Talk:Donald Trump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Q1: Why does loser.com redirect here? How can we change it?
A1: Editors at Wikipedia do not control what other websites not affilated with us, choose to link or redirect to including whether they redirect to Wikipedia. Loser.com (owned by Brian Connelly) as of March 14, 2021, redirects to the English Wikipedia entry for Donald Trump, this page.
Q2: This page is biased towards Trump because it mentions (or doesn't mention) X! Why won't you fix it?
A2: Having a neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to all viewpoints. Rather, it refers to Wikipedia's effort to discuss topics and viewpoints in a roughly equal proportion to the degree that they are discussed in reliable sources, which in political articles is mostly mainstream media. For further information, please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
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 are 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
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 18, 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

Highlighted open discussions[edit]

  • None

Current consensus[edit]

NOTE: Reverts to consensus as listed here do not count against the 1RR limit, per Remedy instructions and exemptions, above. 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. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4) (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. (link 1, link 2, link 3) "New York City" de-linked. (link 3)

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

04. Obsolete
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. (link 1, link 2) (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, $2.1B/1001st/275th), not from monthly or "live" estimates. (link 1) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion. (link 2, link 3) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (link 1, link 2)

07. Superseded by #35
Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (link 1, link 2, wording shortened per link 3, upheld with link 4) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

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

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. (link 1, link 2)

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." (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (link 1, link 2)

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". (link) (amended 16 November 2019, with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (link)

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

15. Cancelled
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 has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense.Special:Diff/764846021 No new changes should be applied without debate. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (link 5) (cancelled by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
16. Cancelled
Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (link) (cancelled 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}}. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6, link 7) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per link 7 and this October 2017 RFC. Wikilinks modified per this April 2020 discussion. Wikilink modified again per this July 2020 discussion. "45th" de-linked. (link 8)

18. The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BSEcon.)", does not mention Fordham University. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4)

19. Obsolete
Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons, it was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (link 1 for replacement, link 2, link 3, link 4 for background) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 October 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (link 1, link 2)

21. Superseded by #39
Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (link 1, link 2) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 August 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. (link)

23. 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. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5) Wording updated on 6 July 2018 (link 6) and 23 September 2018 (link 7).

24. Superseded by #30
Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (link) (superseded by #30 since 16 August 2018)

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (link 1, link 2)

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". (link)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (link 1, link 2)

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. (link 1, link 2)

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

30. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (link 1, link 2, link 3)

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

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (link 1, link 2)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (link)

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

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. (link)
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. (link 1) (paragraph removed per followup RfC 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. (link)

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

39. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health. (link)

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. (link)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (link)

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. (link)

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. (link)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim, and stating that they haven't produced clear results. (link)

45. Superseded by #48
There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (link 1, link 2) (cancelled by RfC closure on 23 August 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (link 1, link 2)

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

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. (link 1, link 2)

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

50. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (link)

Historical rank[edit]

Per overwhelming scholarly consensus, please add to the lead (1st sentence would be best) reflecting the universal opinion of experts: “Trump is almost universally regarded as the worst president of all time.” https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/is-donald-trump-the-worst-us-president-ever-historians-say-so-20210115-p56u9w.html

Now, I’m familiar with some of the dubious argumentative strategies some of you will engage in to avoid publishing this material. “It’s too soon!” you’ll say. “We haven’t had time to reflect on this issue!” you’ll cry. To you I say, when did you become expert historians? It is not our job to judge whether the historians should yet have arrived at such an overwhelming, magnificent consensus that Trump is the worst president in history, and has no serious competitors for that dishonor. It is simply our job to record what the experts on a matter say, and not to second guess, falsely posing as experts ourselves. “But..but.but.. the historical opinion may change!” If the historical opinion changes, the article changes when historical opinion changes. We don’t refrain from publishing expert scholarship because a random wikipedia editor has a hunch that someday scholarly opinion might shift. 67.85.103.120 (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I would rather wait until (at least) the covid crisis is over, a lot can happen yet.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
did you even read my post, rebutting your spurious argument in advance? “But..but.but.. the historical opinion may change!” If the historical opinion changes, the article changes when historical opinion changes (and not before then.) We don’t refrain from publishing expert scholarship because a random wikipedia editor has a hunch that someday scholarly opinion might shift. Our job is to record the views of experts, not to consult a magic 8 ball to prognosticate on whether their views will at some unspecified future date differ from those they hold now. Please offer better support for your views.67.85.103.120 (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
My point is we are too close to events to determine what "history" will say.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey Kingshowman, long time no see. How have you been? Face-smile.svgJFG talk 21:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
International newspapers are not reliable sources for ranking US domestic affairs Anon0098 (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
that is an absurd and xenophobic claim. Nevertheless, here is the NY Times for you, my dear pedant. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I love how you say "first sentence". Is the lead supposed to say, Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, is universally regarded as the worst president of all time? Thanoscar21talk, contribs 00:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Misleading representation of opinion polling[edit]

The section on opinion polling of Donald Trump is highly misleading in my opinion. In general, the section cherry picks inidividual polls, whilst it should instead show the averages.

Most notably, the characterisation on opinion polling when Trump left office is incorrect. The CNN article cited does provide the cited numbers, but said numbers are simply some of those highlighted to drive home a point, not an accurate representation of averages. Becauae of this, it is completely false to claim his end-of-term approval was between 29 and 34 percent. The correct number, the average that Enten shows, is actually 39 percent, not between 29 and 34.

The section also makes the mistake of using different pollsters in different sentences, which is invalid because pollsters have house effects and biases, meaning you shouldn't simply compare one poll to another one in the way that is done, especially with no acknowledgement. It is misleading to use Gallup polls to showcase the range of polls during his Presidency, and then use different polls to document his final approval. I suggest rewriting this paragraph to the following:

"Throughout Trump's first term, he had the steadiest approval rating since World War II, usually hovering between 40 and 45 percent according to aggregator FiveThirtyEight. [2] He completed his term with an average approval of 39 percent according to CNN, making him the first President in modern polling history to end his first term with approval below 40 percent.[736] Trump's approval ratings showed a record partisan gap: over the course of his presidency, Trump's approval rating among Republicans was 88 percent and his approval rating among Democrats was 7 percent according to Gallup.[737]"

In general, this changes to using averages where I could find a good source and explicitly cites polls being used otherwise. I removed the sentence on his average approval during his term, as this was taken solely from Gallup, whereas other numbers in the section use different pollsters so the comparison is misleading. I also removed the upper and lower range cited by NBC. These two figures are replaced by the average range cited by 538. This average range of between 40 and 45 percent both highlights Trump's average throughout his term and its stability, is more accurate because it is an aggregate, and avoids misleadingly comparing different pollsters.

Mrwho995 (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

"Indeed, a number of non-Quinnipiac pollsters including CNN/SSRS (34%), Gallup (34%) and the Pew Research Center (29%)" so this is not all of them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with my suggestion. But to elaborate a little, the article says "An average of recent polls finds Trump with a 39% approval rating and 58% disapproval rating." It is simply false to claim that Trump's approval ranged from 29 percent and 34 percent when he left office when the third sentence of the article states that his average approval is actually 39 percent. Those numbers cited by Enten were simply used to demonstrate that multiple pollsters had Trump at his lowest approval of his Presidency after the insurrection, Enten never makes the claim that these polls should be taken over the average he gives earlier on. I see no reasonable justification for claiming Trump's approval when he left office was between 29 and 34 percent when the cited article puts the average at 39 percent. Mrwho995 (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
And we have a latter poll (the second source) saying 34%. Now you are correct, the last poll said 34%, whereas the CNN article is taking into account "recent polls" not just "the last few". So I think what we may have is a degree of OR. The source does not in fact say "He completed his term with a record-low approval rating of between 29 percent to 34 percent " it says "He completed his term with a record-low approval rating of 34 percent".Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The second source with the 34% figure is derived from is solely describing Gallup's numbers, and does not claim to be an accurate representation of the polling landscape. I don't believe Wikipedia should attempt to arbitrarily select which polls to include and which polls not to when there are reliable sources available that mean we don't need to do this and can use those aggregations instead. The decision to cite solely the Gallup poll seems completely arbitrary; one could also misleadingly point to this newsweek article which cites Trump's approval as he leaves office at 51%. The most accurate figure to cite is the average when Trump left office. Enten puts this at 39 percent, which is in agreement with the FiveThirtyEight average when Trump left office of 38.6 percent. So why use the a cherry picked figure of 34% when the consensus among aggregators is that his final rating upon leaving office is 39%? Mrwho995 (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Then we could go with between 34 and 51%.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Sure, but at that point the range is so large that the numbers are almost meaningless to a general reader. We have highly reputable aggregates available; why try to do this job ourselves instead of using them? Mrwho995 (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Lol, Rasmussen at 51%. They have always been massive, pro-conservative outliers, not to be taken seriously. This is a non-issue. Zaathras (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
This isn't a discussion on Rasmussen. It is not up to wikipedia editors' subjective opinion on which pollsters are and are not reliable, but for the record, despite their misgivings 538 now gives Rasmussen a B rating - their bias actually led them to being closer to the final result in 2020 and 2016 than many more reputable pollsters (and of course also being wildly wrong in other elections, most recently 2018). There are plenty of other polls I could have also cherry picked, includng AtlasIntel, whose final poll gave Trump 45% approval, Harris, who gave 47%, or NBC, which gave 43%, all of these far higher than the range of between 29 percent and 34 percent incorrectly stated by the article. Regardless, this is a discussion on how best to present the polling data on Trump. The article is objectively wrong to say Trump's final approval was between 29 percent and 34%, and there is no debate to be had on that. It is undeniably wrong. And the decision to cherry pick the Gallup poll is completely arbitrary. I am very anti-Trump, but I care about facts, and as currently written the polling section on Trump is not factual. What's so difficult about citing the 538 aggregate or the CNN aggregate, both of which put Trump's final approval average at 39%? This is just a simple correction and I'm quite bemused it's encountering resistance. All I am suggesting is using the experts' consensus of 39% on Trump's final approval, rather than cherry picked polls as decided by (presumed) non-experts. But if you want to have objectively flawed information on this page, there's nothing I can do to stop you. Mrwho995 (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
YOU raised them, and used them as an example of why our statement is wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Support.png Support. 2601:8B:C380:56A0:5CC6:D6C1:D70:BC20 22:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Rasmussen is just one of many examples that demonstrate that the section is at best extremely misleading, and at worst objectively false, information, and I have cited other examples from more reputable polls such as NBC. I have clearly showed this multiple times, and raised multiple points that have not been addressed whatsoever, and instead of substantively addressing my points, you choose to pick the low hanging fruit of 'lol Rasmussen' because it's impossible to substantively deny the central points that: you are cherry picking polls with no justification; the numbers you are giving are objectively not an accurate representation of the polling landscape as a whole; you are erroneously comparing numbers from different pollsters and failing to provide the necessary context for this; you are actively choosing to disregard the consensus of experts of analysts like Harry Enten and Nate Silver. At this point, it is incredibly clear that you are aware the section is flawed, and are actively choosing to keep up flawed information. It is clear there is no point in discussing this further as there is no willingness from other parties to engage this discussion in any good faith whatsoever. 80.189.191.37 (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I see one source, care to provide the others here?Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

References

I apologise for getting frustrated above. I just find my suggestions to be more than reasonable and remain baffled by the resistance they're recieving. The final polls from all outlets are freely available here [1], all sourced. If you want individual articles, take NBC's final Trump approval poll I already mentioned, which is more or less the same time as the Gallup poll you cite [2], which has Trump approval at 43 percent, far high than the upper range you give of 34 percent. Or a slightly worse poll for Trump put still higher than the cited upper range, take PBS, which had his final approval at 38 percent. [3] Your own source from Enten clearly states that Trump's average approval was 39 percent, which again is in agreement with the final 538 average I've given of 38.6 percent. The RealClearPolitics final average, which is in my opinion not as reputble as Enten or 538, but still a very valid source, is slightly higher at 41.1 percent [4]. And the original 538 source I provided is all you need, as it already states Trump's final approval. All of these numbers are much higher than the purported upper range of 34 percent. This section would be improved immensely simply by using any of these averages instead of cherry picking individual polls, and when inidividual polls are used, making it clear in the text which polls are being referred to, instead of leaving it implied that this one poll is the final truth of approval when it isn't. Mrwho995 (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

References

And right there is the issue, take out Rasmussen Reports and the average would be 39%, which is what the other RS are saying. NOr am I sure that FiveThirtyEight is an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

That was discussed here. Thanoscar21talk, contribs 00:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Trump's Middle Eastern brokering[edit]

Moved from my Talk page for discussion.

Violation of editing restrictions on Donald Trump You have violated the following editing restriction: "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit." Self revert immediately. Also the significance for his life and Presidency is that the Accords were his major foreign policy success during his time as President and led to him getting recognition as a pro-Israel President. You know, literally what the sources all say?! Davefelmer (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Dave, FWIW, you seem to do a lot of tough controversial edits to article text w.o. getting talk page consensus. This is likely to be frustrating and unproductive. I suggest you do the right thing and try to gain talk page buy-in. RS do not elevate this to the level you claim, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Davefelmer, I'll self-revert if I have violated the 24-hr BRD cyle but I'm not sure who's in violation here.
On second thought: Are you counting my self-revert for the purpose of providing a better edit summary and the repeat of my initial reversion of the second editor as a revert falling under the 24-hr BRD cycle? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say this is not yet a significant enough event for us to say it is part of his lasting legacy.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Not wishing to stray into WP:OTHERSTUFF territory, but This article is fill of things less significant than the Abraham accords. I think the sole argument to their exclusion is establishing his degree of personal involvement. Their notability and impact here in the middle East shouldn't really be in question. https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+abraham+accords&safe=strict&client=ms-android-samsung-gs-rev1&prmd=inv&sxsrf=ALeKk02sdy4fAkPuSY7xwFEi-KF-K0GT5g:1617817681936&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiGw_jB2OzvAhXOYcAKHXkfByoQ_AUoAnoECAIQAg&biw=384&bih=724Pipsally (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
And I am not sure that two wrongs make a right. This article should be about him, not his presidency.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
What matters is the consistency, the article is rife with content about his presidency, it's literally almost his entire lead and most of the body! You can't arbitrarily decide to enforce a standard now that is not reflected in 90% of the article. The only question based on the consistency of this article and other articles for major political figures and ex presidents is the notability element, which as his major foreign policy achievement it absolutely is, both to his presidency and himself. Davefelmer (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Your search appears to have produced mostly opinion pieces from right-wing and/or Republican-affiliated sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
If this is to be mentioned here at all, there really needs to be a reality check..how the Accords were largely a face-saving nothingburger for all parties, how the Palestinians and Iran were marginalized in the discussions as well. In short, yes, a political boon to Mr. Trump at the time, but it accomplished precious little. There may be some quotes to mine from several Brookings Institution fellows here... Around-the-halls: Experts analyze the normalization of Israel-UAE ties. Zaathras (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I recall commenting on this in a previous discussion where I posted multiple articles (from the NYT and USA Today among others that I can't remember) that called these developments in no uncertain terms the most significant policy achievement of his administration. User:Slatersteven, I am curious if you have perhaps come across newer articles (as if I remember right the last time I looked at this was many months ago) which do not consider it significant, and I can't find the last discussion in the plethora of archives here to confirm. Back to general discussion (not directed at Slatersteven or anyone in particular) I think we need to remember that our guidance here is on what reliable sources say about the significance, not what we personally think it is - and thus it would be a good idea for us to start compiling lists of sources that call them "significant" or "face-saving nothingburgers" (or similar) so we can make a determination based on what a majority of reliable sources say. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I am saying its too early to judge its lasting impact (or even if it has any meaningful impact) or to determine just how much he was personally responsible.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The Gulf states weren’t and never had been at war with Israel, they had informally normalized their relations with Israel for years, and now Kushner reportedly is writing a book about how he helped to negotiate the non-peace deals. (Also—apparently—how he generally saved America but that's off-topic here.) For now the event is only a signing ceremony for vaguely worded ("pursue a vision of peace") self-promotion of some autocrats outside the White House which—honi soit qui mal y pense—had absolutely nothing to do with Trump’s reelection campaign. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

How is he not considered a politician?[edit]

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/politician?q=politician

If Andrew Yang and Kanye West can be considered politicians on their articles, two persons who have never held elected office, why can the same not be said for a former US President? He meets the dictionary definition of the word, see above.

DeaconShotFire (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right, so if other articles make mistakes its not a reason for this one too.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You say, while neglecting to respond to the fact that he meets the dictionary definition of the word. He is also in fact still referred to as a politician at the top of this talk page. And could you please explain how those other 2 articles are mistaken? DeaconShotFire (talk) 09:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

"politician /pɒlɪˈtɪʃ(ə)n/ noun a person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of an elected office." Professionally, as in it's your job, you are paid to do it. So as Trump made much of "I will not take a salary" https://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-donald-trump-say-hed-refuse-to-take-a-salary-as-president/ he was not a professional politician. As to the others, this is not the place to discuss then=m.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Source? politician noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced American Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com as linked above has "a person whose job is concerned with politics, especially as an elected member of a legislature (= governing body)" with no requirement to be paid, your CBC link makes no such requirement but, to the contrary, states "Trump wouldn’t be the first president to forgo a salary. According to Snopes.com, he would be joining John F. Kennedy and Herbert Hoover, who both donated their entire presidential salaries to charity." Are you claiming that JFK and HH were not politicians, or indeed that they were entitled to say they weren't? . . dave souza, talk 13:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
He DID take his salary, as he was constitutionally required to do. Like three other (rich) presidents before him, he donated it. He'll continue to get paid for the rest of his life plus the funds for office staff and space (wonder how much rent Trump's Mar-a-Lago charges Trump's office?). The total could be around $1 million per year. He hasn't announced that he'll forgo any of those entitlements or donate equivalent amounts to charity. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
My point was he made much about how he was not a politician.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
And you believe him because? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Becaue I agree with him, the one thing he is not and never was is a politician. But beyond that anything I say is OR, soapboxing and (maybe) a BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
He most assuredly was a politician for at least his term of office. And I would include his 2016 campaign as well. Whether he was a more or less "normal" politician or a "good" politician may be discussed, but it cannot be denied that he was a politician. --Khajidha (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The wording of the first sentence was decided per consensus a month ago. I actually agree with you but IMO it's too early to start another discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Focusing on the payment issue here is arch semantics. Someone who has held the office of President is clearly and demonstrably a politician. He may not have been a good one, or a typical one, but he's one none the less Pipsally (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

From the links above, the most we could say is that he presents himself [or claims] to not be a politician. . . dave souza, talk 13:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Of course he was (or is) a politician, but it's redundant to call him one when we call him the president, and he has never held another office. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Kolya Butternut, that's a decent point. He's a grifter, and politics was just one of his (short-lived) grifts. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Guy, that is completely subjective and not relevant. DeaconShotFire (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Guys, I can't see if the user who opened this discussion signed off with their username, but I agree with them that this is a really important point. Regardless of your political affiliation, it's absurd to reference a United States president's past occupations before his role as a world leader in their wiki bio. For example, Ronald Reagan was a hugely famous Hollywood actor before his own presidency -- which is directly comparable to Trump's fame before his own rise to office. Now, look at Ronald Reagan's lead from his article: "Ronald Wilson Reagan (/ˈreɪɡən/ RAY-gən; February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was an American politician who served as the 40th president of the United States from 1981 to 1989 and became a highly influential voice of modern conservatism. Prior to his presidency, he was a Hollywood actor and union leader before serving as the 33rd governor of California from 1967 to 1975." I think Trump's should also follow this format. Long story short, his role as President of the USA is obviously what the bio should lead with. Note how it doesn't say "Ronald Reagan was an actor who served as US President from..." How do we decide on this, other than just fighting over it in the talk page? Can we have a vote? Gossamers (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Reagan was a politician for 16 years.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
We did have an RfC about this, but one option that was left out was "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th President of the United States, serving from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and media personality. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
"Reagan was a politician for 16 years". Yep. And he was an actor for 28 years, between 1937 and 1965. Gossamers (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
So, the point is Reagan had a long political career, he was not a one presidency wonder.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The Reagan article is badly written. Let's not copy it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
"The Reagan article is badly written." Uh, what? It's one of only 5,916 featured articles out of 6,282,564 articles on the English Wikipedia (about 0.1% or one out of every 1,060 articles). As for the "one presidency wonder" thing -- the point is that if someone rose to become a *world leader*, then that's obviously their most notable achievement, and thus should be how you lead the article. I see where you're coming from, but you're quite clearly downplaying the significance of becoming a president.Gossamers(talk) 20:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut: It wasn't an RfC, it was a discussion of 10 options that—per the closer's remarks—did not reach consensus on whether the term "politician" should also be included in a first sentence that has a structure akin to that of choice A. The closer was mistaken in stating that adding "politician" was an idea some editors pitched during the middle of the discussion. It was first added as an option by Sdkb two hours after the discussion was started, at a time when three other discussions of the same matter were ongoing and several editors were opposed to starting another one per se as well as to the format of the fourth one. Trump may not be a "career politician" or a "professional politician" but he's been active in populist politics for decades. Maybe it's time to have that RfC. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok, well I think we should first find biographies to see if they use the word. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
From the first 20 or so results in a Google search (there’s more but I got sidetracked by the Daily Mail reporting on Trump visiting Trump Tower for two days in early March in his Trumpforce One, a Cessna). They all say that he's a politician, albeit not a normal, typical, coherent, seasoned politician.
  • Reuters: "businessman-turned-politician"
  • Trump on himself: "I’m not a typical politician"
  • Vanity Fair: not a "coherent politician"
  • BBC: "defied all predictions to beat much more seasoned politicians"
  • WaPo: "Politician" is in the eye of the beholder. If Donald Trump's fans behold a guy who isn't a politician, who is he to complain? He'll just sit there quietly, acting, getting things done.
  • Politico: political Godzilla in exile, not a "normal politician." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I would focus on biographies:
Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, not Encyclopedia Britannica or biography.com. Britannica appears to apply the label politician somewhat selectively. They don’t use it for former presidents Trump, Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Reagan, and Carter but they do use it for George H.W. Bush. They don’t use it for former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton but they do use it for former Senator and Secretary of State John Kerry. As for "biography.com", they don’t call Obama and George W. Bush "politician", either, but they are the go-to source if you want to know their zodiac signs (Gemini, Leo, Cancer). Also, the article contains too many factual errors and omissions and is too poorly written to be taken seriously.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
So these encyclopedias demonstrate that "politician" is rarely needed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I mean, he's not considered a professional actor, either, even though he's technically had more movie gigs than his one single-term political office. Just because you dabble in something for four years doesn't make it a career. 2600:1700:24d0:2ca0:fc83:b05b:444:fa0c (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC) (added signature, not sure if this is the way to handle missing signature. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC))
It's an issue of repetitive redundancy. Since he is a politician because he was president, we don't need to say both that he was a politician and president. It would be different if he had gone the approved route, starting as a local elected official, then moving through the ranks, becoming a governor or senator and finally president. TFD (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm utterly unsurprised to see this. Of course he's a politician, since he was president of the United States, which makes you a politician. And of course we should include that fact in the lead. The large discussion referenced was so terribly organized (see the comment I made early on in it) and so divided that it has very little precedent-making power, and I think the closer erred in trying to conjure a consensus out of what was really just a complete mess. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    Why should we include that redundant information in the lead? What do RS biographies write? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
It's a redundant descriptor. You literally cannot be a president without being a politician. He's labelled as a president in the lead: what benefit is there from also labeling him as a politician? — Czello 17:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Um—did you not read the opinions above and elsewhere saying that he is not a politician? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
In theory, Lloyd Austin could become president without ever running for any office or joining any party, if six politicians ahead of him simply die fast enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggested addition to Post-presidency section.[edit]

A New York Times article was released in February 2021 stating that President Biden barred President Trump for receiving intelligence briefings out of office. I would like to suggest that this be added to the “Post-presidency” section of the article, as all other living former presidents do receive briefings.

Here’s a link to the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/us/politics/biden-trump-intelligence-briefings.html?fbclid=IwAR2coyi8JTSi_EhapllBje7OE2l7vuPFUk0XxmoYHHHIvlnkM2C1A1JuxAE LordVesuvius (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Why? Is this something unique to him?Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge, he is the only living former president to be denied access to intelligence briefings. The other living former presidents can decline them, but only Trump has been denied them. LordVesuvius (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Do we have any sources for this claim?Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I have links to various articles on the subject, but I am unable to post them here.

LordVesuvius (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Why not? can you at least not tell us where to look?Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

For some reason when I tried to, I got a message saying “cannot publish edit” or something along those lines. And you can Google “do former presidents receive briefings?” and you should be able to find the information that way. LordVesuvius (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you're finding very dodgy sources that are automatically blocked? Try looking them up in WP:RSN archives.
Don't know about this google thing, but Duckduckgo brought up * Cammarata, Sarah (17 January 2021). "Trump should be denied intelligence briefings, Schiff says". POLITICO. Retrieved 12 April 2021. which would be usable, though not up to date. Interesting who thought T is a security risk. . dave souza, talk 22:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s a possibility. But would the addition to the post-presidency section be acceptable? The source I have is from the New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/us/politics/biden-trump-intelligence-briefings.html LordVesuvius (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add COVID-19 Recession (and possibly COVID-19 death toll) to Paragraph 4 of Article[edit]

In paragraph 4 of the article, the part that details President Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic (in the sentence after his appointments of Supreme Court justices), it should include a sentence about how the pandemic led to an economic recession that led to President Trump leaving office with fewer jobs than when his term began. This detail about the economy is crucial, because the recession itself played a big role in Trump losing re-election. Additionally, should there also be a sentence about how 400,000 Americans died of COVID-19 by his final day of office? Please consider making these additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainamerica099 (talkcontribs) 13 April 2021 20:27:43 (UTC)

This is a biography of a person, not an article about his presidency, nor the recession, etc. The sentence about his reaction is there because it directly involves him (his reactions). Your suggested addition is not about Trump the person - it's about COVID/the presidency/administration. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

China virus / racism[edit]

Can we add a paragraph under the racism section on how his reference to the "China virus" was racist and may have contributed to asian hate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.223.155.114 (talk) 17:34, April 13, 2021 (UTC)

There is already something on Trump's sinophobia here and much more at Racial views of Donald Trump. Can you please provide reliable sources to support that Trump's language then is directly linked to a rise in asian hate crimes in general now? And please sign your posts. Mgasparin (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Well no, calling a virus by the country it's from isn't racistPyromilke (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The preponderance of reliable sources say otherwise. Zaathras (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Show me an unbiased reliable source.Pyromilke (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Experts blame Trump for killing 400,000 US citizens[edit]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/01/17/covid-19-us-400-000-deaths-experts-blame-trump-administration/6642685002/ https://khn.org/news/nation-records-400000-covid-deaths-on-last-day-of-donald-trump-presidency/

Trump killed 400,000 people in less then a year Trump killed 400,000 US citizens from Feburary 2020 to January 2021 Trump killed more then 3,000 people per day in January. Trump is thought to be the president who killed the most people since Woodrow Wilson killed 675,000 people in 1918 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.177.29 (talkcontribs)

Well "Trump administration", so this might have a place in an article about his presidency, not him.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Slatersteven, I broadly agree - it is in general sufficient here to note the incompetence and hubris which characterised his regime, without going into details about the consequences thereof - but the mass deaths from mishandling of COVID is probably the single most significant thing about his time as president (though the failed coup might beat it out in a final historical analysis). Guy (help! - typo?) 13:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
We would have to show that this view has become generally accepted. Note that some deaths would have occurred no matter who the president was. TFD (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Do experts blame him for 400k, or do they just say 400k happened during this period of time. Article definitely says there was preventable loss that he was blamed for, but article doesn't imply he is to blame for all 400k. WikiVirusC(talk) 14:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
You're intentionally twisting the words. That some 'experts' believe that the spread of the virus was preventable and that he killed all those people outright are two different things. Anon0098 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I will Oppose inclusion per TFD, as well as per WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. While I agree that his inaction last year led to a worse pandemic, it's difficult to put the blame directly on him instead of placing it on his administration broadly. Mgasparin (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes I think that the slow and ineffective response of the administration is notable and many sources have reported about that, they obviously also include mentions of Trump; reliable sources also agree that he supported misinformation about it, but the above appears to be an overgeneralization or oversimplification, —PaleoNeonate – 14:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Of course, those who got sick by joining large crowds, not wearing protection, not washing properly, smoking every day and/or eating junk food for years are completely innocent, as is Biden for the 200,000 or so in about three months, as are federal, state and local public health authorities. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's up to 200,000 under Biden yet? And a lot of the things you've mentioned circle back to Trump: namely, Trump giving credence and permission to misbehaviors that spread the virus. pbp 20:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
It's close, depending how one counts. Definitely outpacing Trump, if presidents are scapegoats. Seriously though, older and sicker people have always died everywhere of everything, regardless of faith in their current head of government. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion: pbp 20:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    @InedibleHulk: has asked that I clarify my vote on support of inclusion. I believe that there is adequate source material, both linked here and not, to support an assignment of blame for many of the coronavirus casualties to Donald Trump. pbp 20:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks. Not that persuasive. But much clearer! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion PackMecEng (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the verifiability of this claim, Wikipedia cannot, in WP voice or attributed, include such a blatant POV opinion that carries such a REDFLAG implication. This is absolutely inappropriate to include in a BLP no matter how many sources make such a claim - we don't require our sources be NPOV, but we must be NPOV in how we evaluate and decide to include information - and we are expected as editors to decide to exclude information that is blatantly POV no matter how many reliable sources there are for it. Wikipedia doesn't spread bias just because there's enough reliable sources with that bias - we are supposed to use sources of all biases and come to a neutral conclusion - which certainly isn't that he killed people in this case. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion. Not here, and not in the Presidency article. I completely agree with Berchanhimez. "He killed hundreds of thousands of people," or "he is responsible for" those deaths, is way too inflammatory a claim for us to make, short of some kind of legal or legislative finding to that effect. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Discrepancy with Racial views of Donald Trump article[edit]

In the main article, it states: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist.", but the Racial views of Donald Trump article begins with: "Donald Trump, the former president of the United States, has a history of speech and actions that have been widely viewed by scholars and the public as racist or white supremacist."

Should the statement in the main article be changed to what is said in the Racial views of Donald Trump article, or vice versa? Isi96 (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes Ev666 (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a contradiction here, so I don't see why either should change.--Khajidha (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Where's the discrepancy? The main article says "characterized as racist" while the racial views article says "viewed as racist". Both articles basically say the same thing but with slightly different words. Mgasparin (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)