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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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

Unclear phrase

Text copied from archive 148: We say that unlike other presidents, Trump has not continued to dominate the Republican party. The phrasing is confusing because the premise is that a) all other presidents dominate the republican party during office (democrat and republican presidents) and b) given that a democrat president that retires is often not in domination of the republican party, they are not suited to be a point of reference for the "unlike" conector and the conclusion. Maybe the fix is to say "Unlike other republican presidents...? User Forich, 21:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The relevant section is Post-presidency (2021–present) User Forich, 21:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Forich, I didn't notice your archived comment on the Talk page until I saw your edit here. You are right that the phrasing was unclear but the fix wasn't to restrict the meaning to Republican presidents. The source is talking about modern-day presidents of any party. I removed both mentions of "Republican" from the sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Better to remove the comparison altogether. I mean, what is the meaning of "modern-day"? Were there any medieval US Presidents? Just stick to the facts about Trump. Or eliminate the pesky sentence altogether!Jack Upland (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

And, by the way, the text omits the "not", unlike the text copied above...--Jack Upland (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The text in the article is correct. I hadn't noticed that Forich's version contained an error. I just looked at the allegedly unclear version and improved it by replacing "Republican" with "his" party to clarify that before Trump no former president of any party had behaved like a modern-day party boss. I think the meaning of the sentence is perfectly clear, and it's the source that made the comparison. Modern-day: "someone or something of the present is similar to someone or something of the past". The linked page party boss needs improvement, a link to Boss Tweed, the original party boss, might be more helpful. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Muslim ban protest text

@Bsherr: You violated the page restriction "24-hour BRD cycle" by reinstating your removal of the Muslim ban text you removed. You also have given a false edit summary, since you did not merely move that text to a new section when you removed it. Please self-revert and use the talk page. Placement and language are part of the meaning and narrative of this article. As I said in my edit summary when I undid your deletion of the longstanding text, this was a key campaign issue for Trump and as such was appropriately placed IMO before you removed it. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Your edit wasn't a reversion. I moved the reference down the page to support an identical statement in the travel ban section. You added the reference back to the "Election to the presidency" section, but didn't name the reference, thus creating a duplicate reference. That's what I then reverted. I guess you can revert my original change if you do it properly pending discussion here.

On the merits of the matter, there are two sentences that say the travel bans resulted in protests, one in the "Election to the presidency" section, and one in the "Travel ban" section. It doesn't belong in the "Election to the presidency" section. The election to the presidency section talks about the period of time from Election Day to the inauguration, and the protests that were reactionary to the inauguration. The implication in the sentence that the travel ban protests were somehow connected to the inauguration is not supported by the reference, and is likely Wikipedia:Original research. The reference belongs in the travel ban section, where a nearly identical sentence already exists, and since it already exists, I simply moved the reference. --Bsherr (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Using a search function, I fail to see the identical text moved downtown. Please indicate the exact location. No, I cannot undo your reinsertion, because then I too would be violating 24-hour BRD. You are the one who needs to reverse your own violation. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"Confusion and protests caused chaos at airports."

References

--Bsherr (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not the text we are discussing. Please review your own edits and please self-revert. I have left a warning and notices on your talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the text we are discussing, then? --Bsherr (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You need to self-revert. You violated the page restriction by re-doing your own edit. Are you seriously asking me to tell you what you deleted? To answer your question, you'll need to read your own edit and see what you removed. SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I am having trouble understanding you. As I explained above, there are two sentences that say the travel bans resulted in protests, one in the "Election to the presidency" section, and one in the "Travel ban" section. I deleted the one in the "Election to the presidency" section and moved the reference to the sentence in the "Travel ban" section. Then you asked me what sentence in the "Travel ban" section. I quoted the sentence in the "Travel ban" section. And you said that's not the sentence we are discussing. What are you asking me? --Bsherr (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• This is not a forum to discuss behavior allegations, including whether or not someone broke arbitration restrictions. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If someone (allegedly, intentionally or unintentionally) violated restrictions placed on this page, then this Talk page is the place to discuss it, I would think?? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This the place to discuss improvements to this article. Not user conduct. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

See Resolving user conduct disputes: "If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article Talk pages." TFD (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Gee, seems like these rebukes belong in user space rather than in a location that negates their dubious message. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Good, so please hat this section so we can return to discusses article improvement. TFD (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

IMO, the primary issue is a content dispute, two editors disagreeing on what the content should be. Other editors may want to weigh in. The alleged 25-BRD violation grew out of that dispute. I probably muddied the waters further by editing (improving!) the "Travel ban" section but I didn't want to stray into edit-warring territory. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The text that was removed

The text that was removed is this, also removed here. Your edit summaries were false, most egregiously the second time when you again reverted the longstanding text, claiming that It wasn't removed, just moved, down to the section about the travel ban... when in fact, as I've said several times, you removed the text in question. Please do the right thing -- remove the DS violation, folllow BRD, and respond to the substantive issue I've identified in my edit summaires and in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 21:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, it is very difficult to understand you. For the third time: There are two sentences that say the travel bans resulted in protests, one in the "Election to the presidency" section, and one in the "Travel ban" section. I deleted the one in the "Election to the presidency" section and moved the reference to the sentence in the "Travel ban" section. I didn't violate the discretionary sanctions because there is an exception for unsourced statements in BLP articles. I likewise won't restore the sentence because it is an unsourced statement in a BLP article, but I won't stop you from doing so. I only ask that you properly consolidate the references when you do it. The source says nothing about "marches", only protests, and it says nothing connecting the protests to the inauguration: it never even refers to the inauguration. Rather than scream about "violations", why don't you actually address the substance of the reasons I deleted the sentence and moved the reference? --Bsherr (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, why did you refactor my {{Reflist-talk}} template here [1]? Its removal screws up the appearance of the talk page. --Bsherr (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You removed the sentence but said in the edit summary that you were "consolidating with coverage in travel ban section", and you didn’t move it to the travel ban section, as you claimed here when you removed it again, saying that "events occurred two months after the election". The protests started on January 28 (the CBS source you did move to the travel ban section is dated Jan 29, and it says "protesters gathered … yesterday"), the day after Trump’s executive order which left people stranded at airports. We can discuss whether it should stay in the election paragraph or not, or whether it needs to be mentioned at all, but for now I’ve put it back where it was (with the corrected date). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC) I also changed "marches" to "protests", per the source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I explained why I think it is irrelevant to the "Election to the presidency" section, and that the sentence is improper synthesis. I've moved the sentence, verbatim, to the travel ban section, and flagged the improper synthesis. No one has responded substantively to the issue I raised about the improper synthesis. Does anyone actually take the opposite view? --Bsherr (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I explained, and can anyone actually disagree? 24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts. Your edit was reverted. You reverted the rvt instead of starting a discussion on the talk page which was then started by the editor who objected to your initial edit. The objection was longstanding text, this was a key campaign issue for Trump and as such was appropriately placed IMO before you removed it. Then I reverted on procedural grounds and was ignored as well, with you tagging the sentence along the way without mentioning it in the edit summary. Well, all is well as long as you 'splained and decided the discussion was over. Way to collaborate. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems you have misinterpreted my remark. When I said above, "Does anyone actually take the opposite view?", I was asking for a discussion of the merits of the change to finally start, not "decid[ing] the discussion was over." Does that clarify? And once again, User:SPECIFICO did not revert my edit (instead, he added back the sentence and reference, but did not remove my addition of the same reference to the lower section, creating a duplicate reference), and per WP:3RRNO, an exemption applies to edits "[r]emoving contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." It was my further understanding based on the discussion we have had so far that there is no concern with moving the sentence, just that the sentence remain intact while we discuss it. But as I said above, I have no objection to anyone else reverting the change while we discuss it. So again, does anyone take the view that the phrase is not improper synthesis based on the referenced source? --Bsherr (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Or have we moved past this since Space4Time3Continuum2x has removed the offending phrase anyway? --Bsherr (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

For the reasons I previously stated and explained, I believe the longstanding placement was correct and better conveyed the public reaction to Trump's stand on this issue and his ascension to the presidency. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reference connecting the two events? --Bsherr (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Ivana disavowed her prior statement stating that she was raped by Trump

Please get rid of the sentence mentioning that Ivana, Trump's first wife, accused Donald Trump of rape. She later backtracked on this statement and clarified that it was false. Here is proof of this: abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/donald-trumps-wife-ivana-disavows-rape-allegation/story%3fid=32732204 161.130.189.235 (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

That link didn't work for me, he's a working one: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-wife-ivana-disavows-rape-allegation/story?id=32732204. I added the context that she recanted it; we can't state on anyone's article that someone accused them of rape without also mentioning that they recanted their accusation (if they have done so). I would also find it acceptable to remove mention of Ivana from this little summary just to trim down the word count though. Endwise (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep, just remove Ivana.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Here's what happened: NPR and Daily Beast, as told by Ivana in a deposition during the divorce proceedings from Donald Trump and reported by journalist Harry Hurt III in his 1993 book Lost Tycoon. When the book was published, she said that she didn't use the word "rape" in the criminal sense, but she didn't walk back the description. When the Daily Beast reported the story in July 2015, she said that the story was "totally without merit". I assume that means that she lied under oath during the deposition in the divorce proceedings, so why should we believe what she said 25 years later when her ex was running for president and she was planning a book on Family Values from America's First Mother? As for the long-standing text, let's discuss whether to keep or remove it. I say keep because it was a deposition under oath and all we're saying is that the women accused him. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's not for us to determine whether she was lying or not; that's not the kind of thing we should engage in speculation in as editors. The source we use for this line is in the article Vox, which says Although Trump’s ex-wife now says her story was “without merit,” in a divorce deposition in 1992, Ivana Trump described a violent sexual assault by her then-husband. Your or my opinion on how trustworthy her statements are is irrelevant. Endwise (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Vox puts her statement in scare quotes, ABC says that she "appeared to refute the allegations", NPR just lists she said/and then she said/and then she said — I don't see any recantation. I take it you support removing including his first wife? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

per BLP, this is an unproven accusation that was withdrawn, so we need to remove it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

No, our policy does not say to remove it. It says to provide fully contextualized RS narratives. I may be more appropriate for a different article, however. SPECIFICO talk 12:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably needs to be removed because she recanted the allegation, meaning there is no longer an allegation. At the very least, say she recanted it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 14:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Particularly considering this is a BLP and also comes under post-1992 U.S. politics sanctions, we should be careful in the wording. According to Harry Hurt III, Ivana accused Trump of rape in a sealed deposition of which he had obtained a copy, but subsequently threw out.[2] So Hurt's claim cannot be confirmed and I wouldn't call a secret statement a public declaration.

If you want to mention it, the full context must provided, including Ivana's response. I don't know if it has weight for inclusion.

TFD (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The sanctions have nothing to do with this content. BLP yes, but more significantly, WEIGHT. It's not significant to the narrative of this article. Put it in other articles where it can be fully described, if it fits. SPECIFICO talk 12:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

No reason to include it anymore. Bill Williams 12:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

"pressuring government officials"

Citation: https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/18/politics/rusty-bowers-fascism-trump-election-cnntv/index.html SoCalGoetz (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 September 2022

Citation "pressuring government officials" https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/18/politics/rusty-bowers-fascism-trump-election-cnntv/index.html SoCalGoetz (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

What article text addition or deletion or modification are you suggesting? The edit request needs to be specific. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Trump

Wikipedia has made a negative, politically biased view of trump 2600:1017:B103:C5B4:9D50:B71A:AEC4:67DA (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Care to point out how? Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Consolidation of family separation section

I would like to make these changes to the family separation section to try to make it more concise, as the article is quite large. The change was reverted with the assertion that the edit was biased, so I'd like to find out excatly which language is biased, because there are several changes here. Bsherr (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

California v. Texas

I changed the clause, "in fact, the Trump administration joined a lawsuit seeking to strike down the entire ACA, including protections for those with pre-existing conditions" to a separate sentence reading, "After the repeal of the individual shared responsibility provision, the Trump administration argued to the Supreme Court in California v. Texas that the ACA is unconstitutional." The statement that the Trump administration joined the lawsuit is provably false. Instead, the administration was substituted as a defendant by the plaintiffs; in other words, they didn't join in any voluntary sense, they were sued." Furthermore, the notion that the Trump administration's argument in the lawsuit implies a policy preference for eliminating coverage for pre-existing conditions, or connecting the lawsuit with that policy goal, is not mentioned in the cited sources. Can the reverting user (who I won't ping because the user thinks that a direct mention of him is a personal attack, but hopefully sees this anyway) please explain how correcting these errors disrupts the supposed narrative of this article? Bsherr (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

SIXTEEN presidents never served in the military..he is not the only one.

there is a total of 16 u.s. leaders who never actually served or had military duties....come on now 2601:542:103:86E0:155F:712A:9542:99B (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The line in question is He became the first U.S. president with no prior military or government service (emphasis my own). The article doesn't say he's the first without just military service. — Czello 09:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd support reversing the order of those two words: government service is actually more common by a lot than military service. Many more presidents are former politicians of some sort than served in the military of those who didn't do both. Loki (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

How many of those 16 did not serve when a draft was in effect? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

As said above we do not say he was. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Facepalm – Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Trump's degree

Trump graduated from the Wharton School of ECONOMICS, not the Wharton School of Business. The page shows the Wharton School that links to the Wharton School of Business Wikipedia page. Trump has a Bachelor of SCIENCE in Economics. This is different from. Bachelor of Business in Economics. UPenn does not offer an undergraduate Business degree. 207.199.239.163 (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

That's how it is described in reliable sources. Trump studied business at the Wharton School, although the U of Penn provided him with an economics degree. TFD (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

As a domestic terrorist

Trump has been labeled as a domestic terrorist by a dozen or so high ranking, current and former law enforcement and US government employees. For example, Republican former US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage described him as a domestic terrorist in 2021, while more recently, Democrat Juliette Kayyem, formerly of the United States Department of Homeland Security, also referred to Trump in this way. Should this be covered in this biography? Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed addition

The Guardian and ABC News have identified more than 50 "criminal cases where Trump was invoked in direct connection with violent acts, threats of violence or allegations of assault." According to journalist Mark Follman, Donald Trump is considered a "terrorist leader" by national security experts. In addition to these threats, Reuters has documented 102 threats of death or violence received by more than 40 election officials, workers and their relatives in eight of the most contested battleground states in the 2020 US presidential contest."

References

Comments

• absolutely not per MOS:TERRORIST Anon0098 (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Please read the MOS again: "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes exactly. An example of this would be Ted Kaczynski, where everyone agrees he is a terrorist. Trump is not “widely” described as a domestic terrorist by RSs. Anon0098 (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Are you sure about that? Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Feel free to provide a large number of reliable sources using the verbatim verbiage “terrorist” Anon0098 (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  They may not use terrorist verbatim, but there's hundreds of RS that describe how Trump has one way or another used violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. AKA the definition of terrorism. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think we can work it that way, FD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  I already have these sources collected in my user space. The thing is, I know you will just move the goalposts each and every time and play the no true Scotsman card. So let’s cut to the chase: what criteria will you accept to represent the evidence that Donald Trump is, according to Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to NBC’s Meet the Press, "inspiring and incentivizing and inciting…domestic terrorism". This is not a fringe opinion. It is the opinion of the reality-based community. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Saying he is "inspiring and incentivizing and inciting…domestic terrorism" is NOT the same thing as saying he "is a terrorist". Personally I'd be fine with the article using that Whitmer quote, and putting it in the context of the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot, the January 6 United States Capitol attack, and the Unite the Right rally to show how his words and actions have inspired others to commit terrorist acts, but I think we need to be EXTREMELY careful about saying he "is a terrorist" in Wiki voice. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 04:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  That’s one of hundreds of quotes about Trump as a domestic terrorist, so I don’t think it’s fair to pick on it. Here’s another one: "For me it started in Charlottesville when he said there were good people on both sides of the issue," Mr Armitage said, referring to clashes at a white supremacist rally in 2017 in which a counter-protester was killed. "There was violence at those rallies and it's continued. "And most recently when the President was firing up the crowd, and previously saying, 'it's going to be a wild day', then urging them to march on the Capitol. "All those things lead me to believe that he's a domestic terrorist." Source. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  "Saying he is "inspiring and incentivizing and inciting…domestic terrorism" is NOT the same thing as saying he "is a terrorist". " So what in the hell do you think it means? If you tell people to go do terroristic things and they do, then YOU ARE A TERRORIST. End of discussion. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• NO, per wp:blp we can't accuse someone of a serious crime. Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Under current US law, domestic terrorism itself has no criminal penalties, therefore, it is not classified as a crime. See: Schifrin, Nick. (February 4, 2021). "What consequences have rioters faced for the Capitol attack?". PBS NewsHour. Archived from the original on 2021-02-05. Quote from Jane Holl Lute: "There is a definition of domestic terrorism, but, perhaps surprisingly to many of us, it doesn't carry any criminal penalties. And so if you're charging individuals who are intent on violence, law enforcement is having to use, as you say, other statutes and other provisions." Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  It may not be a crime in and of itself it is a serious accusation of wrongdoing that will involve crimes. In addition, most of that text is not about Trump, it is about other people using his name. This, therefore, is a violation of BLP, and undue. We can't imply he has orchestrated a terrorist campaign. Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  You’re confused. I never said that specific source was about Trump, I said it was about the classification of domestic terrorism as a crime. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Absolutely not per WP:TERRORIST. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  As originally addressed, the MOS does not prohibit the use of the word, but actually allows for it in the way I’m using it: in other words, the term is "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Calling Trump a domestic terrorist meets this requirement. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's not widely used by reliable sources. Only one source you've offered does so (Mother Jones), and it has sketchy reliability in regards to politics at WP:RSP. You would need many, many, many sources describing him as such to even put in as attributed, much less in WIKIVOICE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Everything covered by Mother Jones has been covered by other sources. Calling Trump a domestic terrorist meets this requirement. For example, Juliette Kayyem, former assistant secretary of Homeland Security, said Trump is the "operational leader of this domestic terrorism effort" in the US who uses "stochastic terrorism" as a primary tactic. Kori Schake, formerly of the National Security Council and State Department during the Bush admin, calls Trump "an arsonist of radicalization". Elizabeth Neumann, former DHS assistant secretary in the area of counterterrorism and threat prevention, said "language from campaign materials and Trump’s extemporaneous speeches at rallies have been used as justification for acts of violence". These quotes are from 2020, before Trump began to overtly promote QAnon as he does today, a movement which was designated as a domestic terrorist threat by the FBI in 2019. None of this material is unique to Mother Jones, nor does it depend on it or require it. In other words, Mother Jones is entirely irrelevant to this argument and discussion. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  None of those people are reliable sources. If this is not unique to Mother Jones then how about you provide the plethora of reliable sources that label Trump as a terrorist. That WP:ONUS is on you. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. You questioned the reliability of a source that claimed "Donald Trump is considered a 'terrorist leader' by national security experts". I then provided a shortlist of those experts, showing that the claim was supported. Like I said, objections to this material will consist solely of moving the goalposts and no true Scotsman appeals. The honest truth is that it won’t matter how many sources I provide, there is no source you will accept. Just trying to save you some time. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Those people likely qualify as subject-matter experts, i.e. they're reliable sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  A subject matter expert is not the same thing as a reliable source. Levivich (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Reliable sources have reported that the Proud Boys were designated as terrorist groups by Canada and New Zealand, while the US has declined to do so. Wikipedia reports this, just as we report that Trump has been designated a domestic terrorist leader by x and y. For example, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC News) reported that Richard Armitage called Donald Trump a domestic terrorist. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Per WP:V: "sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." ––FormalDude (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'd argue that is the case for Juliette Kayyem, someone who appears to be an academic in that field, but if you were going to do it that way, the opinion should be directly attributed to her as an academic. If you were talking about including this with a bunch of academic opinions (journal articles, etc) listing him as such, I don't think anyone would disagree. But if this is included, even with consensus to do so here, expect constant pushback to referring to Trump as a domestic terrorist using a source that even RSP describes as Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source.

  As a matter of fact, RSP even suggests exactly what I am suggesting here, its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. FrederalBacon (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'd support direct attribution to Juliette Kayyem. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - By the way, we don't even describe Osama bin Laden as a terrorist in WP:WIKIVOICE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  In other words, other things exist. Viriditas (talk) Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's a strawman as nobody here is suggesting we label Trump a terrorist in wiki voice. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's not a strawman. This discussion is about Trump being labeled/described as a domestic terrorist. I'm saying it would be very inappropriate to do so in WIKIVOICE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's important to be precise and specific in one's posts here. Otherwise it becomes like the telephone game where next thing, somebody will read your words and think that OP proposed labeling him a terrorist in Wikivoice. It also fails to help us evaluate whether 1) the opinion is widely held, and 2) whether it's meaningful to label him like that. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Either you don't know what wikivoice is or you don't know what this proposal is, because the suggested text that describes him as a terrorist is directly attributed. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn’t matter that much anyway because it’s inappropriate attributed or not. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  That is no substitute for a well-reasoned argument that addresses the proposal under discussion. Arguments are not portable from one issue to a different issue. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  The argument by myself and others is that no evidence has been presented that Trump is widely described as a terrorist in reliable sources. Hence, it’s inappropriate to describe, whether it be attributed or not, that Trump is a domestic terrorist in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  +1 Please, no strawman arguments here. SPECIFICO talk 13:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  And we have one person's view he is a terrorist, which violates wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  We have many people who view Trump as a terrorist. United States Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas considers domestic extremism the top threat to the United States. This threat is coming from Donald Trump and his supporters. Former Trump administration official Miles Taylor said that the Republican Party represents the "number one national security threat" to the United States, a greater threat than terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda. This is not one person's view. This is the mainstream, establishment view on the national security threat level to the US. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  It seems like original research to be connecting those things: domestic extremism is top threat; the threat is coming from the Trump crowd. I would want to see a few reliable sources that have done that research, and explicitly say Trump is a terrorist. _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  This so-called "original research" is literally the conclusion of every major national security analysis since the Jan 6 insurrection and attempted coup. Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think this may be a bridge too far right now. Certainly he and the other Jan 6 instigators are heading in the direction of being regarded as such, but we're not there yet. Zaathras (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
• lol no, per "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources" as pointed out by others. The evidence of use presented here is far below "widely used by reliable sources". That phrase doesn't mean "a dozen people's opinion as reported by a journalist". Show me three history books, by historians, where the historian calls Trump a "terrorist" in the historian's own voice... and even then it wouldn't be widely. Show me ten such examples, and then we'll talk. The term may be applicable in my opinion or yours, but definitely not for wikivoice WP:NPOV. Levivich (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  How about you provide just one recent RS that stops short of describing Trump as a terrorist? Because, as said above, it is the conclusion of every major national security analysis since January 2021. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  [3] is about substantial new details about former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election but it doesn't call him a terrorist. Levivich (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Levivich, "lol no" was pretty much my reaction too, per MOS:TERRORIST, there is no way that term is used widely enough. And even then, if you wanted to include it, I wouldn't support the weasel words "national security experts". That opinion needs to be attributed to who it comes from. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  The claim that Trump is considered a domestic terrorist is now so widespread and well known that CPAC uses it as an unofficial rallying cry at their conference ("We are all domestic terrorists"). And I already attributed the national security experts by name up above. Did you even read this discussion? Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'd recommend being a little less condescending. Might make others more willing to see your point. Let's examine your reference there.

  after all, one of CPAC’s afternoon panels was titled “We Are All Domestic Terrorists.” One of its participants, Texas state board of education candidate Julie Pickren of Houston, began by claiming the title was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. “Nobody in this room is a domestic terrorist,” she assured the thousand or so right-wing activists in the Hilton Anatole’s Trinity Ballroom.

  How in the hell is that an "unofficial rallying cry"? It was a joke (a terrible joke doesn't stop being a joke just because it lands flat) title for a panel. Not a rallying cry, are you seriously trying to use that to back up your claim? If that's the strength of the sourcing, I'm not sure you're going to convince many. You didn't convince me. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Also, in reference to the named security experts, yes, you did, but in the proposed addition to the article, you used the phrase According to journalist Mark Follman, Donald Trump is considered a "terrorist leader" by national security experts

  The attribution goes to the journalist, not the named security experts. So, yes, I did read it, and I still think the phrase "national security experts" is a weasel word that should be avoided with direct attribution, if this is used. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, Viriditas, many reliable sources do say that. However, to call Trump a terrorist, according to MOS:TERRORIST, we have to look at it with a broader eye.

  First of all, we need to make sure... that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy. (emphasis mine)

  Second, none of the sources you gave directly label Trump as a 'terrorist', acknowledging that people spinning off of the articles may label Trump as a terrorist and they may very well be qualified.

  Third, is it fair to label him as a terrorist? Do we have enough reliable sources agreeing with that statement?

  Fourth, 'terrorist' is the definition of a word with a negative connotation. Would a different word be more appropriate?

  Keep in mind that the absolute most we can say is something along the lines of 'he has been characterized as a terrorist', if we say anything. Cessaune (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• absolutely not WP:VOICE & MOS:TERRORIST Cover it. I second that it would be extremely inappropriate and misleading to readers if you used wiki-voice and labeled Trump a domestic terrorist. Eruditess (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Domestic terrorist? That may be a tad harsh. What if we take the phrase "domestic terrorist" and tweak it, just a hair, to something like, "a person heavily criticized".[4] Bob K31416 (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk: Talk page

any way bots or sanctions could be set up to protect the introductory body/faq in the talk page? seems like a pretty silly thing to leave to the whims of internet trolls 216.164.249.213 (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Page protection is generally only applied when a persistent problem arises, not as a preventative measure except in unusual or extenuating circumstances. ValarianB (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)