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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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

Fascism

There, I said it.

Everyone knows Trump has always used incendiary rhetoric, which many have observed that in some cases comes real close to fascist-speak. Until recently, reliable sources have apparently determined the rhetoric does not quite cross the line for them to report it as such. But this has changed in recent weeks as Trump has sharply escalated his rhetoric, such that multiple reliable sources have now explicitly reported his rhetoric echoes that of fascists such as Mussolini and Hitler. And now significant reporting has emerged about plans he and his allies are making for a second term. This NYT lede alone is particularly stunning in drawing historical parallels to fascism:

Former President Donald J. Trump is planning an extreme expansion of his first-term crackdown on immigration if he returns to power in 2025 — including preparing to round up undocumented people already in the United States on a vast scale and detain them in sprawling camps while they wait to be expelled.[1]

And there's a lot more than that. I believe the sourcing is now sufficiently DUE for this to be mentioned in the BLP and not merely relegated exclusively to his 2024 campaign article.[2] soibangla (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

There continues to be an overriding NPOV fail on this page in its presumption that Trump was a successful businessman and a patriotic politician. These are not thecurrent views of the best RS. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggest this be discussed to elicit compelling reason why I should not restore this edit[3]:

In the fall of 2023, Trump drew criticism for stating undocumented immigrants were "poisoning the blood of our country" and characterizing his political opponents as "vermin." The statements echoed dehumanizing rhetoric of white supremacists and fascist dictators such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung sought to downplay the significance of the remarks, saying of critics that "their sad, miserable existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House."

soibangla (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

(The better term is "Nazi rhetoric", and I used it at Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign.) "In the fall of 2023" is still a year away from the election, WP:NOTNEWS. What’s the enduring notability of Trump and his spokesman/campaign spokesman’s unfiltered speeches, and do we want to turn this article or the 2024 campaign article into a platform for every outrageous thing Trump/his campaign utters until the 2024 election? He’s now playing high school auditoriums with a capacity of a few hundred, not convention centers. He’ll repeat the material his rally attendees love, and he’ll say anything that will get him headlines in the "fake news" — it’s going to be a long year. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

This should be reinstated but in a very summarised trimmed way, just mentioning "vermin" and "crushed" and that it's Nazi rhetoric. It bears mention but it's little more than a way to get attention, and we shouldn't focus on that at the expense of covering his overtly authoritarian 2024 plans (Agenda 47, Project 2025; deploying the military against civilians and replacing the executive branch with loyalists). We could do all this in fewer words than what's being proposed for reinstatement. DFlhb (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

"Nazi rhetoric" seems unduly inflammatory and less on point than "fascist rhetoric" - the cited sources do make the connection with Nazi wording - our users can see that from the cited sources - but "Nazi rhetoric" gets close to the kind of labeling that we try to avoid and that is likely to alienate readers without giving broader context. SPECIFICO talk 14:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree that avoiding the word Nazi is the better part of valor. Mentioning Hitler and Mussolini is also problematic, no matter how accurate. Just mentioning Mussolini I think works better. Fascists of the mid-20th century is another option. Has to be some way of saying Nazi without using the word. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better - DFlhb (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Depends if the RSs are saying it, in which case, why shouldn't we (with attribution)? Yr Enw (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"poisoning the blood of our country" The statement reflects Nativism in United States politics, which has centuries of history in that xenophobic country. The main article cites xenophobic texts and policies by the politicians Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton in the 18th century as the foundations of American nativism. Dimadick (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It`s text book Know Nothing politics Anonymous8206 (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The only thing I don't like about the first suggested edit is the way it leads with "drew criticism for" rather than going straight into what he said and afterwards saying it was criticized. Sennalen (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

can we move toward a consensus on phrasing and inclusion? here's another source: "Trump's Dire Words Raise New Fears About His Authoritarian Bent". The New York Times. November 20, 2023.

Recommend the proposed paragraph be placed in the his 2024 campaign page. If he becomes US president on January 20, 2025 & then implements or attempts to implement such policies? then we could add the paragraph here. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Trump currently presents these totalitarian, xenophobic narratives and the agenda of converting the US government to his personal instrument of retribution against whomever he chooses. It is his personal core. It is extensively sourced and discussed in secondary and tertiary RS. It should be prominently placed in this page. The question is whether the proposed wording should be inserted or whether it can first be improved. SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The US Constitution is the law of the land, not the president. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

That is unintelligible. Please read recent references and comment on the arguments in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 01:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I already have read them. Again, the proposed paragraph belongs in the Trump's 2024 prez campaign page, not here. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This relates to the man. We don't need to wait for a second presidency to include significant well-souurced content about the man that is known now. soibangla (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. This relates to a potential second term in the White House, for Trump. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's say this is about anyone but Trump. Would you agree that with the extensive reliable sourcing here that this rhetoric would and should be included in anyone else's BLP? soibangla (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

If this was about (for example) Joe Biden? I would recommend such a paragraph be added to Biden's 2024 campaign page, not Biden's bio page. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Even if the person has a long history of highly incendiary rhetoric that multiple reliable sources now explicitly report has crossed into the realm of fascism, regardless of his presidential candidacy? soibangla (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

His promises/proposals belong in his 2024 campaign page & again, what he believes he can do & what he can actually do, are different things. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

"poisoning the blood of our country" and "vermin" are not campaign promises/proposals, they are dehumanizing rhetoric that are classic tells of fascism, as multiple reliable sources have reported. soibangla (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, the statements belong in his 2024 campaign page. I think we few have given our input on this. So, it's best to allow others to give their input, as a circular discussion, just goes... in circles. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Why not both? Sennalen (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, that objection is basically the same as the false and failed claims of the American right that claims Trump's incitements, coded calls to calumny, and extra-constitutional aspirations are just good ol' American Free Speech. Those claims are widespread, from Trump to his rotating set of defense attorneys to the far-right social media. So it is not merely about what might occur in the future. There have been multiple arrests for attacks, planned attacks and other crimes incited by Trump's rhetoric after he was no longer president. See Attack on Paul Pelosi. SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

My position hasn't changed, concerning whether the proposed paragraph should be added to this BLP or not. However, I foresee this discussion devolving into unpleasant areas. Therefore, I'm going to stand aside & allow the content dispute to continue forward, by others. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

How does it not relate to the present time ? it needs to be in the article Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

soibangla, the NYT lede fails rs, per WP:NEWSORG. It's hyperbole. It's not what fascism experts say. TFD (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

did you take a deep dive into the first NYT article, it's a major article, and dive into the second NYT article I've cited here to see remarks by people such as Ruth Ben-Ghiat and Jennifer Mercieca? have you googled Trump fascist rhetoric? soibangla (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)::How does it not relate to the present time ? it needs to be in the article Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Jon Meacham: "To call your opponent 'vermin,' to dehumanize them, is to not only open the door but to walk through the door toward the most ghastly kinds of crimes."[4]

Michael Beschloss: "Please tell us if this reminds you of any earlier historical figure."[5]

Jason Stanley, author of How Fascism Works: "It doesn't echo 'Mein Kampf.' This is textbook 'Mein Kampf' ... Trump's comments are remarkably evocative particularly of Hitler's rants against Marxists and socialists -- Hitler also decried pro-democratic forces as Marxist ... [Hitler] took it that Jews were behind the international left, Marxism, communism, but his real target was democracy. This overbroad use of Marxism to target basically any political opponent, this is familiar from fascism and the way you attack democracy. And of course labeling your political opponents vermin, yeah, I mean the Nazis targeted their political opponents, they targeted them for incarceration and concentration camps."[6][7]

Ruth Ben-Ghiat: "There are echoes of fascist rhetoric, and they’re very precise. The overall strategy is an obvious one of dehumanizing people so that the public will not have as much of an outcry at the things that you want to do ... calling people 'vermin' was used effectively by Hitler and Mussolini to dehumanize people and encourage their followers to engage in violence ... Trump is also using projection: note that he mentions all kinds of authoritarians 'communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left' to set himself up as the deliverer of freedom. Mussolini promised freedom to his people too and then declared dictatorship."[8][9] soibangla (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Jennifer Mercieca: "He describes a world of threats and a nation that is humiliated - he claims that there is danger everywhere and he's the only one who can provide safety - he claims that his opposition are enemies who cheat. Those are the classic arguments of fascism."[10] soibangla (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Timothy Naftali: "The language is the language that dictators use to instill fear. When you dehumanize an opponent, you strip them of their constitutional rights to participate securely in a democracy because you’re saying they’re not human. That’s what dictators do."[11]

Public Religion Research Institute: "What we have witnessed from Trump over the last few weeks is something new," said Robert Jones, founder of the Public Religion Research Institute, or PRRI. "Trump has clearly crossed into the domain of Nazi ideology openly."[12]

Brian Klaas: "I study the breakdown of democracy, and I don’t know how to say this more clearly: We are sleepwalking towards authoritarianism, and people are not waking up to this."[13]

Stephen Miller: "Any activists who doubt President Trump's resolve in the slightest are making a drastic error: Trump will unleash the vast arsenal of federal powers to implement the most spectacular migration crackdown. The immigration legal activists won't know what's happening."[14]

"How Trump's rhetoric compares with Hitler's". The Washington Post. November 13, 2023. soibangla (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Fascism is the subject of extensive academic study. Tens of thousands of books and academic papers have been written about it. People write PhD papers about fascism, become professors, write academic papers and books. The academic community then decides which views are most credible and which scholars are most authoritative. IOW it's a real academic area of study, no different from any other.

Some of the people you mention are noted fascism scholars and none of your sources was published in an article or book in the academic press.

Jennifer Mercieca is a scholar of rhetoric. Jacob Urowsky is a professor of philosophy whose book was published by Random House, which is not an academic publisher.

See Is Trump a fascist? 8 experts weigh in (Dylan Matthews, Vox Oct 23, 2020). It says, "Call him a kleptocrat, an oligarch, a xenophobe, a racist, even an authoritarian. But he doesn’t quite fit the definition of a fascist."

The experts include Roger Griffin, Robert Paxton, Stanley Payne, who are among the top ten if not the top five fascism scholars.

Also, note that the article mentions Jason Stanley and Ruth Ben-Ghiat, whom you quote in support of your thesis. But note the article says they have both said Trump is not a fascist.

You need to show us a textbook that says there is consensus among fascism scholars that Trump is a fascist. In the meantime you are doing what climate change deniers do. They present non-significant scientists, editorials and distortions of expert sources to support a predetermined conclusion. TFD (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I have noted over the years that in certain instances you insist on academic research papers to substantiate content, when that is rarely the norm of what we do here. Rather, we overwhelmingly rely on contemporaneous reliable sources. And what we have here is subject matter experts quoted in reliable sources, right here and now. Moreover, this is not a matter of whether Trump is a fascist, but rather whether his rhetoric reflects that of fascists. soibangla (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

BTW, Robert Paxton whom you cite in 2021 wrote an op-ed for Newsweek in which he stated that he now believed Donald Trump was a fascist, after insisting for several years that he was instead a right-wing populist soibangla (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

What part of this article meets that textbook standard? ~None. SPECIFICO talk 09:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Different types of sources are required for different types of claims. Rather than recite them all, let me point to the common sense approach to this. Articles should only refer to people as fascists if that is the academic consensus. The best way to determine this is to consult textbooks, but articles that poll leading experts such as the Vox article or the earlier one for History can be useful.

Note that I am not recommending that the Vox article be used as a source. I am merely citing it as evidence that your opinion is contrary to expert opinion.

Paxton wrote an editorial for the NYT saying that his opinion on Trump had changed after 1/6. However, he has not written a paper on this and remains an outlier.

Calling one's political opponents fascists is very common. It is however offensive because it trivializes fascism. Fascists were responsible for WWII and the Holocaust, leading to the deaths of tens of millions of people. They suspended parliament, banned rival political parties, locked up or killed opponents, censored the press and had gangs terrorize local populations. However odious the Trump administration might have been, that didn't happen, at least not to any significant degree.

When you trivialize fascism, you help its rehabilitation. If everyone is a fascist then no one is a fascist. This is exactly what the gun lobby does when it harps on about gun control in Nazi Germany.

I don't understand why, with so many actual facts you can use to criticize Trump, you rely on the argumentum ad hitlerum. This type of hyperbole is more likely to backfire than persuade and is best avoided. TFD (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This is getting considerably away from the proposed article content. There's lots of RS detail about the efforts of Trump's current entourage to source and vet prospective appointees who, like various now-charged January 6 defendants and disgraced former Trump advisors, would support, enable, and execute presidential actions adverse to the American core. This thread is not about labeling Trump a "fascist" at the top of the lead. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Please note that all the references I provided above are from this month. The Vox piece you cite is from three years ago. You also mention some fascism experts who wrote their major work decades ago and appear retired now. Things have changed. The proposal here relates to the change in Trump's rhetoric in recent weeks, on which subject matter experts have been quoted in publications here and now, rather than academics writing papers that get peer-reviewed and published years later.

As SPECIFICO notes, there is no proposal here to label Trump a fascist. No one is suggesting the lead should say Donald J. Trump is a fascist who was the 45th president of the United States. It's about his rhetoric. As it stands, nowhere in this article is his authoritarian rhetoric even mentioned, despite it being extensively written about for several years. The article says "Trump's political positions and rhetoric were right-wing populist," with sources from 2+ years ago. Nowhere in the article does rule of law appear.

June 2016: Donald Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say. Donald J. Trump’s blustery attacks on the press, complaints about the judicial system and bold claims of presidential power collectively sketch out a constitutional worldview that shows contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law, legal experts across the political spectrum say.

And now many reliable sources, supported by modern fascism and rhetoric academics, report his rhetoric now reflects that of Mussolini and Hitler. soibangla (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

His authoritarian rhetoric and lack of respect for the rule of law both definitely deserve mention, along with what I suggested in my first comment. DFlhb (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The article already says, "During the campaign, his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist...Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist and many as misogynistic."

That description has similarities to Fascism and Nazism. It also makes him comparable to contemporaries such as Duterte, Modi, Putin, Viktor Orban, Meloni, Javier Milei, LePen and Bolsonaro.

But it also has similarities with nativist and other movements throughout U.S. history: the Salem witch hunts, the Sons of Liberty, Andrew Jackson, Know Nothings, Copperheads, Klansmen, anti-Communists, Birchers, etc. These are more likely to be influences on Trumpism than foreign ideologies.

There are rs making these comparisons. However, if the article makes comparisons of Trump and Fascism/Nazism, then it should write about all the comparisons made in proportion to their support in rs. We must not give greater prominence to Hitler than Andrew Jackson, just because Hitler is less popular with the U.S. public.

TFD (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

That completely ignores the subject of this thread, the prominent awareness an RS discussion of his agenda to implement extra-legal powers by installing select agents in his second term. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

You might be confusing this tread with another one. This thread is called "fascism" and is introduced with Trump's "rhetoric echoes that of fascists such as Mussolini and Hitler." There's also mention of a crackdown on immigration, although it's unclear how this relates to Mussolini and Hitler.

I haven't read about the "select agents." Has this been covered in news media? TFD (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Kudos for sharing that you have not been reading recent secondary and tertiary sourcing about Trump's current campaign, current statements, and current staff activities. ANS: yes. If you're interested in getting up to speed with how he's projecting himself and his vision for the future, there are numerous daily, periodical and book format references on that. This thread is discussing how best to convey their descriptions and, in some cases, revelations. SPECIFICO talk 21:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The content is widely covered by several reliable sources that quote contemporary fascism/rhetoric academics who explicitly liken the Trump rhetoric to fascism, specifically that of Hitler and Mussolini. No one is proposing this be included in the lead, as is the language you cited above. Characterizations like "populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist" should explicitly include "authoritarian," as this has been attributed to him for several years. The current language, indeed the entire article, ignores the elephant in the room. It is passive POV by omission.

My edit was deep in the article, as the matter arose during his 2024 campaign. It is by no means prominently placed. It is notable that Trump's spokesman said of anyone making such comparisons that "their sad, miserable existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House."[15]

I am aware there is a long history of people calling others they hate "fascists" and "communists," which sets up a "cry wolf" dilemma, but that's not what is happening here. It's not people screaming on Twitter. This is highly reliable sources going through rigorous editorial controls to report this. soibangla (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality says that opinions reported in the article should reflect the weight in rs articles about the topic, in this case Donald Trump. It's not enough to show that Trump's rhetoric has been compared to Hitler's, but that it is a significant aspect of the topic as reported in rs.

Comparing political opponents with Hitler is pretty hackneyed by now, which is probably why rs don't give it the degree of attention to merit inclusion, per weight. You see the argumentum ad hitlerum more frequently in right-wing sources, whether it's about gun control, abortion or even unisex restrooms. TFD (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, have you googled Trump fascist rhetoric? Do I need to list even more RS and experts than I already have? That sourcing alone would almost certainly be sufficient for inclusion of this content in anyone else's BLP. I just explained that this is not the usual phenomenon of people calling each other Nazis on message boards and podcasts, it's many reliable sources reporting on the man's rhetoric. It is "clearly fascistic," says Peter Wehner.[16] soibangla (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion should be widened via RFC soibangla (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we are at the point where an RfC is going to help. Some editors are up to date on RS narratives and others have not yet seen them, before somebody takes the time and trouble to produce even more references, e.g the ones at "stephen miller 2024" "trump retribution" "trump kelly" etc. It's beyond me why the most elaborate opinions here are based on the least familiarity with recent sources, but that's nothing new. SPECIFICO talk 22:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

NOTNEWS? NPOV? RS? I seriously doubt that news reports about Trump in the last few weeks have had a major change on how you or anyone else perceives him. Can you explain what you now think about Trump that you didn't several weeks ago? Or do you just have more ammunition for your opinions? TFD (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

No I didn''t google Trump fascist rhetoric because I don't begin with what I think should be in the article and search for it, but instead use reliable sources to determine what should be in the article. Please read the policy on neutrality. What weight if any an aspect of the topic should receive is not based on the political biases of editors. If it were, then the content would be determined by the relative number of editors who were MAGA Republicans or Resistance Democrats.

You should thank your stars that rs are already negative toward the subject so you don't have to google search for additional negative material to add. TFD (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

well ok then. anybody else want to join this discussion? soibangla (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

There appears to be no opposition based on the sources, so I think you could proceed to implement article text. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Soibangla, I'd recommend not adding the proposed paragraph, without a consensus to do so. Perhaps, you should consider opening an RFC instead. We're inching closer to the official opening of the 2024 US presidential campaign & such proposals need as wide an input as possible. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

This page has thousands of page watchers, with no meaningful dissent. No, we donxt need RfCs on each and every sourced content improvement. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I oppose soibangla's text above.

1. ...dehumanizing rhetoric is both a MOS:EGG and a MOS:SEAOFBLUE. (It really, really ticks me off that no one has pointed that out, for various reasons.)
2. Fascist, sure. It is clearly supported by reliable sources. Nazi? Not so fast. No matter how accurate, I oppose Nazi. I also oppose comparing him to Hitler or Mussolini in Wikivoice.

Cessaune [talk] 17:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

multiple sources say "dehumanizing rhetoric" but rhetoric can be dewikilinked here if that will address your concern. multiple sources explicitly relate the rhetoric to Hitler, Mussolini and Nazis, so is that in wikivoice? soibangla (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Cessaune, does my reply mitigate your concerns? soibangla (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Delinking rhetoric is good. I don't like the idea of stating it in Wikivoice, regardless of the number of sources. Cessaune [talk] 18:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You have to go back to the far-right authoritarians in the 1930s in Europe or in 1970s Latin America to find the kind of dehumanizing and violent language that Trump is starting to consistently use

said Harvard professor Steven Levitsky, co-author of How Democracies Die about how elected leaders can gradually subvert the democratic process to increase their power.[17] soibangla (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, this and this SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I would like to see more participation in this discussion, but lacking it I will seek to widen participation via RFC by Wednesday. soibangla (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Lasting impact, coverage in RS? So far, we have a couple of speeches and a TruthSocial post. I think we should keep this in Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign for now. Trump is revisiting all of the highlights (lowlights?) of his two prior campaigns with plans/threats/promises to turn the presidency into a dictatorship. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Recent developments are quite distinct from any plans articulated in his prior campaigns. Even his election denial in 2020-21 was couched in terms of the American legal process and remedies, albeit tenuous and ultimately resolved as vacuous. The current plans are to dismantle the civil service, staff the executive branch with anti-constitutionalists, and politicize the American military for Trump's personal goals -- among other things reported in RS including the several linked on this talk page. SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Noticed that twice, attempts were made to give this discussion a more neutral heading. I recommend those attempts be allowed & not reverted. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that was Mandruss's reason for reverting Soibangla's revert. I reverted for a different reason than Soibangla; I think this heading is better. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Vermin

I see the word “vermin” occurs eight times in this talk page section so far, but never in context. Trump discussed “radical left thugs that live like vermin….” Thus, he was only referring to a certain subset of his opponents as vermin. No reliable source has suggested, of course, that he was calling Republican opponents such as Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis vermin, nor that he was calling Democratic opponents like Joe Biden or Chuck Schumer vermin. He was only calling “radical left thugs” vermin. Any discussion in this BLP about “vermin” should include at least the immediate context: “radical left thugs that live like vermin….” That quote with context is widely reported in RS’s. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

who are the "radical left thugs" he characterized as vermin?

Former President Trump wished his supporters a happy Thanksgiving in a Truth Social post early Thursday while slamming New York's attorney general, the judge overseeing his civil fraud case, President Biden and the "Radical Left Lunatics" ... Trump also targeted Biden, accusing him of weaponizing the “Department of Injustice” against his predecessor in the Oval Office, as well as “all of the other Radical Left Lunatics, Communists, Fascists, Marxists, Democrats, & RINOS, who are seriously looking to DESTROY OUR COUNTRY."[18]

soibangla (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe Trump has said those people are vermin or thugs, maybe not, but the article you link to uses neither word. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your "immediate context" isn't the full context. On Veterans Day, he defined the "radical left thugs" both in the speech and in a post on social media: we will root out the Communists, Marxists, Fascists, and Radical Left Thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our Country, lie, steal, and cheat on Elections. They're not off-the-cuff remarks where he went off-script, he then published the script. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That particular quote does not clearly accuse marxists, communists, or fascists of being like vermin. I can understand why opponents of Trump wish he had called those people vermin, or called his other opponents vermin, but I haven’t yet seen that he did so. He called radical left thugs vermin, which is pretty nasty language on Trump’s part. I suppose maybe the “vermin” might apply to stuff earlier in the sentence, it’s hard to tell. But even if so, he wasn’t calling all of his opponents vermin. I have no objection to using the longer quote which includes more context in this BLP, so long as we don’t suggest he generally called his opponents vermin. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it does. the communists, marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country. Notice the "and"? His Veterans Day speech in New Hampshire is on C-SPAN. This is a transcript of the last minutes of the speech, starting at 1:45:00. The text of the TruthSocial post is in green.

Transcript

We are a failing nation. We are a nation in serious decline, and now these radical left lunatics want to interfere with our elections by using law enforcement. It’s totally corrupt, and we will not let it happen. If you want to save America from "crooked Joe" and then get every, you have to go out, you have to really do it. We have to do it. You know, the one way we win like you’ve never seen before, we have to slam it on Election Day. We have to come up with votes because there’s a point at which they’re cheating, can’t get it done. We, there’s a point at which the cheating can’t get it done. So get every patriot, you know, and get them out to deliver a massive victory in the primary but honestly more importantly in the election, the primary, let’s get the primary done first. We’ll be back here many times, but we gotta get the primary done first. So join our campaign by visiting … or text Trump … OK? 2024 is our final battle. With you at my side and you’ve been on my side from the beginning, we will demolish the deep state. We will expel, we’re going to expel those horrible, horrible war mongers from our government. They want to fight everybody, they want to kill people all over the place, places we’ve never heard about before. Places that want to be left alone. We will drive out the globalists, we will cast out the communists, marxists, fascists. We will throw off the sick political class that hates our country. We will route the fake news media until they become real. We will evict Joe Biden from the White House and we will finish the job that we started better than anybody has ever started a job before. The great silent majority is rising like never before, and under our leadership, the forgotten man and woman will be forgotten no longer. You’re going to be forgotten no longer, and with your help, your love and your vote we will put America first, and today especially in honor of our great veterans on Veteran’s Day, we pledge to you that we will root out the communists, marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections, and will do anything possible. They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American dream. The real threat is not from the radical right, the real threat is from the radical left, and it’s growing every day, every single day. The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within. Because if you have a capable, competent, smart, tough leader, Russia, China, North Korea, they’re not gonna want to play with us, and they didn’t. Despite the hatred and anger of the radical left lunatics who want to destroy our Country, we will make America great again!

They removed a few sentences from the speech, including the one I bolded. It says that the real threat is not from the radical right. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

”Joe owned three cats and two dogs that barked constantly.” That doesn’t suggest cats bark! Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it does. You're only exclusing excluding barking cats because cats usually don't bark. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Fixed typo. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn’t, ”exclusing” is not a word, and I gotta go. Have a good day. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"Joe owned three poodles and two bulldogs that barked constantly." - It's less clear when both are things that bark. --Onorem (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Right, it’s less clear. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for changing “exclusing” to “excluding.”[19] Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

See C-SPAN link, above. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

this discussion is unimportant because it doesn't matter who he called vermin. the point is he used dehumanizing rhetoric against adversaries, whoever they may be, and the effect is to reduce them to a subhuman level so not-so-smart people might kill them. this is how genocide starts. soibangla (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a wild assertion. Cessaune [talk] 18:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I hope editors can remain focused on the subject of this thread: rhetoric. I am not calling him a fascist or a genocidal maniac. perhaps some of the resistance to inclusion stems from a failure to draw that distinction soibangla (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

So we should discard your proposal that we say Trump “echoed dehumanizing rhetoric of white supremacists and fascist dictators such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler”? Okay. Keep in mind that Trump has been the target of dehumanizing rhetoric too. For example, Jim Acosta of CNN called him a “snake in search of a sewer”. [20]. Truman said Eisenhower “doesn’t know any more about politics than a pig knows about Sunday.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how you get from what I said to So we should discard your proposal that we say Trump “echoed dehumanizing rhetoric of white supremacists and fascist dictators such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler”? This is not the BLP of Acosta or Eisenhower. soibangla (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You said that you’re “not calling him a fascist or a genocidal maniac.” As for Acosta, he’s a CNN reporter describing the subject of this BLP, so of course it’s relevant to this talk page discussion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I read what you wrote soibangla (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

And didn’t you also propose that we say Trump “echoed dehumanizing rhetoric of white supremacists and fascist dictators such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler”? Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

there is nothing contradictory in what I've proposed here. I recommend you and I disengage here soibangla (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Acosta didn't call Trump a snake. He said he was "Like A Snake In Search Of A Sewer". Truman didn't call Eisenhower a pig, and neither one wanted anyone to be rooted out or crushed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Comparing Trump to a snake or Eisenhower to a pig was dehumanizing, but no reason for Wikipedia to classify those speakers with Hitler and Mussolini, or to give undue weight to people who do make that very offensive comparison. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It matters that he called, per the TruthSocial post your Hill cite cites, e.g., Judge Engoron a "Radical Left Trump hating judge", later mentioning "crooked Joe Biden ... & all of the other Radical Left Lunatics, Communists, Fascists, Marxists, Democrats, & RINOS, who are seriously looking to DESTROY OUR COUNTRY." And what are the "Radical Left Lunatics"? Vermin, according to the above transcript and TruthSocial post. Yeah, kind of SYNTH at the moment and I oppose inclusion in this article until further notice, BUT that clearly puts Engoron, Biden, James, etc. in the vermin category he intends to root out. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources show that he calls all of his critics, Republican opponents, Democrats, government officers and civil servants -- and any others whom he feels are adverse to his interests -- words from America-hating radical socialist communists to vermin, rapists, etc. Not all at once. The targets change from day to day, appearing and receding with the tide. The reason it's significant for his bio is that it's apparently about conversion of official governmental power to serve whatever crosses his mind. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Would be better placed in his 2024 campaign page. Afterall, weren't we trying to make his BLP shorter? GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, for the reasons you state. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello I’m an member of dispute resolution who will try to get and/or keep this conversation civil and on topic. I would also like to disclose my opinion on this I think we at this point should not use fascists any where in the article as that would spark more. Controversy •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Cyberwolf. I also contacted administrator @ScottishFinnishRadish: to monitor the entire discussion. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is around 2.5 decitomats so I may have missed something, but I've reviewed it and don't see anything standing out as requiring an administrator. Is there something in particular I should be seeing? Right now looks like it's a not-particularly-heated-for-American-politics discussion that's headed for an RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It's my hope that administrative actions won't be required. That being said, I hope you'll continue to monitor the discussion, considering its topic. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Cyberwolf please note there is no proposal to call Trump a fascist. rather, there are multiple reliable secondary sources and multiple subject matter experts that report his rhetoric echoes that of fascists, and those sources explicitly cite Hitler and Mussolini. I do not believe this encyclopedia should shy from including this simply because it is distasteful to some. Godwin's law is not at play here. soibangla (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm calling for a somewhat stronger proposal: discussing the subject-matter experts who have described Trump as a fascist, with appropriate attribution of course. There is no need, in my view, to dance around the matter. As for Godwin's law, note what Godwin himself says about Trump: If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician. Generalrelative (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, Godwin's law is settled. Lets make sure we don't run afoul of the Cute cat theory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Never! Generalrelative (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Not to be a smart a$$ the article literally states

In December 2015, Godwin commented on comparisons being made between Hitler and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying: "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician." In August 2017, Godwin made similar remarks on social media with respect to the two previous days' Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, endorsing and encouraging comparisons of its alt-right organizers to Nazis.

So I guess another source

So godwins law is at play kinda •Cyberwolf•talk? 02:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Godwin's law has never really meant that you shouldn't compare things to Nazis. It is reminding people that you need to be careful and make sure that there are actual similarities involved, don't just call someone a Nazi because you disagree with them. If you are dealing with someone who says and does things that really are like what the Nazis said and did, then the comparison is appropriate and the need to make it increases. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Posted at NPOVN

I have posted a request for participation at NPOVN. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Post-posting break

I don't have this page on my watchlist, was just summoned by the posting on NPOVN. But I will say that I still stand behind everything I said back in February 2021 at Talk:Fascism/Archive 53#Trump. Indeed, the number of mainstream subject-matter experts who freely use the term "fascist" to describe Trump or Trumpism has continued to grow, and with good reason. This article needs to go with what the best of these say, focusing on concrete aspects of his politics which qualify as fascist under the various overlapping definitions that are considered mainstream. For example, as SPECIFICO points out, Robert Paxton (by far the most celebrated historian who has written a monograph specifically aimed at defining fascism) had for a long while resisted using the term to describe Trump but made a dramatic about-face after the January 6th 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. That short opinion piece is definitely worth reading. Note why he changed his mind, and why he thinks this is significant, why the label now seems not just acceptable but necessary. Generalrelative (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The call for participation was unfocused. Are we being asked if Trump is a fascist? (Yes.) Or is there a content question? Sennalen (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

No, we are not arguing whether Trump is or isn't a fascist. This is about whether or not we should characterize his remarks as fascist. Cessaune [talk] 08:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

To clarify my statement above: we should be discussing what subject-matter experts have said –– some of them characterizing Trump's words (and deeds) as fascist, some disagreeing with this characterization –– and in each instance giving proper attribution, i.e. "So-and-so argued that..." per WP:YESPOV. That Trump's remarks are fascist is clearly not a ubiquitous enough position for us to state it in Wikivoice. Generalrelative (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious, do you haave examples of expert credible dissent to the effect that Trump's current agenda and pronouncements are not fascist, totalitarian, extra-constitutional, Unamerican, or similar bad news? SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That's too many things to have a real discussion about. We should be more precise than that. And I haven't been keeping up with the current crop of positions on the matter. But here, for instance, is Richard Evans in the aftermath of January 6th arguing that while Trump is very bad news indeed he shouldn't be called a fascist: [21]. Note that my opinion, as stated in that archived thread at Talk:Fascism is otherwise: I find figures like Paxton and Timothy Snyder more convincing. But Evans is a big deal, and so are some of the other holdouts (Samuel Moyn is another example, see [22]). Generalrelative (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, I gave that long list of words because I don't see much expert dissent from the many mainstream assessments that his recent posture and intention is to govern as a totalitarian. Also, this discussion is about his recent extension and amplification of his authoritarian proclivities. So post jan-6 is not what this is about. Note that this article did not call him fascist in 2021. So I wouldn't consider Evans a counterpoint to recent assessments and reporting about his current active recruiting/vetting of accomplices. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Would you like to propose some text to be added to the article? (Apologies if you did so above and I missed it.) Generalrelative (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Remarks are a dime a dozen. I would lead with Paxton's assessment that January 6th was a fascist turn, and any commentary on remarks can buttress that. Sennalen (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with you there. To call Trump himself fascist requires more than a single source, or two, or three. Cessaune [talk] 15:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This way of framing the question appears to miss the point of WP:YESPOV. We shouldn't be calling him anything. That's an entirely different question to whether we report what experts say on the matter. Generalrelative (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I assumed that was implied. Obviously we aren't calling him anything. Cessaune [talk] 15:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Aha, so can you explain the issue then? Have folks not provided enough high-quality sources in your opinion? Generalrelative (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

No they really haven't. Qwexcxewq (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been convinced of any of these arguments to include the proposed paragraph, in this BLP. Forgive me, but I keep picturing Scarborough's over the top dramatics on Morning Joe, a few days ago. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there a proposed paragraph? Or just a general idea that something should be said? Without concrete language to discuss (and sources attached to that language), I'm afraid that this conversation will keep on going around in circles. Generalrelative (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m afraid this will spiral into many weeks if not months of worthless debate
Or a possible policy •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That's rather pessimistic for a member of dispute resolution, no? I think we're better than that, though I'm also prepared to be proven wrong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Generalrelative (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

As step 1, I would bring this[23] directly over to the January 6th section of this page. Sennalen (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I typed in "trump fascist" to scholar.google.com and there's a lot of hits. Some that jumped out to me were[24][25][26] but I have no idea if they're the best on offer. Has anyone been collecting these? I see a list of news opinion sources in the archives. No telling what might be tucked away around other talk pages in the topic space. Sennalen (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I strongly advise against explicitly labeling him a fascist soibangla (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Right now I'm just talking about what sources exist. Sennalen (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

that's fine, but you might winnow down the search results with trump fascist rhetoric soibangla (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not about 2023 rhetoric, but I think the best approach to the first introduction of "fascism" on the page is with more established material, namely Paxton's assessment. It has stood unchallenged on the January 6th page for a long time, and one of the sources I found today adds secondary support. The journal article by Dennis Tourish would be usable for other things probably too. I propose to add the following to the end of the January 6th section of this page:

Historian of fascism, Robert Paxton marked the January 6th attack as the turning point of Trump's movement away from democratic norms and towards fascism.

Sennalen (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

the reliable sources and subject matter experts of this month make clear this is about his most recent rhetoric. efforts to label him a fascist will almost certainly fail to achieve consensus at this time. I discourage going that way. soibangla (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Just speak for yourself. Consensus will reveal itself. Sennalen (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking for wider context and contesting claims that might expand the treatment. There are some significant dissenting voices. Forgive me if I'm retreading old ground.

This has an interesting claim about the increased use of the word "fascist" in media after January 6th.[27]

This[28] names some experts who continued not to think Trump was fascist after January 6th: Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Stanley Payne, and Ruth Ben-Ghiat

It looks like Ben-Ghiat flipped due to the recent rhetoric. [29] (probably not RS)

This... I read it three times and can't figure out whether Feldman was saying yes or no.[30]

Sennalen (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think Feldman is supporting the fascist label (Monday’s actions, at the very least, smacked of radical-right extremism, if not full-blown revolutionary nationalism — that is, fascism.), but I do admit there are multiple later paragraphs that read like he's walking back that claim a little (But is “it” fascism? Granted, the Trump administration increasingly walks and quacks like a duck. Perhaps the answer no longer matters; or rather, it is not urgent enough now. Whether fascism or merely ‘illiberal democracy’, what Trump is unleashing is deadly, both for constitutional freedoms as well as for ethnic and religious minorities in the US.). It's definitely not the clearest argument. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Tomorrow I will begin drafting an RFC to solicit wider participation and focus centered on this question: should this BLP include that by 2023 Trump's rhetoric echoed that of fascism? soibangla (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Why RfC? That text has not met much objection. SPECIFICO talk 04:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I seek to establish firm consensus to avert a contentious edit war, and to ensure the focus is limited to rhetoric rather than to a label soibangla (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Politics rfcs tend to attract less informed editors and diffuse unsourced views. SPECIFICO talk 04:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO.

Before we think about RfCs, people should start drafting their own paragraphs. Maybe an alternate wording is all it takes. Cessaune [talk] 04:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I can only hope that mindful editors and admins would corral others from wandering into the wilderness in such a contentious matter, but call me naïve. We should test this. soibangla (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

We should not test this. History speaks for itself. Cessaune [talk] 04:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't even know what that means. The matter is deadlocked in extensive discussion and a focused RFC is now warranted. Is this not the way it's supposed to work around here? Or are we to just argue each other to exhaustion until everyone just walks away with nothing gained? soibangla (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll just go back to my original point—let's solve the whole thing now, instead of dragging ourselves into a month-long process that will only solve half of the question. Cessaune [talk] 05:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

we've tried that to no avail. there is now a deadlock that should be resolved by a focused RFC to resolve the whole thing now by a formal process. this is what we do here, is it not? soibangla (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

There isn't really a deadlock. The only people who are directly opposing any sort of characterization of Trump's comments as facist are Anythingyouwant, and GoodDay (only for this article).

Propose a new wording. Cessaune [talk] 05:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

In this discussion, there are some who seem to object to labeling Trump a fascist, when that has not actually been proposed, and others who would prefer that characterization.

Propose a new wording I said I would begin drafting a focused RFC tomorrow, that I hope will not go off the rails into diversions. I remain optimistic in how this project should work. soibangla (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm kind of confused. Can you explain what you mean when you say "focused RFC"? Thanks. Cessaune [talk] 05:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Tomorrow I will begin drafting an RFC to solicit wider participation and focus centered on this question: should this BLP include that by 2023 Trump's rhetoric echoed that of fascism? soibangla (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Soibangla: I've no objections to your having an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be wanting to architect a planned consensus as a moat against edits that haven't even been proposed yet. I don't think that would be helpful. Just say what you, as a solitary person, think content should look like. Sennalen (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I tend to disengage from editors who use the term you soibangla (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll say it differently then, because I get your point but Sennalen brings up a good point herself—draft a wording. Let's solve the whole thing now, instead of dragging ourselves into a month-long process that will only solve half of the question. Cessaune [talk] 04:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

draft a wording is exactly what I said I would do, to avert a protracted dispute and resolve the issue soibangla (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Soibangla, we've seen RfCs fail before. The best-informed participants of the current group decline to repeat themselves, a few newcomers arrive from their talk-page invitations and shoot from the hip - failing to review or understand the considerable thought that's already been presented - and a month later some well-meaning closer may or may not make sense of it all. I think you and Sennalen are on the right track and can quickly agree on acceptable article text. It won't preclude adding more in the future, but we have a core of agreed points that can be included now. SPECIFICO talk 12:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)T

I don't see a consensus for the latest addition, concerning this topic. Yet, it's been added (then re-added) to this BLP anyway. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggest a edit freeze on the facist part until this dispute is concluded •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think handling of January 6th should be decoupled from handling of 2023 remarks. The latter is what an RfC would be about, to my understanding. Sennalen (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish:, IMHO WP:ONUS calls for the addition-in-question to be reverted, in this situation. What say you? GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If there is no consensus new material should not be added. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The proposal attracted no response by the time everyone involved had made other comments, so consensus was presumed. It became contested at the moment GoodDay reverted. After that, ONUS applies, reversions should stop, and we should discuss the edit rather than meta-discuss the merits of discussing or not. Sennalen (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD too, the addition should be reverted. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Also per BRD you should explain your reasons to revert. That's where the discussion starts. Sennalen (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I did explain my reversion, in my edit summary. There was no consensus for your addition. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Per brd you actually have to explain on the talk page •Cyberwolf•talk? 18:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

So I shall. The addition was done without a consensus to do so. This topic being contentious, the addition shouldn't have been made. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, you have been all over this thread, despite a statement you were quitting it and despite a visit to an Admin's page that resulted in their coming here unable to see why you were so agitated. You are welcome and urged to state a reasoned, sourcing and policy based view concerning article text, but several editors have asked you to refrain from empty nervous comments that are not constructive. On some pages, unconstructive comments are removed on sight. Sounds severe, but it's worth considering. SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That's still in the realm of procedural meta-reasons. If no one has something specific to say against the actual edit, then it has consensus. Read WP:DRNC for explanation. Sennalen (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sennalen: Well then, we'll see if anybody elese does or not via comments or reverts. If nobody else 'reverts' your addition, then so be it. I'm certainly not going to revert it (every 24 hrs), only to have that revert undone. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I oppose this text very, very strongly. You can't mention one person's opinion without mentioning the opposing opinion, which is not WP:FRINGE or anything. Cessaune [talk] 15:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The following language has been repeatedly inserted and removed from this BLP: “Robert Paxton, a historian of fascism, marked the January 6th attack as the turning point of Trump's movement away from democratic norms and toward fascism.” It was properly removed, for several reasons, including the following. It is very one-sided, as another editor has already explained (“some experts who continued not to think Trump was fascist after January 6th: Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Stanley Payne, and Ruth Ben-Ghiat”). If we are relying upon Trump’s recent comment about “vermin” then we ought to say so, and also quote how he used that word (i.e. to say that certain “thugs” are vermin). I will say in passing that I believe thugs have rights too, but calling them “vermin” is not something that upsets me at all. A further reason to support deleting the proposed language is that it’s very tangential to fascism. Fascism is primarily about action or proposed action, and not so much about how Trump or some foolish blowhard chooses to exercise his right of free speech. A recent essay by historian Christopher Browning stated. “I still deny that Trump’s presidency was fascist—but I’m concerned that if he wins another trip to the White House, he could earn the label.” There is no current scholarly consensus that Trump deserves the label at present, and anyway it’s much better for us to report what Trump has said or done and let readers evaluate it, instead of us essentially engaging in name-calling. It’s not fascist name-calling, but we should avoid any kind of name-calling. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

once again, and again and again, this discussion is not about labeling Trump a fascist, nor is it limited to his vermin remark:

Since launching his first campaign for president in 2015, Trump has often derided immigrants in inflammatory terms, but the phrase "poisoning the blood" echoed language used by White supremacists, who fixate on so-called blood purity. Adolf Hitler wrote about the "contamination of the blood" or "blood poisoning" in Mein Kampf.[31]

soibangla (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s labelling his language, and labelling his language implicitly labels him. I think you’re referring to a speech in Dubuque, Iowa where he said this: “We're taking people in, from prisons, we're taking people in, from insane asylums…. we're bringing in terrorists. That's what's happening. That's so accurate. That's so accurate and it's happening now. But it's going to happen more so and more so. But we'll stop it for the most part. Look, there are 15 million people. That's a lot. But we'll stop it one way or the other. We're going to stop it. What they're doing to our country is they're destroying it. It's the blood of our country. What they're doing is destroying our country. Not one more innocent life should be wrecked by Joe Biden's open border agenda.” If you want to suggest an edit that discusses this, then go ahead, I think it would be better in a sub-article though. There’s no question that a country is made up of its people, and the greater the ratio of bad people or unworthy people to good people or useful beneficial people, the worse off the country is. The lifeblood of a country is its people. This is especially true in a democracy, where the people rule. Trump obviously was not speaking about racial or ethnic groups, he was talking about mentally ill people, criminals, and terrorists. That’s the exact opposite of discriminating based on race or the like. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Seriously? There is no evidence that the immigrants are mentally ill people, criminals, and terrorists. These are labels that he has applied to immigrants who are Hispanics. This is racism in its purist form. As he said once before, "We should have more people from places like Norway", one of the whitest of countries. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

There’s no question that a country is made up of its people, and the greater the ratio of bad people or unworthy people to good people or useful beneficial people, the worse off the country is.

"Comparing Crime Rates Between Undocumented Immigrants, Legal Immigrants, and Native-born US Citizens in Texas," Trump DOJ, December 2020:

Relative to undocumented immigrants, U.S.-born citizens are over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes.[32]

soibangla (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You are attempting to have Wikipedia demonize a presidential candidate, by implying that he’s a fascist like Hitler and Mussolini, you cherry-pick a speech in Dubuque to do so, but that speech clearly shows the opposite. Trump in that speech was not being racist, he was concerned about other countries emptying their prisons and mental hospitals into an unvetted flood of migrants to the United States, along with a large proportion of military-age young men including many on terrorists watchlists. Maybe the benefits of having other people come to the USA outweighs the downside of immigrants who are felons, mental patients, and terrorists. But Trump was clearly not speaking about race. Hitler was all about race. You want this BLP to imply he’s another Hitler, and you have expressed no willingness at all to let our readers know that Trump wants to screen out felons, the mentally ill, and terrorists. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Provide a source that backs up this claim. Cessaune [talk] 02:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I quoted the Dubuque speech at length above, and also specified multiple historians who disagree with characterizing Trump or his rhetoric as fascist. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You quoted a speech, then applied your own reasoning to it. Provide a source that agress with your viewpoint. Cessaune [talk] 02:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I specified multiple historians who disagree with characterizing Trump or his rhetoric as fascist. Another editor cherry-picked the Dubuque speech so I added more of it here. It speaks for itself. Feel free to point out to me the part where he endorses anything that Hitler endorsed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't speak for itself, because you spoke for it! Everything you said above about the Iowa thing besides the quote doesn't seem to be sourced. Provide a source verifying your claims, and if you've already provided it, provide it again. If Trump obviously was not speaking about racial or ethnic groups (emphasis mine) it shouldn't be too hard to find sources, right?

Is Trump a fascist? Some people seem to think so. Many don't. And I don't think that there is anywahere even remotely near a strong enough consensus among RSs to directly call him fascist, or to even state that he has been described as fascist. However, quoting soibangla, "once again, and again and again, this discussion is not about labeling Trump a fascist."

You take issue with the idea of labeling Trump's remarks as fascist, since doing that implies that he is a fascist. (If I am characterizing your opinion incorrectly, please correct me.) I very strongly dislike this idea that labelling his language implicitly labels him. By that standard, we can't ever report on anything that RSs characterize negatively without applying the entire label to the person. At least to me, it is obvious that someone can say something sexist and not be a sexist, and the idea that we shouldn't include it simply because it implies that he is a fascist... that speaks to the type of man he is, I guess, since people are so willing to make that jump, but what does that have to do with Wikipedia? We should report the dominant RS opinion, and nothing more. What the dominant RS opinion seems to imply is irrelevant. Cessaune [talk] 02:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

is there actual evidence that other countries [are] emptying their prisons and mental hospitals into an unvetted flood of migrants to the United States, rather than just the rhetoric of one man? soibangla (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Here’s a small sample: NYT: “many detainees are too mentally ill or mentally disabled to understand anything.” Politifact: “CBP reports that so far in fiscal year 2022, which ends Sept. 30, officers at ports of entry have encountered more than 15,500 foreign nationals who have criminal convictions or are wanted by law enforcement.” NBC News: “So far in fiscal year 2023, 160 migrants whose identities match those on the [terror] list have been stopped trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, compared to 100 in 2022.” I have much else to do this evening, thanks for the discussion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide links? That would make life easier. Cessaune [talk] 02:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, what? As long as no source explicitly says that other countries [are] emptying their prisons and mental hospitals into an unvetted flood of migrants to the United States, we can't say it on Wikipedia. Cessaune [talk] 02:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I have argued here to exclude new content, not arguing to include anything. I think you know that. Anyway, as I said, I have to go now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

all that is a digression, a diversion, a red herring, that does not present evidence other countries [are] emptying their prisons and mental hospitals into an unvetted flood of migrants to the United States as Trump has asserted, and I recommend we focus on what the man has actually said about "poisoning the blood." this is not a discussion of immigration policy. soibangla (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Old news and/or missing context and/or cherry-picked. Many detainees are too mentally ill or mentally disabled to understand anything is from a 2010 article. The mentally ill/disabled weren’t people who were caugbht crossing the border. Some of them were people who legally lived in the country for years or decades, had families, and came to the attention of authorities for minor infractions. Politifact: Most of the apprehended "criminals" were repeat crossers "but agency data doesn’t yet provide the full picture." NBC report: "The number of border crossers on the watchlist was higher in fiscal year 2019, at 280. A DHS official told reporters that the increase from fiscal 2022 to 2023 is consistent with the overall increase in migrants crossing the border and the rising number of migrants coming from areas of conflict." (Also doesn’t say how many turned out to be mistaken identities.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

What? This is such a fundamental misreading of the statements made I don't even know where to begin. Ill refrain from actually speaking on the issue, since I'm too lazy to look for sources. Cessaune [talk] 01:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a long list of experts who say Trump is fascist, but they do so by way of splitting hairs, so what they mean is that it's more precise to call him authoritarian, narcissistic, or kleptocratic. If editors feel it's unbalanced to only quote experts that say fascist, we could provide some of these others for contrast. Sennalen (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

as I said at the outset, many reliable sources have long refrained from characterizing his rhetoric as fascistic, but only in recent weeks have they deemed it crossed the line such that they can now report it as such. I still find it astonishing that after all this time, this article hardly hints at his authoritarian rhetoric, instead characterizing it "right-wing populism," which certainly at this point constitutes passive POV by omission. soibangla (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Another reference Wapo today SPECIFICO talk 02:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Rather than argue forever about the "perfect" edit, what about one sentence in the 2024 presidential campaign section that says Trump's campaign has been noted to feature increasingly violent and dehumanizing rhetoric against his political enemies. His comments have been compared to echoing the rhetoric of fascist dictators. and use | this NY Times article as the source. BootsED (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

By simply adding the attribution to Paxton, an agreeably reputable source, we can conceivably forgo a drawn out RfC. DN (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I’d like to add there’s been two more articles that came out today that I think could also be used as sources for the page. This one from the NYT and this one from CNN. Both detail Trump’s increasingly anti-democratic rhetoric. BootsED (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

New resource

Chock full of RS analysis relating to this issue in The Atlantic]'s current issue about Trump's revelations of his plans for his second presidency. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The analysis seems solid, but I'm not sure that's really the issue. Without an overwhelming mainstream consensus, we shouldn't state Trump's "fascistic sentiments" as evidence thereof in wiki-voice, or, without providing properly detailed context and attribution per BLP. Such mainstream consensus usually only appears to be appropriate in hindsight, with undeniable evidence after the fact. DN (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Well it's after the fact of 1/6, Lafayette, etc. etc. and his current campaign promises and staff vetting are in that vein. There has been wide mainstresm coverage of these developments. SPECIFICO talk 04:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Just attribute opinions and supplement with evidence. There is likely enough stuff on this topic there and elsewhere to justify an article: Predictions about a second Trump presidency. There is plenty of writing on the wall. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

If you’d like to add this Valijean I’d like to encourage you to do so. I don’t have the necessary permissions on Wikipedia yet. BootsED (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Scholarly consensus and NYT

There seems to be scholarly consensus that Trump has sometimes used language that sounds like fascists, but no consensus that he actually is one. Using fascistic rhetoric does not imply that someone is or is not a fascist. According to the New York Times, scholars are undecided about whether Trump's "rhetorical turn into more fascist-sounding territory is just his latest public provocation of the left, an evolution in his beliefs or the dropping of a veil." Because being a fascist is a lot worse and a lot more notable than sounding like one, I continue to think this subject should remain in the sub-articles only. If there’s consensus to include it in this main BLP, then it would have to be crystal clear that there’s a difference between the two things. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the promised RFC, on this entire topic ;) GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

BLP length concerns?

In the RFC below (Abraham Accords), arguments are being made that the proposed addition of said info, goes against attempts to shorten this BLP. If that's a concern? Then we can simply delete the Fascism/Vermin content. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

THis is in truth an unrelated issue, and should be a whole separate topic, this is not tit for tat. Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

We can't use the too long/too short arguments, concerning both topics. I mention this 'here', because it's been brought up in the Accords RFC. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Time for an article on Trump's alleged authoritarian inclinations and statements?

This subject has been getting tons of attention from reliable sources over time and I fully expect that to continue. A quick look around did not reveal an article on this specific topic. At the risk of pouring gasoline on the fire, is it perhaps time for this to get its own page? Thoughts...? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Have you looked at Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign#Rhetoric? It seems kind of POV-forkish to have a separate article. Especially since we’re still at the “alleged” stage. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The level of attention this subject has been getting and the amount of material to work with might exceed what could be effectively covered in an already fairly large article. But if the sense is that we are not yet at that point, well, that's why I'm asking for input. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I definitely don't think we're at that point yet. It can be covered in this article, or the Presidency of Donald Trump article (which already covers it to a mediocre extent). Cessaune [talk] 19:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Donald Trump explicitly stated he would be a dictator on live television in direct response to a question asked by Sean Hannity as to whether he would abuse his power and be a dictator as his opponents allege; and Trump said he wouldn't, except for Day 1. Therefore, Trump explicitly stated that he would be a dictator. He even made clarifying comments after the fact where he affirmed what he said. There is no "debate" over whether he really meant it or not. Trump is an ex-President and current Presidential candidate, who stated on live television that he would be a dictator on "Day 1." This has made the rounds on every single reputable newspaper in the country. There has never been a President in the history of the United States that openly admitted that they would be a dictator, and refused to walk it back. There must be an article on Trump's authoritarian inclinations and statements. Even if its very small, there must be a mention of this statement on this page. If there is not a mention of this statement on this page, this would be clear bias. This is a newsworthy event. Here's an article in the New York Times for those unfamiliar with this most recent statement. BootsED (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you draft potential section headers for what such an article would look like? Cessaune [talk] 18:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Pertaining to what he said, that statement alone does not deserve its own article, at least not yet, and I think that most if not all people on this talk page would agree with me. Cessaune [talk] 18:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Trump did not say he was going to be a dictator. Let's be caution, not to put words in his mouth. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not a good idea, too much recentism Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose creating such a page, per WP:RECENTISM & also, the US Constitution safe guards against 'unlimited' presidential powers. IF any place? put that info in Trump's 2024 campaign page. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

"Unlimited" is a red herring. RS documentation of the pledges of Trump/Patel/Bannon/Miller, et al make clear that there are plans actively pursued, dating back to the time of the first impeachment, to implement authoritarian agenda, utilizing a combination of proscribed but feasible executive powers, plausibly deniable misrepresentations of law (as in 2020-21) and mass extinction of the nonpartisan apolitical civil service that is typical of all Western democracies for the past ~200 years. SPECIFICO talk 18:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You're not convincing me of your arguments. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I have made no argument. I have stated facts about which, it appears, you have absolutely no knowledge. SPECIFICO talk 22:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

THis is not a forum to discuss if this is possible. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Strong Support for creation of a stand-alone article on Donald Trump and Authoritarianism, though not as an excuse to purge such material from the main. Few topics in the history of media have ever received as much scholarly and media coverage as this, and rightfully so. Such a proposed topic clearly meets notability standards, as it has been extensively covered in reliable sources and is inherently notable due to the unusual nature of a U.S. president openly supporting authoritarian rule. Relatedly, I have opened a discussion in Talk: Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign as to whether a new section on Trump's plans for a "dictatorship" (the term our sources use) should be added to the article, and would value the contributions of any editors from the main Trump page to this ongoing discussion. I have also added a bibliography of 75 reliable sources on that talk page regarding Trump's plans for a dictatorship, which should help provide references both for a section on Trump's plans for a dictatorship in 2025 in the campaign article, as well as this new stand-alone article on Trump and Authoritarianism. Thank you, comrades. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Trump didn't say he was going to be a dictator. Let's be cautious, that we're not putting words in his mouth. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Has any dictator in world history said he was going to be a dictator? This is about scholarly analysis, not Trump's choice of word. All we have to avoid is wikivoice; i.e., we would have to use attribution. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

We have to be caution on these matters. News media tend to over-react, on anything this former US president says. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. We can cautiously talk about things like authoritarianism and, yes, even "dictator", with sufficient sourcing including scholarly sources, and with attribution. You're not "cautioning" us about anything we don't already know. Anyway, it's at least as much about his actions as his rhetoric. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

But does it actually warrant an entire new article? Methinks not. Cessaune [talk] 21:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It certainly seems as significant as many of the other Trump sub-articles, such as Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations (which, btw, survived AFD with a SNOW keep). Which is more significant in your view, his alleged proclivity for abusing females, or his alleged desire to break down American democracy as we know it? Seems a no-brainer to me, no offense intended to the allegedly abused females. It wouldn't necessarily have to be a large article to justify its creation (and frankly I'd prefer a hundred smaller, narrowly focused articles over five huge ones). ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

"Methinks not" as the sole basis for your position does not contribute to the discussion. Provide reasons please if you're going to dispute the importance of this topic. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Will there be a page created (I presume going the draft route, would be proper)? I don't know. Either way, I won't exhibit any Morning Joe hysterics over it ;) GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic about proposed but nonspecific new content in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It's astonishing this BLP has never mentioned his authoritarian rhetoric going back years,[33] and we can't agree to include his more recent fascist rhetoric that has been widely reported.[34]. This BLP ignores the elephant in the room. I recommend we start there before moving to a new article. Much as a lead summarizes an article, this BLP should include a brief discussion of his rhetoric that a standalone article can elaborate on. soibangla (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC) soibangla (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC) Per summary style, I think you've got it backward. The only time the main article content comes first is in a spin-off situation, and this isn't that. If the proposed sub-article creation fails, then we should be talking about content here and/or in an existing sub-article. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Agree with soibanga that we must first expand our coverage of this topic in the main. It is absurd that the article fails to properly discuss one of the most notable aspects of Trump, his authoritarianism. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Fair enough, but you're both at least off topic in this thread. It's not about new content in this article, and it doesn't help to send discussion in multiple directions within the same thread. Try your luck in a separate thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

"A quick look around did not reveal an article on this specific topic. " We have an article on Trumpism, which clearly specifies that it is an authoritarian political movement and a new variation of fascism: "Some commentators have rejected the populist designation for Trumpism and view it instead as part of a trend towards a new form of fascism or neo-fascism, with some referring to it as explicitly fascist and others as authoritarian and illiberal." Dimadick (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, please do; I'll help if I can find the time. This talk page can't give or withhold permission for that, and any relevant content can be separately added to the 2024 or Presidency articles; Trumpism is about the movement, but we could have a long article about Trump and authoritarianism, with extensive scholarly sourcing (search terms: authoritarian and democratic backsliding combined with Trump), as well as normal RS (non-opinion) sourcing that would be uncontroversially used if it were any other topic. This won't "pour gasoline"; it'll clarify what reliable sources have to say on the subject, and make it more accessible not just to readers but to editors. DFlhb (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

My reason for coming here was mainly to gauge community sentiment on a touchy subject that is obviously also a major BLP issue. That said, I have generally avoided directly editing articles relating to Donald Trump as I have periodically had to use my admin tools on this and related pages. WP:INVOLVED can be a gray area sometimes, but I prefer to err on the side of caution. So, while I lean towards supporting the creation of a page on this topic, taking great care with respect to BLP, I will not be the one to create it and I will most likely not edit the page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Include mention of Abraham Accords in opening section

The opening section of the article is heavily critical of Donald Trump, citing his controversial policies, controversial actions and failings. I am not disputing this, but I suggest that it may improve the article's balance and neutrality, to also mention successful aspects of his administration. The Abraham Accords are the main achievement I suggest; under the Trump administration's mediation, Israel normalized relations with 4 Arab nations: the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan. This was a significant development, creating diplomatic relations between key US allies and advanced economies in the region. It was also a key step closer towards ending the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Looking to build consensus. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times here, and the consensus has been that they are not relevant to Trump's bio. Zaathras (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

How an arbitrary pool of scholars and historians rank Trump is relevant, but one of his greatest tangible achievements from office isn't?

Now that the dust has settled a little more, this should possibly be open to discussion again. The current state of the article is imbalanced and everything that Wikipedia should avoid being. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

one of his greatest tangible achievements from office ? Lol what? The Abraham Accords were largely ceremonial agreements between states already in de facto peace agreements. Trump himself didn't even have a personal hand in any of it, until it was time to put pen to paper. It has no importance to this article, and is better covered elsewhere. Zaathras (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

A lot of this is your own opinion, on a contentious topic. I can see from the past archives that you have been quite active in promoting this view here. Something tells me that you likely do not apply similarly high standards of scrutiny to the successes done under other administrations - just the Trump one. Please do remember what Wikipedia is for.

We could debate about Trump's level of involvement in the Abraham Accords, but this is a red herring. Ultimately the Abraham Accords were a hugely successful accomplishment under his administration.

Just because it is covered in other articles about the Trump administration, does not neglect the importance of including it in the Donald Trump article, amid paragraphs extensively discussing his actions and policies in office. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a can of worms. In addition to having just about nothing to do with Trump, it would open the door to the RS narratives concerning his son-in-law's pandering and cultivation of the Saudi's that culminated in an otherwise inexplicalble investment in the young man's untested and undistinguished investment fund. The talk archives have repeatedly determined this Abraham bit is UNDUE for this page. SPECIFICO talk 23:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. May I ask you to clarify what you mean by "RS narratives"? Genuinely sincere question. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Something tells me that you likely do not apply similarly high standards of scrutiny to the successes done under other administrations - just the Trump one. My my, Whataboutism and casting aspersions in one go. Your stay here may be a short one. Zaathras (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting that you chose to focus on one sentence, out of the seven wrote in my response, ignoring the more pertinent points. This tends to be known as cherry picking. Anyhow, it is clear that we shall disagree on this topic. I shall wait to see if any further consensus arrives. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutral Editor 645:

Provide reliable sources that back up your claims. Since no one has done so to back up any claim in this thread, be the first one to do so. If the Abraham Accords are truly one of [Trump's] greatest tangible achievements then it shouldn't be too hard to find sourcing.

Ultimately the Abraham Accords were a hugely successful accomplishment under his administration—according to who? To you? It sounds like [a] lot of this is your own opinion, or am I mistaken?

It's interesting that you chose to focus on one sentence, out of the seven wrote in my response, ignoring the more pertinent points. This tends to be known as cherry picking. It is not, and will never be cherrypicking to point out behavior that goes against enwiki policy. Cessaune [talk] 18:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The Accords, and Trump's personal involvement, are far less significant than some would have us believe. The agreement was not significant because the parties were not in conflict and it was an open secret they had been cooperating on various levels for years, they just didn't publicize it. Trump needed a foreign policy win going into an election year and this was a fairly easy one that his campaign and base could tout as worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. His direct involvement was negligible beyond telling Kushner to get it done, and even then, Kushner needed to pull a 180 (annexation of West Bank settlements) in his long-awaited peace plan he had released months earlier to get it done. Then Trump showed up for the signing ceremony photo op. It was nothing close to the Camp David Accords. soibangla (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Leave it in..if it`s the best he could come up with in 4 years w/e...he signed some half-hearted bill regarding ivory importation the first day when he was signing everything his handlers were putting in front of him qualifying it with " I don`t hunt " Anonymous8206 (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

We can't leave it in if it isn't in to begin with. Zaathras (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It was also a key step closer towards ending the Arab-Israeli Conflict. In light of recent events, simply ignoring the Palestinians for preelection photo-ops of people signing documents seems to have been a key step closer towards the current war. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Quite so, and the acceptance of various narratives boosting the purported significance of the cleverly-branded "accords" is symptomatic of the larger NPOV issues yet to be resolved on this article page -- in particular the portrayal of Trump as a successful businessman rather than a successful street-level media star. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Neutral Editor 645: I doubt you'll get a local consensus for such an addition. As for going the RFC route? That's up to you. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, GoodDay, stop suggesting RfCs when RfCs are not warranted. Cessaune [talk] 18:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I was responding to Neutral Editor, not you. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It's not helpful to suggest an RfC for every single issue, especially one with such broad consensus to not include. It doesn't matter who you're talking to, as the RfC is something we all collectively have to deal with. Cessaune [talk] 18:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Not discussing this with you, any further. Neutral Editor, can make their own choices. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Cessaune. In a one-against-many situation, launching an RfC after only two days of discussion is a waste of community time. And you don't get to pick who responds to you. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

See discussion, below. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, an RFC on this topic is probably warranted at this point. There have been at least 4 other threads about this in the last year and a half asking for some mention of the Abraham accords to be mentioned in the article [35] [36] [37] [38], and the last discussion that looks anything like an RFC was in early 2021 [39]. Over this time, 14 editors have expressed support for inclusion (Bob K31416, GoodDay, myself, Bill Williams, Chrismorey, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Andrevan, Anon0098, Anythingyouwant, Pavlor, Berchanhimez, Szmenderowiecki, Chrisahn, HAL333, and now Neutral Editor 645) and 11 editors have expressed opposition (Zaathras, Firefangledfeathers, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Specifico, Crazypredictor, Slatersteven, ValarianB, Calton, Pincrete, Symmachus Auxiliarus, and soibangla).

Every discussion since 2021 has essentially been met with a couple editors saying "this is a settled issue." If every editor from every thread opened participated in a new RFC, consensus may look stronger than what we have from 2021, where only 12 people participated. If we go the RFC route and get a stronger consensus on this issue, I'd support adding it to the FAQ list as a reason to stop re-litigating this. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

There's repeatedly confirmed lack of consensus to include this. RfC would just waste lots of editor time and attention, which is increasinngly limited given the many AP recent events and developments. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

There's repeatedly confirmed lack of consensus; there most certainly is not. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Instead of that comment, all you'd need to do is link to the consensus you think is affirmed. Please. SPECIFICO talk 03:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

You're right - lack of consensus to include isn't actually consensus to exclude. The latter is what there isn't. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Right, so thats why its a big waste of time. SPECIFICO talk 04:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

RFCs are intended to generate consensus in the absence of clear consensus, so... PhotogenicScientist (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you unaware that WP does not require consensus to exclude? SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

PhotogenicScientist, the addition of the Accords to this BLP, would be acceptable to me. GoodDay (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Considering the fact that such a proposal has ended multiple times with a lack of consensus to include, why would an RfC be any different? Cessaune [talk] 04:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

An WP:RFC should attract more discussion than a regular discussion, would it not? Also, we could invite anyone who's had an opinion on the matter in the last 5 discussions to participate - get a holistic idea of consensus from all the editors that have expressed interest about this topic. 04:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the significance of the Accords for Trump's personal biography, per the majority of recent reliable sources? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

You cannot require editors to come here for no reason to repeat their views. You can see the entire range of views by reading the archive. That's why we archive past labors. What are you trying to say with "holistic"? Do you mean comprehensive? We already have that. SPECIFICO talk 12:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

So, to avoid running an RFC, you say we can just look through the archives to assess consensus. Alright then - there are two ways to interpret the 5 talkpage discussions on this article: 1) There has never been a local consensus to include this content, or 2) A majority of editors on the talk page agree that this content should be included. Why is it more fair to go with the first interpretation? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh hey, you and I were here last November, where we discussed that exact point: [40]. I mentioned that it's really weird to draw this WP:UNDUE line in the sand here.

We don't make that distinction at other points in this article (The Trump administration "water[ed] down the toughest penalties the U.S. had imposed on Russian entities" after its 2014 annexation of Crimea...; ...the Trump administration sanctioned 12 companies and 13 individuals suspected of being involved in Iran's missile program...). We don't make that distinction on the article for Barack Obama (In 2016, the Obama administration proposed a series of arms deals with Saudi Arabia worth $115 billion...; The Obama administration asked Congress to allocate money toward funding the Iron Dome program...). We don't make that distinction on the biographies of any other president, it seems (In February 1996, the Clinton administration agreed to pay Iran US$131.8 million (equivalent to $245.93 million in 2022) in settlement...; Reagan's administration continued discussions with the Soviet Union on START I. I just don't see a compelling reason why we wouldn't include it here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Obama, Clinton, Reagan: any problems with their articles need to be discussed on their Talk pages. I just removed the sentence on the sanctioning of the suspected collaborators with Iran; it's the same sentence as in the Presidency of Donald Trump article, and that's where it belongs. Watering down the penalties on Russia: this belongs in his personal bio because of Trump's history with Putin. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

And PhotogenicScientist just reverted my removal. The point is consensus #37: 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. Neither one of these is likely to. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You conveniently left off the second half of consensus #37: If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. I think Trump's first dealing with Iran in his presidency is rather notable for his presidential legacy. It affected the tone of 4 years of US-Iran relations. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's borderline or debatable? Six years later, are there reliable sources saying what the lasting impact on his life or long-term presidential legacy was? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

We're debating it now, aren't we? The consensus item does not specify "debatable by whom." Just that if it's debatable, it doesn't apply.

Moreover, Trump's policy toward Iran in his presidency was one of increasing tensions - one of the mechanisms by which he did this was sanctions. Here's an NYT article that analyzes Trump's Iran policy, shortly after the killing of Suleimani, which mentions his sanctions in the context of his broader strategy: He took the United States out of the nuclear agreement and imposed sanctions against Iran — which some see as setting off a crisis that continues today — on claims that it was “on the cusp” of acquiring nuclear weapons “in just a short period of time.” Also from that article, there's this quip: How Confusion Fell Over America’s Iran Strategy... Part of the uncertainty is specific to Mr. Trump. Which sounds pretty personal, for this personal biography of his. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

We're debating it now, aren't we? If memory serves, I'm the author of that sentence. I doubt it was my intent that unanimous agreement was required for application of the consensus item. If memory serves again, the sentence lacks a strong connection to the underlying discussion; it just seemed like a reasonable thing to add at the time. Had I known the word "debatable" would be used in this manner, I would have been more circumspect about its use. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cessaune regarding the proposition that the Iran sanction had "limited impact on anything", Trump's policy of escalating tensions with Iran, of which sanctions were a part, is noted as having contributed to the crisis that followed the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. See the NYT source above. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

If it's important in that context then the article should say so. Cessaune [talk] 01:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

There are 3 paragraphs and numerous additional mentions of Iran in the article. Exactly the perfect amount of Iran. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

WP does not require consensus to omit. There has never been anything close to agreement for inclusion. No, RfC will only attract a waste of time. You posted a long list of the participants in past rejections of this content. There's no reason to think that yet another rehash is going to "attract more discussion" that will produce a tidal wave of support to overwhelm the well-established rejection of such content. SPECIFICO talk 11:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Consensus is not a majority vote count. WP:STICK SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientist:, I say you should have an RFC & put this include/exclude argument to rest. After all, there can only be two possible outcomes. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Users need to read WP:ONUS, it is down to those arguing for inclusion to get consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Therefore, I'm curious as to why WP:ONUS has been ignored, concerningt the other major topic being discussed. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC for inclusion of Abraham Accords in article

In an attempt to end the never-ending proposals for including the Abraham Accords in either the article or the lead section, I propose an RfC. A mention in the article body would be a prerequisite for inclusion in the lead. I am not supporting or opposing its inclusion, but I believe that the following proposal would be the most likely to be supported by consensus, being minimal and based on lead content from the Abraham Accords article.

Should the Israel subsection of the foreign policy subsection be updated to include the bolded sentence below? (Edit: Proposed addition in bold.)

Trump supported many of the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Under Trump, the U.S. recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, leading to international condemnation including from the United Nations General Assembly, the European Union, and the Arab League. In 2020, the White House hosted the signing of the Abraham Accords, normalizing the foreign relations of Israel with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Neutral Editor 645,Objective3000, PhotogenicScientist. Cessaune [talk] 22:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Why ping? •Cyberwolf•talk? 22:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Grammar issue: Who or what normalized the relations? Current phrasing says that it was the WH (by hosting the event). Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Clarify. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Survey

• Improper RfC. The first two sentences are the current text of Donald_Trump#Israel. The proposal is the addition of the last sentence ("hosted the signing" — that was about the extent of it (photo-op), formalizing would be better than normalizing, "foreign" is redundant). Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  How is that improper? The addition is bolded. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  The RfC is alright. A piece of additional text, clearly marked, is submitted for consideration and comments. -The Gnome (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  RfC's attract users who are not previously familiar with the details and context of the page content. The RfC, even if valid or necessary, should have been worded with a straightforward question on the table, to wit:

  Should the following text "..." be appended to the mention of the Abraham Accords in the "..." section of the page

  SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO: AFAIK, RfC questions are "community property", not "owned" by their original authors. Any editor can improve them, even involved, and clarity should never be controversial. I've made an attempt to improve that and I don't think inclusion of the existing text does any harm provided it's clear that it's existing text. It does provide some potentially useful context: Is the proposed sentence DUE in such a short subsection? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, but it all depends on which OP feels like complaining to which Admin, etc. Thanks for at least mitigating the damage. The other missing piece is that the horde of prior commenters has not been summoned. SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Then summon them. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not my job. OP ordinarily does that. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Improper RfC abuse of the RfC protocol, which is not meant to bludgeon views that have failed to gain support.@Onetwothreeip: 15:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC) Please remove RfC formatting, banner, and notifications. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  A properly worded, formatted and posted up, RfC is, by definition, impossible to denote "bludgeoning" activity. And by "posted up" I mean that if an RfC were to put across the same essentially question on a subject that was recently decided, then, yes, we'd have a problem. Has there? If not, nothing is amiss. As to your argument about "RfC's attract[ing] users who are not previously familiar with the details and context of the page content," I'd say that RfC's should actually aim to attract such users! Lord knows, extended and heated discussions about a subject, "controversial" or not, always need outside, more detached input. -The Gnome (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO: If I removed the RfC formatting then it would cease to be an RfC. I have never requested any addition of content to this article regarding the Abraham Accords, and I do not support it. This is to put an end to endless discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  I doubt that I'm the only one puzzled by your theory of ending this silly little discussion by expanding and prolonging it for at least another month. Folks are allowed to propose things on the talk page, and when they do not achieve a reasoned consensus -- as this proposal had surely failed to do -- the disussion subsides and goes away. There is no requirement for a consensus not to include any proposed content. And you are always free to ignore discussions you feel are pointless rather than offer your services to exterminate them. I really think it would best be withdrawn, but that's up to you at this point. The only reason editors are responding at this time is because you have more or less forced a vote. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose so what was its impact, this text is just a list entry. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  A full analysis of the accords, including their significance or impact, is better found at their article: Abraham Accords. Inclusion of events that happened during Trump's presidency on this article are meant to be limited to summary-level description - including links to appropriate articles and sub-articles is the better way to provide more information. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as it has been shown time and time again, in past discussions the "Accords" were between non-warring nations, had no significant geopolitical impact, and Donald Trump himself had no involvement into the process. Also Close this RfC now as inherently disruptive. This has been discussed ad nauseam - Feb 2023, Nov 2022, July 2022, March 2022, May 2021. This is a dead issue, and continuous rehashing is unwarranted as consensus to exclude is crystal clear. Zaathras (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support - mentioning the Accords in this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  This is about the suggested text. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  I know & support its inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  This is not an election, and votes without reasoned explanation may be disregarded. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Evaluating each editors' stated position, will be in the hands of the RFC closer. I'll accept the decision of this RFC when it's closed (in early January) & hopefully the entire include/exclude argument will be settled. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  I know previous discussions on this have been interminable, and you might not like re-litigating your opinion. But it's true that a simple comment of "Support" means very little in an RFC. Providing even a bit more justification would add strength to your position to the closer. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not one to over elaborate on my positions in RFCs or RMs & am always mindful of WP:BLUDGEON & so I leave the RFC evaluation in the hands of the closer. PS - Besides, other 'support' editors are making strong arguments. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The Abraham Accords "marked the first instance of Israel establishing diplomatic relations with an Arab country since 1994," as the article puts it. This was a significant, perhaps major, change in Middle East relations. In the context of the article's section on Israel and U.S. foreign policy, the proposed sentence informs the reader of a verifiably important event occurred during Trump's presidency. -The Gnome (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Sources: The significance of the Abraham Accords has been disputed in this discussion ("the Accords were between non-warring nations, had no significant geopolitical impact"). Proving that, in fact, they were quite significant is a rather trivial exercise:

  First, some 'primary' sources: The State Department; the United Arab Emirates; and Israel.

  Then organizations, think tanks, etc: American Jewish Committee, "landmark", "game changer"; Middle East Institute, "opened new opportunities for defense and security cooperation"; Middle East Institute of Japan, "Jews have the potential to play a valuable multicultural role in the UAE and Bahrain"; Samuel Neaman Institute for National Policy Research, "even in the Mideast, where passions are inflamed, interests can on rare occasions gain the upper hand"; Modern War Institute, West Point, "important development"; The Hoover Institution, "greater than the sum of its parts"; Indian Council on World Affairs; The Wilson Center, "a three-year success"; etc.

  Media: The Jerusalem Post, "historic agreement"; The New York Times, "major diplomatic agreement"; The Washington Post, "reflected a real political exhaustion with the Palestinian cause on the part of some political elites in Arab countries"; etc. Even media criticizing current Israeli actions, accept the Accords' significance, e.g. Al Jazeera. -The Gnome (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment While I am not supporting or opposing the proposal, I will explain why I justify this wording to be most modest proposal and the most likely of any proposal to succeed. The proposal uses language directly from the Abraham Accords article, and does not credit Donald Trump with any active role (such as "brokering"), only that the signing was hosted, implicitly by him, at the White House. I decided to specify that it was foreign relations being normalised, as opposed to economic or other relations. If editors believe that there should be even more content about the Accords in the article, they should support the proposal, and if they believe that there should be no content about it at all, they should oppose it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the other supporters’ explanations above. The accord opened the door to wider economic cooperation, and investment. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This addition doesn't demonstrate why the Accords are important/notable. It doesn't tie the Accords to Trump. It doesn't even mention Trump. At least relating to this wording specifically, this isn't something we should include in the article. Cessaune [talk] 22:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  The Accords are demonstrably "important". One has only to peruse the relevant lemma here. (I offered a sample of sources here, as well.) And they were signed during Trump's presidency, with Trump's Foggy Bottom actively involved, and in his presence. What's there to dispute the merits of mentioning them in the foreign policy section, Israel subsection? -The Gnome (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  You're misunderstanding what I said. I did not say that the Accords weren't important. I said that [t]his addition doesn't demonstrate why the Accords are important/notable. The fact that we as enwiki editors can demonstrate why the Accords are notable is separate from the fact that none of the proposed texts actually do demonstrate why the Accords are notable. The proposed wordings belong in the Presidency of Donald Trump article, not here IMO. Cessaune [talk] 00:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  So, you would support some mention of the Accords in this article, just not the proposed wording? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Depends on if editors are willing to demonstrate how the Accords are specifically notable to Trump the man, as opposed to just Trump's presidency or the Trump administration. So far the vast majority of support arguments refer to the notability as it pertains to the Trump administration, and forget that this is not the Trump administration article. Cessaune [talk] 15:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not every tidbit included in this article needs to have a full analysis of its importance. MOST of the information in the Presidency section is not analyzed or given reason for import. Your criteria, if applied to all events in his presidency, would lead to a full-scale rewrite of the section. I do think the proposed wording could be better, but it does a better job than omitting mention of the Accords entirely - best not to let perfect be the enemy of good. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  This is fundamentally mistaken. Yes, NPOV requires all information in any article to be assessed for its importance as evaluated by its prominence in high quality Reliable Source references. And again, folks should stop discussing what's significant for his presidency -- it is settled consensus that this page includes content that is significant for his personal life story and in which he has been personally instrumental. Those are the factors that should be addressed here, and clichés are the enemy of the good and no excuse for us to dilute the focus of the article content. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  it is settled consensus that this page includes content that is significant for his personal life story and in which he has been personally instrumental Could you provide a reference to this "settled consensus?" I don't see this anywhere. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support - the Accords are a notable aspect of Trump's presidency with sufficient weight for the one sentence proposed. NPR described the Accords in June 2022 as "one key pillar of Donald Trump's Middle East policy" and a "huge rupture from recent history in which Arab nations had made it clear they would not negotiate with Israel..." It also noted that the Biden admin has embraced the Accords. A fact noted by AP as well. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 22:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sorry but I just don't see how hosting this signing or the signing itself or the accord itself had any historical effect or why it belongs in the this bio. Maybe in a child article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Proof that the Accords were and are still]] significant has been shown above. At to why mention of their signing belongs in "this biography", the answer is simple: Irrespective of what one thinks of Trump and/or his tenure, this happened during his presidency, with his State Department actively involved. It's truly a trivial matter. -The Gnome (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support because this feels like a no-brainer item to include - it's a notable happening of his presidency for certain. Most prior Oppose rationales hinge on the argument that this article should make no mention of the Accords because they are mentioned at the Presidency of Donald Trump article, pretty much in line with consensus item #37. However, from the numerous sources that have been discussed in the discussion above (and in prior ones), it's apparent that the Accords were notable enough to have a lasting impact, at the least on Trump's presidential legacy. Perhaps I'll be back to collect some of these sources once again (as I've done before) to link here, but for now, I'll note that the Accords get a mention from Foreign Policy in their analysis of Trump's presidency [41]. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that the current wording is the best way to present the information, though. I like this proposal from Iamreallygoodatcheckers a while ago:

  In September 2020, Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and two foreign ministers from the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain signed the Abraham Accords, which formally normalized relations between Israel and the two Arab states.[42]

  PhotogenicScientist (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  This wording is better. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  ... which one? The proposed RFC wording, or the one I just pasted? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  One you just proposed Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 01:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Trump wasn't a signatory. Netanyahu and bin Zahyed al Nahyan signed the agreement between the UAE and Israel; Netanyahu and Al Zayani signed the agreement between Bahrain and Israel. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  He's not a "signatory" in the diplomatic sense of the word, but he did sign it - his signature is right there below those of the others on both of those documents. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Right after "Witnessed by". Ronald McDonald's signature would have had the same effect — none. It was just a show. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Equation of the importance of a sitting US president and Ronald McDonald. Bold. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Nah, just equation of the importance of the witness signature of a sitting US president and Ronald McDonald on those particular documents. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 18:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: There is an erroneous argument in some of the suggestions here, to the effect that the Accords have failed to deliver what they promised and, therefore, they're not important enough and do not deserve a mention in Trump's biography. That is false, as false as arguing that, since they too failed, the Munich Accords do not deserve an article in Wikipedia.
  There might also be in play some kind of erroneous view of the whole issue. I hope no one opposes the inclusion of the Abraham Accords on the basis of their personal dislike of Trump and abhorrence for his actions as president. I truly hope so! -The Gnome (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  No, the principal objection is that this was a Trump media event and that the underlying relations and documents signed for TV had nothing to do with Donald Trump other than the insinuation of his family (and its ongoing business interests) into Mideast diplomacy and commerce. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  If your objection, or anyone else's, is based on the claim that the Abraham Accords were merely a "media event" then that claim is easily refuted by the extensive and widespread preoccupation with said accords undertaken by almost all major media in the world, as well as by think tanks and strategy institutions of established credentials from most big world powers - not to mention what the signatories themselves have emphatically stated. None of those sources can be seriously labeled as Trump mouthpieces. "Media events" have a very short shelf life. The Abraham Accords were a "game changer" in the Middle East, to use just one term, among many, from those used in our sources. The claim that the Accords was merely a "media event" has not been seriously proffered except for obvious partisan reasons. -The Gnome (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, that's a new one. Of my dozens of flaws, nobody has previously accused me of not reading or following the sources. See my several comments here about sourcing. And anyone who takes a look at our Abraham Accords article will see that it's largely Original Research and sources misrepresented or off-topic appended to original research. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  If the article is flawed, we should correct it. In the meantime, the significance of the Accords is beyond doubt, per the plethora of extant sources, a small sample of which I quoted here above. Did you follow up those? Do you dispute their relevance? Or perhaps their reliability? -The Gnome (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hosting the signing of an agreement between third parties was a media event. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  The Camp David Accords signatories were Egypt and Israel. The UInited States hosted the signing ceremony and witnessed formally the signed documents. No one has yet disputed the legitimacy of including the Accords in Clinton's biography. Their signing too was a "media event"! But neither the Camp David Accords nor the Abraham Accords were 'only media events. They were both "game changers." And the U.S. actively mediated between the parties. See here for America's "weeks of intensive mediation to broker the final deal." -The Gnome (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  That document is not RS for anything. You don't appear to know the what, where, when or how regarding the Camp David Accords which had nothing to do with Mr. Clinton. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  You're conflating the 2020 Camp David Summit with the 1978 Camp David Accords. I don't know enough about the 2020 Summit to have an opinion on it. The Camp David Accords are a peace treaty between two countries that had been repeatedly at war for 30 years, and Carter was actively and personally involved in the peace process for more than a year, cajoling both parties back to the negotiations a few times. Quoting the 2002 Nobel Prize press release: During his presidency (1977-1981), Carter’s mediation was a vital contribution to the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, in itself a great enough achievement to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize. The Abraham Accords are formalizations of the normalization of relations between Israel and several Arab states Israel had never been at war with, and Trump's involvement was the photo-op. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support per above. ~ HAL333 15:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Inclusion of this media event - a ceremonial signing which amounted to a command performance by presidential election candidate Trump - gives UNDUE emphasis to the Trump media claim that he was involved in the establishment of these relationships. In fact, the parties had been warming relations for years and the insertion of Trump's son-in-law into the codification of these relations was consequential mainly as a factor in the solitification of young Kushner's financial interests in the region. If editors will give a careful read of our Abraham Accords article, they will see that most if not all of the article text crediting Trump or his Administration for these artfully-named "accords" is sourced to Trump's own employees. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Comment Most of the "support" !votes here do not address the only pertinent issue -- the issue which has led to this failing consensus time and again in previous discusssions: What does this have to do with Trump the man?. General anodyne statements "obviously important" "highly notable" etc. do not provide policy/sourcing based rationale to support such !votes and should be eliminated by whichever poor soul arrives to close this rehash. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  What does this have to do with Trump the man? isn't really a hard criteria to make a decision on. The only thing remotely close to this is consensus item #37, which states that presidency events can be covered in this article as "summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy." The notability of the Accords as covered by plenty of RS here place them squarely into his presidential legacy. If you don't want to take my word for it, check out Foreign Policy's assessment of Trump's presidency from a foreign policy point of view.

  Not to mention "If something is borderline or debatable", consensus item #37 doesn't even apply for excluding content. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  See this. No one foresaw the unintended consequence of that sentence. When it comes down to it, (1) at this article, any content of any significance is debatable, and (2) "borderline" is so subjective as to be useless as a guide. Emphasizing the letter over the spirit undermines the value of the consensus list and, imo, borders on wikilawyering. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  That consensus item got support as written in its discussion. This despite the fact that people did oppose at the time because "decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis" or "what constitutes borderline or debatable will be endlessly debated." On this article, quite uniquely, the consensus list is often used to shut down discussions where "strong consensus" has been shown before. When you have what amounts to local guidelines like this, the wording matters quite a bit. The letter of the item is quite clear, even when the spirit of it is not and subject to discussion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  the wording matters quite a bit. I totally agree, and we do our level best to make the letter and spirit one and the same. That sentence was not my best performance. the consensus list is often used to shut down discussions where "strong consensus" has been shown before. I'm not sure what you mean by that. We at this article do exhibit a reluctance to repeatedly revisit an issue merely because an editor shows up who disagrees with the existing consensus, not because of any significant change in the situation surrounding the issue; in such cases, shutting down discussion is a feature not a bug. The article is not unique but unusual in its ability to remember consensuses as the editor mix changes; I call that continuity. Anyone who feels the system is too inflexible should note the number of supersessions in the list, many on fairly major issues. This is getting pretty meta and a collapse may be in order with the option of continuing the meta within the collapse. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Your Foreign Policy cite said this about the Abraham Accords in October 2020: The move, which the White House heralded as "the dawn of a new Middle East," praised by Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike as a rare spot of good news. Still, some experts questioned whether Trump was claiming credit for diplomatic dealings that were long in the works; the UAE and Israel, for example, had been cooperating on security matters behind the scenes for years. "You’ve got to give them some credit for the Abraham Accords," said Emma Ashford, a foreign-policy expert with the Atlantic Council, referring to the deal by its official name. "This isn’t an earth-shattering change in foreign policy, but getting some of the Gulf states to come out and admit they were actually more friendly with Israel, that's something that's an achievement." Yay - direct flights between Israel and Dubai (currently suspended due to war). Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  I get that you're trying to chip away at the notability of the Accords themselves It's pretty clear you think the Accords aren't very notable - they involved more than just a direct flight route between Israel and Dubai, after all - but they quite plainly are already notable. Whether as an influence for good or bad, the Accords are still being talked about for their impact on relations in the Middle East, by plenty of reliable sources. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's 1. a personal attack, 2. irrelevant, and 3. denying our NPOV policy. All unnecessary. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  I feel that my comment was not "particularly offensive or disruptive," so blasting me for a PA isn't particularly helpful to discussion here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Tip: never characterize someone else's opinion without simply quoting them, or be damn sure you're hitting it on the nose. Cessaune [talk] 22:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Also, referring someone to WP:NPA#Responding to personal attacks after they have accused you of a personal attack is... weird, and likely to be construed very negatively. Cessaune [talk] 15:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  A personal attack? What offends you? •Cyberwolf•talk? 19:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  There was no pa •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Comment #2 If any further emphasis on this signing event is to be placed in the article, we would also need - per NPOV - to include additional content that reflects RS narratives of this event as another in a vast array of empty Trump media stagings in part based on his personal need to mimic the appearance that his presidency was similar to other conventional prediencies - in this case Jimmy Carter's role in the Camp David Accords. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. (Do some of the commenters here think that WP doesn’t mention the Abraham Accords?) The signing ceremony was a photo-op. As Muboshgu wrote in May 2021, "the signing of documents does not in and of itself demonstrate 'historical impact'". Trump touted "the peace deal" as "a testament to the bold diplomacy and vision of President Trump, and he is honored to be considered by the Nobel Committee [nope]. President Trump will host the Israeli and Emirati delegations for a signing ceremony of the Abraham Accords on September 15 at the White House". Most of the sources Gnome cited don’t even mention Trump, and when they do it’s something along the lines of "brokered by the Trump WH" or "[a]nother reason for [other countries’] caution [to sign on] was that the leaders of the United States and Israel at the time, namely, President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu, persistently advertised the Abraham Accords as their own achievements. President Trump hailed the Abraham Accords as a historic achievement during his run for re-election in the November 2020 presidential election". Also, only two of them were written after October 7 ("Oct. 7 also sounded the death knell of the Abraham Accords as initially championed by the Trump administration and latterly embraced by the Biden administration"). Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  In other words, Space4Time3Continuum2x, you are saying that a source that reports some major event involving U.S. foreign relations has no place in the biography of the president during whose watch the event occurred unless the source contains the name of the president. And if present in the article, that source should be chucked out. Is this truly a position you want to support? Is this something you'd want to see adopted as a rule for Wikipedia political biographies? A new interpretation of where the buck stops? Seriously. -The Gnome (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Huh? You get all this from me writing "photo-op without historical impact"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  I could be mistaken of course, but it doesn't sound as if you've surveyed the RS accounts of the announcement, signing, and substance of the Abraham accords. Have you looked at our article page. I started to look through it and found that much of the narrative there is derived from self-serving press releases and other statements by the Trump administration and its spokesmen at the time of the election campaign. In fact there is plentiful RS detailing how little was accomplished by the so-called Accords, which codified existing relationships while trading away various bon-bons to the signatories. When you say "per-Gnome" or per-Socrates or whoever, your view takes on the collinearity of a parallelogram without internal structure to stand on its own. It would be more helpful and strenghten your !vote to hear what sourcing and policy-based rationale you have to include this sentence -- you do understand the RfC is about a single sentence? -- in this article. SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  "Per-Gnome"?! Where did I ever write "per Gnome"? (What are you reading?) The only instance I use here the word "per" is to point out to sources, i.e. "per sources" or "per source XYZ." Which is actually implementing Wikipedia policy. Nothing to do with geometrical convolutions. -The Gnome (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support Is this information well sourced? Yes. Is this an important aspect of the article subject (as demonstrated by reliable sources)? Yes. Is the proposed text short and written in a NPOV manner? Yes. Editorial decisions about what to include and what not (due weight) are one of the hardest tasks for an Wikipedia editor, because our own biases play a great role here. If I take my bias towards the article subject aside, the proposed addition is due for inclusion. Now if you excuse me, I will rather edit other articles than those about some American politician. Pavlor (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support as per The Gnome. Also, as a  Comment:, it appears that most "Oppose" !votes are along the lines of "it wasn't actually a big deal"; "it was just a photo-op"; or (arguably the worst one) "it's already been decided". The first two are either the editor's subjective view of it, or a very weak WP:SYNTH providing sources about the state of conflict and implying significance through that. As for the "There's already consensus", the only marked RfCs provided aren't what I would say are landslide consensus; Consensus can change, to try and shut down an RfC only because a razor-thin consensus was formed over 2 years ago, especially seeing the engagement in the current discussion, seems short-sighted and against the ethos of Wikipedia. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 21:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support honestly it is absurd to me how people so obsessed with hating on Donald Trump (I obviously dislike him as well, but most of this talk page is just trying to bash him) are going to pretend as if this is not something worth including in the article. It was historic in creating new economic, military, and political ties between not only Israel and the countries it signed with, i.e. United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco (which merits inclusion as well), but also nations like Saudi Arabia that are beginning to have more open relationships with Israel. If this doesn't merit inclusion as substantial foreign policy, I don't see how recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights is somehow more relevant even though this changed quite literally 0 foreign relations with Israel, including our own. I fully agree that this may not be the best wording of the proposal, but if anything that is because it should mention more about how expansive the agreement is. It is hilarious to me for editors to claim that the negotiations were not a result of Trump even though it is clear to any foreign policy observer that the Accords would not have occurred under any other president. You cannot both dislike Trump for being too pro-Israel (e.g. Jerusalem/Golan recognition) and also act like he was not the reason for this deal occurring. Bill Williams 23:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Bill, most of what is written in the so-called Accords predates Trump's presidency or even his candidacy. Are you aware of that? SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  And the recognition of Jerusalem was "written" into U.S. law for over 20 years before Trump actually followed through with what Congress required. It is irrelevant if negotiations had been underway for a long time, and if people had "written" anything before, the actual agreement went absolutely nowhere until Trump made them a priority. The normalization of relations was under Trump and because of Trump, and clearly that is notable for an article about Trump. Bill Williams 23:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  No, it's not that there were talks underway and Trump closed the deal. Read the RS reporting. The relations were already in place. And this poll has nothing to do with Jerusalem. SPECIFICO talk 00:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  You fail to understand a basic point in response to your irrelevant mention of previous "relations," which is that it does not matter if they had been negotiated previously, if those negotiations went nowhere. Relations are official recognition between two countries, which didn't exist. There were no military and economic ties between the two countries. So you are mentioning some minor, under the table cooperation, meanwhile there is now billions of dollars in public deals being made. To compare these two is not a reasonable analysis of foreign policy, like saying if Taiwan declared independence and formed relations with the U.S. it wouldn't be substantial because we already had informal relations. Bill Williams 15:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Sounds like you don't think there is such a thing as premarital relations. Well, fine. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose change/support status quo. This seems to be a lot of fuzz and hot air about not much. This conversation is so far off the level of what a reasonable Wikipedia metric should be for inclusion. Does anyone have sources that the Abraham Accords are a significant accord in Arab-Israeli conflict history? Or are they simply the most recent accord that we happen to be talking about, and because it's Trump the man, we're having an, as usual, extremely overblown, self-obsessed, narcissistic, cartoon animal circus performer carnival barker huxter showman go of it? If someone will respond to this comment with a succinct, 3 sentence, maybe 4 sentence exposition of a specific source or 2 that states that Abraham Accords was 1) relevant to Trump's personal biography as pertaining to major presidential accomplishments and something he plans to run on or make central to his personal story, 2) relevant to historian or biographer views of importance to Trump's life or presidency, and 3) relevant to the Arab-Israeli conflict history, or some combination of 2/3, I will change my view. Andre🚐 00:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Andrevan: This meets at least prong 2 and 3. See my NPR source above saying the Accords were a key element of Trump's Middle East policy (prong 1) and marked a noted change in relations between the signatories (prong 3). Here's Politico calling the ceremony hosted by Trump "historic". Here's a scholarly piece that says "this event marked the most important foreign policy accomplishment of President Trump's term in office and doubled the number of Arab states recognizing Israel." Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 07:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  You are not addressing the issues under dispute: What is so important about the media staging that it should be added to this page. What sources credit this to Trump personally or any personal involvement other than the bolstering of his family's post-presidency financial wellbeing? SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Did you actually read that Politico piece? It's all political puffery and campaign drivel by Trump and his flaks. Not to mention the ignorant and casual, now tragic, statement that this media event would pressure a settlement with the Palestinians. SPECIFICO talk 08:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree with SPECIFICO about the Politico piece. That piece is from 2020 and it's a bit of a puff piece. It works fine for factual accuracy and for information that tells us what happened that day. Ie, it's more of a primary source (not a fully primary source, but not a great secondary analysis). The Fred Lazin 2023 is closer to what I had in mind. In my view that satisfies my argument of point 2. So, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, I am going to give you point 2. However we still don't have 1 or 3, in my view. Andre🚐 01:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Why does NPR not satisfy prong 1? It's dated to 2022. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 01:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  It satisfies point 2 - importance to Trump's presidency. Not point 1 that it's part of his biographical story or something he personally intends to run on or make part of his personal story. Also, it's more of a contemporary piece about Biden than an article about Trump's presidential biography. Andre🚐 01:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  "In addition, this accomplishment is quite personal for President Trump and his closest family." - Marshall Center This scholarly source also reiterates the fact reported in multiple reliable source -- secondary, academic, etc. -- that the Accords are considered to be a significant foreign policy achievement during the Trump Administration. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Think tanks are not what we consider "scholarly sources". Once again you beg the question -- Donald Trump vs. "Trump Administration". SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm. That one is getting close, Iamreallygoodatcheckers. Its actual subject in the next 2 sentences is Trump's family member, Jared Kushner. If we had a little more insight into Kushner's relationship with Trump and the Abraham Accords, I will give you point 1. Maybe in Kushner's or Ivanka's book, even. Andre🚐 04:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, if AA ends up in this article, we would also need to contextualize with the personal business interests of Trump/Kushner - which have been an integral part of mainstream RS discussion and ongoing coverage of their mideast activities. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  The sentiment in this discussion (and past ones) has been that Kushner's involvement has been an argument to say "it has nothing do with Trump then." When in reality, as seen in the source, the success of the Accords is personal to Trump the man as it's related to family and his son-in-law. Do what you will with that narrative in the Marshall source. To me, the fact that this is significant to his presidency, which is intrinsically part of his own legacy, is sufficient for the one sentence. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm actually saying the opposite. I'm saying if there was some information about how Trump and Kushner talked about the Abraham Accords specifically, beyond what's in the Marshall source which certainly suggests it but is a little vague, that would be enough for me to tip it into the personal column and satisfy why it belongs here. Something about how Trump's relationship with Kushner and the Accords were related to his personal life or biography, absolutely makes it relevant in my view, and is not an argument against including this. Andre🚐 06:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Trump announced in 2017: "We want to create peace between Israel and the Palestinians." Because: "It is something that I think is frankly, maybe, not as difficult as people have thought over the years." How: appoint his real estate developer son-in-law to make the deal. Kushner's bold new plan recycled the 1979 Drobles Plan to surround Palestinian towns with Jewish settlements, creating little "bantustans". Kushner, the "architect of the recently released U.S. Israeli-Palestinian peace plan", called it "Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Israeli and Palestinian People". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 18:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I also think the Accords meet the 2nd and 3rd criteria. For 2, it will be hard to provide opinions from biographers and historians, since those will pretty much be found in newer books, which aren't freely accessible - but Foreign Policy sees the Accords as notable enough to mention in their overall analysis of Trump's presidency, and it's hard to get more credible than FP on the internet. For 3, here's at least Responsible Statecraft and The Intercept discussing the impact of the Accords in the Middle East, especially as they relate to the current war in Gaza. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  The Foreign Policy link is thin sauce. A brief article that quotes one person's lukewarm opinion and attributes nothing to Trump's personal actions. You ignore the issue that's been agreed to be the deciding factor -- is this relevant to Trump personally and not his bio. And as a thought experiment, look at how slimly we attribute the one million American COVID deaths to Trump personally, even though many RS and scholarly studies attribute about half of those to his personal negligence or malice. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  I believe that the Responsible Statecraft and Intercepte piece definitely does go to point 3. We're getting somewhere. However, I think it probably still doesn't touch on point 1 and I'm not sure on point 2, as I agree it's a little on the thin side, but we I think satisfied point 2 above with the Lazin piece. However we still have a thin case for all three points. Feel free to continue. I consider point 1 largely untouched, and a solid punch on point 2 and one on point 3, so I'm still at an oppose for now. Andre🚐 01:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Respectfully, you said that if the Accords could be considered "relevant" to your criteria, that would be enough. Now it seems we need to get to "very relevant." Why do we need to demonstrate so much notability for a single sentence inclusion on this biography page, anyway? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, PhotogenicScientist, you summoned me here, so I'm offering you a chance to get my support for the proposal. If you'd rather, I can oppose on principle and throw up my hands and be intransigent. That's not really my style though, which is why I prefer thoughtful probing and engagement, or at least I am attempting to approximate something that can be described as such. I certainly think that there is a case being made and I will absolutely change my position if I judge it over my personal view of where the line lies. It's not an exact science, but an art. Andre🚐 04:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Could you explain your personal criteria more - why they would result in exclusion of the content? In your initial oppose, you seemed more concerned with the length or the substance or the character of the discussion itself than the proposed content. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, it's all of that, the substance and the character to be sure, but also the length, but also the importance of it, but to me, if you're going to write in the header of "Donald Trump" that "Abraham Accords" is a primary aspect or chiefly associated with him, and not just padding his resume, we need to illustrate the 3-pronged test I laid out and honestly, it's closer than I thought it would be, since I probably have a prior belief that it is fluff. Is there a rejoinder to SpaceTime or shall we let it lie? Andre🚐 22:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  It's not going under any important "header" - it's going in the "Israel" subsection of the "Presidency" section of this article. Which in the grand scheme of things, is a rather small place to add a wikilink to an existing article. And honestly, I'm not sure what S4T3C2x is getting at with that comment. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I wrote header, and I meant lead, that is just another brain fart. As you can tell, I have a few misfiring neurons at the moment. And that was going off the header of this talk section (opening section) which, at a glance, I misinterpreted - but my test still applies to the body, though much less stringently. Andre🚐 23:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: (sigh) We are not here to debate the consequences, the outcome, or the developments following the Abraham Accords. We are not here either to discuss the notability of the Abraham Accords! That ship has sailed. A myriad of sources from across the planet testify in the affirmative. All we are here to discuss in this RfC is whether or not the suggested sentence merits a place in the Trump bio, section foreign policy, subsection Israel. That is all. It is quite sad to see people still arguing about the agreement's trivially established notability and denouncing it as a "media event." (As if there was ever in the modern era a significant agreement between nations that was not a "media event"!) If this had not happened during Trump's watch, with American mediation still "crucial" per the words of the signatories, I submit that no debate would be necessary, much less an RfC. So, can we please, pretty please, with sugar on top, get back to serious work? -The Gnome (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  If it were true that such White House media extavaganzas are commonplace, that would be exactly why we would not include one in a biography. Please don't be offended, Gnome, but notability is not at issue. I've addressed that above and yet you repeat it -- apparently without having scrutinized our highly flawed article page and sourcing on the event, so that you might offer substantive comment. Above, similarly, you asserted something or other about the Camp David Accords apparently without even the most basic knowledge of the subject. And now -- again -- you refer to the political promotion and ego gratification of the Trump orbit, extensively and near-exclusively quoted in the bulk of RS praise, as if that sad feckless abuse of Trump's office should be elevated by this encyclopedia. If we draw special attention to this media event, it opens the door to RS discussions of the Trump-Kushner family's personal interests in the mideast, to the spectacle of a command performance that showcased Netanyahu and Trump, two leaders on thin ice politically, now on the verge of imprisonment, and a document that contrived an unnecessary bonus signature line for Trump to deploy his Sharpie. If this ceremony is added to the article, its context must also be added for NPOV, unduly lengthening the content and violating WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 13:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Still fighting the good fight, I see, to denigrate the established significance of the Abraham Accords. singatories to it call it a "game changer" but Wikipedia editors know better, I guess. -The Gnome (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Easy boys, no fighting in the war room. Andre🚐 01:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  One boy (maybe) and a girl named Clark, rumor has it. "Easy guys" works better. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why I wrote boys, the quote I think is "gentlemen" Andre🚐 01:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose not a meaningful foreign relations accomplishment and of no importance to Donald personally, also contemporary sources that lauded it as a grand accomplishment should be consigned to the same dustbin assigned to Dewey Defeats Truman. with a few years to assess the impact, the present day opinion is quite different. It’s Time to Scrap the Abraham Accords, Assessing the Abraham Accords, Three Years On. ValarianB (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  The Abraham Accords, per the myriad of sources out there, a small sample of which I quoted above, have been extremely significant. They are still being cited in Mid East analyses. Present opinion only affects the assessment of what the Accords achieved or didn't achieve; not their notability. Once notable, always notable. The Munich Accords, which failed miserably in their objective, are thankfully still in Wikipedia. There must be better arguments our there than the one abt throwing the agreement to the "dustbin." Start an AfD proposal for the Abraham Accords and see how that goes. -The Gnome (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  and I quoted sources to say they were not significant. please don't misrepresent the sourcing in a contentious topic, that does not lead to good outcomes. also, no one mentioned notability here, so kindly do not fabricate what i said. ValarianB (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Now, Mr. Gnome, in addition to your strangely uninformed comments about the history of Mideast diplomacy and peace accords, you again demonstrate that you do not attend to the difference between WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NPOV, the latter of which is under discussion and the former of which is irrelevant to this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support Significant signing of Abraham Accords should be at least mentioned once on this page somewhere given its impact and forms part a key part of his administration's foreign policy in the region.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - This article is 428k (!!!). This doesn't rise to the level of significance of the information already in there. We should be pruning specific details of his administration, not adding more. Regarding arguments like key part of his administration's foreign policy in the region - yes, that's why it's covered in multiple articles already. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Word. That was the intent of consensus #37, which has proven to be too vague to be very effective. On the other hand, the article is the same size as in May 2019, so it could be worse. Watch what happens as we approach the 2024 election, and keep watching if he gets re-elected. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  The article will keep growing regardless of the election outcome or the outcome of his 4-5 major prison-sentence-carrying trials and sentencings, and of course, he will eventually die as well and the article will grow even more to cover that event and its legacy. And along the way we should, as Rhododendrites says, cut stuff that hasn't stood the test of time - but in my view, now is not the time to cut stuff. Andre🚐 01:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Size of the article has been brought up in past discussions, but not here yet. The article currently is ~428k bytes, and the Presidency section is ~223k. The addition being proposed weighs in at 154 bytes. This would represent a 0.069% expansion of the Presidency section, and a 0.036% expansion of the article.

  Is so minor an addition really a good enough reason to completely exclude all mention of the Accords in this article? Especially considering the other arguments above to their notability, or their relevance to Trump's presidential legacy? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  If this article were expanded by that teensy amount for everything on the page that's mentioned, or adjacent to, a WP:NOTABLE topic, the article would bloat up bigger than the Hindenburg. I note that your last sentence ignores the arguments and concerns presented in opposition of the inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  It's true that the article's bloat largely results from hundreds or thousands of applications of exactly that "it's just a little bit" logic. We don't say a lot about anything (much). By the way, the proposed addition would increase the Israel subsection's word count by 52%. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  And of course fans of Internet Irony will recall that it is OP of this goofball RfC, @Onetwothreeip: who has often called for cuts of significant detail from the page merely due to the overall page length.#Mandrusstotherescue. SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not helpful. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Also not true. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  The only way to address the bloat is to change the fundamental nature of what we include in this top-level biography, which is about the man not the president. That was the goal of #37, but it has been met with resistance from editors, both regulars and drive-bys, who view the article as a political battleground and want their viewpoints placed where they have the highest visibility. They don't care (and/or understand) much about good article structure, size issues, etc., so here we are.

  (And #37 takes a piecemeal approach, not the slash-and-burn that would be required. As written, we would have to conduct protracted discussion about each little removal. That would be entirely impractical and it would take decades to achieve the goal.) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  One problem with this "not one more byte" approach, and drawing a hard line here, is that editors will likely to continue coming here asking why the Abraham Accords aren't mentioned. Or why any other single piece of content couldn't be added to the Trump article. I fully agree with you, consensus item #37 should be used judiciously to keep the Presidency section of this article summary-level and a manageable size. And by and large, the section here could and should be trimmed. However, the omission of even a single sentence of this particular presidential event strikes me as incredibly odd. The more notable stuff can stay - the rest can go (to another article). But how are the Accords not notable enough to include? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  how are the Accords not notable enough to include? If you're asking me specifically, I haven't taken a position and don't intend to. I use my semi-retirement as an excuse, but in truth I never got much into such political-content issues anyway. See my UTP for my full reply, which went very meta very early. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

It seems to me that as we have not had an RFC on this there is no harm in having one. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I really don't understand the strong opposition to starting one. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The objections were stated quite clearly above, so whether you understand is not really the issue here. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I opposed starting it when there were like eight editors involved and only two of them (one, the OP, had not respoonded to pings and seems to have abandoned the discussion) supported addition. Cessaune [talk] 14:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

As I pointed out, there had been many discussions prior to this one in the last 1.5 years. All considered, this issue attracted 25 editors (14 supporting and 11 opposing), though not in a centralized discussion. An RFC seemed a good way to get everyone in one place and hash out consensus. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I consider each discussion on its own merits. It's fine if you want to look at the whole history, and you may be on to something there, but, at least on this specific talkpage, no one has ever done that as long as I've been here. Cessaune [talk] 15:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging other users who've voiced an opinion on this in one of the 5 recent(ish) talk page threads. Feel free to disregard: @Bob K31416 @GoodDay @Bill Williams @Chrismorey @Andrevan @Anon0098 @Pavlor @Berchanhimez @Szmenderowiecki @Chrisahn @HAL333 @Firefangledfeathers @CrazyPredictor @ValarianB @Calton @Pincrete @Symmachus Auxiliarus @Soibangla PhotogenicScientist (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

being pinged to Talk:Donald Trump is no courtesy ;-) Andre🚐 05:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I just spit out my coffee, Andre. ~ HAL333 15:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

"Civilized life cannot be sustained without hypocrisy." Ian Buruma, courtesy of Merriam-Webster. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Example of what's being ignored In ascribing due weight to article content, we need to examine sourcing and substance of any supporting references. this citation from our WP Abraham Accords page is a case in point. The claim of Trump's involvement, published in RS, turns out to be one of Trump's own coterie making that claim. What support !voters should be doing is to back up their view with independent third-party assessments that Trump personally facilitated any of these arrangements. While it's verified that he staged this White House event -- even though US was not a signatory to anything and the photo shows him standing empty-handed among the signatories -- the issue for this biography page is whether mentioning this inconsequential command performance in DC gives UNDUE weight and the misimpression that the accords themselves were due to Trump.And here is another RS, pointedly describing Trump's presence only in terms of a self-serving campaign promotion. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Here are the undeniable facts, as supported by sources, facts which oppose !voters should dispute with contrary sources: The Abraham Accords themselves, dated during Trump's presidency, were significant; the United States, during Trump's presidency, were involved in "weeks of intensive mediation to broker the final deal," per the exact words of the participating Israeli side (see here) [my emphasis]; and they were signed during Trump's presidency. And that is all that matters when it comes to have the Accords in this article, in a section about US foreign policy regarding Israel. -The Gnome (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That is just repetition of various prior comments that do not address the central point made by numerous opponents of this gratuitous addition to the article: You have not provided affirmative sourcing that demonstrates the weight of mainstream views that Donald Trump personally did anything other than stage a media event and use his position as POTUS to insinuate his family and its interests into the signing of these largely ceremonial condifications of the previously-developed thaw in relations. In other words, quite contrary to your claim, you have failed to establish any case for WP:N. SPECIFICO talk 20:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The top of the executive chain in a presidential republic is ultimately responsible for everything that happens, good or bad, during his watch. (I already made a reference to where the buck stops but I guess it went unnoticed.) You invoke a non-existent argument. Even if president Reagan was minimally involved, or even not involved at all, with the formulation of the Star Wars plan, we'd still credit him for it in his biography. (Or debit him, as the case may be.) There is absolutely no need to demonstrate that "Donald Trump personally did anything". My emphasis. A cursory glance at presidents' bios here in Wikipedia shows that they correctly filled with info on events that the prez did little if anything "personally" about or for them. Which is why I commented that this whole teapot storm is about Trump, rather than the Abraham Accords. -The Gnome (talk)

No matter what the result of this RFC. We'll have that result, to use to shut down any further discussion on the matter, in the new year & beyond. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Some have brought up that adding the Accords, will go against attempts to shortened the BLP. If ya'll want to shorten this BLP? then remove the bits about Trump's 2024 campaign Fascism/Vermin content. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

There may well be a valid discussion to be had about what to remove to make this article more manageable. That is not however a good argument to add something., Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I hope then, that the too long/too short argument will be discontinued in this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Why? If someone thinks the article is already too long adding something makes that worse, thus is a valid argument for exclusion. Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Because, it would also be a valid argument, for the preceding discussion. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Procedural oppose: I will try to address issues that I have noticed. The RFC is long so somewhat complicated to glean. Adding anything to the article, without addressing the elephant in the "article", means there really shouldn't have been a RFC at this time.

• 1)- Article needs reducing or splitting. It seems there are 17,466 words of readable prose. At 15,000 an article "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed."
• 2)- The article has, including the short opening lead paragraph, seven paragraphs. Someone stated if the article is expanded then the lead would too. That is not actually true but even when the article was stretched to 16,000 words there should have been talks concerning size. I saw where this was mentioned but apparently ignored. However, the last paragraph in the MOS states: As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead. Certainly there really should not be any more "expansion" considering the current size.
• 3)-The prominence and importance of the Abraham Accords is overshadowed somewhat by the Biden administration's use of "Normalization agreements", however, the aftermath of the Accords created several first in history so "should be in the article. Although important, I do not think the Accords are a "defining legacy" that should be in the opening paragraph of the BLP and certainly not before size is addressed. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused by your comment here... the RFC is about adding the proposed sentence to the Israel subsection of the foreign policy subsection, not the lead. If you think it should be in the article, that would be a "support." Also, you should move your message to the 'Survey' section above - this section isn't for bolded !votes, just discussion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I've removed their initial bullet as this section is not a bulleted list. Per WP:REFACTOR I think any editor could move that to the Survey section, but per your comments it doesn't appear ready for prime time. And I think the ship has sailed for procedural opposes; the amount of participation to date constitutes acceptance of the RfC's existence. I think I've seen an RfC shut down once or twice in my 10 years here, despite many attempts to shut one down. There, that's three "I thinks" in four sentences, demonstrating my humility. :D ―Mandruss ☎ 06:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, if the Accords had happened during the Biden Administration? I would've supported their addition at Joe Biden's page. GoodDay (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Report: Kushner involvement in Abraham Accords gives him inside track to be Secretary of State in second Trump administration

Nepotism. Reminds one of JFK's appointment of RFK as attorney general. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

What is the similarity. I see no RS that describe Jared as qualified for the role. Did you read the linked article? Are you unaware of RS accounts of RFK's qualifications and activities as Attorney General? SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

A reminder

Let's all be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON, during this RFC's process. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about BLUDGEON, but we can avoid circular discussion and the misconception that such debates can be "won". There comes a point where one's arguments have been fully articulated and further debate wastes everybody's time and talk page space, as well as making a closer's job a lot harder. And it's exceedingly rare to see someone's mind changed by this, for various reasons. Whether we're at that point I wouldn't presume to say. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, GoodDay, which is why I, for one, have already absconded. -The Gnome (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Now about bludgeoning? Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

That'll do ;) GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yawns* *looks at phone * W²⁰⁰

Anyhow Can i get a recap of whats happened •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Some folks support the proposal at the top of this RfC and some others oppose it. And a few from both sides are posting up a tad too much. -The Gnome (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Age at inauguration

Under "Early actions", I would like to add the fact that Trump was the oldest person in US history to be sworn in as president. This appears quiet significant. The same has been done on Reagan's page. My proposal can be seen below:

70 years old at the time, he became the oldest person to assume the U.S. presidency, surpassing Ronald Reagan who took office at age 69 in 1981; this ranking would at age 78 be passed on to Joe Biden in 2021. Marginataen (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

LOr "he became the oldest until he was not", seems to me to not really be very informative. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Have we the same written about Reagan (nearly 70, in January 1981) & before that W. Harrison (68, in March 1841)? Kinda irrelevant trivia, since Biden (passed 78, in January 2021) too office. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

We have the same or similar at Ronald Reagan only because this user recently added it, so it should be reverted. Zaathras (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I've just removed the trivia from Reagan's bio page. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

No. Once you get surpassed by someone in these kinds of trivia cases, we do not need to keep a record of or make note of the status quo ante. What if, praytell, a 90 year-old is someday elected to the presidency? We're going to add it like

70 years old at the time, he became the oldest person to assume the U.S. presidency, surpassing Ronald Reagan who took office at age 69 in 1981]]; this ranking would at age 78 be passed on to Joe Biden in 2021, until it was surpassed by Old-Man-Aged-90 in 2034.

No, this endless trivia stops here. Zaathras (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You guys seriously find it to be "trivia" that Trump was the oldest POTUS in history? Grover Cleveland's article currently writes that he is the only president to serve serve non-consecutive presidential terms. If this changes in 2025, that would be updated and Trump' name would be mentioned on his page over 100 years after Cleveland's death. It is not unusual to update a fact about a record holder when the person in question no longer holds X record. Even if it's surpassed more than a 100 years later. Marginataen (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

How many times has the oldest person to become US president record, been broken? The first time was Adams (going on 62, in March 1797) breaking Washington's record (57, in April 1789), for example. Then Jefferson (going on 58, in March 1801) broke the youngest person to become US president record, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Reminds me of how we in the UK keep getting younger and younger PMs. When Blair, Cameron and Sunak took office the media noted every time that they were "the youngest prime minister in 200 years". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This is an article, not a baseball card.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Political positions

It's common that a politician's bio article includes a "Political positions" section. Here, quite a bit can be gleaned from the extensive coverage of his presidency, but that doesn't dispose of the issue. Since leaving office, he's talked about things he would do differently in a second term, so we can't just assume that everything he did as President represents a current position. There is some more recent information in the daughter article on his 2024 campaign. Per WP:SS, however, there should be at least a summary here. That might be an alternative to a separate "Political positions" section. One way or the other, the subject merits inclusion. JamesMLane t c 19:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This might best be addressed in the section above captioned "fascism" where we appear to be converging on some coverage of his current views and aspirations. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that some of his recent statements have drawn criticism as fascism or fascism-adjacent, and that it's a subject worth including. The problem is that he's made many other statements that would go in a "Political positions" section but that don't fit under the "fascism" rubric -- Middle East conflict, withdrawal from NATO, repeal of Obamacare, etc. JamesMLane t c 04:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Weren’t solving the Middle East conflict, withdrawal from NATO, repeal of Obamacare all positions he had when he ran the last time? I’m not sure I see the value unless they are accompanied with some sense that there are plans that go along with these goals. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Anyway he said he's achieved 2 out of 3 and he's working on Obamacare right now, so. SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Many of the Republicans who supported Obamacare repeal during Trump’s first term don’t hold that position now. GOP Senators Reject Trump's Latest Bid to Revoke Obamacare Saying It's 'Technically Impossible' We can’t simply assume that a position from several years ago represents anyone’s current views. Furthermore, as that article illustrates, Trump’s recent renewed call for repeal is notable as having generated discussion (pro and con), more so than his typical reiteration of previous positions. On other issues, there are changed circumstances. Along with the renewed outbreak of violence in the Middle East, there’s the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which some people blame on NATO but which others say illustrates NATO’s continuing importance. It’s useful to the reader to present up-to-date information about Trump’s views. JamesMLane t c 20:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's worth considering, because for politicians, political positions are in many ways defining. There's a child article, and IMO Joe Biden#Political positions shows it can be done well. DFlhb (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

24h BRD restriction reminder

(comment in non-admin capacity) Just reminding everyone that this article has an active 24h BRD restriction, which reads:

You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message.

It can be hard to tell whether removal of content is a revert of a recent edit or a non-revert removal of older content. This can make it hard to tell if reverting that removal is an appropriate revert or a potential violation of this restriction. Please be careful, and it's best to use the talk page instead of reverting. Pinging some editors who've been involved in recent back-and-forth revert cycles: @Sennalen, GoodDay, SPECIFICO, PackMecEng, Space4Time3Continuum2x, PhotogenicScientist, and Cessaune. I'm not saying all of you have violated or even potentially violated the restriction; just a heads up. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Fully aware. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Cessaune [talk] 16:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Fully aware. This was removal of older content. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Lafayette Square

I removed the Lafayette Square section and it was promptly re-included. This section describes an event where protesters were removed by federal law enforcement from a location near the White House, Donald Trump shortly thereafter visiting the location and it being used for media purposes, and this being criticised by others. This plainly seems like a section that belongs on some other article (in fact, has its own article), and does not belong as a section in this article. This was not a particularly notable event or iconic moment of the Donald Trump chronicles, not materially significant to his presidency or his biography (his life), and not something as notable as his presidential pardons or his immigration policy, which are respectively the previous and following sections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This was workshopped intensively before being added to the article and has been discussed several times since then. I urge all editors to comment only in the event there is any support for this removal, which has now been reverted. We don't need to engage in extensive, repetitive threads about every challenge to consensus except when such challenges appear to be headed toward a new consensus to revise longstanding text. SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Most of the "workshopping" was shortly after the event itself. The content itself is not the issue, it is the presence of the content in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Please review the archives. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That Lafayette Square incident was a seminal moment in Trump's term in office, where a peaceful protest was suppressed, he lied about their intent, and threatened to invoke the military to accomplish all of it. Zaathras (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm asserting that this was not a seminal moment, certainly not enough to warrant inclusion in this particular article. There are many more events relating to Donald Trump with greater notability, and this one is not especially cited as one of the defining moments of his presidency, let alone of his life. Ultimately, it is up to the talk page to determine, whether they agree with me or disagree. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

How long has the section-in-question been in this BLP? GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Since shortly after the event itself in 2020. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

It's been repeatedly discussed and I don't think there was anything other than "no consensus" in discussions since its addition. Several issues remain unaddressed, shoved aside by appeals to supposed past consensus.

• The first issue is that on talk, editors keep arguing the incident "matters" for XYZ reasons, yet these reasons never get added to the article. It matters because: several scholars said it was a violation of the 1st Amendment, and a strong erosion of democratic norms. You'd never know that, reading the section. Instead you'd learn protesters were mostly peaceful (meaning "it was kinda justified"). Comical fail. It's counterproductive.
• The second issue is that what I just said can fit in 2 sentences, and that's all we need to mention about the event. The incident isn't mentioned once in our WP:BESTSOURCE by far, Zelizer 2022; we're supposed to base our due weight decisions on WP:BESTSOURCES. The badly hurt church that was almost burned down, the photo-op, and especially the bible, were all distractions meant as catnip to the TV talking heads, so they would focus on appearances and miss the substance. Past editors fell into the same trap.

Trim to two sentences that focus on substance (constitutional violation, democratic norms), and make it part of a new section about the erosion of democratic norms and sabotage of the administrative state under Trump (which I've proposed before with full scholarly sourcing). DFlhb (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC) edited 19:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The comical fail "largely peaceful" is the compromise with the editors who argued that a few demonstrators threw water bottles when riot-geared law enforcement attacked them with batons, rubber bullets and canisters of "smoke". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, well 1/6 was perfect-peaceful and there was no fire and no babies were burned, no bibles were desecrated, plus -- the Park Service. Smokey Bear does not lie, etc. SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Baker/Glasser's The Divider devotes an entire chapter to The Battle of Lafayette Square, where "Trump had staged what would become the most infamous photo-op of his presidency".

Work cited
Baker, Peter; Glasser, Susan (2023) [2022]. The Divider. Anchor Books. ISBN 978-0-593-08296-6.

The event was notable and iconic — using federal law enforcement to break up a lawful demonstration for the purpose of staging a show of strength/dominance, with the Bible and the highest-ranking military officer as a prop. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a good find - DFlhb (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

That is indeed a good find. Do you have access to the full book? If so, you might consider incorporating it as a source into the article, if you have time. This article is worryingly low on good, high quality sourcing: practically all references are from newspapers and websites, and especially bad as there is so much material to draw on. It's itching for something better. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I have the book, not a lot of time at the moment. I don't agree with your assessment on this article lacking good, high quality sourcing. With currently 845 cites, there may be some low-quality sources that have slipped through our vetting but as a rule this article adheres to WP:RS. Do you have specific cites in mind? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 18:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Can we get some more views on this? Appreciating that Specifico, Space4Time3Continuum2x and Zaathras believe the Lafayette Square event was very notable, while I believe that the entire section is undue for this article and DFlhb believes most of it should be removed. GoodDay may want to clarify their view. I am surprised that anybody would consider this to be particularly notable among the other 1500 days of the Trump administration, let alone his entire life. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I've no objections to its removal. It just doesn't compare to the events of Jan 6, 2021 in terms of notability, to be included in this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

if Jan 6 is the criteria, then like barely anything Trump has ever done would compare. Cessaune [talk] 14:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, that's like saying Pearl Harbor pales in comparison with Hiroshima. Please give policy and sourcing based arguments when you offer these snap opinions. Just to point out why you're wrong -- Lafayette Square was a precursor and a forewarning of the violent 1/6 insurrection, as Milley Barr, Esper, and numerous others later said. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I was pinged here, to give input on whether said-info should be removed from the BLP or not. I've given that input. If @Onetwothreeip: isn't satisfied with my response? Then they're free to ignore it. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Attempting to re-enforce the barriers on the American-Mexican border, is highly notable. The Biden administration has (last I heard) continued that process. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

That's why I said barely. Cessaune [talk] 15:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, with your half-million edits on this website, it would set a good example for editors still on their way to the first 100,000 if you would be mindful of the distinction between "notable" and "noteworthy" -- because you know it's notable. It has a widely viewed WP article on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The OP pinged for my input & I've given it. Either the aforementioned info will be excluded from this BLP or it won't. I'm not going to overly stress about it. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed. It was a minor incident which was blown way out of proportion at the time. This is a bio and as such a trivial occurrence like this doesn't belong here.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

References

RFC: evolution of authoritarian rhetoric

Should this article include an evolution of Trump authoritarian rhetoric to the extent it is supported by reliable sources? soibangla (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Survey (II)

• Oppose- Better suited in Trump's 2024 campaign. In what manner? that's for the campaign page discussion to decide. GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Support It is obviously pertinent to the article topic and is one of its most notable aspects. The amount of ink that has been spilled on this topic is staggering. Adding this material rectifies a glaring omission from the article. Notable aspects of a topic, ESPECIALLY when controversial, must be included in an article. Indeed, all major controversies must even be included in the lead. This certainly qualifies. Please note that I have also requested comment on whether such material should be included in the campaign article as well. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support; this was left out, out of an abundance of caution because it's a sensitive topic. But the sourcing has only gotten stronger, including scholarly sourcing, and by now, to leave it out is a bias by omission; that claim gets overused but here it's true given the strength of sourcing. I separately think we should cover his authoritarian actions as president, as those good sources do, not just his rhetoric. DFlhb (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• I guess not. It's not really in our wheelhouse. It's just too hard for us to be truly fair and neutral and not lead the reader. Herostratus (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  That reasoning would apply to most of the AP2 area, including around one-third of this article. Everybody has biases, and yet we forge onward. But I'm not !voting. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Nope. Presumably, authoritarian rhetoric includes fascist rhetoric. It would be better to cover this in sub-articles, where there is plenty of room to explain the difference between being a fascist as opposed to using words or phrases that merely sound kinda fascistic. The latter is not important enough for this main BLP, and it would take up too much space to explain that there's no consensus he's a fascist, whereas it's much clearer that he has used some suspicious phraseology which could signify (A) a change in his thinking, or (B) a dropping of the veil as NYT put it, or (C) could merely signify that he's just trying to sound provocative. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  "fascist" is not proposed here. This !vote should be stricken and disregarded. SPECIFICO talk 11:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  If the RFC question meant to use the word “authoritarian” in a way to exclude “fascism” then it would be quite an unusual use of the word “authoritarian”. Moreover, the preceding discussion at this talk page confirms that allegedly fascist rhetoric is at issue here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose As I am unsure exactly what is being asked, What a paragraph, a whole section of many paragraphs, half the article? A list, prose text sourced only to academics? Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This would be better covered in the campaign article. At this point it's not central to the biography. Props to the editors who watch this article to maintain NPOV. Seems like a nightmare task. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support - "to the extent covered in RS" negates any NPOV concerns by those who oppose such content. This is not a proposal to ignore NPOV.
  Trump's totalitarain proclivites are not a recent development. Trump has displayed this bent since long ago - see Central Park Five, Repeated 2015-2016 campaign exhortations to beat dissenters to a pulp, lock her up without evidence, etc. etc. January 6, which was not mere rhetoric, was predicated on months of refusal to say he would accept the result of the 2020 election "depending on the facts" and other totalitarian warnings. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  I started brewing my morning coffee, typed "authoritarianism", and my coffee was ready. These five dollar words are killing this ol' country boy. Antidisestablishmentotalitarianism! ―Mandruss ☎ 19:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- The steady escalation of his authoritarian rhetoric is not isolated to a campaign, thus it should not be relegated to campaign articles. This has been discussed since before his presidency and (with the recent incendiary quotes), risen to striking prominence in discussion of the man, not just the candidate. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - This type of decision is extremely difficult on subjects with nearly unlimited potential sources. I usually try to imagine a neutral 1-2 page summary of the subject and what would be highlighted. I don't think an expanded section on authoritarian tendencies meets my bar for inclusion. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (II)

I think one problem is that most editors here wish the guy would step on a Lego. I know I do. So we really want to bend over backwards to be fair. It's hard. It's hard for our sources to be fair. It's hard to find anyone who doesn't have an opinion about the guy. But I mean they guy gets millions of people to vote for him. Alan Dershowitz likes him. National Review likes him. Lot of intelligent people like him. Lot of famous popular talking heads like him. We'd have to use those as sources to say "but on the other hand, many analysts don't believe his rhetoric is getting more authoritarian, but rather that the liberal press is pushing that narrative", or "many analysts point out that this may be just the sort of thing the country needs" or "but many analysts have averred that Joe Biden's rhetoric is even worse" or whatever it takes to not lead the reader to any particular opinion. Otherwise we're not doing our job right. Best to just leave it out. Herostratus (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

What precisely is being proposed here? Seems vague. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 08:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I expected the discussion above to switch to brainstorming and discussing specific additions; instead we had 200+ comments of mostly talking about sources but not proposals; and now a RfC that is too vague to be 'binding' because any proposed additions can still be disputed as "not what was asked in the RfC". And since no proposal or sources are presented here, the RfC will draw editors that haven't seen any of the sources above and may still not know whether it's 'media hysteria' or scholarly analysis. DFlhb (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I've yet to see a method that works very well for something like this. But editors could defer their !votes until specifics have been hammered out in this subsection. That is, editors who aren't dead set against any content in this article under any circumstances. We (plural you) might come up with, say, three options, with sources, and each !vote could Oppose all or Support one of them (or rank-support one or more of them). I don't think it's particularly fair or practical to expect the OP to do all that. (One might say the options should have been established separately before starting the RfC, but I don't know that it really matters. The only difference is structural.) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this RFC seems way to vague to make an informed decision on. Could we not get some more specific proposal of text to be inserted? Passing a generic mandate to "add something" without a clear way how sounds like a recipe for time wasting. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, if this were President Biden's rhetoric? I'd oppose its addition on the Joe Biden page. GoodDay (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic about an instance of Legobot weirdness. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Why does this RfC have two ids (rfcid=6AAEDEB}}rfcid=8CD1F7B}})? The second one shows up as text in the RfCs, e.g. here, along with a long comment by IP address editor 67.82.74.5. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Not sure who done it, but it was accidental. I've removed it. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC) I assume the legobot will eventually catch up with the correction? The second id seems to mess with the way other entries are shown on the RfC pages (e.g. here and here). Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Hope so. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC) The pages have been fixed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 18:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC) See related User talk:Redrose64#Legobot weirdness. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Is pinning necessary? The bot already "pinned" the RfC: "DoNotArchiveUntil]] 12:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC) {{pin section}} generates {{DNAU}} but offers two advantages over plain DNAU: It generates a visible message box as a reminder that the section will not be auto-archived. Its DNAU expires in ten years versus one month for the DNAU inserted by Legobot. Therefore there is zero risk of having the section auto-archived before we're done with it. Restoring from archive is a bitch unless you can do it early enough to use undo, so it's best to avoid that whenever possible. This of course means the {{pin section}} has to be manually removed when we're done with the section, but that's no problem and some closers even do that themselves. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)