Talk:Donald Trump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Former good article nomineeDonald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
June 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 17, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
May 25, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
December 2, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
July 15, 2019Good article nomineeNot listed
August 31, 2019Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 29, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Current consensus[edit]

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

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Donald Trump's net worth evaluation and matching rankings, from the Forbes annual list of billionaires (currently the 2020 edition, $2.1B/1001st/275th), not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$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. (Feb 2018, June 2016)

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 Superseded by #35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 replies 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
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
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. The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BSEcon.)", 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. 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
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. 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 stating 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 2020)

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. There is consensus towards using 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)

RFC: Should 'far-right politician' be included?[edit]

Should the terminology "far-right politician" be added to the article & thus Trump placed into the "far-right politicians of the United States" category? GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • No - As we should abstain from adding such labels to any American politician BLPs. GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, Donald Trump is widely referred to in reliable source referencing as a "far-right" "populist" "conspiracy theorist" and the like. These terms, if appropriately substantiated by extensive reliable sources, may be included in the lede section to describe Donald Trump without running afoul of WP:BLP. They are not negative attack terms, they are descriptions widely used by unbiased reliable sources both academic and journalistic. Trump is beyond a WP:PUBLICFIGURE so there is a huge exception to the usual care taken to be careful to avoid negative info in BLPs. "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." "o not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking. " Andrevan@ 03:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, Trump does not belong in the same category as the few Republican congresspeople in it. He is not widely cited by reliable sources as "far-right" like they are. Even a basic comparison shows how this does not make sense, for example Trump embraced same-sex marriage, while they all adamantly oppose it. Trump supported some level of gun regulation, while they oppose any form of it. Trump never openly opposed separation of church and state, while some of them do. Some of them want to end all immigration to the United States, while Trump singled out illegal immigration for the most part. Trump criticized Biden for not providing Ukraine with enough military aid, while they want the US to provide nothing. They have expressed some support for QAnon conspiracy theories, while he never has even mentioned much about it. In summary, he shares similar views to theirs, but far less extreme, and I could give numerous more examples. Bill Williams 04:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, As Bill Williams pointed above, Trump is a unique figure in the way he transcends the typical left-right spectrum; he's not far-right in the same definite way someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene is. From a cursory glance, sources seem to describe his relation with regards to the far-right as "Trump’s appeal to the far right" or "Trump’s possible ties to far-right militias", without outwardly calling him far-right. Curbon7 (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes although we could consider "hard right" or other labels. The most recent RS references go quite a bit farther than "far right" but we should exercise caution. This will require a survey of recent RS references to him, as the insitutional deference and journalistic reluctance to project POV created a lot of inertia during the period when there was some possiblity he would come and go as an ordinary politician with experienced staff and good-faith adherence to his oath of office. SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please provide a significant amount of "recent reliable sources" if you claim that Donald Trump is "far-right," as he is the most significant United States politician in the past six years, besides Joe Biden. Bill Williams 20:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No as the far-right label is contested by political scientists reliable sources. While he has been accused of being on the far-right by some, it is no where near unanimous enough for us to say this definitively in WP:WIKIVOICE. Such labels are best left in the #Campaign rhetoric and political positions section, where it is already adequately mentioned. — Czello 15:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Could you provide links to a few instances of political scientists stating why they contest the far-right terminology? That would be helpful. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This has a diversity of political positions that are cited. The point is that a far-right label isn't unanimous and so isn't appropriate to be stated in WikiVoice. — Czello 22:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unanimity was never required for statements to be in WP:WIKIVOICE. If there was a considerable dispute, we could qualify the different viewpoints with attribution. Is there any source that says Trump is NOT far-right or at all contests the assertion? Andrevan@ 23:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unanimity was never required for statements to be in WP:WIKIVOICE This, I think, is the problem. But that's probably a discussion for elsewhere. — Czello 12:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You said "far-right" is contested. You need not to show a variety of other labels but to show RS that state he is not far-right. Please provide or modify your assertion. SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm sorry but I don't agree - my point is that a variety of labels has been assigned him, not all of them being far-right. For me to agree that the far-right label should be added (in WikiVoice, rather than "he has been accused of being far-right" or words to that effect) I need to see more unanimity. — Czello 12:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you meant to say that "far-right" is fails WP:WEIGHT in mainstream RS, it would be better to frame your view in those terms, i.e. that based on your evaluation of sources, you don't see it as a consensus view among RS. The claim that it is "contested" would require showing RS that present their reasoning to reject the label. SPECIFICO talk 13:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I feel that's a tad nitpicky, but - fine. I've struck the "contested" "political scientists" part. — Czello 13:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Good, thanks. Now I see you've also stricken "political scientists" (which btw weakens your case, since they would be the best sources). So now, which are the sources that you claim do support your asssertion, among the top mainstream RS, that Trump is viewed as *not far right*. Thanks for narrowing this down. I am eager to see the sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Previously I struck the whole sentence, but I reduced it to to "political scientists" and replaced it with RS for the reasons outlined above. — Czello 16:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No per Bill Williams. Trump's views are inconsistent with typical far-right politicians. Biggest to note is his support of same-sex marriage. While RS's cite him as "appealing to the far-right" etc by possible association or perception, not enough that I've seen actually describe him as one. Also agree with GoodDay, as this starts to get into WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Anon0098 (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No. We should accurately describe any politician's words, actions and policies and let readers come to their own conclusions. Station1 (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No per WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG. There would need to be a substantial number of reliable sources explicitly labeling him as such before we could attach such a label in wiki-voice. We are a long ways from that level of RS consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    298 million Trump "far-right" links A substantial numbr of them are reliable sources explicitly labeling him as such. Here is a nutshell:

    But this was a widespread error of analysis. Coming from two strong pillars of American popular culture, self-made-man individualism and television, Trump found his place, acting steadfastly as a far-right authoritarian politician in the context of the multi-dimensional crisis ravaging America. Professor Christopher Browning has written that he created "a coalition of discontents" like Adolf Hitler

    on Opendemocracy SPECIFICO talk 00:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are also 252 million for "trump far-left". Google hits are not a reliable source. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, I'm not surprised you'd say something irrelevant like that, so I gave an excerpt from a distinguished historian. You need to read the sources not look at the numbers. Believe me experienced editors know how to use and not to abuse search engine results. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note the sentence, "But this was a widespread error of analysis." Your source is arguing that the experts are wrong to say Trump has no ideology. Why do you think we should favor an admittedly minority view over the consensus view of experts? TFD (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please substantiate the claim that Trump has no ideology. Which experts said that and in which publication? if that is the consensus as you claim, where is that? Andrevan@ 16:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but I did not say Trump had no ideology or that any experts had said this. Please read the discussion beginning with Specifico's comments at 00:13, 21 July 2022 and the link he provided to OpenDemocracy before replying. TFD (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The vast majority of those link Trump with the rise of far-right politics. I certainly would agree with that. But I don't see a lot of RS sources (that is sources that don't have an ideological axe to grind) that are explicitly labeling Trump as far right. Back in late 2016 we had a huge RfC right after Fidel Castro died, over the question of whether or not he could be explicitly labeled as a dictator in wiki voice. Although there were numerous RS sources that explicitly so labeled him, the community rejected the idea because to use such a label would require an overwhelming consensus among RS sources. My memory fails but I think there were people arguing it would have to be near unanimous. In the end the article states that some of his critics regard him as a dictator but does not call him that in wiki-voice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't know what our policy is on purported axe sharpening? Not clear that's a useful approach. Also I hope WP 2022 doesn't hang on whatever happened to Fidel in 2016. All that said, I don't think these label discussions are very important. Not least because (not referring to you now) there are numerous editors who are ignorant of politics and the available sources and who are swayed by daily media and internet pundits. If our editors are confused by labels, it suggests our readers will be confused as well. So better to describe Trump's actions than to label them. SPECIFICO talk 01:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't remember that RFC, maybe you could dig it up? The "near unanimous" is the part I don't agree with. For Fidel Castro it's entirely possible that there are enough sources that contest whether Castro is a dictator that we'd need to qualify that and treat it as less clear. Does anyone contest that Trump is far-right? If so, whom or where? Andrevan@ 00:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 17 - Wikipedia I opposed the label at the time and still do, in wiki-voice due to a lack of sources explicitly labeling him as such. But fwiw anyone suggesting Castro was not a dictator does not inhabit the same plane of reality that I do. If he wasn't, then quite frankly the word should probably be stricken from the English dictionary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ad Orientem, would you be willing to provide a proposal for a text for the Donald Trump article along the lines of, "Trump is linked with the rise of far-right politics"? Andrevan@ 01:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Andrevan: There is already a sentence in this article similar to what you wanting. It says: Trump helped bring far-right fringe ideas, beliefs, and organizations into the mainstream Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That statement is a lot weaker than what the sources I linked below say. I really think that in 2022, Wikipedia can say, Trump had a far-right movement, with far-right ideas, and that therefore makes him a far-right politician per the experts Cas Mudde, R. Daniel Kelemen, and the many books, articles, social scientists and historians who have called him a fascist, right-wing populist extremist, and so on. That makes him a "far-right politician." It is not an axe to grind. I still think, maybe Castro should be called a dictator in Wikivoice too, but I haven't finished reading this RFC. Andrevan@ 01:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Andrevan I believe there is sufficient RS sourcing to support something along the lines of "Some of Trump's critics have linked him to the rise of far-right politics both in the United States and abroad." FWIW my own opinion is that Trump doesn't fall neatly into a specific ideology. He seems to freely mix populism with aspects of fascism and cult leadership. The problem with Trump is that he is a pervasive liar and someone who tends to adjust his beliefs and rhetoric in order to appeal to whoever he is speaking to at any given moment. Consequently, it is almost impossible to get a clear idea of what his real beliefs are on any number of issues, or if he even has any convictions beyond what is expedient to his interests. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You and quite a few other commenters in recent discussions on this have all said something rather similar to this idea that Trump is hard to quantify or categorize, has his own political spectrum that defies the normal one, and yet nobody has provided me a single reliable source with this idea. Andrevan@ 01:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am not trying to insert my beliefs regarding the man into his article. -Ad Orientem (talk) Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Got it, so we agree that it's not referenceable or supportable that Trump defies categorization. In fact, the preponderance of sources categorize him as right-wing, and nothing but right-wing. Andrevan@ 01:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No. I said I am not interested in trying to insert my opinions about the man into his article. That is all I said. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nor am I. My opinion would be entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. But the opinion of reliable published authors is appropriate. Andrevan@ 01:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Eh No, probably not. Mr. Trump lives in his own political spectrum of Trumpism, which leans closer to fascism and autocracy than to what is generally accepted to be extreme right-wing conservatism. They're in the same ballpark, though. Zaathras (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Zaathras, the question is "far-right" not extreme conservatism. Far-right is fascist-adjacent. SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No per WP:REDFLAG, MOS:LABEL, and WP:BLP. Saying someone's political positions are far-right has serious implications -- it is associated with Nazism, oppression, violence, etc. BLP's have high standards and we are supposed to be extra cautious with them. With that in mind, WP:REDFLAG says Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Furthermore, MOS:LABEL says Value-laden labels... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. Policy and guideline pretty much says don't put stuff like someone is far-right unless it's very clear in sourcing. So that brings us to the sourcing. There have been some sources presented below that describe Trump's political positions as far-right or something like "radical right". Though, many of them are largely from a European perspective and there are many that choose to not say he's far-right, instead using less extreme terms like "right-wing populist", which are already present in this article. Additionally, there have been no mainstream sources commonly used in this article saying Trumps beliefs are far-right, and he's not described as such at Political positions of Donald Trump. There are some that say Trump's movement or supporters compose of far-right ideas and individuals, but that is not the same as Trump's beliefs. If that's the logic being used, you could put "Far-left politician" in Joe Biden's article since some of his supporters are likely far-left. Overall, there just does not appear to be the level of sourcing to call this BLP "far-right". Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Andrevan@ 02:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What RS is feeding the delusional assertion that there is a "far left" in the US? The Ducey's? Maria Bartiromo? Judge Jeanine? Where are these far-lefties hiding? Please read some history. SPECIFICO talk 02:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes - The yes votes show that there's a plethora of references to back up Trump either being expressly a far-right politician or holding far-right views. The no votes (while admittedly some veer into WP:OR in the voters' personal assessments of "He supports this. Therefore he isn't far-right.") state that the label isn't unanimous enough to include. With the amount of sources outright describing Donald Trump as a far-right politician, it's fair to state in the article that he is one. That being said, I would oppose it being in the opening sentence like on the Marjorie Taylor Greene page. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then provide some sources from this "plethora". Bill Williams 20:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see below in the Discussion section, the large number provided by Andrevan. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you actually look at the sources, few even call him "far-right" directly and the ones that do call him far-right provide almost no justification for doing so. His political views are listed in detail in this article and other articles, so if we are going to call him far-right, there must be some written justification based on his political views, which the sources do not provide. Bill Williams 20:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did look at the sources before coming to a conclusion on this matter and I would hope you're not insinuating otherwise. Between the articles outright referring to him as being far-right, espousing far-right politics (thus making him a far-right politician) and other such references, there's sufficient evidence for him being a far-right politician in my view. As for "no justification", that's beyond the scope of this. It's not up to us to perform WP:OR and ascertain from his political positions whether we think he's far right or not. Finally, you've now replied to all bar one of the yes votes. Please cease the WP:BLUDGEONing. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will continue replying to certain comments and votes considering I began this conversation with the talk section above, and I didn't reply to that one remaining editor because I replied to him elsewhere. I will refrain from replying to additional votes however, at your wish. Bill Williams 21:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong No The vast majority of reliable sources do not label Trump as far-right and it's insane that this is even being considered. X-Editor (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please present the sources to which you refer when you say "the vast majority of RS" What are in your view the half dozen dominant mainstream reliable sources concerning Trump. This would help focus the discussion and I for one would certainly reconsider my view based on what you can show us. SPECIFICO talk 14:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak yes I was going to say no, but as his career has been associated with a violent attempt to overturn an election, voter (as well as vote) suppression, and (it appears) a move towards autocracy form his supporters, yes I think he fits much of the define characteristics of "far-right" (see defined here). Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes him authoritarian, not "far-right". Overturning elections and suppressing voters is not unique to the right, for example look at any communist country. Bill Williams 20:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No Labelling Trump as far right is fringe. TFD (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No There is a difference between being "infused with far-right populist ideas" and being a far right politician. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No Though he plays a heel on TV, he is nothing like the legit killer villains described at Far-right politics#United States. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You need to provide serious content and policy-based reaoning. Not what you may think is humour. SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have no idea what part of that a reasonable person could see as even approaching funny. But whatever. WP:YESPOV. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My pint exactly. We need some !vote explanation that a reasonable person can relate to the article improvement issue. Maybe you have some cogent argument in mind. I don't know. If you do, please make it intelligible to ordinary minds. Folks actually would like to hear your view. SPECIFICO talk 19:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think you refer to the claim that Trump is not a "real right-winger," just plays one on TV, and he is a WWF villain just play-acting or LARPing. I have heard this claim but I don't hear that often after January 6, 2021. Since Trump literally engaged in a coup attempt or what was widely considered an attempt to subvert the democratic process. So, citation needed please, @InedibleHulk. Andrevan@ 19:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, he's a real right-winger. He's just also a real heel. He's like Colby Covington, except not violent. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I am aware he in fact did have a cameo appearance as a WWF villain. And, Zelensky was the voice of Paddington Bear, but now he's a war hero. Trump, I believe, had an issue with bone spurs. What's your point? These are not relevant facts. Andrevan@ 20:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Those three sources call him a heel in three years long after his WWE stint. He is "working the crowd". But he is not a racist insurgent killer himself. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The Economist one is from 2019, so not after Jan 6, 2021 insurrection that Trump incited during which the Proud Boys breached the Capitol and tried to hang Mike Pence and deface Congress. The Atlantic one is from 2016. The CNN link is an opinion piece which wouldn't work for this -- Chris Cilizza is their op-ed columnist and is unreliable (and it's from 2020). Andrevan@ 20:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's almost as if you think "his WWE stint" is secret fucking code for "Capitol Hill riot". I assure you it is not. Anyway, I said No to the pertinent question, so if you want the bottom line on my opinion, knock yourself out. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I believe what you're saying is that there's a difference between being a politician that far right ideologically aligned voters would support, and being a far right politician himself, correct? FrederalBacon (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I already thanked you for this edit, implying you're correct, that does roughly resemble what I said, especially at 20:24. But since you explicitly asked, that's the explicit answer, for the rooom and the record. Less importantly, Trump played the babyface on WWE TV and was only turned heel as a direct result of his opponent, Hillary Clinton, already being presented as the face of 2016 by non-WWE TV (and online multimedia "universes" like Amazon). There's nothing fundamentally politically fixed/firm/immutable about the man himself. If he again ran against someone CNN and MSNBC promoted as "the greater evil", like other Republicans, he could easily return to the favourable light. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "There's nothing fundamentally politically fixed/firm/immutable about the man himself" I'd really like to see some example of this post-2021. Andrevan@ 22:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You might and you might not. It depends on who he's juxtaposed against, which is far beyond my ability. All I'm saying is he's been portrayed by mainstream media alternatively before, so a face turn isn't outside the realm of plausibility. And with that, I'm disappearing into the shadows. Take that as you will. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not now. If this is added it should first go in Political positions of Donald Trump. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes - While journalistic WP:RS have been hesitant to use the term "far-right", scholarly WP:RS (including many in the survey below) identify and have identified Trump with the contemporary far-right. --TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    TulsaPoliticsFan, From what you wrote, it looks like characterizing Trump as far right is a minority view expressed by some scholars but not the news media. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Minority view" in what sense? The majority of journal articles appear to categorize him as far right (see source survey below) and no one has provided a WP:RS backing a suggestion to calling him anything else. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why do you say majority? There are many that don't say far-right, and choose to use other terms. Go look at the sources provided by Andrevan that say he's either illiberal or a right-wing populist; they don't mention anything about far-right. We already have him described as right-wing populist in this article, which is what most mainstream sources say. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Calling him a right-wing populist doesn't rebut the claim "far-right." It's more or less saying the same thing, just in less strong terms. Similarly, those that call him a fascist, hard right, radical right, alt-right, right-wing extremist, etc. may also not disagree that he is "far-right" even though they haven't chosen to describe him as such. Somewhere in the article, we can still call him a "far-right politician." Not in the lede section or the infobox, but somewhere. If anything, the fact that sources can't agree to call him "far-right" or "right-wing populist" is a case of violent agreement, and in no way does the existence of the latter detract from some weight due to the former. Statements unrebutted or uncontested in RS may be stated in wikivoice, I've asked repeatedly for any examples that describe Trump as left or center and gotten nothing. He at the very least deserves to be known as a "radical right-wing politician." Andrevan@ 01:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Right-wing populism and far-right are very different; I'd recommend you just read their wiki articles. Right-wing populist is certainly a less extreme term, and it's speculative to think academics who have opted to describe him as right-wing populist and not far-right may still believe he is far-right. Academics are nowhere near in complete agreement on how Trump should be places on the left-right spectrum. If your asking for sources saying Trump is "left or center", your going to be left empty handed because Trump is neither, and no one here has claimed he is either of those. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So why not have text in the article, "many scholars have described Trump as a right-wing populist or far-right politician"? Andrevan@ 01:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with @Andrevan. Viktor Orbán's article has a section that reads: "For these reasons, critics have described him as "irredentist," "right-wing populist," "authoritarian," " far-right", autocratic," "Putinist," as a "strongman," and as a "dictator."" What's being advocated isn't out of the norm for far-right European politicians. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    IMO we're getting into weasel with that. A lot of critics describe him as a lot of things, and most violate MOS:LABEL. "Many scholars" doesn't mean all or even most so we should avoid that in its entirety. Re Viktor Orbán I'm not too concerned with other stuff. Shouldn't be there either unless concensus proved it to be a widespread opinion. Anon0098 (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    LABEL clearly makes an exception for "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject." May scholars includes Cas Mudde, Inderjeet Parmar, Christian Fuchs, Neil Faulkner (archaeologist), R. Daniel Kelemen, not to mention those calling him a fascist such as Henry Giroux, Steven G. Calabresi, Michael Gerson, Dana Milbank, David Frum, and that's not even getting into the "opponents" and "critics". Andrevan@ 05:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong No Per Ad Orientem. I am fairly certain that more sources use the term "conservative" than "far-right." While I do not like him, he is far from a Marjorie Taylor Greene where the label is justified. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    MTG is just chanellingTrump. You don't think she's advocating for her long-held deepfelt views? Also, be aware that when we describe somebody in the present tense, we need the WEIGHT of recent RS characterizations. There's no question that, prior to the Unite the Right rally, the mainstream hesitated to call him far-right. But taboos fell and the reporting and analysis changed in both the media and RS scholarly publications.. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong No. Per WP:LABEL, the word “extremist” may express contentious opinion and is best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. The label “far right” seems no different. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No. A label like that isn't helpful, and it doesn't really fit Trump's views.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak yes* - Asterisk added because I think it'd be more appropriate to mention in the article that sources have regarded Trump or his political movement Trumpism as further right than the previous mainstream of the Republican party. There's some precedent for referring to "Trumpist" politicians (example: Marjorie Taylor Greene) as far-right due to a preponderance of reliable secondary sources referring to them as such, but I don't believe it's as common to see Trump himself referred to as far right, but there are still a significant number of sources that have thrown around this label. We can instead say that Trump has been credited with catalyzing a rightward shift in the Republican party.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No per Bill Williams; Trump is definitely a populist, perhaps even an extremist (removed of moral implications), but certainly not far-right. Does he throw a bone to them once and while with his rhetoric? Of course, after all they were some of the first to come to support him. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No for reasons outlined above AlloDoon (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No according to Wikipedia itself, far-right describes fascism, neo-fascism, nazism, neo-nazism falangism, and racial supremacism. None of those qualities describes Trump. Master106 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually, WP:RS have used these describers for Trump. See Robert Paxton, a leading fascism scholar, who has labeled Trump as fascist. Paxton piece TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No one who is for fair and democratic elections is a fascist. No one for freedom of speech is a fascist. No one who is for a government that is for the people and by the people is a fascist. Trump is just not a fascist by any way shape or form. If an expert is claiming this, I question how they got their credentials. Master106 (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    From his wiki article: "he received a B.A. from Washington and Lee University in 1954. Later, he won a Rhodes Scholarship and spent two years earning an M.A. at Merton College, Oxford, where he studied under historians including James Joll and John Roberts. He earned a Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1963. Paxton taught at the University of California, Berkeley and the State University of New York at Stony Brook before joining the faculty of Columbia University in 1969. He served there for the remainder of his career, retiring in 1997. He remains a professor emeritus." Plus he's the author of The Anatomy of Fascism. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My statement still stands. Master106 (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Trump doesn't support free and fair elections. He tried to say that the 2020 election was rigged and then tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power. He said frankly, he did win. Andre🚐 05:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    He questioned the results of the election, something that is common for people running for president to do. When it was certified for Biden, he conceded and stepped down. Master106 (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was a lot more than that. He filed about 60 lawsuits. Not to mention he had an alternate electors plan. Oh yeah and he got his supporters to march into the Capitol and try to disrupt the process of certifying the election. He tried really hard to subvert the democratic process. Andre🚐 02:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Makes sense if you are suspicious of the election results. Also, he did not intend for people to go into the Capitol to disrupt the certification process. Now you are just making things up to make him seem like he was against the democratic process. Master106 (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am not making anything up. The January 6 hearings clearly covered this. There was a whole process and he WAS against the democratic process. He tried very hard to stay in power. Andre🚐 22:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    When it was certified for Biden, he conceded and stepped down That seems to miss a bit of what actually happened there. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes. Reliable sources describe him as far-right and that is all we need. Also, his behaviour and actions, especially towards the end of his presidency, clearly show him as behaving as an authoritarian personality, restrained only by the United States Constitution.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes A strong Yes based on what I have seen in the media, what I have read, and what I have read in this request for opinions. Sectionworker (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about dating Trump is "closely associated with the present-day dat right", as this *is* in line with what the RS say? (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No- Many reliable sources refer to Trump as a populist, such as: Since Wikipedia identifies the far right mostly as fascist movements, referring to Trump as far right is clearly deluded. The man supports free speech and democracy. If filing lawsuits over an election you feel was fraudulent makes you anti-democracy, Al Gore was anti-democracy as well. Thespearthrower (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source survey[edit]

Please add sources to the source survey below to further discussion.

Clearly identify Donald Trump as far-right

  • Dathi, Samir, and Faulkner, NeilCreeping Fascism: Brexit, Trump, and the Rise of the Far Right. United Kingdom, Public Reading Rooms, 2017.
  • Lise Esther Herman, James Muldoon. Trumping the Mainstream: The Conquest of Democratic Politics by the Populist Radical Right. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2018.
Journal Articles
  • Cas Mudde. "The Far-Right Threat in the United States: A European Perspective". The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. March 16, 2022 "I argue that Trump in many ways fits the “fourth wave” of postwar far-right politics, lay out the unique challenge that the United States is facing in terms of democratic erosion, and draw on the case of Viktor Orbán in Hungary to learn lessons for the United States. The article ends with some suggestions of how democrats (not just Democrats) should address the far-right Republican challenge to U.S. democracy."
  • Inderjeet Parmar & Thomas Furse. "The Far-Right in World Politics The Trump administration, the far-right and world politics". Globalization. 23 Nov 2021. "We contend that the Trump administration mainstreamed far-right politics"
  • Christian Fuchs. "How Did Donald Trump Incite a Coup Attempt?". "Trump built up a high level of aggression among his followers step-by-step using socialmedia, speeches, interviews, press conferences, etc. He is a highly mediated far-right politician"
  • Martin Hultman, Anna Björk, Tamya Viinikka. "The Far Right and Climate Change Denial". "Most obvious and explicitly illustrated by the politics of the Trump administration in the US, but also evident in Europe, far-right nationalism have merged with climate change denialism."
  • Melina Moreira Campos Lima. “International Law under Far-Right Governments: A Comparison between the Administrations of Donald Trump and Bolsonaro.” Sequência: Estudos Juridicos e Politicos, vol. 43, no. 90, July 2022. EBSCOhost,
  • Casarões, Guilherme, and David Magalhães. “The Hydroxychloroquine Alliance: How Far-Right Leaders and Alt-Science Preachers Came Together to Promote a Miracle Drug.” RAP: Revista Brasileira de Administração Pública, vol. 55, no. 1, Jan. 2021, pp. 197–214. EBSCOhost,
  • “American Far Right Ideologies Have Spread to Europe.” Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale, vol. 29, no. 2, May 2021, pp. 344–46. EBSCOhost,
  • Miller-Idriss, Cynthia. “Afterword: Whither Gender and the Far Right?” Politics, Religion & Ideology, vol. 21, no. 4, Dec. 2020, pp. 487–92. EBSCOhost,

Passing mention of Donald Trump as far-right

  • Lacatus, Corina, and Gustav Meibauer. “Introduction to the Special Issue: Elections, Rhetoric and American Foreign Policy in the Age of Donald Trump.” Politics, vol. 41, no. 1, Feb. 2021, pp. 3–14. EBSCOhost, "They examine the main tropes Trump has used to advance an image of the US that is infused with far-right populist ideas, presenting it as militarily and financially powerful and, all the while, a victim of other states' pursuit of their national interests...."

Clearly identify Donald Trump as right-wing

Journal articles


  • @GoodDay: The discussion right above and the discussion in March deal with describing Trump as "far-right" not simply "right-wing". I think you should correct this in the RfC prompt. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good eye, there. I've made the corrections. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before I make a formal !vote on this issue, I would like for the pro-inclusion side to present solid WP:RS that describe Trump's ideologies as "far-right". (I have struggled to find it myself) I do believe contentious labels can be used in BLP's, but they should be very much grounded in extensive RS; see MOS:LABEL. Once such sourcing is provided, I'll decide if it's good enough to describe him as such in this article and the categories. Andrevan, you stated such sourcing does exist; will you please share it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They examine the main tropes Trump has used to advance an image of the US that is infused with far-right populist ideas, presenting it as militarily and financially powerful and, all the while, a victim of other states' pursuit of their national interests.... Lacatus, Corina, and Gustav Meibauer. “Introduction to the Special Issue: Elections, Rhetoric and American Foreign Policy in the Age of Donald Trump.” Politics, vol. 41, no. 1, Feb. 2021, pp. 3–14. EBSCOhost,
Trump in many ways fits the “fourth wave” of postwar far-right politics The Far-Right Threat in the United States: A European Perspective. Cas Mudde March 16, 2022
We contend that the Trump administration mainstreamed far-right politics The Far-Right in World Politics The Trump administration, the far-right and world politics 23 Nov 2021
Dathi, Samir, and Faulkner, Neil. Creeping Fascism: Brexit, Trump, and the Rise of the Far Right. United Kingdom, Public Reading Rooms, 2017.
Trumping the Mainstream: The Conquest of Democratic Politics by the Populist Radical Right. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2018.
Trump built up a high level of aggression among his followers step-by-step using socialmedia, speeches, interviews, press conferences, etc. He is a highly mediated far-right politician [1]
Most obvious and explicitly illustrated by the politics of the Trump administration in the US, but also evident in Europe, far-right nationalism have merged with climate change denialism.[2]
Shermer, Elizabeth Tandy. "Party Crashers: How Far-Right Demagogues Took Over the GOP." Dissent, vol. 64 no. 2, 2017, p. 147-151. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/dss.2017.0047.

Below sources all refer to Trump's politics as far-right in context.
Melina Moreira Campos Lima. “International Law under Far-Right Governments: A Comparison between the Administrations of Donald Trump and Bolsonaro.” Sequência: Estudos Juridicos e Politicos, vol. 43, no. 90, July 2022. EBSCOhost,
Casarões, Guilherme, and David Magalhães. “The Hydroxychloroquine Alliance: How Far-Right Leaders and Alt-Science Preachers Came Together to Promote a Miracle Drug.” RAP: Revista Brasileira de Administração Pública, vol. 55, no. 1, Jan. 2021, pp. 197–214. EBSCOhost,
“American Far Right Ideologies Have Spread to Europe.” Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale, vol. 29, no. 2, May 2021, pp. 344–46. EBSCOhost,
Miller-Idriss, Cynthia. “Afterword: Whither Gender and the Far Right?” Politics, Religion & Ideology, vol. 21, no. 4, Dec. 2020, pp. 487–92. EBSCOhost,

additionally, here are sources that refer to him as right-wing populist or illiberal populist:
Merkel 2017: In President Trump’s simplistic, Republican-populist view of the world, p. 21[3]
p. 22 Trump’s plans for economic policymaking are squarely in accord with the national-protectionist programs of most right-wing populist parties(ibid)
Schroeder 2018 p. 60 compares four right-wing populist movements: Donald Trump in America[4]
Lacatus/Meibower p.6 In the USA, the rise in support for right-wing populism, and Trump’s variant in particular [5]
McDonnell/Ondelli 2020: really the whole article is about the language of right-wing populists including Trump [6]
Fiorino 2022: Right there in the abstract: In recent years, the Republican Party in the United States has taken on the characteristics of right-wing populism, especially under President Donald Trump. Like most right-wing populist parties, the party under Trump is hostile to climate mitigation [7]
Introduction - Donald Trump’s Populism What Are the Prospects for US Democracy? "The victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 election left specialists of American politics perplexed and concerned about the future of US democracy. Because no populist leader had occupied the White House in 150 years, there were many questions about what to expect. Marshalling the long-standing expertise of leading specialists of populism elsewhere in the world, this book provides the first systematic, comparative analysis of the prospects for US democracy under Trump, considering the two regions - Europe and Latin America - that have had the most ample recent experiences with populist chief executives. Chapters analyze the conditions under which populism slides into illiberal or authoritarian rule and in so doing derive well-grounded insights and scenarios for the US case, as well as a more general cross-national framework. The book makes an original argument about the likely resilience of US democracy and its institutions" [8]
The Rhetoric of Donald Trump - Nationalist Populism and American Democracy - Robert C. Rowland The Rhetoric of Donald Trump identifies and analyzes the nationalist and populist themes that dominate the rhetoric of President Trump and links those themes to a persona that has evolved from celebrity outsider to presidential strongman. In the process Robert C. Rowland explains how the nationalist populism and strongman persona in turn demands a vernacular rhetorical style... [9]
Donald Trump and American Populism Edinburgh University Press Populist disrupter-in-chief 2020 On November 8, 2016 Republican standard-bearer Donald J. Trump shook the American political landscape to its foundations.... The roots of Trump’s populism [10] [11]
Yes, Trump is a populist. But what does that mean?Review of "What Is Populism" by Jan-Werner Müller and "The Populist Explosion: How the Great Recession Transformed American and European Politics" by John B. Judis By Carlos Lozada[12]
The New Authoritarianism: Trump, Populism, and the Tyranny of Experts .. populism represents, contends Babones, an imperfect but reinvigorating political flood that has the potential to sweep away decades of institutional detritus and rejuvenate democracy across the West.[13] Andrevan@ 05:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andrevan: thank you for the sourcing. I will review the ones that I can access and are in English. I will say I will not view the ones concerning "right-wing populist" and "illiberal populist" since they are not the concern of this RfC. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I'd say he should be described as both but we can talk about that later. Cas Mudde has a book and articles as well. ‘Trump normalised the far right by simply holding the position of President of the United States’ [14] "The Far Right Today" The far right is back with a vengeance. After several decades at the political margins, far-right politics has again taken center stage. Three of the world’s largest democracies – Brazil, India, and the United States – now have a radical right leader, while far-right parties continue to increase their profile and support within Europe. In this timely book, leading global expert on political extremism Cas Mudde provides a concise overview of the fourth wave of postwar far-right politic [15] book review of "Creeping Fascism" Neil Faulkner (archaeologist)[16](so you can see what it's about) Andrevan@ 05:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that these sources are by no means the only descriptions of Donald Trump as "far-right," "extreme right," "right-wing extremist," that exist. There are many other descriptions in RS news articles as well as in other books and journal articles. I also will challenge those who claim that Donald Trump is somehow transcendent of the normal political spectrum, to offer sources to support the claim that Trump is moderate right, center, or left, versus being far-right/extreme right. Andrevan@ 15:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also will challenge those who claim that Donald Trump is somehow transcendent of the normal political spectrum, to offer sources to support the claim that Trump is moderate right, center, or left, versus being far-right/extreme right. Obviously WP:ONUS applies here but especially since this concerns WP:BLP we should exercise a high degree of caution before giving labels that are not widely supported. Even if Trump isn't a moderate that does not mean he is necessarily far-right/extreme right. Very few sources you provide directly call Trump far-right. In regards to Note that these sources are by no means the only descriptions of Donald Trump as "far-right," "extreme right," "right-wing extremist," that exist., I suggest you provide them. Anon0098 (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andrevan it would be appreciated if you or someone else provided news article references that say Trump is far-right since most of this article is cited with those kind of sources. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just provided quite a few sources. I'd rather you speak about your thoughts on those before I look for more. Your reasoning and rationale are not valid, because academic sources like the ones I've offered are actually stronger and better than news sources for this kind of thing. Andrevan@ 22:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All right, thats fair. IMO, this contentious description should be widespread, and I would think if it's widespread, it would at least make some appearances in some reliable sources like The New York Times, Washington Post, etc. You did provide some samples of some academic references that say Trump has some far-right beliefs (some more associated him with far-right things than calling his ideologies far-right), but it seems like many prefer to say he's a populist or just right-wing or something less extreme. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's a Washington Post article that does equate Trumpism with far-right extremism (paywall): [17]. There are a number of mentions of Trump endorsing far-right Republicans which do not call him a far-right Republican, but then the articles go on to explain that they are far-right due to their support for Trump, goes more toward his movement being far-right than he himself.[18] Here are some more academic sources: "If you view Trump in a European context, he is certainly a far-right politician"R. Daniel Kelemen [[19] This one lumps Trump under "Extreme Right"[20] There's also Teitelbaum, Benjamin R.. War for Eternity: Inside Bannon's Far-Right Circle of Global Power Brokers. United States, HarperCollins, 2020. Andrevan@ 23:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Political positions of Donald Trump      Bob K31416 (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Trumpism SPECIFICO talk 22:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As many are pointing out. Trump is whatever his audience wants him to be. He just doesn't fit in one box. GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shall I add a citation needed tag every time someone says that? What source has every had trouble categorizing Trump? I think he's always staked out a very clear position on issues and has been quite easy to categorize. Can you offer any evidence to the contrary? Andrevan@ 01:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't bother, because you can't force a square peg into a round hole. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW - blugeoning editors who don't agree with you, is almost always counter-productive. If any thing, it makes editors dig in their heels. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1 Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would like to note that simply finding a source which says the words "far-right" does not qualify as reasoning to label Trump as far-right, unless they go into a more in-depth analysis on the subject, which we could then add to the body of the article. For example [21] this absolute joke of an article labels Mayra Flores as far-right, but provides zero justification for doing so, besides her being religious, which is hundreds of people in Congress, and her tweeting a few hashtags to gain more views, which she explicitly stated were not hashtags of her beliefs. Labeling Trump as "far-right" based on an article similar to this would be wildly unfair, so I would like to see detailed analysis of Trump's political positions and why they are far-right if the article labels him as such, as all of his views are described in detail on this article. Bill Williams 20:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe they looked at her website where the key policy message is "God, as in "Jesus". SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    She represents religious Catholics in South Texas, is she supposed to be an atheist? Absolutely nothing she has said is "far-right" unless you think every Catholic who believes in God, as in Jesus, is far-right. I guess Biden is too. Bill Williams 20:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Bill Williams: you'll find that bringing NPoV to American political bios (particularly BLPs), is a difficult task. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is true, but my point is an article that simply labels someone "far-right" without a detailed analysis cannot be used to label Donald Trump as far-right. Bill Williams 20:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Bringing up unrelated nonsense is not apt to be convincing. I find your dragging Catholics and Biden and South Texas and everything else into the issue quite offensive. You are on a public website where editors may be offended at views you and your real life cohort take for granted. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are the one who tried to claim Mayra Flores is far-right for being a Catholic when you said her campaign includes her belief in God. I think plenty of Catholics would find your painting of them as "far-right" quite offensive. Anyway, my point still stands that Mayra Flores' New York Times article is a great example of how the media overuses the term "far-right" and any sources that are used here need to actually analyze the beliefs of the politician and not simply label them far-right. Bill Williams 21:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never said any such thing. It was you who dragged her Catholicism into this. This is the second time that I have had to express my deep displeasure at your having smeared her Catholicism. Please review this little thread and see whether you have anything more cogent to offer. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War RoomDonald Trump far-right politician RFC! Andrevan@ 23:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would also note that in articles about politicians, we generally mention their party affiliation only, except when they have none or have been involved in a series of similar parties. We don't say for example that Joe Biden is a liberal politician or Kier Starmer is a democratic socialist politician. TFD (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keir Starmer is a moderate isn't he? Or at least opposed to socialism. Regardless, we do describe in some cases where academic and scholarly consensus is clear, for example Eugene V. Debs is in categories for being a left-wing and socialist politician. That's probably because Eugene Debs was relatively outside the mainstream and easy to categorize. Another example is Rutherford B. Hayes, a staunch radical abolitionist. Or François Mitterrand. In terms of a contemporary example I'd say Marine Le Pen, Rodrigo Duterte, Jair Bolsonaro or Geert Wilders. Maybe you meant this socialist British PM: Jeremy Corbyn is a British politician who served as Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Labour Party from 2015 to 2020. On the political left of the Labour Party, Corbyn describes himself as a socialist. Andrevan@ 20:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added a survey of sources discussed in the discussion page in a new section above. If other editors would like to add sources to it please do, I didn't go out looking for new ones just pulled them from prior discussion. After reading this thread, it seems odd that the majority of WP:RS linked above describe him as far-right. With the amount of editor opposition it seems like there should be more discussion of WP:RS that describe Trump as something other than far right or even better, sources that argue he is not far right. Shouldn't the discussion center more on what WP:RS say?--TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, of course, and I think you hit the nail on the head. So far on this RFC, I think we have a large contingent of editors that believe that the WP:BLP policy means that we can't call a WP:SPADE unless more sources by quantity start getting in line with calling Trump far-right. This, to me, is not at all what the BLP policy is for, or the WP:WEIGHT/BALANCINGASPECTS policy, it's not an attack to call someone far-right, it's just a question of what sources say. If enough reliable academic experts are calling Trump far-right, and nobody is rebutting that or disputing it, that deserves at least an attributed mention here and a categorization as such. Yet, we are told that BLP prevents such things, despite the policy not saying that. I've never seen a single source that describes Trump as "moderate," "center-right," "moderate right," let alone left, yet here we have editors offering that Trump defies categorization or that he transcends the spectrum, but when challenged to provide WP:RS, claim WP:BLUDGEONing. I also have no hope that a closing admin or editor will discount the comments that cite invalid policy or rationale. There are simply too many editors who are mistaken in their interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. They figure that the article explains that Trump is far-right and a fascist without going so far as calling him that, even though Wikipedia policy does not prevent political descriptors on BLP, it simply says they should be attributed and given appropriate proportion. I would like to see that Trump be described as flatly far-right (or that many scholars), and that some consider him a fascist, that is DUE here. Andrevan@ 21:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the fascism label is probably outside this RFC, but in case other editors want to see sources this article by scholar Robert Paxton is probably one of the most widely cited. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, this RFC was not started by me though I guess I helped to prompt it, and simply asks for Trump to be a 'far-right politician' for article body and categorization (not even in the lead section), my point is that many editors have claimed in the RFC so far that any political label, that could be construed negatively, is UNDUE in a BLP unless near-unanimity is met, to try to summarize what was mentioned above. I also recently heard an argument that it could be an NPOV violation to put something overly unpopular in a BLP unless the majority of sources cover that information. The example was given above (not pinging this user to avoid badgering/blugeoning them) of Fidel Castro RFC not wanting to call him a dictator. Whereas I would argue that one's political view, if sufficiently cited in a preponderance of reliable sources, and not rebutted as such, is critical to a BLP. However currently, for whatever reason, that is not the consensus view in this discussion. Andrevan@ 22:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am curious as to why I was accused of bludgeoning by replying to three opposing comments when SPECIFICO has replied to seven. Bill Williams 16:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. 😊 Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abraham Accords and NATO[edit]

It seems extraordinary that no mention is made of the Abraham Accords brokered under Trump's auspices, which unbiased commentators regard as the signature foreign policy achievement of his Presidency. I won't attempt to provide sources from the thousands available, nor do I wish to get involved in edit wars with those who have unlimited time to be contentious.

The section on NATO makes no reference to his demands that other members meet their budgetary commitments, a stance which has proved prescient. Again there will be ample source material. Chrismorey (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've no objections to its being added. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has been discussed at least twice in the recent past. Please check the archives and see whether you have a new perspective on it. Note: This is Trump's biography, so although this content is covered in his Presidency and other articles, it may have little to do with Trump himself. We do have a photo of him with the crystal ball in Saudi Arabia. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SPECIFICO: Do you not think the more recent coverage of the Abraham Accords may make this time different than the former discussions? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the Abraham Accords deserve at least a mention at this point. The Israel paragraph is short, and it wouldn't hurt anything to add another sentence. The Abraham Accords have sustained coverage. It's been covered in the last few weeks in RS, see NPR, Independent, The Hill, and NPR again. If the Accords remain impactful and newsworthy 2 years later surely they deserve a sentence here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree if sources are covering it, it could be mentioned somewhere. Andrevan@ 18:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not in this bio. It's already in the Presidency and Administration articles. Nobody has ever denied their existence or the fact that they have been reported in media. SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not everything about Donald Trump that has a source needs to be in the main Donald Trump article if there is a better article for covering it. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About those two NPR sources: one is a July 9, 2022, article by NPR WH correspondent Khalid, the other one is the transcript of Khalid discussing the subject on NPR's morning edition on July 9, 2022, i.e., one source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Numerous sources cover it and so should this article. There are many more minor foreign policy involvements that are covered in this article, but the Abraham Accords are major policy changes regarding the relations between the U.S., Israel, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. The resulting diplomatic ties turned into increased economic and military cooperation in the open, on the scale of billions of dollars. Bill Williams 21:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal A[edit]

There seems to be some support for mentioning the Abraham Accords. I've come up with this proposal:

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.[1]


Any thoughts? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems alright to me. Andrevan@ 22:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've BOLDly added the proposal. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No objections from me. But I just might faint, if it's not reverted. GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We've been over this in the past and every time there was consensus against name-dropping the Abraham Accords in Trump's biography. Interestingly enough, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, you yourself denied a request for its addition not 3 months ago. Zaathras (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zaathras: Yes I did. I've explained above the recent developments that have changed my mind. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Abraham Accords were name dropped in the primetime Jan 6 hearings yesterday which may account for some of their perceived rise in notoriety. Andrevan@ 02:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually haven't hear about the Abraham Accords being mentioned in the Jan. 6 hearings. I was referring the recent sourcing indicating Biden has embraced them, which makes me believe they are having a somewhat significant influence on foreign affairs. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of these sources indicate it is of personal significance to the life and biography of Donald Trump, which if people here need reminding, the man has had a 5-6 decade lifetime of events which this article has to cover. In only 4 of those years was he president. The Abraham Accords, overblown as they actually are, are relevant to the Presidency of Donald Trump. Not Trump the man. Zaathras (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Repeatedly rejected. Should go on the consensus list so we stop wasting time on this. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't reviewed the prior conversation, but consensus can change. I'm not sure it has in this case. It seems that there are at least 2 editors trying to reopen this, but they have more work to do if they have new information to provide. It was also a Jeopardy! clue this week (not that that goes to notability of course). I understand the argument that it's about his presidency and not the man himself. On the other hand, he signed it, he claims to have some part in it (or Jared Kushner did perhaps? I heard Jared was in charge of that area?) If there were sources that provided more information about how much or little involvement Trump had diplomatically in what he or his biographers or historians claims is one of his key foreign policy achievements, that I think strengthens an argument for inclusion. So perhaps Iamreallygoodatcheckers may want to spend some time in the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Library or the actual library or just on Wikipedia itself reading, and come up with a concrete view as to the pivotal relevance if some does in fact start to emerge as we gain distance from the events. There's actually quite a lot of interesting information that I've read from Seth Abramson about the UAE that I think is sort of peripherally related but probably pretty WP:FRINGE. Still, I think, it's both a legitimate argument to discuss the supposed new information, and if consensus has not changed, move on.Andrevan@ 03:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I would refer to the already established consensus on this and don't see that the conditions for the consensus changing are met.
The cited reliable sources usually refer to this as Trump-era and cast doubt as to the involvement of the Trump admin. It appears to me that this was pretty much a done deal and Trump admin simply adopted it. As such, this should not be placed on the Trump article but might be considered for the Trump presidency article. The only fact we can establish from those sources is that Trump aggressively touted this as his achievement. That alone, however, does not make it his achievement. There is no reason to include this in his personal bio. CrazyPredictor (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are such accomplishments in the US presidential BLPs of Carter, Clinton, Bush (43), Obama & Biden? GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes they are, their Israel policy is listed in detail in each of their articles. The Abraham Accords are much more significant than the only thing about Israel in this article, which is recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, versus four significant Middle Eastern and North African countries recognizing Israel as a fellow country. Morocco and Sudan should also be mentioned in addition to Bahrain and UAE, as adding one sentence of significant information is worth it. Bill Williams 01:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that is so? Why is Trump being singled out for exclusion of such an accomplishment? It's alright for them, but not for him? GoodDay (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those other presidents mentioned had an active hand in the negotiations. Trump's hand made one phonecall and signed one piece of paper. Zaathras (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support inclusion per above rationales. Might need another RfC on this one Anon0098 (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What rationale? Trump was not involved in this. Why put it in his life story?: SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    An RFC? Sure go for it. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't seeing this being resolved in this discussion. An RfC is likely warranted. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We cannot launch an RfC every time an idea fails to change consensus. That is a really bad, wasteful use of editor resources. SPECIFICO talk 02:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Frequent entries about the Abraham Accords are also wasteful of resources and time. When an issue is raised many times on this talk and people have conflicting opinions, the only way to settle the issue is often with a RfC. Otherwise, this issue will likely plague this talk forever. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's what I'm thinking Anon0098 (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's been no new information or any previously overlooked rationale for including such content in Trump's biography. Unsupportable, false, comparisons to, e.g. The Camp David Accords indicate there's scant understanding of history and the respective past-POTUS' involvements in the events that are noteworhty for their biographies. Trump was not involved in the "Abraham Accords" except to sign them in a photo-op. Now, we could include text about the many times he's created such photo-ops, the more notable of which include the St. Johns Church bible debacle and the racially-charged Escalator Descent. But we are not going to craft an encyclopedic narrative by adopting his media branding exercises as if they were personal achievements. The lack of fact and historical background in the comments thus far is glaring. In fact, the last-minute tag "Abraham Accords" was just about the only part of the event that Trump actually signed off on -- again in a marketing/branding capacity. There has been no consensus for this on any of the many previous discussions. And the WP:ONUS for inclusion of content is on the advocates. Articles will not be improved by forum-shopping and repetitive polls or even an RfC after recent failure to include. And there are many forum-shopping alternatives before an RfC, which is not even likely to address the key WP:WEIGHT issue. NPOVN would be one of them. SPECIFICO talk 12:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If anyone does open an RFC on this matter? I'll attend. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose. If anywhere, it would belong in Presidency of Donald Trump, and that article says in the lead that The administration ... brokered the Abraham Accords. It doesn't mention the signing ceremony at all. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In that article, see the section Presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Israel_/_Palestine and the refs there 644 645, which attribute the success to Trump specifically, rather than just his administration. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] is a slanted opinion piece of a member of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, note the whining paragraph about Biden. Also, it only discusses the deal in the context of being a polit8cal victory for Trump. it does not attribute the success to Trump specifically. The Times of Israel notes that Netanyahu, a right-wing compatriot of the former president, "hails Trump" for the deal. So, an opinion, thus irrelevant. Zaathras (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The article 644 begins with criticism of Trump's previous claims of success in other areas, so it does not appear slanted towards Trump. The title, "The Israel-UAE Deal Is Trump’s First Unambiguous Diplomatic Success", specifically attributes the success to Trump. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A "diplomatic success" is credited to the administration, not the man, as he engaged in no personal diplomacy. You are reading something into the citation that isn't there. Zaathras (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I note that you wrote the truncated "diplomatic success" and not "Trump's diplomatic success", which was in the title. I expect you'll have some sort of rebuttal, but this is enough of this discussion for me. Bye. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It wasn't necessary as we all know who we're talking about, but nonetheless I accept your concession of the point. Zaathras (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. The reasons for exclusion are entirely partisan and/or anti-Trump, if we’re honest about it. I came across the same exclusion of the Abraham Accords at the Mike Pompeo BLP. Hopefully in a decade or two, the partisans will leave this article. But they’ll just move on to the next one. This is an incessantly recurring structural problem with Wikipedia. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note for the RfC closer, the above is not a vote to be counted, as it contains no policy or guideline reasons. It instead rests on uncivil aspersions cast upon other editors. Zaathras (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note for RFC closer and User:Zaathras, the pertinence of the Abraham Accords to the biography of Donald Trump is blindingly obvious. Consider, for example, this reliable source: Ward, Alexander; Toosi, Nahal; and Lemire, Jonathan. "The one word Biden won’t say in Israel; Try as he might, the president can’t escape the impact that Donald Trump had in the region", Politico (13 July 2022): "[T]he Abraham Accords [were] a Trump-backed effort to improve Israel’s relations with other Arab countries and better integrate it economically, diplomatically and otherwise into the Middle East. Those accords were brokered by the Trump White House, and they’ve normalized relations between Israel and a number of Arab countries, including Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Morocco. Arab nations had long made it clear that they would not negotiate with Israel until the Palestinians received an independent state of their own. But the Abraham Accords showed that Arab-Israeli relations could be decoupled from the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The Biden White House wants to build on what Trump started. 'We strongly support the Abraham Accords and normalization agreements between Israel and countries in the Arab and Muslim worlds,' an administration official told POLITICO. Biden aides privately concede that Trump’s deals have helped lower the temperature in the Middle East…." Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is not responsive to the central point. Trump had nothing to do with this. His administration accepted it. Trump himself could not even tell you what it was. SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree that various partisan opinions do blatantly contradict reliable sources such as the reliable secondary source that I just quoted at length. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    a Trump-backed effort, meaning he agreed to it, gives no indication of his direct hand. Those accords were brokered by the Trump White House, meaning Jared Kushner's team. Zaathras (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I’m sure you’d be exerting every effort to delete all the lousy arguments and ideas that originated not with Trump, but with Giuliani, Navarro, Bannon, Stone, etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    First, this is not an RFC. No one has opened one either. Second, to attribute credit to Trump for the accords in this Trump biography article is synthesis and essentially orginal research. And, finally, this conversation is really tedious. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Don’t tell me, write a letter to Politico. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We don't need to, as we can plainly see that the citation does not say what you are misrepresenting it to be. Zaathras (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I 100% agree with User:Steve Quinn that this discussion has become really tedious, bye. As much as I enjoy pounding my head against a brick wall, bye. Enjoy your evening, bye. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - as it occurred during the Trump administration. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So did the California wildfires. SPECIFICO talk 06:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So did hurricanes. [22], [23]. I was just thinking if Sharpie-gate isn't in this article, then maybe it should be :) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Kentucky Derby scandal? SPECIFICO talk 17:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Currently in the section Israel there is an item that begins, "Under Trump, the U.S. recognized ..." . Under Trump, the U.S. brokered the Abraham Accords. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Shorthand for "Under the Trump administration...", yes. Zaathras (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Here are the two items put together.
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. Also under Trump, the U.S. brokered the Abraham Accords, which formally normalized relations between Israel and the Arab states of United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.
Bob K31416 (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I take it this is not an RFC, but it is a proposal on the table to determine consensus. Is that correct? So it carries the weight of an RFC if this is being used to determine consensus. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No that's not really the case. This is a standard discussion, Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 02:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You think that if this poll favored inclusion, it couldn't establish a new consensus, overturning the current consensus to omit? Then why do it? SPECIFICO talk 03:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is not a consensus to omit right now and there's not a consensus to include. The purpose was not to be a poll, though it has turned into that. IMO, this discussion has not reached an agreement or a consensus. In theory, when a discussion hasn't reached a clear consensus, the next move is a RfC so outsiders can give input. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 03:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, that is not the "next step". That is beating a dead horse. After 3-4 tries, with no reasoned arguments to include, the matter should be dropped. SPECIFICO talk 09:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The RfC was about adding three sentences on Trump announcing agreements between the UAE and Israel, Bahrain and Israel, and Sudan and Israel. I believe the rule is that if there's no consensus to include, it's status quo ante? Your proposed sentence is about a signing ceremony, and the document the four men signed was the Abraham Accords Declaration, a weirdly worded document you can read here. Trump also put his signature on the "Peace Agreements" between Israel and the UAE and between Israel and Bahrain, two countries whith whom Israel had never been at war, but he was a witness, not a signatory to the agreements. It was a publicity stunt to benefit Trump's reelection campaign. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also, there is RS reporting that the Trump staff cooked up the "Abraham Accords" name for the purpose of media promotion and had little or no other involvement. Also, also: if we get into these agreements we would likely be using sources that go into Jared's 9 figure fundraising from the Arab sovereign wealth funds. But anyway, all this should go in other articles. SPECIFICO talk 12:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This "press-shy" and very talkative former general and current senior partner at Kushner’s $3 billion Saudi-funded Affinity Partners says the name South Lawn Accords North Lawn Accords Bedminster Accords Trump Accords Abraham Accords came to him out of nowhere half an hour before the announcement on August 13. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Chrismorey: should you consider opening up an RFC on this topic. Would you ping me about it? I no longer have this page (or Biden's) on my watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At this point, that would be disruptive for a number of reasons, some of which have been stated above. You have not presented any source-and-policy-based rationale for including this in his life story biography article here, just personal opinion and false whataboutism. I'd strongly caution against that. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are you telling me this? I'm not planning an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support having this in the article, it was an accomplishment by Trump and any claim that it wasn't has zero evidence as the vast majority of sources credit it to Trump. [24][25][26] took me a minute to find these and numerous more could easily be linked. Bill Williams 03:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per Bill Williams above. Pavlor (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose opening an RfC for this as per my reply to this proposal above. CrazyPredictor (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It seems like the intro clearly violates WP:LEADCITE: "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." Many of the statements in the lead have been challenged, just look at the talk page. Why is this article allowed to violate this guideline by having no citations in the lead? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's extensive negotiation and consensus. See Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias and the FAQ at the top or check out the talk history. Everything is well-established and cited in the article body and simply summarized in the lede. Challenges were resolved through discussion and consensus. Do you have something in particular that you wanted to discuss or can the FAQ and notes cover it? Andrevan@ 20:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not saying it's biased, I'm just saying it violates this guideline. Many people have disagreed with some statements, so it must have citations in the lead. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a consensus to use in line citations in the lead for contentious claims (see item 58). I would encourage you to be BOLD and add a citation to a claim you see as contentious. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would highly discourage your encouraging an editor to unilaterally make changes to the lede, as we all know how that will wind up. There will always be a handful of complainers who groan about every line in the opening section, we do not need to achieve 100% happiness here. Zaathras (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also encourage you to either be bold and add a citation, writing in the edit summary about item 58 of the consensus, or start a thread about an edit you would like. If they revert when being bold, start a talk page thread explaining your rationale backed up by consensus. Just ignore uncivil comments by some editors, because some are rude and willfully ignore the civility policy. Maybe they have a tough time in their personal lives and don't have the strength to be cordial. I don't know. --Thinker78 (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just ignore uncivil comments by some editors is a very interesting comment, my friend Thinker78. Because I certainly see you casting aspersions (Maybe they have a tough time in their personal lives) on unnamed editors personal lives. So shall we ignore you? Zaathras (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thinker, can you not high road everyone and pretend we aren’t trying to make Wikipedia a better place? The vast majority of regular editors here do it in good faith. No need to passive aggressively undermine the intent of your collaborators. Tyrone (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bad sentence structure in lead[edit]

> He won the 2016 United States presidential election as the Republican nominee against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton >but lost the popular vote,[a] becoming The focus is now on what happens because he lost the popular vote >the first U.S. president with no prior military or government service. This is not a consequence of that, and it relates back to the first chunk.

Put the popular vote part elsewhere; it doesn’t fit here (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not? Also that has nothing to do with bad sentence structure. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well he did lose the popular vote (technically, nobody won that vote, as nobody got over 50%) & he was the first US prez, to enter office without prior government or military experience. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is not what's meant by "win the popular vote." SPECIFICO talk 14:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP, the sentence's structure doesn't require changes. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the IP right; it's a poorly written sentence. Trump did not become the first U.S. president with no prior military or government service because he lost the popular vote. They should be two separate sentences. Station1 (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can't just isolate on the last 4 words of the first clause like that and pretend the first part is invisible, not how English works. Strip the adjectives for a moment, we get ---- He won the election but lost the popular vote, becoming the first U.S. president with no prior military or government service. It discusses electoral vs. popular vote, and being the firs president with no experience. Clear and concise. Those who are protesting here are essentially inferring there is a "thus" (which denotes causality) where none actually exists. Zaathras (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It’s a technically sound sentence that makes no sense conventionally, ie bad writing. You can put a “despite” in there if you’d like. Otherwise, keeping it as one sentence is middle-school tier handiwork. Goblintear (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It makes perfect sense, it is why the sentence is split. Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand. People make the strangest mountains out of molehills here. Zaathras (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One sentence is fine.Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with IP that this sentence needs to be re-written. It is notable that Trump is someone who was elected President without winning the popular vote however the way the sentence is written ties it so closely to his election that it makes it sound like a pot shot from writers who dislike Trump: "Well, he was elected President, BUT he didn't win the popular vote, so there!" I think George W. Bush's article handles this better where the language is simply "He became the fourth person to be elected president without a popular vote victory." The current language in the Trump lead seems to imply that there is something unusual or systematically abnormal about winning a U.S. presidential election without winning the popular vote, which is not the case as winning the popular vote is not the goal of a U.S. presidential campaign and never has been. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
seems to imply that there is something unusual or systematically abnormal about..., well yes, it is unusual, which is why many reliable sources took note of it. The sentence is fine as-is. Zaathras (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that this comes across as a potshot.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does "but did not win the popular vote" compare to "but lost the..."? Jr8825Talk 09:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like Basil’s suggestion. Keeping the wording consistent with other presidents who find themselves elected without winning the popular vote is a good way to go about things. Tyrone (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dealing with complaints of bias[edit]

IMO there are too many replies by experienced editors, each time an IP or newcomer complains that the page is biased, anti-Trump, etc. without specific examples, requests, or recommendations.

I suggest we all adopt a first response to refer such queries and complaints to our FAQ and the link that will explain why the article content may appear POV to a reader. It wastes valuable editor resources for one or more editors to engage in repetitive threads that explain these issues to newcomers (good faith or not) when we've already taken the time and effort to write a general reply as a first step. Then any follow-up should address the specific concerns that the newcomer may articulate after having read the FAQ and explanation linked there.

I'd like to see us all give this an extended trial and free up editor time for article improvements. SPECIFICO talk 13:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, and I think this also helps avoid the occasionally snarky replies from experienced editors which might push away well-meaning newcomers. — Czello 13:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See my suggestion in the preceding discussion. We Wiki-vets on this BLP, need to step back & allow outsiders or new editors to step in. Having the same roughly 10 editors show up for nearly every discussion, makes any changes to this BLP a struggle of sorts. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, the editing pool can become a bit stagnant and consensus can be difficult to overturn. Sometimes articles this contentious can enter oligarchical WP:OWN territory which is a roadblock for newer editors. That said, how can we encourage vets to step back and newer editors to step up? — Czello 14:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A group pledge would be required from us editors-in-question, to step back away from this BLP & other high profile American politician BLPs. We would of course, be allowed to revert vandalism or fix spelling mistakes & other gnome requirements. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which (of course) would be the problem, what would constitute vandalism, the deliberate insert9ion of (for example) fluff or cruft? Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What we need is for uses who think this page is bias to actually give examples, and not vague assertions, that we can assess.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a recipe for disaster, to invite the least experienced, aggrieved advocates to take over while those of us who have researched the RS, collaborated among experienced editors with various alternative approaches and proposals, quit sharing what we've learned over many years' work. To see the absurdity of that proposal, @GoodDay:, consider that these newcomers evidently do not even read the talk page headers and the guidance there -- let alone our editorial PAG's. They need to be pointed to these resources and return with constructive input after having done so. SPECIFICO talk 14:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lets also not leave out, the page is protected, so they can't edit it (there is a reason for this), so they still have to come here, and ask experienced editors to make a change. The problem is this is never done, they never make actionable suggestions. So what do we do, just allow "this page is biased" discussion if violation of wp:soap or wp:forum? Ot is the suggestion to remove PP? Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
There's many other established editors who can handle such requests, concerns on these BLPs. I'd like to think that it's not only roughly 10 established editors, who monitor these articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have seen far too many good editors driven away from these types of pages because of the amount of work they have to put in just fielding "why is this page biased" questions, which can go nowhere other than "because RS are". But sure lets all agree to stay off this page for 48 hours, and lets see who will step up and answer those questions. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's many a reason why other established editors choose not to participate on pages like this, but I seriously doubt that the existing participation of editors is one. ––FormalDude talk 14:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Give it try (48 hr-break) & if it doesn't work? Then give Specifico's idea a go. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Lets also not leave out, the page is protected [...] So what do we do". @Slatersteven, for starters, be more welcoming of ips and new users and recognize their criticism properly, instead of try to shut them down immediately. Thinker78 (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If they make valid well thought out criticism fine, if they say "here is what is wrong and here is why" fine. But if it is just "you are biased" or "this is left-wing propaganda" (or whatever) that is not helpful, as it does not identify a real issue, it makes a judgment based upon the user's own bias. We can't answer every "this page is biased" (and that is all they in effect say" with "Please explain how", as it is a waste of time, as they never seem to go anywhere beyond "well you should stop using solely MSN" (or some such crap). See the thread below for what I am talking about, we can't action that as it goes against any number of policies (or come to that the one above). Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"See my suggestion in the preceding discussion". I do agree that there is a group of editors who have a certain view and are not necessarily welcoming of ips or new users who lobe criticism. Thinker78 (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The FAQ could say something like, "Wikipedia's policy requires that articles reflect how someone is portrayed in reliable sources. Trump is seen by experts as one of the worst presidents in U.S., history, using a demagogic appeal to racism, misogyny and xenophobia, who was an ineffective administrator and incited his followers to attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to his successor. The article however must maintain a neutral tone and not portray Trump in a worse light than reliable sources do. If you have any specific examples of where this has happened, please provide them." TFD (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TFD, if anything there should be in the pinned consensus thread a concise explanation of the NPOV and RS policies addressing accusations or concerns of bias and separately in a different item, individual controversial portions of the article can be included. Because including all those negative things to explain away bias criticism wouldn't be helpful. They should be included if there is consensus, in a line that simply points out it is the consensus that info is included. Thinker78 (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually do like this suggestion @TFD. Andrevan@ 01:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It seems exceedingly rare that IP and newcomers ever have good-faith complaints about this article, and I agree with SPECIFICO that it is a waste of editor time to entertain such clearly disruptive comments. ––FormalDude talk 14:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That I went through multiple-consecutive 'edit conflicts' to make my previous post, is another sign that we ourselves, might be a part of the problem. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the edit conflicts were caused by the immediate rush of longtime editors responding to your suggestion we empower the Trumpist POV arrivals. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not every IP or newbie that shows up here on the talkpage, is a Trump lover & we shouldn't always assume that they are. Just like not every IP or newbie who shows up at Joe Biden's talkpage, is a Biden hater. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this thread should be closed. The suggestion is not one we need to entertain. Andrevan@ 15:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GoodDay: Strawman. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
48-hrs, that's all I'm asking. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's another part of the problem. Closing (i.e. hatting) threads we don't like. It happens far too often & can be quite frustrating for editors (IP, newbie & established), who bring forward proposals. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is not a forum, people who come on here spouting whatever uninformed, not-supported-by-RS POV will find their threads closed. Popping in to say you think Wikipedia is left-bias isn't a valid comment, or doubting reliable source news from CNN which is a green source. If someone had valid, substantive concerns they would be addressed. Otherwise, disruptive and POV-pushing editing will not be encouraged. Andrevan@ 15:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah an example, below. Let's all try to not respond or hat that IP's proposal. Let another established editor (outside of us) handle it. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GoodDay, have you read our FAQ and the link provided inside it? SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
48-hours trial basis. That's all that's being asked. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you have not read what's linked -- i.e. the subject that we are discussing? SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andrevan. "Popping in to say you think Wikipedia is left-bias isn't a valid comment, or doubting reliable source news from CNN". In my opinion, I don't think your statement reflects Wikipedia guidance. Per WP:NEWSORG, "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors [...] Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." Thinker78 (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:RSN and WP:RSP exist, but to more directly address [w]hether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis, simply chiming in with "CNN sux!!!", "Hannity wuz right!!!" or some variation thereof is decidedly not an examination nor even the compelling start of one. Holding newer editors to a standard we'd expect from regular editors is in no way bad, and honestly tolerating those types of discussions just leads to people thinking it is acceptable and potentially doing it themselves. —Locke Coletc 19:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH, repeatedly questioning CNN or claiming that Fox News should be reliable is a form of disruptive editing and POV pushing. Andrevan@ 20:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GoodDay: I don't think every newcomer concern should be shut down, but the ones that are clearly going to lead no where should. For example, the one right above us wasn't going to lead to any meaningful change in this article. Now it's different if a new comer expresses a particular concern. We should treat those differently. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All I'm suggesting is that we tend to group own this BLP. It's a human trait, that we all have. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would agree sometimes more experienced editors form nearly an oligarchy. We as Wikipedia's should try to be welcoming to newcomers. Not hostile. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Straw man. SPECIFICO talk 22:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GoodDay. "Closing (i.e. hatting) threads we don't like. It happens far too often". I absolutely agree this is a huge problem. In my opinion it reflects the society at-large where wearing a political logo in the wrong neighborhood can get one insulted, assaulted, or worse. Thinker78 (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM please. This is for discussing the article not your own opinions on politics. Andrevan@ 20:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andrevan, I've been around this old 'pedia longer then most (if not) all of you. I know what can happen if/when an article comes under group ownership. It creates the impression that there is a bias, to IPs & Newbies who aren't trolling. Some do troll, but some don't. I'm just pointing out, let's be careful that we don't put up a figurative wall. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created my account in 2003, I became an admin in 2004, a year before you created your account. WP:OWN is clear that nobody owns articles. And we don't OWN this one. We are simply following policy. Andrevan@ 20:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FormalDude, "it is a waste of editor time to entertain such clearly disruptive comments". I think each editor can decide for themselves how they spend their time or who they want to reply to. Thinker78 (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with SPECIFICO. These threads complaining about bias never have and never will go anywhere. They just waste editors time. In fact, once the editor is directed to the FAQ and the link is provided, I think the whole thread should just be shut down to prevent anymore time wasted. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur. Andrevan@ 16:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So your "trial balloon" thread is the "trump is actually a liberal" one? Egads... ValarianB (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say it is perfect, as it would nicely demonstrate why this is a bad idea. Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, with condition. I think it is a good proposal, only if it is not used to provide more censorship. I would agree with it being a first reply, followed by an invitation to ask questions if there are any doubts, and maybe collect a FAQ for those doubts as well to add it to the standard response. But something that shouldn't be done is just provide the standard response and close the discussion. Thinker78 (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC) Edited 15:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one is being censored but everyone has to obey policy, and that includes not using this talk page as a wp:forum or wp:soapbox to tell us how crap we are (for example). If people are just saying "You are biased fix it", that is not helpful, and it gets pretty tiresome every few days (in some cases) having to say (over and over again) "you need to point out the bias, we cannot guess what you mean". Suck talk page comments are not helpful. Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Slatersteven, "and it gets pretty tiresome every few days (in some cases) having to say (over and over again) "you need to point out the bias", so why don't you just ignore those threads instead of replying the same thing over and over or taking the time to close those threads? You are not making sense. Thinker78 (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Becasue they still take time to read. And we can't allow vague random accusations to go unanswered as that means people might then think they are valid points, so we have to say why they are not. Nor can we allow accusations of bias to go unchallenged. Personally, it would just save time to just delete any of these one "you are biased" threads. And I am now leaning towards that, as you are correct, why shous we waste time dealing with disingenuous comments that violate wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thinker78: Re why don't you just ignore those threads Have you seen Poseidon (film)? Wikipedia is the boat. If we did as you suggest an exponentially rising wave of screeching bullshit would sink us. But by all means, head to village pump and propose the WP:TPG have the part about removing harmful posts deleted. That will be entertaining. I'll bring popcorn. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing good ever comes from those who cry "censorship" in the talk pages of political articles. Nor do such editors tend to last very long in the topic area. Zaathras (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, considering the number of articles we have like Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, Hunter Biden laptop controversy, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, most WP:FRINGE right-wing advocacy content gets way more airtime on Wikipedia than it does elsewhere. Sure, it's all delineated as conspiracy theory and explained as such, but censorship? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. Andrevan@ 21:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm assuming that the "Hunter Biden laptop controversy" page (which is a current/recent event) is being guarded around the clock, by a small number of editors. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You would need to go there and ask. Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do not use this talk page as a platform to accuse editors of paid actors of a propaganda ministry. Seriously... ValarianB (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@GoodDay Probably so. I wouldn't be surprised if political articles like Donald Trump in fact have some government or otherwise political gatekeepers to push a narrative. It is a common practice in Guatemala (where I live) by politicians to hire entire call centers to comment online to disparage opponents or to keep a certain narrative. Information is power and those who control the information have power. Wikipedia is seen by millions and millions of people and it is one of the first sources of information online. Therefore it would be naive to think all editors, specially in certain topics like politics and the Donald Trump page, only come to edit because they like Wikipedia, they like editing, or they like to contribute to free knowledge, among other neutral or altruistic reasons. Thinker78 (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speculating on this will probably run afoul of WP:AGF unless you have something specific. Andrevan@ 19:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I stand by my comment, with the clarification that I was not accusing editors of just a particular ideology or political leaning, even though my reply was in response to mentioning an article, it is something that happens in any political spectrum or ideology, among other situations and all over the world. For more information please read the article Censorship of Wikipedia and Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Thinker78 (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concur with SPECIFICO. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support plus besides that, let's create a subpage with its own archive and relocate these to the subpage then let auto archiving take over. If we do what I first suggested we would create a problem regarding when these threads should be archived. For example, say a new one pops up right before the monthly or quarterly batch were due to be archived. If we do them all on a subpage it will help us keep a clean house without simply deleting them.let's also do a monthly or quarterly section heading, and each time one of these pops up, relocate to a subsubsection under that heading. We can easily preserve linking using the template for that purpose, which I can't seem to find right now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support plus Yes, we should just have one header and move all such "questions" there. What we should not do is ignore them. Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see the markup showing changes I made to the initial Support Plus idea. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems fine, kudos for being creative. Andrevan@ 15:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that's a big step, to fork the archive. And its not clear to me how it would be sorted. Since there's some software implementation needed, it seems to me better to accelerate the auto-archiving of closed edit requests and IP gripes, but maintining a single archive structure. SPECIFICO talk 15:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually there is a process to request a special notice to appear before someone starts editing. That could be one way to deal with this. Thinker78 (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That'd be editnotices. Unfortunately they have a few limitations. They do not appear at all for mobile web and iOS editors, and many editors flat out won't read em. I had a quick look at the 500 most recent edits to this talk page. Not counting revdelled/suppressed edits, 19 edits were new sections, of which six were tagged with mobile web edit, meaning they would not get the edit notice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is bias. Currently on this talk page there is an example that I gave above. [27] Bob K31416 (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Bias" isn't a synonym for "people keep disagreeing with me and I don't like it". Zaathras (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's already a discussion about the Abraham Accords in a different section. It can continue. It is not "bias." There's an open discussion on the matter that can be continued. Andre🚐 21:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And here's another example of bias that I gave before. [28] So there's the article saying, "Trump ... repeatedly refused to condemn David Duke, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) or white supremacists." And what is not in the article is that Trump said, "Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans." Bob K31416 (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a well-attested fact that Trump repeatedly refused to condemn white supremacists. He told the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by. He could barely tell them to go home after invading the Capitol, he said he loved them and that they should remember this day forever. What's the source for the 2nd statement? We can take a look and consider whether that is due weight versus the hundreds of sources that have covered his other statements. Andre🚐 02:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nah, we're good. The "David Duke, KKK" quote is from our section on the rhetoric and political positions during the 2016 campaign. The "racism is evil" quote is from Trump's second statement after the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. That's the one he read off the teleprompter. Then came the third statement (the "infrastructure statement") at Trump Tower where he reverted to "blame on both sides" and defended the Tiki torch marchers shouting e.g. "Jews will not replace us" as "protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above responses to the examples of bias are false or inadequate and are examples themselves of how the bias is maintained, as is the response to this recent previous comment of mine [29] by closing the discussion. This biased article is an example of how Wikipedia should not be edited. Good editors are driven away by the systemic bias and behavior here. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The revert you complained about removed POV, i.e., WP saying in Wiki voice that was based not on the opinion/analysis of the reliable source but on the RS citing then-WH Chief of Staff Kelly. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SPECIFICO, do you get the impression that your suggestion resulted in freeing up editor time for article improvement? As one of the barnacle-covered old-timers splashing about in this stagnant pool (and not about to take a group or whatever pledge), I'd say this discussion has descended into the usual general, "let's dredge up all our old grievances", bias complaint fest. Time to close? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's the gift that keeps on giving. More or less proving its own point, I think. But before you close it, let's wait and see whether it can keep on growing and take up the entire page. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Until ya'll come up with a solution? The complaints from other editors (established & ips), will likely continue. Particularly if Trump chooses to seek the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then we need concrete ideas from those claiming bias, ones that are in keeping with our policies. As many of us do not see a bias issue here. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a problem that arises in many political articles and it is probably best to discuss at the Village Pump, rather than repeat the discussion over multiple articles. Bear in mind that not all complaints of bias are unfounded. Currently for example, Hunter Biden laptop controversy begins, "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer that conservative media outlets claimed (without evidence) had belonged to Hunter Biden."[30] While that might hae been true, mainstream news sources now treat the laptop as genuine. See for example, "Analysis of Hunter Biden's hard drive shows he, his firm took in about $11 million from 2013 to 2018, spent it fast." (NBC News May 19, 2022) There should be a middle ground between conservative conspiracism and liberal hyper-partisanship. TFD (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Village Pump would indeed, be the proper place. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That laptop sure got around, and now it's here on the Donald Trump talk page, joining the bias complaint fest! I'm the "liberal hyper-partisan" who corrected (first edit, second edit) the "conservative conspiracism" misrepresenting the NBC report which says, "according to an NBC News analysis of a copy of Biden’s hard drive and iCloud account and documents released by Republicans on two Senate committees. ... NBC News obtained a copy of Biden’s laptop hard drive from a representative of Rudy Giuliani and examined Biden’s business dealings from 2013 to 2018 based on the information available on the hard drive and the scope of the documents released by the Senate." That's middle ground, sticking close to the source, and, AFAIK, the FBI hasn't released their analysis. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RS policy means using mainstream media as sources for stories, not police analysis, except as it is filtered through news reporting. Facts, incidentally, are established by courts, not by police. But it would take us a long time to wait for final decisions. TFD (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Specific proposals[edit]

Proposal 1: Start a new thread to discuss and determine by consensus what the standard response should be. Also, whether to pin it in the consensus list and when it should be used. Need to have in mind that Donald Trump is an evolving article modified all the time and at one point there may be legitimate complaints. Thinker78 (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bad sentence structure in lead 2[edit]

This sentence: In foreign policy, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal, and he initiated a trade war with China—needs to be separated. It doesn't flow well at all. I can't think of a way that doesn't either a) split the sentence weirdly or b) add an imaginary thus or instead between the Iran nuclear deal and he initiated a trade war with China—any help? 2ple (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Might help to flip the sentence around to avoid repeating ands if I'm understanding correctly. In foreign policy, Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. Anon0098 (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Done - switching the order should be uncontroversial. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this done? Tyrone (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggested re-write for lead's fifth paragraph[edit]

The opening sentence of the fifth paragraph in the lead is rather lengthy. It could be trimmed as such:

"After losing the 2020 United States presidential election to Joe Biden, Trump falsely claimed widespread electoral fraud and attempted to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition."

The second sentence could also be rewritten - it's missing context about why Trump urged his supporters to March to the Capitol (the electoral vote count is mentioned, but a clear correlation between the attack and the vote count isn't established). My proposal is:

"These efforts culminated in Trump urging his supporters to protest the electoral vote count by marching to the Capitol, which many of them attacked, resulting in multiple deaths."

Thoughts? Bluerules (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edit is just 22 characters shorter than the current text. It removes important material ("refused to concede defeat", the date of the attack by which it is mostly known), and adds your opinion/synth ("culminated in"). You also added text that’s not from the sources because Trump did not tell his supporters "to protest the vote count". That’s whitewashing of what he actually said. After saying "we fight like hell", he said, "So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country." That’s exactly what our current version says. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A trim is a trim. Redundant information should be removed whenever possible.
  • "refused to concede defeat" is redundant and far less important than Trump's efforts to overturn the election. If it's established Trump was falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud and attempting to overturn the results, then it is obvious he did not concede defeat.
  • Putting a full date in the lead is incredibly awkward, especially when it's the only full date in the lead. The exact date is far less important than what happened on that date.
  • The reason why the attack took place on that date is far more important than the exact date. You had no response towards the omission of this key detail - the attack was directly linked to the electoral vote count. The current version makes it sound like Jan. 6 was randomly picked by Trump.
  • It is not an opinion; it is a fact Trump's efforts to overturn the election culminated in the Capitol attack. I am open to using a different word to establish what resulted from his efforts to stay in office, but that is what the efforts led to while he was still in office.
  • "Protest" is "whitewashing", but "march" is not? Like I mentioned above, the current version doesn't establish why he urged his supporters to march to the Capitol. We are missing key information. Trump telling his supporters to "fight like hell" is him literally telling them to protest. But we have to use formal language when describing events and statements. The current version doesn't have the full events. Bluerules (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The two versions in question for the convenience of other editors/readers:
Current text

Trump lost the 2020 United States presidential election to Joe Biden but refused to concede defeat, falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud and attempting to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition. On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count.

Your proposal

After losing the 2020 United States presidential election to Joe Biden, Trump falsely claimed widespread electoral fraud and attempted to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition. These efforts culminated in Trump urging his supporters to protest the electoral vote count by marching to the Capitol, which many of them attacked, resulting in multiple deaths.

  • Trim. The material you trimmed is not redundant.
  • "refused to concede defeat" is redundant. Obvious or not - there’s a difference between slouching off to Mar-a-Lago and quietly fading into the woodwork without uttering the words "I concede"/congratulating Biden on his win and and saying, "We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved."
  • awkwardness of date in the lead. Eye of the beholder? Mention January 6 to any American and a whole lot of other people and they’ll know what you are referring to.
  • The reason why the attack took place. Where do the secondary sources (and the transcript of Trump’s speech, for that matter) say something that amounts to "urg[ed] his supporters to protest the electoral vote count by marching to the Capitol"? As in, walk up there and peacefully picket? That’s the spin aka whitewash certain people are putting on it. It’s up to you to provide the reliable sources supporting the text you propose, and you haven’t.
  • efforts culminated in. Cap, climax, conclude, complete, finish, end up, round off, terminate, wind up, wrap up - do you have reliable sources that say something along those lines? I think at one point we tinkered with "resulted" but then just stuck to the facts.
  • protest. Formal language for "fight like hell" is "protest" like Great Dane is another name for Chihuahua. It’s not a neutral characterization of what he said (fails NPOV), and the reliable sources do not say that he told the crowd to go to the Capitol and protest the electoral vote count. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The material is redundant. Again, it is stated Trump was "falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud and attempting to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition". It is impossible for Trump to have conceded defeat if he was trying to overturn his defeat. Note the article on the attempts to overturn the election doesn't feel the need to spell out Trump wouldn't concede. Also note the article is not about Trump refusing to concede; it's about Trump attempting to overturn the election. Speaking of which...
  • There is also a difference between saying you're not going to concede defeat and taking action to change said defeat. The latter is what's important - it was unprecedented and threatened to undermine the election process. The latter is what generated its own article. To spell out Trump not conceding defeat when the article already says he tried to overturn the defeat serves no purpose other than to bloat the wording.
  • Speaking of "eye of the beholder", it's telling you said, "January 6" instead of "January 6, 2021". This demonstrates at the very least, "January 6" could be used instead of "January 6, 2021". But that still doesn't establish the background of that date:
  • You continue to ignore how the current text is missing the background of the January 6 date. The current text makes it sound like January 6 was randomly selected because it is not established January 6 was the date of the electoral vote count. You've already provided the reliable source for Trump urging his supporters to protest with the "fight like hell" quote. "Protest" does not automatically translate to "peacefully picket" and to suggest otherwise is a complete strawman. The current text says he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol, but doesn't establish why he wanted them to march on the Capitol. That's missing key information. To say "protest" is not whitewash, especially when it's immediately established Trump's supporters attacked the Capitol. Protests are not always peacefully. We can't outright say Trump urged his supporters to attack the Capitol because he didn't directly say it, but we need to establish why he urged his supporters to march.
  • "During the first hearing, the committee described in vivid detail what it characterized as an attempted coup orchestrated by the former president that culminated in the assault on the Capitol." Incidentally, the article on the attempts to overturn the election also says, "These efforts culminated in the 2021 United States Capitol attack by Trump supporters" and lists the Capitol attack as one the results of the attempts. Those editors must have found even more sources.
  • Except "fight like hell" is synonymous with "protest", while a Great Dane is not a chihuahua. As demonstrated above, you've equated "protest" with "peacefully picket". That is not a neutral characterization. "Protest" is a blanket term. It could mean "peacefully protest" - or it could mean "fight like hell", which is supported by reliable sources. He is referring to the electoral vote count in his comments. The fact the current text says Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, but fails to establish why he urged them to march is a problem. It's missing context. I have offered solutions to the problems in the current text. You have offered no solutions. You criticize "protest" as being formal language for "fight like hell", but don't provide what would be formal language for "fight like hell". You only chose to criticize. Bluerules (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think the suggested re-write is overall better, and the characters shaved off by such a trim are negligible, even for a crowded lead such as this one. Responding to specific points, I disagree that "refused to concede defeat" is entirely redundant - while it definitely overlaps slightly, it's a fact that by itself stands as a significant occurrence in US democratic history. In terms of space saved by removing vs. information lost, I quite strongly prefer to keep "refused to concede defeat". I have no preference regarding the rejigging of the second sentence, no space is saved and both seem fine, so it seems like six of one, half a dozen of the other. I'd opt for the status-quo myself, largely because it ain't broke. Jr8825Talk 09:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If other editors support the current version, I won't argue against the consensus; that's why I brought this to the talk page before editing the paragraph. Thanks for the feedback. Bluerules (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the trim does not enhance the article and potentially leaves out important facts surrounding the peripherals of an integral part of the conclusion of the Trump presidency. I oppose. (I do agree in theory that we need to make the article more navigable if possible) Tyrone (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand recognizing Trump's refusal to concede, even if I believe more focus should be brought towards his efforts to overturn the election. However, I still believe the connection between the Capitol attack and the electoral vote count needs to be better established. The current text doesn't explain why Jan. 6 was the date he urged his supporters to march to the Capitol. It may acknowledge the electoral vote count, but it doesn't explain the Capitol attack was because of the electoral vote count. Bluerules (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Health care section, opioid epidemic[edit]

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, here is the complete edit summary for my revert of your edit. The original wording Widely criticized as ineffectual and harmful seems exactly right. You seem to be fascinated by Trump signing ceremonies, whether it’s the Abraham Accords Declaration on the WH south lawn or this edit with the misleading edit summary. NPR wrote that significant accomplishments followed the declaration of a public health emergency, such as H.R.6 - SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act and pushing China to slow their fentanyl exports. Did you stop reading the source at this point? You appear to have overlooked the big BUT and the wide criticism (by NPR, the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Health and Human Services, various researchers and experts) that follows. "But while some progress was made, critics point to serious missteps behind the scenes that hampered federal efforts, including the decision to sideline and defund the Office of National Drug Control Policy." "Drug policy experts say things could grow even worse in the months ahead if Trump is successful in dismantling the Affordable Care Act." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate you quoting it. NPR says critics point to... Trump's response to the opioid epidemic was criticized by his critics. If we had a sentence for every time his critics criticized him this article would be a trillion times longer. There's not support for the claim it was "widely criticized". That does not appear in the NPR source. Also your taking the the "the decision to sideline and defund the Office of National Drug Control Policy" out of context. A few sentences later it says, "That decision was later reversed". It was just speculation from a leaked internal memo, and never happened.
How about this In response to the opioid epidemic, Trump signed legislation in 2018 to increase funding for drug treatments, but received criticism for failing to make a concrete strategy. U.S. opioid overdose deaths declined slightly in 2018, but surged to a record 50,052 deaths in 2019. This balances sums both parts of the NPR article. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 16:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh? "Widely critized" is the WP editor reading the source wherein journalists cite, quote, and paraphrase experts praising and criticizing Trump's "fumbled response" (that's in the headline), and there are more criticisms than praises. During a panel discussion in late July, Giroir [assistant secretary for health and an opioid policy expert at the Department of Health and Human Services in the Trump administration] described recent increases in opioid overdoses as "a nightmare," adding that "all the progress that we made has been reversed and this is even before the pandemic." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. So what is wrong with he proposition I made? It's starts with action made and then how he blows it, and then explains the crisis worsened. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 23:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This all might be better in the article about his presidency, I suggest removing all mention of it. It tells us noth9ng about him Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criticizing Trump for the opioid epidemic is complete nonsense when Biden and Obama's articles make no mention of it, as if somehow Trump is the one who personally created it? Not even close to notable enough for this article, it had nothing to do with him. Bill Williams 01:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, you went ahead once again and reinserted challenged material (the Trump-signing-stuff bit) while a discussion is going on. I haven’t reverted (yet) because I’m still waiting for your explanation why Trump signing a bipartisan bill that was passed by the Senate 99-1 and by the House 396-14 is so important that it needs to "balance (?)" the criticism of the bungled execution. If he had vetoed the bill, Congress had the necessary two-thirds majority to override the veto, and the bill would have become law without his signature. The bill is the legislature's accomplishment, the bungled execution the executive's—uh—"achievement". We all know how he liked to show off his signing skills—there must be hundreds of photographs of him signing documents surrounded by cabinet members, other officials, random members of the public, then showing his signature to the press while the proud parents beam at Junior’s accomplishments crowd applauds (here are just a few published by NBC, Guardian, Alamy, and Salon). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: It's significant because NPR said so (NPR: Significant accomplishments followed. Trump signed legislation in 2018 that boosted federal funding for drug treatment.) Would you rather mention him declaring a state of emergency in 2017? That's also mentioned in the NPR article, and is obviously an action of Trump himself and not congress. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 17:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newly added lead sentence "Following his presidency..."[edit]

The previous discussion involved few editors and resulted in Iamreallygoodatcheckers adding this bold sentence to the last paragraph of the lead, with one editor agreeing and one editor disagreeing. I would have also disagreed and reverted but was unable to respond at the time. The sentence:

Following his presidency, Trump remained heavily involved in the Republican Party, including fundraisers and over 140 political endorsements.

I rephrased and moved the sentence into the first paragraph with the edit summary "Move from last paragraph which deals with past events and historical evaluations. The first paragraph says who the subject is and what he is doing now. Bold rephrase; if this sentence is lead-worthy, then it's" (I seem to have lost the rest of the sentence, meant to say "needs to go into the first paragraph with his current occupation(s)":

Unlike other former presidents, Trump continues to dominate his party, hinting at a third presidential campaign and endorsing Republican primary candidates who mostly support his claim of a stolen election.

My edit was reverted with the edit summary "Restoring more encyclopedic wording, adjusting location to avoid confusing the chronology". Bluerules, which words/phrases of the sentence you restored are more encyclopedic than which words/phrases of my sentence? And what is chronologically confusing about placing Trump's current occupation (revenging, hinting at a third run, supporting MAGAots for office) in the first paragraph that begins with "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is"? My first choice still is WP:NOTNEWS—just pointing out that the current tally of candidates endorsed by Trump stands at 200 and counting. But if we do add something, it should be current and to the point. The current sentence is neither, as it also doesn't contain the most important information about the endorsements, i.e., that Trump endorsed candidates who