Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 135

Archive 130

←

Archive 133

Archive 134

Archive 135

Archive 136

Archive 137

→

Archive 140

Trump political party timeline

What are people's thoughts on adding a timeline of his political party history? Since it is his history with it is convulated I thought adding a timeline might aid readers in understanding it. Have a look at the one I made on the right, it can be easily adjusted. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 11:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

No offense, but, that is garish. Even if the color palette were made more, er, palatable, I see no use or function of a chart like this. He's gone back and forth a few times in regards to political affiliation, it is neither convoluted nor difficult to describe in prose. ValarianB (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

What ValarianB said. We don't need more information than the party affiliation listed in the infobox and here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks garish. In any case, this might be OK at Political career of Donald Trump, but not here. Neutrality^talk 01:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it looks terrible and doesn't improve understanding. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it looks garish. Also, it's unnecessary and doesn't have a place in the article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: The graph looks better with less intense colors, IMO (pink instead of red, lightblue instead of blue, #9370DB instead of purple). Even so, I still think that it's not needed in this top bio. Where do the green color underlying the title and the blue color of the legends inside the bars come from? I don't see any settings for them in the parameters. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the (mostly) constructive feedback all I will work on some improvements and see if it can possibly be implemented into Political career of Donald Trump. To answer your question Space4Time3Continuum2x the title colour by default is green and can be set with the title-colour parameter though I am not sure I know the answer to your second question. By default that text is blue becuase it is linked to another article but I am sure there is some way to change but I do not currently know (first time making a timeline for wiki). Here is the template page if that helps: Template:Graphical timeline. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I think two other things that would improve it are 1) flip the dates, so have it go from earliest to latest (top to bottom), and make it a bit narrower (it doesn't need to be that wide). You could also abbreviate the party names to slim it down. — Czello 14:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this could fit very well into the "Political career" article, but as noted the colors are too bright/too dark. In fact the blue and purple are so dark you can't read the writing at all. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Pandemic response program terminated

SPECIFICO has reverted my removal of the section "Pandemic response program terminated" (talking about a 2019 program) [1]. I think the the edit summary "One of the most significant policy moves of Trump's presidency or actions of his lifetime." is clearly an exaggeration. If I read [2] correctly, the program never actually shut down; it was scheduled to shut down in March 2020 but had an emergency six-month extension. Furthermore, none of the sources demonstrate that the program has or could have made any impact; it's not like he shut down the entire WHO (and leaving WHO is in the article separately). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I was just about to revert your removal myself when Specifico did it. You need to read the other sources, as well. The CNN source you cited: As planned, PREDICT is scheduled to end in March 2020 following the expiration of its second, five-year period of performance. While PREDICT is closing, the Bureau for Global Health at USAID is planning a successor project, which we intend to award through a competitive procurement process in 2020," wrote Richard Parker, assistant administrator for the Bureau of Legislative and Public Affairs,. LA Times: Field work ceased when the funding ran out in September, and organizations that worked on the PREDICT program laid off dozens of scientists and analysts, said Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, a key player in the program. That's like selling the fire engines and then starting a competitive procurement process for new ones. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

But is it important? Is this "selling the fire engines" or "closing one fire station for renovation at a time which turned out to be inconvenient"? Ideally, provide sources for your claims. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@MONGO and Bdushaw: for discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I am pretty annoyed with "please provide sources" in this case...people have been aggressively deleting citations. All of this material is heavily sourced, all is important and can be used; the section in question has been there for almost a year. That's not really the issue though - it is the selection of the proper material to include in this biography. To my mind, this incident and the WHO situation are entirely relevant, since they reflect the folly of Trump's worldview; the sources support that statement (or used to anyways). If things must be shortened, and I am not convinced about much of the shortening efforts/activities, contemplate the notion of combining the Pandemic program termination and the WHO criticism into a section like "Abandoning international health cooperation" or something. Trump's America First was all about abandoning international cooperation - including these health programs. Flinging blame to the WHO for the pandemic was just...Trumpist. Policies for discovering and escaping a pandemic require international cooperation. This article is going to be long, if not grow longer; the nature of some of these shortening/trimming activities does not inspire confidence. Bdushaw (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I know of and have read contemporary primary sources that say it happened, that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether it is important, and secondary sources written after the fact are the best way to demonstrate that. Separately, if you think that 430KB (with growth for his post-presidency activities) is a good size for this article, there's a different section to argue. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Its not a BLP level issue...it belongs in the Presidency of article. That is why I removed it.--MONGO (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

RS increasingly reject much distinction between Trump the man and Trump's presidency. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I don't even know how to respond. Obviously many events of Trump's presidency are relevant to his biography. But show me one credible source that can't distinguish between a term of office and a biological person and I'll eat a hat. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

See A Very Stable Genius. SPECIFICO talk 00:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@MelanieN and Muboshgu: can you possibly explain SPECIFICO's point to me? I can't imagine a good-faith contributor would make the argument that I'm understanding SPECIFICO to be saying. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

To expand: A Very Stable Genius was published in January 2020 and isn't going to say anything about Trump's response to the pandemic, which only became prominent in March 2020; that book won't support a claim about a pandemic response program. I assume this is supporting the claim that there is no "distinction between Trump the man and Trump's presidency", but I can't understand why or how or even what that means. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, instead of asking me what SPECIFICO means, you should ask SPECIFICO. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is of course welcome to respond further, but the comment seemed so bizarre and the first response so cryptic I thought an outside opinion would be helpful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Wikipedia Article on Donald Trump is unfair and bias. I recommend whoever made it take notes from this one: https://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/Donald_J_Trump because it is more fair to his legacy and the things he did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedino778 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

can you point to anything you want to alter, and make a case as to why?Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

A page on Fandom that contains no references, but makes note of the important Kathy Griffin scandal and includes the sentence Trump is viewed as a King among some of his supporters. Pass. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, that sentence is clearly written as a joke, its a sort of humorous article not meant to be taken 100% seriously, 2nd of all, this person writes Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist. Which is untrue. As well as, He attempted to overturn the results by making false claims of electoral fraud, pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges and obstructing the presidential transition. which is also untrue, there were many things wrong with the election that he was trying to fix, not trying to overturn the results and he never "obstructed the presidential transition"– Thedino778 (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

What? are you (seriously) saying that Donnie did not claim the Election had been fraudulently stolen and he had really won? Do you want the quotes?Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe he didn't win, but he was trying to fix the issues with the system, and that needs to be said in the article rather than saying that he made false claims blah blah blah, I mean we were fair to Al Gore in 2000 when he made his claims, why can't you guys be fair to usThedino778 (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

He did make false claims -- this is all supported by the citations in the article. — Czello 18:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

If (and when) we see RS saying there were issues with the system that needed fixing we can say that. As far as I can tell the courts, the election regulators, congress have all said it was fair and above board.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The claims were not false. Let me show you something. http://hereistheevidence.com/ User generated content from voters across the country, of over 2M ballots touched by anomalies this election. That needs to be addressed. All i'm saying is that this description in the Trump article needs to be steered away from "false claims" etc, etc, etc, and more towards issues that have still yet to be dealt with in the election Thedino778 (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you should also put in the fact that the Owner of Dominion said he "Fucked it up so bad Trump could never win" Thedino778 (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Read wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

User generated crap is not reliable, nor does it prove any of the things you think it proves. There is no proof of "2 million ballots" having "anomalies". If you're talking about Eric Coomer, he does not own Dominion and he did not rig the election against Trump. He's suing. You spend too much time reading things that aren't true. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

This needs hating as clear soapboxing.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

While Fandom may very well be accepting of things "written as a joke", Wikipedia is not. Furthermore, we do not say things simply because you think they "need to be said" - we say things that are from reliable sources. And lastly, Wikipedia didn't exist in 2000, so there is literally no way you can say there was "fairness" or not on Al Gore's article during that time. Anomalies occur in literally everything - and the last thing we are going to do on Wikipedia is perpetuate user generated reports with no verification whatsoever. When you find a reliable source that actually considers that website anything more than a waste of electrons, please feel free to come back. Otherwise, this entire section is not helpful at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Still bias

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You guys might also want to mention the fact that he had the quickest Military mobilization for covid-19 since WW2 and generally you leave out other good things he did Thedino778 (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Did he, source?Slatersteven (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

How many military mobilizations for covid-19 (in the US) have occurred? Only one from my knowledge? Thus by definition it's the "quickest"? You need to provide more context and more reliable sources for this to have any chance of turning into a discussion over content - otherwise, it's just "buzz-phrases" that are used in "politician-speak". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I took him to mean "quickest Military mobilization since WW2, as a response to Covid 19".Slatersteven (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah thats what i meant, Steve Thedino778 (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hang on a moment. Thedino778 (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Here you go Slater, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-has-led-historic-mobilization-combat-the-coronavirus Thedino778 (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

You really need to read wp:rs, this is a press handout, thus is a wp:sps, even then it may fail wp:v as it does not seem to say "quickest Military mobilization since WW2" it says "The American people have launched the greatest mobilization of our society since World War II,". In fact, apart from the opening line, it makes no mention of any military mobilization. At best this could be used for "and President Trump claims that he was "launching the greatest mobilization of our society since World War II"". Which may fail wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify - this is simply a reproduction of a press release from the Executive Office (of the Presidency) that occurred during his presidency - this is thus a primary source. Simply being on UCSB's website does not imply that they fact-checked it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Pfft "fact checking" is just about the stupidest thing i've ever heard of and is just and excuse for Democrats to make up stuff to refute the truth

Anyway at the very least in the article about Trump you should mention the supplies he got to the front lines, such as: "Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) deliveries coordinated or currently being shipped by FEMA and HHS: 38.2 million N95 respirators 32.6 million surgical masks 5.5 million face shields 4.7 million surgical gowns 30.3 million gloves 212,000 coveralls 8,600 medical station beds Ventilators provided or shipped so far from the Strategic National Stockpile and the Department of Defense: More than 10,800 nationwide 4,400 to New York 1,558 to New Jersey 700 to Michigan 600 to Illinois 470 to Maryland 400 to Louisiana FEMA launched Project Air Bridge to expedite imports of critical PPEs. More than 40 Air Bridge flights have taken place as of April 14. 28 million tablets of Hydroxychloroquine have been shipped across the country from the Strategic National Stockpile."

And there's a montage of governors somewhere online (Including Cuomo) thanking him for it. Thedino778 (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry that formatted really weird. if you go into edit, you'll be able to see it better and it'll make more sense Thedino778 (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thedino778, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which does not simply collect "numbers" and things of the like. Sure, all of that is great - and as you said, people have thanked the government (under Trump) for some of the things that were done. But we cover the entirety of things. We are not a propaganda outlet that only covers "good numbers" and doesn't cover "bad numbers". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

But you only are covering bad things right now. I am trying to fix it by asking you to cover good things too and make it less bias.Thedino778 (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Generally what you just said is extremely hypocritical, because you are a propaganda outlet for the Democrat Party and write what they and CNN want you to.Thedino778 (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Still bias (2.0)

So are you going to accept my edit request. I am asking that you make the article less bias because you said you cover the "entirety" which is untrue. you only cover bad things about him.

All I need is a simple yes or no, then i'll go away, never answered me before. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Thedino778 (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done since you have a) not described what specifically you want changed, and b) you don't seem to understand the core principles of Wikipedia, including (but not limited to): WP:TRUTH, WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:DUMB, WP:V, WP:SPS, WP:RS WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 21:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

For the record, that's a "no". It's not Wikipedia editors' fault that Trump's coverage in reliable sources tends toward what some would consider mostly unflattering. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Holding up a mirror to Trump's behavior and character is never a pretty picture. That's what RS do. It is his own fault. -- Valjean (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For a more direct response to the specific material you have asked us to add: the additions you have suggested up to now were NOT sourced to Reliable Sources. We can only use material that has received significant coverage from published Reliable Sources. A Reliable Source has to have, at a minimum, editorial control (thus no blogs) and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (thus no tabloids). And it has to be Independent of the subject (thus no press releases). See WP:RSP for a partial evaluation of what sources are considered reliable. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

"baselessly alleged election fraud" Bull! Wrong! False! Democrat judges across the country REFUSED to hear about legitimate election fraud. They REFUSED to allow petitioners to be heard in courts, refused to read or consider over 5000+ sworn affidavits of election fraud. Refused to comment on videos showing ballots boxes pulled out from under tables like in Fulton County, Georgia and votes processed without Republican poll watchers.

Trump urged his supporters on January 6, 2021 to PEACEFULLY protest to take out country back. 76.14.131.199 (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Too many things wrong with the request, people really do need to start reading policy before they launch these.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You're telling me. No actual edit requested, no consensus for changes that might be suggested at. Closing request.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2021

The accounts on the page are mostly incorrect. There is misreporting and then blatant lies. There is too many to list as this would entail a project. if interested i will conduct the project however, with your approval first.

An example. the paragraph "far right" indicated that Donald Trump never rebuked the white extremists and David Duke. This is incorrect. There is numerous news clips where he does rebuke and also reiterate the rebuke. 41.180.41.252 (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to read through the FAQ and history here for why these changes won't be made.  Not done VAXIDICAE💉 16:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

loser.com has equal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.122.111 (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Same answer as always, we have no control over loser.com.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Loser.com

Why is the link loser.com he is not a loser. 93.108.204.23 (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

WE do not link to it. We can do nothing about what third parties link to. Maybe its time for a FAQ at the top about this?Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

From the encyclopedia article's lead: "Loser.com is a domain name that has existed as a URL redirect to several different web pages during most of its existence. As of February 5, 2021, it redirects to the English Wikipedia entry for Donald Trump."

The domain, "Loser.com", is not affilitated or connected in any way with the Wikipedia encyclopedia, nor is it affiliated or connected with any associated websites of Wikipedia's foundation and founders. So Wikipedia has no control over where that domain links. To editor Slatersteven: I don't know about a FAQ at the top of this page. I mean, take a look at the top of this page. Seems to me a FAQ would just get lost up there. I did see something about this in the very last collapsed section just before the table of contents. It has more info about this from Snopes.com, which also helps to explain all this. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 11:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Its been asked 3 or 4 times now, hence why it (might) save time if we have a big banner at the top of this talk page saying "WE ARE NOT LOSER.COM, WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT THEY DO".Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This thread's title has been anchored and changed to "Loser.com", and this section has been tagged with the "Do not archive" template, so it won't be archived for three years. In a little while this section will be at the top of this page just below the table of contents, and it will stay there long enough to explain to readers about the loser.com domain. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 11:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

"he is not a loser." He verifiably is a loser in the literal sense. My personal opinion is that he is a loser in the figurative sense as well, but that is POV. --Khajidha (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Imagine if the world gets to a point where people need to go to "loser.com" to remember who the most recent US presidential second-place winner was and it was updated every 4 years accordingly. If only "winner.com" wasn't an online casino, it could be an interesting case of domain squatting for a legitimate, but unnecessary reason. But I digress, this isn't that important to this discussion - Support pinning a comment of some kind, or this section as a whole, for as long as the link redirects. Also support hatting anything beyond a simple statement after this gets to the top of the page (and the edit request template) but not removing the discussion altogether. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's time for a FRQ on this above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I have added an FAQ about loser.com.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 03:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC at Republican Party

Talk:Republican Party (United States)#RfC: Paragraph under "Democracy" subsection may be of interest to y'all. Come on over! soibangla (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

@SPECIFICO: please explain why my edits were not NPOV? Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You are watering down text that is supported by citations. We don't source things to headlines, as you tried to do with the Washington Post article, which does characterize the former president's phone call as "threatening", not just "pressuring". Quote, "...Trump alternately berated Raffensperger, tried to flatter him, begged him to act and threatened him with vague criminal consequences...". ValarianB (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@ValarianB: you haven't explained why the other content was removed as well. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You will also notice that in the source, it states that Trump’s pressure campaign on Raffensperger is the latest example of his attempt to subvert the outcome of the Nov. 3 election through personal outreach to state Republican officials. He previously invited Michigan Republican state leaders to the White House, pressured Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) in a call to try to replace that state’s electors and asked the speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives to help reverse his loss in that state. clear examples of "pressure" tactics. No evidence in the source of threats made against various Republican local, state, and federal officials, legislators, attorneys general, governors, and Vice President Pence. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

There is abundant RS, not to mention an audio recording heard by tens of millions of people, that Trump treatened Raffensberger with prosecution if R did not betray his oath of office to find Trump his number of votes. SPECIFICO talk 22:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my queries. Please provide an appropriate justification for your actions. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

What you accept or reject for a justification is is not relevant, as we are not here to please you. Answers were given, we cannot help that they were not what you wanted to hear. ValarianB (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

In fact, it is completely relevant. If you don't provide a justification for an action, then how am I to accept that action? I have clearly laid out my concerns about the revert and they haven't been answered. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

In fact, it isn't. When multiple editors object to your edit, your acceptance or non-acceptance doesn't matter. ValarianB (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"Multiple editors". Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

As I have noted on your talk page, you now appear to be violating the edit notice on this page, about challenged edits and 24hours. ValarianB (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: undo most recent edit by Atsme which downplays/whitewashes the storming of the capitol.

Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=1011361580&oldid=1011361167

Maybe some discussion on false vs exaggerated is warranted but that change should have consensus. The rewording of the language around the storming of the capitol is not reflective of RS and appears to be a POV edit.Shadybabs (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I see that this issue has already been taken care of. Thanks.Shadybabs (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a wide-sweeping brush that paints only a single POV from the echo chamber should be used for this BLP because that certainly is not neutral, thus a BLP vio - and yes, believe it or not, there can be a BLP vio in a Trump article. I think there may be some confusion about what actually constitutes NPOV for new editors with under 500 edits, and especially after reading the edit summary by Neutrality after his revert of my edit: "Replacing "false" with "exaggerated" (and added "some went inside" as if it were a scouting trip) is unacceptable and is not in conformance with the RS. We honor NPOV by following what the sources actually say. Unacceptable? Excuse me, but exaggerated means it wasn't widespread, and certainly not anything that would overturn an election but "false" needs to be pinpointed and use of that word is not dispassionate. We already know that Trump exaggerates and uses hyperbole. A more neutral language that I would not oppose would be unsubstantiated claims as what NatGeo published, or unsupported claims as what the CTMirror published (and there are other equally as neutral sources we can tap into) - that publish in a dispassionate tone. As for the "scouted trip", see the NPR article: Even hours into Wednesday's violence, protesters were filmed being escorted or guided out of the building without arrest - even appearing to be helped down the Capitol stairs and having doors held open for them to exit. Another viral clip appeared to show a police officer posing for a selfie with a man inside. We actually have to read the sources without cherrypicking only those that align with our POV. We also need to understand the use of neutral language vs inciteful language because the latter keeps our articles unstable and noncompliant with NPOV. It helps to write for the opposition in an effort to achieve NPOV, otherwise we're facing criticism like this from mainstream media and end up with this, which is unacceptable. As for the storming vs walking-in, there was both, and storming was mentioned in that edit. The end results are what tell the true story and why we have to be careful about RECENTISM, sensationalism, journalistic opinion, clickbait, and feeding demographics. See the initial assessment of the overall damage per The NYTimes which summarizes the damage as largely limited to broken glass, busted doors and graffiti. The big artwork inside the White House, and other historic remnants remain unharmed. It's rather disconcerting when non-neutral editors want to label events as "rioting" when it's a conservative protest vs protests by left-wing/progressives, like with BLM or student riots at Berkeley or riots with huge damages as what happened in Portland. I see it as a double standard and a long way from NPOV. WP doesn't have to cater to a particular demographic, as does televised/online news media. Atsme 💬 📧 18:33, March 10, 2021

"We actually have to read the sources without cherrypicking only those that align with our POV." LMFAO. -- Calidum 18:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, using a CT Mirror article to assert Trump's lies were mere "exaggerations" because voter fraud happened at a smaller scale in prior Connecticut elections is cherry picking to support your point of view. And maybe you should read the NatGeo article you cited, which says "If any voter fraud did take place in 2020, it would have been an anomaly. Though rampant in the 19th and early 20th centuries, electoral fraud has become rare with the advent of stronger voter protections. Here's how voter fraud was perpetrated in the past—and why it has all but faded away."-- Calidum 18:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Your arguments are unconvincing. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 18:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's try to treat one another as valued colleagues with whom we're disagreeing rather than getting snarky with one another. This is a difficult article to work on, and it's likely to remain so for the foreseeable future for so many reasons. That makes it both more tempting to react to one another with snark and more important that we try to resist that temptation. —valereee (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree for the most part, Valereee, and appreciate your reminder but my comment was not intended to be snarky. It was in response to the edit summary that reverted my edit, particularly the comment "as if it were a scouting trip". I'm making it a point to mention it now because over time, we forget the importance of context - it's all relative. Atsme 💬 📧 17:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

So, I interpreted the "as if it were a scouting trip" to mean "as if they were doing something completely unremarkable". I think maybe @Atsme you interpreted it as something snarkier than that? I would say to {{u|Neutrality}} that maybe on articles such as this one, where we already have high tempers, it probably is best to avoid any sarcasm in edit summaries, which can't be struck out if someone objects to what they interpret as the tone, and just be boringly straightforward. —valereee (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Neutrality —valereee (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

While tone is important, Valeree, I think you've misidentified the root issue here. Respect for other editors begins with a shared commitment to site principles and policies, and to following reliable sources where they lead regardless of our personal opinions. For example, virtually every reliable source describes the assault on the Capitol as a "riot", but Atsme falsely pretends that use of the term is somehow evidence of editorial partisanship ("It's rather disconcerting when non-neutral editors want to label events as 'rioting' when it's a conservative protest").

More generally, when an editor is consistently dismissing reliable sources and tendentiously downplaying a violent and lethal extremist action aimed at overthrowing a nation's democracy, tone-policing the sort of very mild pushback in Neutrality's edit summary is not the most constructive use of one's time, nor the best way to support this site's underlying goals and values. MastCell ^Talk 18:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the recent back-and-forth, but I agree that Atsme's edit was POV and not based on Reliable Sources. Trump's claims of widespread voter fraud were not "exaggerated", they were "false" per virtually every source. And "some" rioters did not "go inside" the Capitol as per her version; "hundreds broke through security barricades" as originally stated. Reverting the edit was justified. Quibbling about edit summaries is unnecessary, especially when Atsme describes the article's language in terms like like "a wide-sweeping brush that paints only a single POV from the echo chamber." -- MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue, but facts are facts and there are more facts than what we're including in this BLP. This is not an article about the storming of the Capitol - this is the Donald Trump BLP, and that needs to be noted, regardless of the hatred or WP's systemic bias against or for the Trump administration. Dispassionate tone is what matters to me, and nothing else. WP is not a news source - we are an encyclopedia of all knowledge. We're supposed to provide information and let our READERS decide. We have multiple articles about Trump's presidency & the storming of the Capitol, the riots and the whole 9 yards - but again, this is a BLP. And MastCell, I just added this diff to my collection because I consider your presence here to be WP:HOUNDING. WP:IDGAF if consensus determines that certain information should be censored or omitted, let consensus make that determination, but the HOUNDING has to stop. Atsme 💬 📧 19:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

An editor's sanctions history should be discussed at the editor's talk page, not an article talk page. Levivich harass/hound 20:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
P.S. I seem to recall that Atsme was topic-banned from US politics a couple of years ago; whatever happened to that? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC) MelanieN, your comment was uncalled for, but noted, because I consider it a threat. Atsme 💬 📧 19:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC) It was a question, because I have not been following your career here. Do I gather that the TB was overturned at some point? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@MastCell, I don't disagree, but if that's the root problem, deal with the root problem. Incivility isn't fixing that. —valereee (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

If you have doubts about user's conduct, take it to their talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. From my pulpit, the idiots that did riot and did storm the Capitol should all be brought on charges and tried. However many who did enter the capital did indeed just walk in and the fact is that the number of persons who did enter the building is minuscule compared to those that were part of the earlier and ongoing demonstrations which numbered in the tens of thousands.--MONGO (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump child picture use on this page or the wiki

I've added Trump's child picture onto commons. Does anybody believe that this image has some use anywhere on this page or anywhere else on the site? I'm asking this because I do not feel like added this to his early life section for it to be reverted. I believe this can possibly be used in his early life section next to his military portrait. This is a great picture depicting what Donald Trump looked like when he was a child. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

SomeBodyAnyBody05 How did you come to the conclusion that this is exempt from copyright and in public domain? Unless you are aware of something everyone else here isn't the image you chose wasn't actually published and available to the public anywhere prior to 1977. CUPIDICAE💕 17:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

No. --Malerooster (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Not just what Praxidicae said (which is the most pressing issue), but what value would a picture add? It doesn't matter how "great" a picture is at "depicting" something if that something isn't encyclopedic in the first place - and this should be the first question that should be asked. Is a picture even necessary for an understanding of his early life? No? Then one should not be included, no matter how "great" it is. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree aside from the more pressing copyright issue. CUPIDICAE💕 17:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae, This image is most likely in the possession of the Trump family and not of CNN or any other major news network as I found the same colorization of the image on different major news organization articles about Trump's life story, Here's one from a Time article from 2016 where the image is featured: [3], Here's an article from Snopes that confirms this a image of donald trump as a child: [4]. And another source also confirms this is a image taken of trump a age 4: [5]. This image and another similar colorization of the same image are widely used around the internet that confirm this image was taken between 1950 and 1951 and is of. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Berchanhimez, The same reason why there are images on the article sections in the first place, To creatively add a representative image that can bring readers in. This is the exact reason I brought this to the talk page to begin with. And what make an image "encyclopedic" to you? This image purpose is to possibly show readers what Trump looked like in his "early life". ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

You've completely missed the point and demonstrated that you do not understand public domain. They own the copyright, no one said CNN does. It does not mean it is in the public domain since there is no evidence it was published before 1977, in fact, it appears that the first time it was published publicly was 2013. The terms say This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1926 and 1977 it's highly unlikely that this was published publicly upon it's creation and thus your weird interpretation of PD doesn't apply. CUPIDICAE💕 17:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

SomeBodyAnyBody05 Did you even read what the PD text says? Taken vs. published are two different matters. No one is arguing that the image was taken or created after 1977. That would be silly. CUPIDICAE💕 17:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We do not add images, text, data, or anything to "bring readers in". We add images (etc) to inform and provide educational value. Please review the image use policy for the rules regarding when images are appropriate to add - you'll note nowhere there does it say "because it would draw readers in" or "because it would be cool/interesting". Furthermore, you are causing and getting stuck in edit conflicts likely because you edit your comments multiple times - while that's not prohibited, it is best to review your comment using the "preview" feature and ensure you are satisfied with it before publishing it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@SomeBodyAnyBody05: Please demonstrate it's not a copyright violation. To do so, you will need to link to the publication of the work prior to 1977, and to also demonstrate there is no copyright statement on the work prior to 1977. Many thanks in advance. If you cannot comply with this request, please let us know and I will expedite the deletion of the image on Commons. If you choose not to comply, you will be blocked for uploading and utilising copyright violating material and failures to adhere to our copyright policy. We don't fuck around with copyright and neither will you. Nick (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Nick, I ask if you remain civil and not threaten me next time. Geez, everytime I even interact with people on the political side of wikipedia, It's always gotta be hostile. You try to help contribute or have a civil discussion, You get shot down by page watchers. I'm removing this section because This is obviously is getting negative responses even if it wasn't copyrighted. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ethics experts?

The "Conflicts of interest" section uses the unspecific and non-neutral term "ethics experts" twice. I think the paragraph could be simply rewritten to point out that unless Trump sold his businesses he would continue to profit from them. Alternatively, the "ethics experts" could be specified. As it stands, the continual use of the term "ethics experts" seems to violate the NPOV policy and the prohibition on weasel words.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

What do the cited sources say? SPECIFICO talk 11:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

ranking out of us presidents

can you add that he is ranked as one of the worst presidents in American history — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTTTRZON (talk • contribs) 15:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

We are still too close to events to make a valid judgment.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Whether to report “historical rankings” has been discussed repeatedly on this page, most recently here. So far there is no consensus to include this, pending the passage of time and more scholarly analysis. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Post Presidency

There isn`t really a whole of lot information here regarding what`s he`s doing since Biden got sworn in..I`m not saying it matters but it`s odd considering the length of this article that as soon as he`s out there`s virtually nothing. 2600:1702:2340:9470:9512:EF4F:1107:4D3D (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It's largely because what he's done post-presidency hasn't been notable. Most of the things that he's done have been minor things that would be closer to news reporting than encyclopedic. See WP:NOTNEWS — Czello 07:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I have not heard about him post presidency 2601:1C2:101:3480:6C4E:310B:BAB0:DE2A (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Try look at this [[6]]. Its not a lot, but then he no longer has to just say stuff to get publicty.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

As previously discussed, I don't think this section is necessary.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Revert

@Slatersteven: that's right, there are two sources, but only one calls it a "racist rhetoric" which is why I have specified that. Please revert your edit. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

So you object to one word?Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: what does that mean? What word? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

So what are you objecting to, RS say he used racist language, racist tweets and racist rhertioic to try and hold onto voters. So what are you objecting to if its is not "rhetoric", are you really, saying RS did not accuse Donnie of appealing to rasicm? Sure we might be able to reword it to "used racism" or "appeals to racism" as RS say, or we can just say "racist rhetoric", which RS also say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

We have enough in the article but here are some more about Donnie using racism as an election tactic [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]], so we paraphrase.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying. Please try and speak using better English or rephrase your comment so that I can understand. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I am asking what you are objecting to if it is not just the use of the word rhetoric, what (for example) did the Washington post say?Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not objecting to anything, simply providing attribution as the phrase "racist rhetoric" was used by NBC and thus should be attributed to them.

On a different note, this is the third time you have reverted an edit I have made almost immediately after I made it. This could be considered WP:HOUNDING, or am I wrong? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

As to the rest, or you could have removed the word rhetoric and thus conformed to both sources, which accuse him of using it as an election tool. Hence why I assumed you objected to the word "rhetoric".Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I would have reverted the second edit, had it not been done so already. Allen West was a 1-term Congressman nearly a decade ago, with zero national profile since, and is certainly not a recognized expert in race relations. Zaathras (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Citations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I trimmed some citations from the article here but was reverted, and this should be restored. All the content is still supported by the remaining references. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

As several editors have commented to you, removal of carefully curated references, assembled over the course of countless discussions and untold hours of editors' time and attention, is destructive to the article and contrary to our readers' interest. Please stop. SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I ask you not to reflect on editors and instead focus on content. The citations which I removed in the edit were unnecessary. Please feel free to cite the discussions you claim to be referring to, but we aren't bound by them either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Given the size of the article, should these citations as edited here be trimmed? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support The content is supported enough without these particular citations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• When there's debate about whether or not a citation is necessary, I generally lean on the side of inclusion unless there are a clearly excessive number or the article is running up against technical limits. Onetwothreeip, if you want to remove them, make an affirmative case specifying the material and why it's adequately supported by the existing citations. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I would share that approach normally, but this article has in excess of 850 citations! The only content at issue here is one simple sentence: Many of Trump's comments and actions have been considered racist. It is not saying that Trump's comments or actions are racist, but that they are considered racist. This simply does not need six citations; my version retains two for this sentence (and there are about thirty citations in the rest of the Trump racism section). The two citations I retain are titled "Donald Trump's long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2019" and "Every moment in Trump's charged relationship with race". These sources are from Vox and PBS respectively, which are both reliable, and the articles certainly detail Trump's comments and actions being considered racist, if not himself being characterised as racist. These two sources are very thorough, and not simply focusing on whatever racial controversy was happening in the news. Personally I think either of these sources are enough for this one sentence, but if you feel they are not then please let me know. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• OpposeThose citations are in place because many editors discussed long and hard how to document this extraordinary claim. If you want to overturn that consensus, it will take more than just your opinion. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

That is an extraordinarily contentious claim, so I support having multiple citations. The way they're combined prevents them from unduly interrupting the text. I'm not sure the last two about the "shithole" remark are needed, since those refer primarily to a specific instance whereas the others document a larger pattern. But I would not support removing more than that, and if there is a strong prior consensus to use those sources as Specifico asserts, I don't see any urgent need to rock the boat. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's see this supposed prior consensus then, but I doubt it exists. It might be extraordinary to claim that Donald Trump or his actions and comments are racist, but that is not the claim made in the article. The article claims many of his comments and actions have been considered racist. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I would like to lean on the side of WP:V.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: Could you elaborate on why you think the content isn't supported by the remaining citations? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Support it is rare that more than 2 citations are needed for any statement of fact, and on an article that is already too long that holds doubly so. Without some argument why the 6 citations are necessary, I must support a reduction. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per SPECIFICO. — Politicsfan4 (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Impeachment sentences in lead fail to provide essential context

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The sentences we have in the lead regarding impeachment are currently ...the House of Representatives impeached him in December 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate acquitted him of both charges in February 2020. for the first one, and Seven days later, the House impeached him for incitement of insurrection, making him the only federal officeholder in American history to be impeached twice. The Senate acquitted Trump on February 13, 2021. for the second one.

If I were a reader who knew nothing about Trump and were coming here to learn about him, I'd come away from these sentences with a severe misunderstanding of what took place. Just saying that the House/Senate impeached/acquitted him leaves out the absolutely essential context (noted in basically every RS covering the impeachments) that the process was highly partisan, and that the acquittals were not the result of Republicans weighing the evidence and finding it unpersuasive (as an uninformed reader might reasonably assume from the current language) so much as making a political decision not to go against a president from their own party. They self-admitted as much: "I'm not an impartial juror" is a direct quote from Mitch McConnell.

To remedy this, I propose changing the first instance of Senate acquitted him to Republican-controlled Senate acquitted him and the second instance to Republican senators blocked a conviction on February 12, 2021. This provides purely factual information that helps establish the essential partisan context of the trials.^{Edit: Paragraph modified, see below. 06:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)}

The GOP claims that Democrats acted in a similarly partisan fashion have not been widely adopted by RS in their own voice the same way as is true for Republicans, so I have concerns that it would be false balance to add Democratic-controlled House, but I would prefer both over neither. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support adding for Republicans as proposer, with second choice adding for both. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Would it be acceptable to say that the Senate did not convict/remove him, rather than to say it acquitted him? I agree that "acquittal" sounds like they were weighing evidence, which is not a useful assessment. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose adding that it was a "Republican-controlled Senate" should not be added since it's literally not true. Democrats had control of the Senate when he was acquitted. If were gonna say it was a partisan acquittal we should also say it was a partisan impeachment. I personally think it's fine the way it is now since it's not giving excessive detail in the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Ack, politics is so discombobulating these days, I forgot that the second impeachment trial was after the current class of senators was sworn in. The essential fact that Republicans blocked the conviction remains, though; I've modified the suggestion accordingly, changing the wording for the second trial rather than saying "Republican-controlled Senate" again.

  Regarding the "we should also say", that's exactly the whataboutism that I cautioned about above. Where are the reliable sources saying in their own voice that Democratic senators voted to convict because of partisan objectives rather than since they believed Trump to be guilty on the evidence? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

We can't seriously claim that either Democratic or Republican politicians voted based on evidence or partisanship, that is ascribing motives. If we say that the Senate did not convict Trump after the House impeached him, that leaves open the fact that it was partisan, if not implying it. The current version gives too much pretence to Republican senators acting on evidence, but saying that Republicans prevented an impeachment conviction goes too far the other way. It's much better to simply say the House impeached him (or even better to say the House voted for articles of impeachment), and that the Senate didn't vote to remove or convict him. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Well put Onetwothreeip. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment Broadly speaking, your notions are part of a general issue that has been on my mind. There are those that would like articles such as this to just state the bare facts, and there are others, such as I, that think it is important to provide the context, implications, meaning, etc. behind the bare facts. The latter approach requires more text. What you propose is a slippery slope, fraught with peril. It is also not quite correct to lay the partisan nature of the events to "Republicans" - it is perhaps more correct to speak of Trumpists and how the Trump cult has come to dominate the Republican party. An alternate approach may be to back up a bit in the lead with some statement to the effect that Trump's personality and election deceit came to dominate the views of his followers and the Republican party. The lead (and article) is missing the notion that the self-serving, bizzaro world that Trump spun has come to dominate Republican politics, a Trump cult dominates, disconnected from facts. Such a statement will likely be more necessary as the next few years unfold with Trump's evidently continued dominance of Republican politics. The lead, IMO, does not refute the massive election disinformation strongly enough - we used to have the statement that the election was the most secure in history, but it got removed. Perhaps some alternate language to yours to consider might be "the Senate acquitted Trump, with many Republicans continuing to express belief in widespread election impropriety," or something like that. Bdushaw (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

"Trumpists and how the Trump cult has come to dominate the Republican party" Pardon my confusion, but are there still other factions in this political party besides the Trumpists? Dimadick (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, though anyone could be excused for thinking not. Mitt Romney is an example, as are the "never Trumpers"/Lincoln Project. There are conservative commentators such as Max Boot and David Brooks who are not at all supportive of Trump. One doesn't know what to think of McConnell, other than he's an opportunist, but he's no Trumpist. The Trumpists dominate, to be sure, but the Republican party is split; the battle between the factions and how strongly Trumpism perseveres will be the story of the next election cycle.Bdushaw (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• I support the proposal for the first impeachment trial. The proposal for the second one would leave the uninformed reader as clueless as before (how were they able to do that). We could provide context for the second impeachment trial like this: "The Senate acquitted Trump by voting 57–43 to convict, falling short of the required two-thirds majority for a conviction." Anything more is too much detail for the lead, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  Or something like Despite a bipartisan majority of congressional and public support for conviction, the 57 votes in the Senate fell short of the required two-thirds margin. SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The impeachment was not bipartisan neither was public support bipartisan. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Please review RS narratives about that. All Democrat voters and around 30% of Republicans polled in favor of conviction. That comes to 60%+. SPECIFICO talk 22:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Dems had control at the time. But it doesn't even matter who was in "control" because no one has supermajority. And as for making impeachment a "partisan" issue, impeachment is inherently partisan/political to begin with. That is in no way lead worthy Anon0098 (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  Anon0098, the dems did not have control during the first impeachment; see 116th Congress. The goof Iamreallygoodatcheckers pointed out above was corrected in the proposal, so if you continue to believe that it is somehow factually incorrect, that points to you not having read or understood the proposal. Courtesy pinging PackMecEng and Spy-cicle, who seem to have followed—please either modify your !votes or articulate how the proposal is somehow factually incorrect. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I thought the first proposal was still referincing the second impeachment. Regardless, as I said, who blocked the impeachment is irrelevant especially since this is not noteworthy in relation to previous impeachments. The party always supports the president, it's a given -- impeachment is inherently partisan/political to begin with and I stand by that Anon0098 (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

There is much too small a sample size to declare impeachment is always this or that. Anyway, if it were, then it is all the more significant that there was bipartisan support in 2021. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - As factually incorrect and, as Anon0098 points out, misleading. PackMecEng (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support 2600:1702:2340:9470:BD7A:302B:D2C5:5563 (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Agree 100% that a misinformed person would absolutely walk away under false pretenses about this impeachment situation with how this worded. Perhaps the person who wrote this passage didnt realize it was confusing and misleading? I like what you proposed, it is clear and concise. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per other comments. 74.193.109.22 (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)MaximusEditor (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. BigCheese76 (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: the lead should be simple and factual. This is an attempt to put spin into the lead. Impeachment votes are by their nature partisan. This is misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  It's adding purely factual information that is supported by every possible reference you could find. We can mislead our readers by omission just as easily as by inclusion, so the current inadequate phrasing is the greater neutrality concern, in my view. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps noting that the Senate "did not reach the required two-thirds threshold to convict" and thus acquitted him of both charges for the first one, and then that would imply that they didn't reach two-thirds the second time, providing a little bit of context to it requiring bipartisanship that wasn't there. Go Phightins! 01:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Note that the Bill Clinton page currently does not make mention of ruling political party during his impeachment trial in the lead, despite it being a similarly partisan vote. If this page should be changed to highlight the partisan nature of Trump's trial, then it should be changed accordingly on other articles where the partisanship of the vote is not explicit in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realteleworm (talk • contribs) 00:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article suggestion

Hey all, I'm not a content creator but I was working on some categorization for an article in Category:Cults of personality and thought that maybe, in time, an article on Trump with this focus would be warranted. Whatever your opinion of Trump, pro or con, I think he definitely had (still has?) a cult of personality similar to some other world leaders. It probably would cross-over a bit with the article on his use of social media but I don't think a U.S. political party has had a leader with a singularly devoted following as Trump had in generations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd definitely argue that there is a cult of personality among Republicans surrounding Trump and would support an article discussing the subject. I'm not sure if now is the right time to write an article, as it remains uncertain if the cult will last into the future or if it will dissipate in the next few years or so. Mgasparin (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

While Trump is rare in having a personal rather than ideological following, your view is an over-exaggeration. The U.S. under Trump did not bear much similarity to North Korea under Kim Il Sung. All the news organizations that criticized him remained open and none of their reporters were arrested or executed. TFD (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I've read several articles discussing his followers as a cult, and Q-Anon is often described as cultlike. The Venn diagram between Q-followers and Trump supporters isn't quite a circle, but there's a LOT of overlap. I think you could certainly find sources for such an article, but the question is is now the time? As Mgasparin says above, it remains to be seen how much staying power this all has now that he's not in office. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 03:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing "Donald Trump's cult of personality" next to Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, etc in your list. There is no comparison. Anon0098 (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Anon0098 What do you mean there is no comparison? Cults of personality simply involve heavy uses of propaganda, spectacle and/or big lie, patriotism to create an idealized or heroic image of a leader, things Trump and his followers have explicity engaged in. The personality cult need not involve great acts of violence by the followers or the leader (as in Hitler and Stalin) to be a cult. Mgasparin (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't support this. There likely aren't a whole lot of sources that specifically describe and use the term "cult of personality" for Trump's movement, even if they do exist many are likely opinions. There is a relatively strict criteria for articles of this nature under WP:NEGATIVESPIN. I don't think we are at the spot or coverage for such an article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The current Trumpism article seems to fit the cult-of-personality bill, per Mgasparin, so maybe it should be listed in Category:Cults of personality. See also Golden statues, cult-like behavior, Trump worship. I'm surprised not to see Mussolini, many of whose ideas Hitler copied, listed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I recall not insubstantial reporting on the disappointment and shock of more than a few Trump supporters after Biden's inauguration. Many people felt duped. Comparisons to some of the historical political cult figures are not really relevant or fair. Trump had and has a considerable following - if we accept what the true nature of Trumpism is (according to RS's), such following is certainly cult-like; an irrational, misguided following. There are more similar examples in American history of such cults, e.g., Charles Coughlin or Huey Long. Trump is one of America's great demagogues, though there is wide agreement not to call him so in a Wikipedia article. Bdushaw (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

"an irrational, misguided following" Honestly, I doubt that rationality is relevant to politics. More often than not, an appeal to emotion is a winning strategy for politicians. The article on Trumpism has several sources pointing that it connects to the emotions of the ideology's followers, including anger towards the elite which they identify with Trump's opponents. For better or for worse, many of Trump's followers feel disenfranchised, and perceive establishment politicians as working against them. Dimadick (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there any significant amount of RS that say there is a cult of personality?Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven Define "significant". Here are some. There are more. They are easy to find. Most are opinion pieces. Some are by or are interviews with people who study and research cults. One is an opinion piece by a former Republican congressperson. BTW, Trump is already mentioned in our list of cults of personality. The following ones are all before March of 2020. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2021

you need to remove the part that says Donald trump reacted slowly to the coronavirus because it makes him sound bad and he isn't he was specifically told by Democratic leaders and the CDC to do somethings and not others and then when it fits the story he was bashed and called xenophobic by the radical far-left media. 12.144.145.252 (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Run on sentence aside, that sentence is well sourced and the product of long work on due weight in the lead here. Your personal opinion that he wasn’t slow doesn’t change the fact that he was slow in reacting overall. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Or that RS say he was slow.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that reliable sources said he did. Noah ^💬 18:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I had meant to include the fact that it was reliably sourced, but in the midst of copyediting my response I not only left off the signature but apparently removed the word "reliable" from the part about it being well sourced - but yes, that too. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry if the facts make him sound bad. --Khajidha (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2021

Donald Trump was the oldest first-term U.S. president, a distinction he held until 2021 when Joseph Biden was inaugurated at age 78. 2600:8807:C884:6100:DD6D:E399:D6DB:942F (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you want to say what?Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide the exact edit you'd like made, including where you would like to add, remove or change text. Also please provide sources. Additionally, for an article as contentious as this one, please get consensus for any changes. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

That info is already included in the article in Donald_Trump#2016_presidential_campaign Valenciano (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2021

It is impossible that Donald Trump is 6’3”. Here is a link of a picture of him standing next to Justin Trudeau who identifies as 6’2”. I would say at most Trump is 6’ or less.

https://www.quora.com/How-is-Donald-Trump-s-image-internationally/answer/Michael-Cataldo-3?ch=10&share=7fc0ba68&srid=hTnIr 199.116.194.97 (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Quora, and your interpretation of an image do not constitute reliable sources. Please provide some if you want this change to be added. Terasail^[✉] 00:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Trumpists has been nominated for discussion

Category:Trumpists has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Covid 19

When was Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists added, as there is a claim it was added only a day ago, and is thus covered by wp:brd, as far as I can tell it has been in the article months, what am I missing?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

False racism narratives

From a neutral point of view if you look at the "very fine people" comment was taken way out of context because he was talking about the people that were protesting for the statue to be up and said condemn the white supremacists I'm not understanding how this can be considered racism.. Trump's comment on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia—that there were "very fine people on both sides"—was widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence between white supremacist demonstrators and counter-protesters.[814][815][816] 99.99.46.20 (talk) 05:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not up to us as editors to decide whether something he said is racist or not. The function of this article is to record what has been said by notable and reliable sources.  Aar  ►  23:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Forget about future donations...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

...when articles like Donald Trump's page is full of disproven "facts" such as the Charlottesville protest and speech - that you vigorously defend the false narrative by insinuating racism, makes one wonder how much of your other pages are so biased, making them unusable for fact-finding. When you let statements like "false claims of electoral fraud, pressuring government officials" remain, it reinforces that view. Defending things like "false" claims instead of just "claims" again proves your bias. His page is so riddled with biased innuendo, I don't know if I can even trust your page on plate tectonics to be used as reference in my kids school projects.

Clean up and ensure unbiased facts are used. I shouldn't be able to read ANY article and have a sense of what political leaning your editors have. 45.37.131.217 (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

If you see a "political leaning" here, you may wish to take off your colored glasses and investigate the hundreds of reliable sources that are used to support claims here. Statements like false claims of electoral fraud and pressuring government officials are factual - you not liking them does not make them "biased". If claims are false, they will be called false - just like how we say homeopathy is a pseudoscience... because it is. We aren't going to sugar-coat someone's biography just because you yourself look up to them as some kind of idol. This is 150% a you problem, and not a Wikipedia problem. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The section above this is rejecting an anti-Trumper. He did pressure officials, and until you provide a Reliable source that says there was fraud, what can we say other than calling them false? Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

To be unbiased you would have to say claims, not false claims. At the very least unsubstantiated claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:b065:56b0:894:b7de:5fc1:8f0a (talk • contribs) 04:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

In what way is calling something that is false, false a "bias"? It's also not unsubstantiated - it's flat out false. Even if you think some of the claims Trump made had some inkling of validity to them, the vast majority of his claims were not only unsubstantiated, but proven false even at the time he made them. You not liking that doesn't change the facts. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

We go with what RS (and even the courts) say.Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

This has, hmm, what to do with Donald Trump exactly? Also your "discussion page" link is literally just to an article on a discussion page, not any RfC. Zaathras (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

NPOV edit to intro

Hi, fellow Wikipedians! I'm Dswitz10734. One of my edits was recently reverted on this page. I want a consensus on the talk page to change this paragraph. The change I want is in italics.

Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden, but refused to concede defeat. He attempted to overturn the results by making false claims of electoral fraud, pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges and obstructing the presidential transition. On the day Congress met to tally the electoral votes, January 6, 2021, Trump rallied his supporters and told them to march to the Capitol. When they arrived, hundreds of them broke through security barricades and stormed the Capitol, resulting in the deaths of five people and forcing Congress to evacuate. Seven days later, the House impeached Trump for incitement of insurrection, making him the only federal officeholder in American history to be impeached twice. The Senate acquitted Trump for the second time on February 13, 2021.

Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden, but refused to concede defeat. He attempted to overturn the results by making false claims of electoral fraud, pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges and obstructing the presidential transition. On the day Congress met to tally the electoral votes, January 6, 2021, Trump rallied his supporters and told them to "peacefully and patriotically" make their voices heard. Following his statements, many of his supporters went to the Capitol. When they arrived, hundreds of them broke through security barricades and stormed the Capitol, resulting in the deaths of five people and forcing Congress to evacuate. Seven days later, the House impeached Trump for incitement of insurrection, making him the only federal officeholder in American history to be impeached twice. The Senate acquitted Trump for the second time on February 13, 2021.

The word "march" makes it seem like Trump encouraged the violence. I'm sure he didn't want violence nor deaths, but the light he is in seems to get that message across to the reader. I wanted to make it clear in the article that Trump didn't encourage deaths, but he said to "peacefully and patriotically" [11] express your feelings.

I didn't want the article to convey that Trump wanted the violence without a reference; this article should be neutral. I noticed when I referenced that site that it was citation number 1. That means that the entire intro is citeless! (I made that word up because it makes sense ;-) ) Please tell me your thoughts so we can get a consensus. Thank you for your time and I hope to hear from you soon! Dswitz10734 (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC) P.S. Requesting comment from Slatersteven

I oppose this proposal. He said "peacefully" once, but, as that section in the BBC article you cited then says, The language was very different from other sections, which borrowed more from combat or war. The overall message that was given to the mob was not one of peace. The article continues, He clearly knew there were people in that crowd who were ready to and intended to be violent, and he certainly did nothing to discourage that. He not only did nothing to discourage it, he strongly hinted it should happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thus we should represent RS analysis of what he said.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes there is a preference as per MOS to keep references and citations out of a lead paragraph. maybe I read that wrong, but just throwing that out there.MaximusEditor (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2021

Can you cite a source for this passage, "On the day Congress met to tally the electoral votes, January 6, 2021, Trump rallied his supporters and told them to march to the Capitol. When they arrived, hundreds of them broke through security barricades and stormed the Capitol, resulting in the deaths of five people and forcing Congress to evacuate." To be exact, cite something that shows proof that Trump rallied his supporters to storm the capitol. K1401986Talk with me 22:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Per long-standing consensus, the lead does not have citations. That subject is well cited in the body. Mgasparin (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Referencing legislation names in lead

Taking a look back at other presidential bio articles, notable legislation signed into law by the President is almost always referred to specifically by the name of the legislation. I propose that we follow convention and do this as well for this article. Specifically "a tax-cut package" should be written as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and "criminal justice reform" should be the First Step Act. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Basil the Bat Lord, we currently handle this in the lead with e.g. He enacted a tax-cut package for individuals and businesses. I think that's good. Some pieces of legislation have a very well-known name and should be referred to by that name. But many (the tax cut act included) are better known and more clearly described by what they did. Legislation names are also almost always promotional, so it's also often more neutral to describe them than name them. Names can also take up more space, especially if they have to be described, and space is something we don't have. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

SdkbIf that's the consensus then fine, but I would just point out that it doesn't seem to be being applied consistently on other articles then. For example, the Obama page's lead contains a bunch of fully written out legislation titles, even for bills which are not commonly known today (such as the various stimulus bills). Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Basil's point. I can't see how "a tax-cut package" more clearly describes the legislation than its actual name. I don't see that the space taken by "criminal justice reform" is less than "First Step Act". Legislation names may be promotional, but that's their name. It is not POV to call legislation by its name, but it could be POV to substitute a short description for the name. It also seems a needless effort to create a description (which might be contentious) rather than simply use the name. As a reader, I find it far more informative to be told the name of the legislation upfront. If I want information about the legislation I can go through to the article (where I will get more than a short description). I shouldn't have to dig to find out what legislation is being referred to. And, yes, the style should be consistent. We shouldn't have a different style here.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to use a consistent style, especially considering that within the same sentence we refer to another piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act, by its full name. Surely the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 sounds self-explanatory. For the First Step Act I'd suggest keeping the descriptor "criminal justice reform" in addition to the Act's name. So the full two sentences talking about these pieces of legislation would become:

He enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which rescinded the health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. He signed criminal justice reform with the First Step Act, and appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

— JFG ^talk 22:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that's good but I would just point out that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act should some other kind of descriptor with it, because as it's written there it makes it sound like the only other notable thing about the legislation was repealing the individual mandate. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Basil. For example, George W. Bush's article says "Bush pushed through a $1.3 trillion tax cut program" in the lede. Could we do something similar here?JLo-Watson (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Trump wall

Given there is a separate article on the "wall", do we really need three paragraphs here? As far as I can see, it seems to be a simple matter of Trump promised X, and Trump delivered Y.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No we can pare this down to a few lines.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I have copied text from the introduction of the Trump wall article, which is more coherent than the text that was previously here. It could do with some improvement.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Good initiative. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

However, having done that, I realise that the two preceding subsections in the "Immigration" section are also about the "wall" (government shutdown etc). I think this should be one subsection, and again, since we have an article about the "wall", we really only need highlights here. I also think having one subsection would be easier to understand.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Restored bollard fencing and initial target of 1000 miles. It’s the exact same rationale at the start of the section. Trump promised X (wall) and delivered Y (fencing), Trump promised X (1000 miles) and delivered Y (about 500 miles) starship.paint (exalt) 06:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The reason that I didn't "deliver" on that wording is that it seems excessively pedantic - it's not the simple matter that I thought - and it gives the paragraph a snide, sniping tone which is inappropriate and unnecessary.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I have combined the three subsections into one section on "Trump wall". I don't think we need all the details about Trump's battle with Congress here, as it is covered in other articles. Perhaps someone else can work on that.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Historical rank

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? — JFG ^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. — 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? Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Experts blame Trump for killing 400,000 US citizens

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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 (talk • contribs)

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)

Yeah, putting that claim in the article is like us begging Trump to sue the WMF with defamation charges. He may have spread misinformation and falsehoods, but he can't be held accountable for the decisions of the American electorate. Many of them willfully disregarded the recommendations of the health officers and those around them and paid for that disregard with their lives. Mgasparin (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

He also isn't responsible for the thousands who died in state prisons, unable to choose a president or personal space if they wanted to. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

My point exactly. The above claim doesn't belong here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Enough, this is going nowhere. Mgasparin (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misleading representation of opinion polling

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.  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 think Donald is going to run again

MAybe, but you are not an RS (please read wp:or).Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 20 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. 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 , 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 , 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. 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 . 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. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2021

Remove wording suggesting that Trump made false claims of election fraud. A recount is taking place in Maricopa County, AZ. Add the fact that the recount is underway. 2603:8000:6F06:2527:C874:B59D:FF99:B833 (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2021

Request to change the wording in reference to Donald Trump’s response during the pandemic. Trump intended to start the response by enacting a travel ban on Chinese nationals. The country that had the highest population density of infections. Trump was then called a racist for this travel ban, or the ban was called ineffective.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/494697-pelosi-on-trumps-china-travel-ban-it-wasnt-this-great-moment%3famp 2601:206:8200:9390:9D06:626B:3D9:8452 (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Trump's Middle Eastern brokering

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.

• You added this text.
• I partially reverted it.
• You reinserted the reverted text without discussing it on the Talk page and waiting 24 hours.
• Another editor reverted the same text.
• A second editor partially reverted the first editor.
• I reverted the second editor.

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)

Slatersteven, forgive me for pinging you back but I hadn't seen this until now. I agree that it's too early - but reliable sources have taken to calling this one of the most significant (and some even call it the most significant) foreign policy achievement of his time in office, and as such, it should be included here if his foreign policy is discussed in this article. There is an argument that none of it should be included yet (both for article size reasons as well as too soon), but if any is included, this needs to be per RS characterization as the most significant. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Which ones?Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't find the previous discussion (and don't have links saved right now) but I pointed out quite a few at the last time this was discussed months ago - maybe someone better at searching archives (it was on this talk page) can find that and link it here, alternatively I'll try and find such sometime in the next few days. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:54, 21 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)

China virus / racism

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)

I can show you Wikipedia being completely OK with "colloquially" calling out South Africa for The Thing from Nelson Mandela Bay, or casually blaming Brazilians for spreading "Lineage P.1". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Good point 2600:1702:2340:9470:9CAE:A2B9:9362:D8CC (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Discrepancy with Racial views of Donald Trump article

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)

I think that it's important that child articles and parent articles are the same but not exactly so - and I, like the two people who have commented here before, do not see how the short (14 word) summary in this article is not an accurate summarization of the child article linked therein, thus I see no need for any change. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree 2600:1702:2340:9470:9CAE:A2B9:9362:D8CC (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggested addition to Post-presidency section.

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)

Yes please add if for no other reason he`s been out of office for over 90 days and people want to know what his deal is..I do anyway...yes this is relevant..he`s created a whole new world of lunacy and it would be nice to know that there is at least someone out there who has tried to keep him from doing more harm..the world needs to know what he`s on like that`s ever going to come out 2600:1702:2340:9470:E0AC:CD44:4802:427 (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead length

The prose of this article is pretty long,with over 6 paragraphs (5 if you exclude the starting sentence). Many we can tighten it up? 4 paragraphs is the ideal number for an article of this scale. Blue Jay (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

What would you propose to cut from this article? Mgasparin (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by " prose " ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:E0AC:CD44:4802:427 (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Blue Jay seems to be talking about the lead section which, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, does overrun the suggested four-paragraph maximum for an introduction. On the other hand, that's not an ironclad rule, and there was a hell of a lot to discuss, even in brief, from the last presidency. WhampoaSamovar (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed the section title. As a very long and high-profile article, I'm fine with 6 paragraphs. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

How is he not considered a politician?

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:

• Britannica does not use "politician".
• Biography.com does not call him a "politician".

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)

Yes, he is a politician. That doesn't necessarily mean the lede sentence should say it. I'm not re-hashing the last lead discussion now. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

He was a politician..refer to Aristotle regarding the difference between a politician and civil servant 2600:1702:2340:9470:8883:4B26:17AB:9CB3 (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Fugitive?

Is Trump a Fugitive? I see no detail in article but it has the following category: >Category:Fugitives wanted by Iran Some please verify and delete Category as needed. Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I found this reference from NPR. The red notice doesn't really seem that notable for this article though. There are already so many other things we can talk about other than a warrant from another country. Mgasparin (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not just "another country", it's Iran, we already have a Foreign policy subsection named for this very sort of international relationship complication. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

No he is not.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Depends on whose looking for him..I say he is 2600:1702:2340:9470:E0AC:CD44:4802:427 (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

We know who wants him, and his biography already has a paragraph about the man he killed to become a wanted man. If I was capable of simply citing statements, one simple sentence on the consequences of blowing up another country's national hero would be simple. Simple for someone else, I still insist. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

No. He is not a fugitive.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Then how do you explain the warrant for his arrest on suspicion of murder, ten months in effect? He's not running away from INTERPOL. But if he ever wants to visit Iran, he's damn sure gotta slip in through the unmarked sewer entrance disguised as a cloud, or he's going to jail. That's a fact, Jack. He's only "bulletproof" or "Teflon" domestically (but pretty much safe in Canada and Norway, too). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. He's not running away.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Laying low counts as evasion. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

If Trump ever lays low — well, let me know.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I just did, so this isn't working out between us, I'm hanging up. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

He is not in hiding, he is not on the lam, he has not had a request for extradition made against him.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. This is ridiculous.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The US has formally designated the proper Iranian authorities a Foreign Terrorist Organization, and informally "refuses to negotiate with terrorists", what do you expect, teamwork? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, he is neither "a person who has escaped from captivity or is in hiding". It does not matter why this is the case, what matters is he does not fit the definition of fugitive.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

He knows he's wanted. He could and arguably should turn himself in (with a GOOD lawyer). But he remains harboured, safely. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

So? It does not matter if he is wanted, to be a fugitive he must be fleeing and hiding, he has done neither. Nor is he being harboured, it is just that Iran has made no formal request for his extradition. This is just political theatre on the part of Iran and has no place being given credence by us unless RS say he is a fugitive.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, the US and Iran have no formal extradition system between them. Same as how Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya didn't with America, but you wouldn't say their former leaders weren't wanted by the foreign country. Or maybe you would, somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, that is irrelevant to be a fugitive he must be on the run, not, not being on the run. Being a fugitive and being wanted are not the same thingSlatersteven (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The second sentence of Fugitive says you're mistaken. Maybe it's mistaken. Can you offer any differences between a "wanted person" and a "fugitive"? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A. Wikipedia is not an RS, B. No it does not, as Trump is not "taking refuge in a different country in order to avoid arrest", as he is (in fact) a resident (and citizen) of the USA (and in fact has left to go to other countries as well, and I am not sure he has ever actually even been to Iran), nor is he "hiding from law enforcement in the state". Drop this silliness please, this is going to be my last word on this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Two good points, I concede to you. He's also taking refuge in America to avoid familiar domestic media and state process servers, and is mainly refusing to visit Iran because he's heard it's one of "those shithole countries" that keeps "children in cages" with "murderers and rapists" always "invading" from Iraq and "crossing in caravans" from Afghanistan. Same reason Bush and Obama could surrender, but "just don't wanna". InedibleHulk (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Laughable and irrelevant to Trump's bio. Iran's "warrants" are political theater, and carry no weight at all. Zaathras (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

This. Reliable sources rightly so give no weight to that warrant when talking about it beyond the "routine" coverage of covering it briefly when it first came out. Even in the small amount of coverage that it has received, many sources go to extra lengths to clarify that it's a political warrant, not a legitimate criminal warrant. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources generally pro-America and anti-Iran? If so, fair enough to bury this for POV reasons. But the warrant is verifiable and active, and the story about the underlying crime in Trump's foreign policy section is thus plainly incomplete and falsely suggests this suspected terrorist was given impunity by everyone (for better or worse, arguably). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• I thought this was done, because the thread topic was on including two specific categories (Category:Fugitives wanted by Iran and Category:Fugitives wanted by Iraq), and the overwhelming consensus is to not include them. They certainly aren't "defining" attributes of Trump. The categories were removed from the article over 24 hours ago, and while one editor insists on continuing to argue on whether Trump is a "fugitive", there's no argument here regarding Wikipedia policy suggesting these categories should be in the article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Category or no, I've added the relevant info to the relevant section, using a story from NPR, an outlet already considered reliable there. Missing the URL, can't paste. Any mitigating factors or excuses within are fair game, too, if desired. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I've already fixed the ref. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. To be clear, re "covering it briefly when it first came out", I used the the NPR story from last June. Not the one above from six months later. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

This depends on your point of view..it`s not like he is ever going to be free to move around openly like let`s say Semion Mogilevich 2600:1702:2340:9470:8883:4B26:17AB:9CB3 (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how this pertains to the persistent RS coverage. I also don't know who that is. But I added an Ebrahim Raisi declaration from Mgasparin's link above, more help citing? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Don`t know who is ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:8883:4B26:17AB:9CB3 (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Mogilevich (but have since dipped my toe, thanks for Wikilinking). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you..he`s as deep in it as Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin sure hope I don`t disappear 2600:1702:2340:9470:8883:4B26:17AB:9CB3 (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

If either of those ostentatious overblown oligarchs give you any grief, tell 'em the Hulkster says you can stay, brother! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks..nice to know there are still a few stand up guys out there..spam for everyone 2600:1702:2340:9470:8883:4B26:17AB:9CB3 (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2021 to Pres. Donald Trump page

The official wikipedia page for former President Donald John Trump is wrong. It is wrong in the sense that all other past U.S. Presidents are marked on wikipedia as having gone to 'X... University' (Yale University, for example (Clinton)).

On the official wikipedia page for former President Donald John Trump it is OMMITTED, that 'Wharton School' is ACTUALLY only a minor college and part of The University of Pennsylvania.

The official wikipedia page for former President Donald John Trump should categorically state U. of Pennsylvania. 2601:14B:200:17D0:A116:B71E:EA64:CB34 (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Current consensus is to show it as "Wharton School". Please see Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus, item 18 for more information. SkyWarrior 04:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This user is right. Trump's page needs to say University of Pennsylvania. Obama is listed as having graduated from Columbia University, not Columbia College. For GWB, Yale University is listed, not Yale College. Same for Bill Clinton, who graduated from Georgetown College at Georgetown University. So why is Trump the only president who has the college within the university listed?

I believe the reason is to deceive the public, because saying one graduated from "Wharton" heavily implies earning an MBA, and Wikipedia is continuing to perpetuate that deception by treating Trump's page differently from all other former U.S. presidents. Ajlipp (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2021

81.97.225.229 (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)he is a sex predator

 Not done. Unclear what request is being made exactly. There is already a section detailing his sexual misconduct. — Czello 12:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The section on his sexual misconduct is incomplete..the worst of it has been repressed and glossed over. 2600:1702:2340:9470:42:CA82:3ECF:51A5 (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Wouold you care to provide some backup for this claim?Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's because it links to a full article which goes into depth on this matter. — Czello 15:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Racist or Prejudice?

When I think of racism, it is a stronger form of prejudice where someone considers one race superior to another. Prejudice (pre-judgement) is "An unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. Any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable. Unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group." Growing up, my generation was taught a very firm distinction between the two terms. I wholeheartedly, undoubtedly think Trump pre judges people based on race, religion, sex, gender, etc. He'll kick you out of a country but he wouldn't take it to the extremes. He's a fast talker from the 50's-80's and that is simply not the same thing.Jawz101 (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Please read wp:or and wp:soap.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

In my generation and growing up in JIM CROW south..I was taught differently..it`s essentially the same thing..it is to me anyway 2600:1702:2340:9470:ECAE:6827:C0A:C280 (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

24-hr BRD violation

@Srodgers1701: Please note that this article is under active arbitration remedies. Your edit was reverted. IAW the 24-hr BRD cycle, you shouldn't have reinstated it without discussing it on the talk page first. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2021

After birth date add city he was born Queens, New York City WikiHuman2021 (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

We do say that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 10:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2021 (2)

The spreading of misinformation is spread by the left media NOT Trump. Your information is incorrect and needs to be corrected if you want to be a RELIABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION. Anyone with half a brain can read your article and see it sounds like a personal opinionated social media post. 2600:1004:B058:6BF7:E005:3F75:C244:A50B (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We have reliable sources to back up that claim, so it will remain in the article. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 13:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The Insurrection Lie

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which hundreds stormed, interrupting the electoral vote count."

This statement strongly implies that Trump caused or fomented an insurrection, which is a mainstream media lie, as was what the media reported about Charlottesville. Here is what Trump said: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Unless you have direct evidence e.g. footage where Trump himself encourages/incites an insurrection, this sentence needs to be revised for the sake of NPOV. OTherwise, Wikipedia has become nothing more than Left-wing propaganda. Tpkatsa (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not left-wing propaganda just because Wikipedia doesn't cave to the fake news alt-right crowd. Trump was literally impeached on charges for inciting an insurrection. That's why it's in the article. And you know, because hundreds of rs say it. YODADICAE👽 22:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Also {{cn}} which is a mainstream media lie, as was what the media reported about Charlottesville. I'm unaware of an actual reliable source that states this. YODADICAE👽 22:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't say that Trump incited an insurrection it says he urged his supporters to march to the capitol, which is true (whether you think he meant peacefully or not) and reported in RS. Sources vary on whether or not he incited them to storm it or just march peacefully, and to say he did incite an insurrection would violate NPOV and to say that he didn't would also violate NPOV. I think what it currently says is the best we're gonna get and probably the most neutral. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Relevant discussion at Talk:Joe Biden re category

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Joe Biden related to the category Category:Candidates in the 2020 United States presidential election that would also affect this page. The discussion can be found here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)