [former CIA officer] Priess and other experts say.) and that the intelligence community allegedly had stopped briefing him after the January 6 insurrection. Should we include this? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Given that this article is already so long and we would need that context, it's probably best saved for the "presidency of" articles, at least at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Muboshgu. Also, providing such thorough and detailed context also can become a WP:UNDUE, especially for a relatively insignificant factoid fact. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Relative to what? It is significant that he was locked out of American intel. soibangla (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Relative to everything else in the article. He was president of the United States, just about anything is insignificant relative to that. Trump is one of the most notable people on earth. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Relative to everything else in the article We disagree. soibangla (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

What are you trying to get out of this tangent? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no tangent. I continue to believe the content, as succinctly phrased in consideration of space constraints, belongs in his BLP. That's all I got on this. soibangla (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be a fact even if we hadn't heard about it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Factoid isn't the word I should have used. I corrected it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Your argument is unintelligible and is no more than an unreasoned assertion. You might strike through "tangent" as well, if you are not going to support that claim. Moreover, Trump's denigration of US national security briefings and intelligence in general are among the top reasons for his notability. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Biden removing Trump's post-presidency security briefings is 100% not among the top reasons for his notability. How about, appointing 3 of the 9 members of one of the most powerful courts in the world, being elected to be the most powerful person on earth, or overseeing the U.S. COVID response. That's just a few of so many things that he's actually notable for. Can you please explain how him being removed of customary post-presidential security briefings is among the most notable aspects of Trump? If you sincerely believe this is among the top reasons for his notability go put a sentence in the lead about it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

His obedient complicity in appointing Heritage Society folks to the court and his dishonest, stupid, and homicidal covid response are already covered. His conduct toward foreign governments is equally as significant, but in some ways more surprising. It could be integrated into a narrative about his conduct and statements with respect to North Korea, NATO, the Saudi murder of a WaPo journalist, his inviite for a weekend retreat with the Taliban at Camp David, etc. etc. -- If the standalone uncontextualized mention of Pres. Biden's precaution seems out of place, the solution would be to work on integrating it into the general topic of Trump's allegiance to the US and all the instances in which that has been questioned. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself. Put it in the Trump administration article. We're trying to cut down the length of this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

His life is getting longer so the article gets shorter? SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

We are trying to cut the article size because it's too long and hard to navigate. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Cut fluff about wrestling, the names of his relatives, etc. Length problem is not the consensus here and has been a huge waste of time. "Length" does not rebut advocacy of inclusion for important content. You need to show why it is less important than all the current content. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You've already cut everything about wrestling, from the fluff to his hiring of Linda McMahon for national small business to his headlining of the largest WrestleMania known to man (at the time). Cut some fake bullshit you enjoy for a change, eh? Personal sacrifice is only useful to a greater good if everybody gives up their two bits. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

And that is a personal attack you should delete. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a polite request to everyone controlling the flow of information to let some of their favourite filler go, especially if it's largely only in the interest of relaying a "narrative" from a cable news network, as it relates to an ongoing feud with the company's top heel. As a wrestling fan, I dismiss all this week-by-week commentary and hotshotting as exactly as big a waste of time and brainpower as Washington drama fans take the pomp and buildup surrounding his well-documented feud with Vince McMahon.

Acknowledging the scripted nature of political outrage theatre isn't a knock on any of its most devoted connoiseurs, least of all you two, but I'm sorry for calling it "fake bullshit". It's not fake, it serves a purpose to a very real audience with very real tastes in amusement, and makes good money doing so. In some ways, I respect the psychological skill of CNN and FNC's writers, editors and directors, honestly. But when an article about a WWE Hall of Famer turned federal political archnemesis has dozens of sections about the latter and two [expletive] sentences about the former (in a stub about his decades of work in other entertainment genres), it's hard to ignore the fact that post-2015 American news junkies have a disproportionate amount of pull in deciding how to apply NPOV, BLP and RS to the whole biographical picture here.

Enough is enough, in my detached opinion. You can keep every treasured piece of every week's "top story" fluff here forever for posterity if you want, or trim it like the silenced majority have repeatedly asked nicely, but to mischaracterize my incongruent suggestions as attacks just as an excuse to censor me would be incivil, so no, let it be. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This nonsense does not belong on an article talk page. And stop characterizing other editors. SPECIFICO talk 07:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Stop belittling modern political reality. It's not nonsense, it's just a side of him you don't seem to want to accept. I'm not sure why, don't presume to and am fine if you'd rather not explain why you have cut so much wrestling content for yourself. No characterization intended, of editors. But if you can't trust the multiple independent sources that say Trump was still utilizing wrestling tactics as the president, who can you trust? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Here on Earth 1 we didn’t agree to participate in any reality-TV show, and we didn’t sign up to follow WWE rules or buy tickets to become active audience members of the amusement. You’d need to present a considerable number of RS who say otherwise. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel like no matter what points I make, you'll insult me, then shift the conversation to an absolutely ridiculous demand that has nothing to do with what I wrote. Why would I or anyone even want to convince you you bought a WWE ticket or signed up for any imaginary rules? It's literal absurdity. I have no earthly idea, despite being a fellow human, why you highlighted "amusement". Are you saying I should have called it something else? Edutainment? Live history programming? National debate?

In any case, I'm 100% not proposing we elaborate on anything to do with wrestling in the article. Understand? I just wanted polling and policy-related superfluous detail and fan jargon reduced as well as the stuff other people prefer to enjoy learning about has been. I think the bio's very heavily skewed by recent events. If you, despite following this Trump coverage closely for several years and having a basic understanding of traditional wrestling booking, don't see how the scene has changed, I believe you. It's not important.

As for noting his lack of access to top secrets in the lead, Oppose. Rounded off, 100% of Earthlings also don't have such privilege, as Trump hadn't for the vast majority of his life. It's not crucial to understanding the person. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

From Trump's debts owed to unknown entities (not talking about Ladder Capital or Deutsche Bank) to his blabbing to Lavrov/Kislyev right after the inauguration to his tête-à-têtes with Putin to his Mar-a-Lago patio sessions he's been considered a threat to national security since before he was even elected. This needs to be mentioned. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Trump has always been a threat to national security. National loyalty, like truth, is an unknown quantity to him. Normally, he would never be able to get the security clearance required for those who work in the White House. Once elected, he just got it, which was immediately misused to endanger the life of a source in Israel. We may never know how many Russian assets were placed in various positions. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Russia Report expressed its concerns:

Finally, the Committee's bipartisan Report shows that almost immediately following Election Day in 2016, the Trump transition responded to Russia's election interference not by supporting punitive action, but rather by holding a series of secretive meetings and communications with Russian representatives that served to undercut the outgoing administration's efforts to hold Russia accountable. The transition's openness to this private Russian outreach prior to taking office, so soon after Russia's interference on Trump's behalf, combined with Trump publicly questioning Russia's involvement, signaled that there was little intention by the incoming administration to punish Russia for the assistance it had just provided in its unprecedented attack on American democracy."

See also Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information. -- Valjean (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The wording is fine how it was originally and it certainly merits inclusion here and not on the Presidency page as it happened AFTER his presidency ended. If Biden cited anything specific as his basis for denying Trump intelligence briefings then that probably should also be included briefly (one line or less) but it is silly to insist on re-summarizing content already included throughout the article regarding Trump's controversial statements regarding the topic US foreign intelligence. OgamD218 (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I take it, my suggestion hasn't been implemented. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Page size

Compared to Presidency of Donald Trump, we're doing OK.

• Page size: Presidency 491,268 bytes; Donald Trump 417,231 bytes
• Characters: Presidency 153,270; Donald Trump 108,522
• Words: Presidency 23,434; Donald Trump 16,851
• References: Presidency 979: Donald Trump 914
• Unique references: Presidency 870; Donald Trump 823 Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Pardons and commutations

Re my "extreme pov move by editor who selectively deleted only this specific pardon from the section" and OgamD218's revert. Yeah, well, for once my "extreme POV" is supported not just by the usual suspects but also by a source from the right, first time I EVER cited the The Federalist (website). Aside from that, the text and the cite are outdated. Trump didn't just commute Johnson's sentence (something most people support)—while his AG and DoJ ordered federal prosecutors to pursue the toughest possible charges and sentences against criminal defendants, reversing President Barack Obama’s efforts to ease penalties in nonviolent drug cases (NYT 2018), and a mere three months after he himself had called for the death penalty for drug dealers (Vox March 2018). He later (a day after she appeared in a campaign video praising his leadership, to be exact) (NYT 2020, CNN) pardoned the "one-time non-violent drug offender" who actually spent three years in "middle-management" of a drug operation that brought 2,000 to 3,000 kilograms of cocaine into Memphis (Tennessean).

I just discovered that there is an actual article misleadingly called List of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump. I think the best way to handle this is to move that article to "Executive clemency granted by Donald Trump" and then add whatever is missing. Johnson, for example, is only mentioned as a clemency recipient who was part of Trump's "kitchen cabinet" of influencers. Then we can cut the section in this article to the bare bones: "Most of Trump's pardons and commutations were granted to people with personal or political connections to him. He sidestepped regular Department of Justice procedures for considering pardons, instead often entertaining pardon requests from his associates or from celebrities. Trump frequently bypassed the Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA), and the majority of his executive clemency grants were made to well-connected convicts who did not file a petition with the OPA or meet the OPA's requirements. Overall, Trump granted less clemency than any modern president." I copied the last two sentences from the lead of "List of ...", haven't looked up the sources yet. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I would be OK with bare bones on details such as Blackwater slaughter but with summary from RS about Trump's personalization of this authority with text similar to what's in second paragraph above. SPECIFICO talk 13:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: how does any of that "support" your "extreme pov move by editor who selectively deleted only this specific pardon from the section". You deleted a commutation/pardon of Trump's that received substantial attention and even you acknowledge the individual appeared in a Trump campaign ad. You just deleted it outright, you didn't provide any additional context or relevant information. I do not consider The Federalist RS, a position I still hold regardless of whether or not they agree with me. Hard for sources to be out of date as it pertains to pardons since those are permanent and specific, regardless you tag or save the sourcing you don't just delete it wholesale. I don't even necessarily think what you're saying is wrong, you raise some fair points; but it does seem to be as is so often the problem with this page that the point of an encyclopedia is disregarded in favor of OR and individual editor's politics. To be honest, Kim Kardashian's involvement in the Alice Johnson case, Trump made it known openly. The information re her appearance in his campaign ad and such is not as well known and in my opinion merits inclusion. However it is not ok to just up and delete this mention. OgamD218 (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Highly subjective

The article involving Russia should include Hillary Clinton spying update from Durham report.

Will stop donating when you come begging if we’re not going to be objective 2600:6C5E:5D7F:F073:1C81:C865:63CF:2C58 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

We don't give credence to fake news. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Praise for Putin, invasion of Ukraine

I believe Trump's praise for Putin and for Russia's invasion of Ukraine might be news, but it is news that will certainly pass the WP:10YEARTEST - moreso, say, than buying another company. My addition was reverted by Space4Time3Continuum2x. Can I get consensus to include, even if modified? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I would rather wait, but yes this may be relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A lot of the content about Trump's support of Putin and other foreign autocrats (while deprecating the US' global alliances) needs to be summarized and contextualized. Too much of it is recited without articulating its significance. SPECIFICO talk 13:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The wording implies that Trump supports the Russian incursion into Eastern Ukraine. TFD (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That may be because that's what Trump explicitly stated? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

An excerpt from a Guardian article [22],

“Here’s a guy who’s very savvy … I know him very well,” Trump said of Putin while talking to the The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show. “Very, very well. By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened."

Bob K31416 (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Could certainly include that, too. What he also said was "I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, 'This is genius.' Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine – of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. I said, 'How smart is that?' And he's gonna go in and be a peacekeeper." Trump also stated that the Russian military buildup in Russian and Belarusian territory was "the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

This one's a doozey for sure & should be included. The rest of yas can decide, whether he was being sarcastic or not. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It should probably be included. Thankfully it doesn't belong on his "presidency of" article. Maybe wait a few days per WP:RECENTISM to see what else develops. Like, he hasn't praised Putin since the invasion started last night (EST), has he? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

And here's the Guardian excerpt with the additional part of Trump's quote in brackets that came before it,

"[That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right. No, but think of it.] Here’s a guy who’s very savvy … I know him very well,” Trump said of Putin while talking to the The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show. “Very, very well. By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened."

Trump was being sarcastic about "peace force" and that's clarified when he added "No, but think of it." He does not support the invasion and thinks Putin is a formidable adversary that Trump thinks he could have handled but Biden couldn't. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't be the first time the so-called reliable news media twisted Trump's stance, into a negative light. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That's how I would interpret it. We will have to wait for expert opinion in order to interpret it. TFD (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

um? really? SPECIFICO talk 20:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Source for "just kidding"? What makes you think he wasn't just kidding when he said, "Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened." ? SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, right, "sarcasm", twisted into a negative light by the "so-called reliable news media" . Here's the transcript of the entire section of the interview dealing with Putin:

Hatted quote Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Q: ... in the last 24 hours we know Russia has said that they are recognizing two breakaway regions of Ukraine, and now this White House is stating that this is an “invasion.” That’s a strong word. What went wrong here? What has the current occupant of the Oval Office done that he could have done differently? TRUMP: Well, what went wrong was a rigged election and what went wrong is a candidate that shouldn’t be there and a man that has no concept of what he’s doing. I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, “This is genius.” Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. So, Putin is now saying, “It’s independent,” a large section of Ukraine. I said, “How smart is that?” And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s strongest peace force… We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right. No, but think of it. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy… I know him very well. Very, very well. By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened. But here’s a guy that says, you know, “I’m gonna declare a big portion of Ukraine independent,” he used the word “independent,” “and we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.” You gotta say that’s pretty savvy. And you know what the response was from Biden? There was no response. They didn’t have one for that. No, it’s very sad. Very sad.

I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, "This is genius." Losing his fight with the English language, as usual, and sarcasm isn't in his repertoire. He's Trump, retiree, currently ineligible for security briefings. His remarks are late night comedy gold but other than that they only got a brief mention as an aside to the invasion—outside of Russia, that is. If that changes, we can always add it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A brief mention? CNN, Washington Post, The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, Sky News, the NYT, MSNBC, and many more... (as per the link in my initial comment in this section). As to commentary on his remarks - no, they don't appear to be taken as sarcasm. At least by the State Department. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Rephrasing: His remarks were only mentioned as an aside. Here's another one, same day, on the Ingraham Angle:

Hatting quotes Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb8t-UToTxw, starts at around 45:50 seconds) Ingraham: We’re just learning that U.S. officials are looking at a potential amphibious landing now in Odessa, Ukraine. A month ago, or three weeks ago, all the so-called experts were saying that Putin was probably gonna just be content with staying in those separatist regions. But I think given what’s unfolded sadly with a lot of weakness in the United States they just decided to go for it. I mean, looks like they’re going for it and where does that leave NATO, the NATO alliance. Trump: I think that’s what happened. I think you’re exactly right. I think that’s what happened. I think he was going to be satisfied with the peace and now he sees the weakness and the incompetence of the stupidity of this administration. And as an American I am angry about it and I’m saddened by it and it all happened because of a rigged election. This would have never happened and that includes inflation and that include (video ends) The rest can be seen here, apparently too embarassing for Fox to show: https://twitter.com/JonahDispatch/status/1496695902727196675 Ingraham: We’ll continue to monitor this. We’ll go back to President Trump for a quick reaction. We have kind of a really pathetic display from the Ukrainian President Zelensky earlier today where he in Russian, he doesn’t like to speak Russian, he was imploring President Putin not to invade his country. Now we have the Ukrainian ambassador to the United Nations looking like a defeated man. Your final reaction. Trump: Well, I think the whole thing again would have never happened, it shouldn’t happen, and it’s a very sad thing. But you know what’s also very dangerous you told me about the amphibious attack by Americans. You shouldn’t be saying that because you and everybody else shouldn’t know about it. They should do that secretly, not be doing that through the great Laura Ingraham. They should be doing that secretly. Nobody should know that, Laura. Ingraham: No, those were the Russians, the Russian amphibious landing. Trump: Oh, I thought you said that we were sending people. Ingraham: No no, that would be news. Trump: And you what, that’s all we need. That’ll be next, OK? Now, we ought to protect our own borders.

That's the stuff that sells papers and brings clicks but I doubt it's important enough to be included in his biography. Former president, out of the loop and out of it. I agree with the State Department spokesman: "I have no response, in fact, I have no words." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought Trump was supposed to be colluding with Zelensky.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It's great, that sanctions (as though that would stop Putin) are being piled onto Russia. But what about Belarus? Ok, that's another matter. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Jack, on the contrary. Trump tried to force Zelensky to back up his Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, a bunch of false allegations against Joe Biden designed to distract from his own misdeeds. Zelensky did not cooperate and Trump was impeached for making the attempt. Trump and Manafort were on the side of Viktor Yanukovych, the former pro-Russian President of Ukraine who worked for Putin, just like Trump, who is always on the side of Putin. -- Valjean (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I think Jack was just being sarcastic. SPECIFICO talk 02:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting that Putin only invaded Ukraine when Biden was VP or president, not during the Trump presidency. I am sure that historians will have a lot to say about that, but we will have to wait. TFD (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It would have been much more advantageous for Putin if Trump had been able to continue to work for him (see turning over Syria to the Russian/Syrian alliance, a purported discussion of "Russia’s encroachment on Ukraine" at the 2018 Russia–United States summit in Helsinki ending with Trump casting "doubt on U.S. intelligence agencies conclusion that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election" and not mentioning Ukraine at all, Trump continuing to talk about fulfilling Putin's top wish, withdrawing the U.S. from NATO, and making the U.S. administration more dysfunctional than he managed to do in four years. With Trump gone, Putin had to do his own dirty work, and he got right on it ([23], [24], [25], [26], [27]). Getting off my soapbox now. BTW, brilliant Rachel Maddow commentary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, Maddow will be yapping about Russia 24/7 until she retires, now. Not like she (or her bosses) were obsessed with that country, in the past ;) GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's wait and see if this WP:RECENTISM or not. If it proves to be enduring we should begin a discussion on the appropriate verbiage and ensure proper context of this. As of this moment, I'm just going to say we should wait. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)