Talk:Donald Trump

Current consensus

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

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

04. Superseded by #15

Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

07. Superseded by #35

Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Superseded by unlisted consensus

Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

10. Canceled

Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)

11. Superseded by #17

The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 7 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. Superseded by #50

Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)

18. Superseded by #63

The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)

19. Obsolete

Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

23. Superseded by #52

The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

35. Superseded by #49

Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)

36. Superseded by #39

Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48

There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (RfC October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health habits" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

Racially charged

Hello all, I see Consensus #30, based particularly on this Request for Comment says: "The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist."" I can also see that this is the only mention of "racially charged" in the article. Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? Not this one, per process. We're not going to amend #30 until the body is fixed, then reverse the amendment. "Racially charged" appears to have enough RS support, so just find a way to work it into the body. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What does "reverse the amendment" mean? Go back to Consensus 24? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC) I understand. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I see the grammatical ambiguity. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems backwards. Lead follows body. We shouldn't treat the consensus list as sacrosanct, it's merely there to keep track of RfCs. If the article has moved on, I'd support a new RfC to challenge the previous one. Riposte97 (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Riposte97 I think an RfC should be avoided if it can be. Do you think you could WP:FIXIT? I'll have a go as well in a bit. If we don't have luck we can look at overturning Consensus #30.

Given it's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, high-quality sources will be needed. I wouldn't accept journalists being arbitrators of whether his comments were "racially charged", political scientists will have written on it and we shouldn't accept inferior sourcing. This is the standard that was applied for "cult of personality". Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Your reasoning seems consistent with WP:NEWSORG. A departure, probably more impactful (disruptive?) than you realize, but maybe ultimately good for the article. No strong opinion provided we adhere to the established consensus process. If that means revisiting #30, I suppose you pass the "significant new argument(s)" test. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave, apologies that I've not had the time to properly devote to this. I'll see what I can add to your page in the coming days. Riposte97 (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yep definitely. 92.30.105.204 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I have created a page User:Rollinginhisgrave/Trump racism descriptor as a space for research on this article. I intended to use academic sources in Racial views of Donald Trump as the basis to follow summary style, but extremely disappointingly, only six of the almost 500 sources are academic.

This is collaborative so please help! If this can be pinned to the top of this page for a short while it would be valuable. Remember, for WP:WEIGHT, we are not merely looking for multiple sources describing him or his comments/actions as racist/racially charged, but for the weighted response of high-quality academic sources to these questions. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

SusanLesch Pinging you in case this effort is of interest. Been working mostly on collating books right now as journals are daunting for finding discussion of general scholarly consensus. If you find other useful texts along the way providing a scholarly retrospective assessment on aspects, I'm currently dropping them in User:Rollinginhisgrave/sandbox_2. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Will do. Sorry if I'm slow today with journals but I will catch up. On this topic per MOS:LEADNO, not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text, however this statement absolutely should be cited per MOS:CITELEAD. Seems like a good place for a perfectly cited footnote. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :) Yes the key issue is definitely it being uncited. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Support removal. "Racially charged" is nothing but a euphemism for "racist". When you consider that in the same sentence we are saying that Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as outright racist, it makes even less sense to "soften" the characterization with this term. Reading that old discussion, I think the true reason that many editors tended to support the euphemism was because it softens the perception that we are saying he is racist in Wikivoice. "Characterized by some" was rightly rejected by editors as too vague, but perhaps "characterized by critics" could be used to clearly attribute the characterization and prevent reader misunderstanding. — Goszei (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Tracking lead size

Word counts by paragraph and total.

05 Nov 2024 — 614 = 29 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121

12 Nov 2024 — 657 = 46 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 43

19 Nov 2024 — 418 = 62 + 76 + 153 + 127

26 Nov 2024 — 406 = 56 + 70 + 138 + 142

Tracking article size

Readable prose size in words – approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the PEIS limit.

05 Nov 2024 — 15,818 – 103

12 Nov 2024 — 15,883 – 046

19 Nov 2024 — 15,708 – 012

26 Nov 2024 — 15,376 – 067

Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

Uninvolved closure requested.[1] ―Mandruss ☎ 14:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

OK. Here's my proposal: that a section be added that reports the public discussion of concerns about his health, which are now a major part of public discourse. It should obviously not itself speculate on Trump's mental fitness, only report on the comments of WP:RS according to the WP:NPOV guidelines. This would not violate WP:MEDRS, because it would not express an opinion on his mental state, only report on the opinions of others. Opinions, please? — The Anome (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

A consensus/new consensus can be established without an RfC. You've already started the discussion on this page. Opening an RfC at this point would be improper, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If you insist on going that route, this is the procedure: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Just to start off: support as proposer, per comments above. — The Anome (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Anome, I suggest you notify the talk page of the article from which your proposed content originated. That page is 6 years old, so the editors there are likely knowledgeable. SPECIFICO talk 20:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Best 'not' to hand out such a notification at another talkpage, Anome. Less that be construed as canvassing for support. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• No, it is media speculation, not a clinical diagnosis, and this is a BLP. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• yes it is time, esp after the 39 minute dance this week the topic has received quite a bit of coverage. whether it is a 'diagnosis' or not is not an issue, a encyclopedia is not drawing a medically-based conclusion it is just reflecting the preponderance of the sources. ValarianB (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• No or at best, very limited yes. I know we don't cite other wiki pages. But just for comparison, the Joe Biden main page only gives it about a vague sentence or two, and that's for a figure who's cognitive decline has been much more prominent and widely discussed by RS. Also, that section is titled much more neutrally simply as "Age and health." So overall, this is a "no" unless significantly scaled back. Just10A (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• No It looks like they are not sincere age and health concerns but political attacks with no consensus of medical professionals. In the last stages of an election campaign, I think it's just part of an expected full court press. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's a straw man. The topic is concerns, which have been found NOTABLE on the abundantly sourced wiki page from which the recent content and deletion originated. If it were a medical diagnosis, the lead of this page would simply state "Donald Trump is the demented former POTUS and the demented candidate for 2024." But it isn't a diagnosis and nobody's suggested it is. There should not be a formal poll of any sort here. It's already under discussion and @GoodDay: has provided no policy or content-based rationale not to include this summary of a relevant article, similar to many others on this page. Lacking any such rationale, the removal appears meddlesome and destructive. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting editors who oppose the addition, are disruptive? GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• No - as he hasn't been diagnosed with having any such medical issues. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• No - We are not going to use non-MEDRS soucres to speculated on someone's mental or physical health. We wouldn't do it with Joe or anyone else. It's also laughable un-encyclopedic. Also it should probably be an RFC to overturn two RFCs and a bunch of previous discussions that all found the same thing. PackMecEng (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Kinda seems like we did do that with Joe [2]. DN (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ugh, well we shouldn't. PackMecEng (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see a way to "unring" that bell. DN (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Not to point fingers or drag this out even further (see below), but this (correction, see comment by Just10A above) seems to be where comparisons to the Biden article actually started. Cheers. DN (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes See Joe Biden#2024 presidential campaign. "After the debate raised questions about his health and age, Biden faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Democrats and the editorial boards of several major news outlets". I understand BLP's require extra care, but "concern" doesn't seem to be weasely enough, as long as it's attributed in a verifiable context outside of VOICE. If the same rules that apply to Biden also apply to Trump, "Refuses to release medical records" with "attributed concerns" is where the bar currently sits. See "More than 230 doctors and health care providers, most of whom are backing Vice President Kamala Harris, call on Trump to release medical records" ABC NYT, Independent, CBS. Also see Age and health concerns about Donald Trump Cheers. DN (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  And Biden did step down, is there any indication of similar pressure on Trump from within the GOP? Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's not a qualifier as far as I know. Was the "raised questions about Biden's health" only allowed to be added AFTER he stepped down? Cheers. DN (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well I recall making the same arguments there as here, and it all changed when it actually had an impact on the election. Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Let's look at the tape. Looks like concerns about Biden's health were added on the 4th of July "After the debate raised questions about his health, Biden faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Democrats and the editorial boards of several major news outlets"[3] and Biden didn't resign until July 21st. Did I miss something? DN (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  NO, but I did, as I had opposed that in the past, and did not see the addition. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  I can see wanting to err on the side of caution, but the cat is out of the bag and fairness is the name of the game, and other such idioms... DN (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  So we could say then "After a series of rallies raised questions about his health, Trump faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Republicana and the editorial boards of several major news outlets", would this be supported by RS? Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  AFAIK There is no policy stipulating the statements must be similar. Only that it must be based on what the sources say. DN (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  1.) Do not substantively edit your comments after editors have already replied to them without indicating it. That is against guidelines.

  2.) I don't know how you can argue "There is no policy stipulating the statements must be similar" when just above that you argued "Kinda seems like we did do that with Joe" and "fairness is the name of the game."

  I agree that policy doesn't mandate they match, but you gotta pick a side. You can't argue "Policy says they don't need to be similar" and then simultaneously say "They gotta similar or else it's unfair." Just10A (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Just10A If I acted improperly I apologize, as it wasn't my intent to mislead anyone, hence the clarification. I wasn't aware adding afaik is considered a substantive change.

  I believe my yes vote implies that I have picked a side. TMK I'm allowed to make observations and express views on the appearance of possible inconsistencies in the application of policy in good faith. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  No problem. I was referring to you adding the ABC source in your earlier comment though just to be clear. I agree that adding AFAIK is more minor. Just10A (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, then I was way off on what I thought you were referring to. I was about to start adding TMK and AFAIK to all of my sentences. I meant to add the ABC source in my original edit, but I goofed. Truly sorry if that screwed something up, I've had similar experiences so I empathize. DN (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Just10A I would briefly add that, TMK the application of policy and the substance of the context being proposed do not represent two conflicting interpretations of the same policies AFAIK. DN (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  True, but it also means they are not the same situation, which was my point, that they are not analogous. Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'd like to see someone confirm what sort of secondary coverage is here, but WP:MEDRS is irrelevant here because biographical information is not biomedical information: we should almost never include things like how a disease works or how it is diagnosed (except insofar to mention the subject isn't, when that's the case) on a biographical article in the first place. That is not to say we should not ask for the absolute best quality sources, but MEDRS is an inappropriate guideline here. Also, discussion on this topic will also need to consider how and where primary sources are used on the subarticle. Due weight concerns don't go away simply because the content happens to be on another article, and not mentioning something we have an entire subarticle on even once in the main article is close to essentially forcing the subarticle to be a POV fork, an outcome I'd expect neither those supporting nor opposing inclusion should want. Alpha3031 (t • c) 22:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I also don't see how WP:MEDRS (identifying reliable third-party published secondary sources accurately reflecting current knowledge on biomedical information (information relating to or could reasonably be perceived as relating to human health)) applies. If a majority of reliable sources describes the candidate's speech as increasingly incoherent and his behavior as increasingly bizarre, it's not a medical diagnosis. Consensus 39: This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

No. This is still a BLP. Riposte97 (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment For anyone interested in additional details about "Age and health concerns about Joe Biden" being added to the LEAD of Joe Biden's BLP, they appeared about nine days before he bowed out of the 2024 presidential race. It made it onto the LEAD on July 12, [4]. On the 18th a CFN tag was added [5], then removed [6], then re-added and removed again on the 19th [7], back on the 20th [8], removed same day [9], then again re-added by FMSky on the 20th [10], then removed again same day [11], re-added same day [12], and finally within the next 8-24 hours he dropped out [13]. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify 2 more things then I'm outta here. First, I goofed again when I pinged FMSky, total brain fart that might be perceived as intentional CANVAS or sabotage, I'm just tired from editing all day and got distracted putting diffs together. It's no excuse it's just being honest, you can check my contribs. I doubt they would agree with my vote anyway. Second, I'm not saying this is a good reason to do the same thing here, I just think it's relevant somehow. Sorry if I screwed up, it wont happen again (here at least). Cheers. DN (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Include. In the last 5-14 days since Harris released her "excellent health" report, there has been renewed coverage in RS about Trump's refusal to release his medical records[14][15][16] and the recent town hall that was even beyond the usual performance standard.[17] Even after Biden it was mentioned [18][19][20][21] Andre🚐 05:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• Yes, there is polling and Trump hasn't disclosed his medical records.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. People say that it should not be included because there is no MEDRS-level source that lists Trump's health. However, this did not stop concerns about Biden's health being added to the Joe Biden page, nor did it stop the creation of the Age and health concerns about Joe Biden Wikipedia page. There is also an Age and health concerns about Donald Trump page. Wikipedia is governed by the consensus of reliable sources, and multiple reliable sources have brought up this topic to the extent that an entire individual page on the wiki exists to cover it, thus the content is WP:DUE. To not at least mention it on this page would be a violation of WP:NPOV and I don't like it through the introduction of editorial bias by having Wikipedia editors decide that the issue is "not important" enough to mention on this page, despite multiple RS clearly making the case that this issue is worth mentioning. BootsED (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Regarding the rally in Oaks, PA that's been mentioned in this section and in various news media sources, here's the full video of it from C-SPAN [22]. I think it's been mischaracterized as age and health concerns for Trump. Bob K31416 (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes! Its absurd having a long article Age_and_health_concerns_about_Donald_Trump with 120 references but trying to hide that in the main article. This is really a hot topic in the media (US and abroad) so deleting it here is really ridiculous. Especially with the Joe Biden entry featuring such an paragraph. Andol (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Amen to this. Biden has never been diagnosed with dementia, so it would be wildly improper to suggest that he does, per WP:MEDRS, but we can and should report the widely WP:RS-reported public political controversy regarding the possibility of dementia, per WP:NPOV, as it is politically significant. Trump should not be treated as a special case who is somehow privileged over others. — The Anome (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes for basically the reason Andol gave. There's a long article on these concerns, so we clearly have ample sourcing for them, so it's weird we're not mentioning them much here. Loki (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The decline may not have been as obvious as Biden's because it started from a much lower baseline, but it was noticeable and noticed. Just this week, there was the 39-minute musical interlude at the Oaks, PA, town hall; the non-responsive rambling during the Bloomberg interview; on Friday, a 10-year old asked Trump on [Fox&Fiends (at 34:26) who his favorite president was when he was little. Trump said "Reagan", then rambled on about Lincoln, the Civil War, Ukraine, Russia, October 7, buying oil from Iran, etc.; and at yesterday's rally in Latrobe, PA, where he "spewed crude and vulgar remarks" and regaled the crowd with tales of Arnold Palmer being "strong and tough" and "unbelievable" in the shower, adding to the "impression of [Trump] as increasingly unfiltered and undisciplined". Quoting the AP headline: Trump kicks off a Pennsylvania rally by talking about Arnold Palmer’s genitalia. NPR called it "an unusually energetic rally for the former president, who has looked and sounded tired of late while doing multiple events and interviews a day across multiple swing states".Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• Oaks Town Hall — (Good-faith refactoring of distracting side issue was reverted. The following posts were in response to this. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC) )

It wasn't a rally. It was a "town hall" staged by the Trump campaign, with Republican operatives posing as "constituents" and reading off cue cards. One of them, "Angelina who had voted Democrat all my life and was from a Democrat union household" had to correct herself because she forgot to say "union household"; she's Angelina Banks who was the Republican nominee for Township Commissioner and State Representative in Pennsylvania's 154th and lost with 19.3% to Nelson's 80.7%. Mischaracterized? The campaign had prepared 10 Q&As but after five the Q&A turned into a bizarre musical event with Trump giving a minion a playlist and then standing on stage not even dancing. Just standing, occasionally swaying, jerking his arms, finger-pointing at the audience, and making faces/smiling(?). And, in keeping with the musical theme, two days later Fox unearthed the set of Hee Haw for an all-women town hall with an audience of MAGA supporters asking curated puff questions. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

I think it's been mischaracterized... You personal analysis of reliable sources is of no concern to this page. If the sources cover this as an example of the subject's mental decline, then so shall we. Not necessarily in the proverbial "WikiVoice" but as "sources say." For now. Zaathras (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• No There are no reliable secondary sources reporting that Trump has age-related cognitive decline, just speculation from his opponents. One editor mentioned that we covered this for Biden, but it was in the article about his recent presidential campaign. That's where this informtion belongs. It isn't possible to list every accusation made by his opponents in this article, so there is a high bar for inclusion. TFD (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Speculation from his opponents? You mean denial of his supporters? I think it is obvious to everyone except is supporters that he has massive issues. This is not a political campaign. It is a topic reported in international media all over the world, even making headlines. And everyone can see it. The only news outlets that don't report on this are the conservative media in US! Think about that. Greetings from Germany, where Trumps decline seems to be better covered than in (the conservative) parts of the US media. Andol (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there something askew with these sources? They seem to be speculating at the very least.

NYT: Trump’s Speeches, Increasingly Angry and Rambling, Reignite the Question of Age

Independent: Trump’s rambling and angry speeches raise questions about his age and fitness to serve four years

Independent: Experts say Trump’s speaking style shows ‘potential indications of cognitive decline’

New Republic: Watch: Embarrassing Video Reveals Trump’s Alarming Cognitive Decline

The Atlantic: Trump’s Repetitive Speech Is a Bad Sign

WaPo: What science tells us about Biden, Trump and evaluating an aging brain

LA Times: Trump’s rhetorical walkabouts: A sign of ‘genius’ or cognitive decline?

Cheers. DN (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources lose their reliability when they express politically motivated opinion and manipulation during a heated election campaign. Buried in one of those sources is a glimmer of rational journalistic integrity, "...the experts in memory, psychology, and linguistics who spoke to STAT noted that they couldn’t give a diagnosis without conducting an examination...". Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Not according to policy, bias it not a justification for rejecting a source, only lack of factual accuracy. Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't fall for the bias claim. It doesn't make you biased if you report on those glaring issues. They are obvious. Rather the opposite is true. It takes willful denial, i.e. bias, to not see it. The whole point here is that Trump as a whole is such an abnormal person that he has shifted the goalposts to such a distance that there is no standard to measure him and thus he can get away with anything. And that is a problem for Wikipedia, because Biden is compared to normal people (making him look old), while Trump is compared to himself. Add the near-total polarization in the US, which has his supporters deny everything, even the possibility that there could be anything. Please step back and look up, how the Rest of the world looks at Trump and this election. It's not how the US see it. Trust me. 80 % of the population is in utter disbelieve how Trump with all of his glaring issues even got there, lest how someone who is right in his mind can even think a second of voting for him. And we do really debate if he has issues? Claiming he hasn't is biased, not the other way round. This is a clear situation where the truth is not halfway in the middle. Look at this. Just imagine Joe Biden or Kamala Harris being on stage bragging about the size of some dudes dick. The outcry would be thermonuclear and it would be broadly covered in his or her article in literally five seconds. Here? Thats Trump, normal day in the office, so what. Irrelevant, he made a thousand similar remarks. And that creates a systematic bias pro Trump, because there is no standard he doesn't fall short of, and therefore nothing is noteworthy, no matter how egregious. Andol (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• No - If it was to be included, it would have to be introduced as mere speculation because of MEDRS, but I do not believe there has been any particulary significant RS reporting of speculation about cognitive decline as there was about Biden nor any substantive reason (like a drop out over it) to include it. Trump's speculated cognitive decline has only been popping in the news for the past couple months because he's now the old guy on the ticket, and Dems naturally want to capitalize on that. Not WP:DUE at this time. R. G. Checkers ^talk 14:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @R. G. Checkers: And yet we have all the cites from mainstream media WP:RS cited above. Mysteriously, this sort of reporting is regarded as WP:NPOV when it comes to Biden, yet not for Trump. As Elon Musk would say, "Interesting." Is there any point at which you might regarded the public debate about Trump's mental competence noteworthy enough to mention here, or are you just waiting for the election to be over? — The Anome (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, and it won’t be because he danced at a rally. It would be if there was sustained coverage over months long periods with concerns of cognitive decline or if he literally had drop out of the race because of it. But do I think that 3 weeks before an election with politics flaring and a sudden emphasis on his alleged mental decline is a good reason for inclusion? I answer no. R. G. Checkers ^talk 19:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    In other words, WP:DUE but not before the election? I didn't know WP had to adhere to DOJ guidelines. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    Is there some policy I'm not aware of that gives a waiting period, especially if your name isn't Joe Biden? DN (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    That's not exactly what Mr. Checkers said. I agree that we should ensure the content is WP:DUE by waiting to see if it's a blip, or something carried through by the sources for more than a few days. Space4Time3Continuum2x, you are usually a stalwart adherent of both established consensus and conservative application of policy - what gives? Riposte97 (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    Last week happened. (I'm still trying to unimagine the unbelievable Arnold Palmer in the shower — a few extra nipples, a rudimentary third leg, a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back? Although that one is on Roger Stone, I believe, another Trump friend.) This isn't new. NYT in 2018: "Trump's self-absorption, impulsiveness, lack of empathy, obsessive focus on slights, tenuous grasp of facts and penchant for sometimes far-fetched conspiracy theories have generated endless op-ed columns, magazine articles, books, professional panel discussions and cable television speculation." Now we have a flood of reporting on what was obvious for months for everyone who watched Trump rallys on C-SPAN. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

    Your personal analysis or perceived opinion on what's "obvious" about political candidates is irrelevant to the discussion at issue. You're getting seriously close to WP:NOTFORUM. Quit rambling and stick to neutral discussion about the topic at hand to improve the encyclopedia. Just10A (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

    WP:NOPA. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

    Asking you to stop violating policy is not a personal attack. Just10A (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

    This has been reported on maybe as far back as 2017.

    2017

    2017

    2017

    2017

    2017

    Jan 2024

    No one seems to be suggesting this goes into the lead sentence, and as far as policy goes, eerily similar material to Age and health concerns about Donald Trump made it into the the Biden article as far back as July 4th, and it's STILL there. DN (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

    As is frequently pointed out to new users of this page, the fact that some other page on Wikipedia has a different consensus has no bearing on this one. That is usually understood when we are resisting putting something positive in, but seems all to quickly jettisoned when convenient. Regarding the Oaks Town Hall which precipitated this thread, neutral RS seem to offer an explanation that is inconsistent with the line pushed by more partisan sources that Trump had some kind of mental episode. See for example: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-town-hall-derailed-after-medical-emergencies-crowd/story?id=114796716. I remain unconvinced that the content should be added. Riposte97 (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

    "neutral RS seem to offer an explanation that is inconsistent with the line pushed by more partisan sources"

    These threads get so long it's hard to keep track. Please link or cite examples of partisan and neutral sources to which you're referring if you get the chance, it would be very helpful. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

    Judging by the headlines, we shouldn't use the 2017 sources per the Goldwater rule (psychiatrists/psychologists diagnosing people they haven't seen as patients). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

    Also, I may a bit confused as to where this thread begins and ends. I may be unintentionally conflating the Oaks town hall and the Proposal: Age and health concerns...Cheers. DN (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• The 39 minute weird man-dancing (partly to YMCA, a song about gay hookups of all things) may actually be the worst example of his cognitive decline as he was quiet instead of rambling nonsense. Indeed, it could be an example of something not at all recent. It certainly doesn't belong in this article. Perhaps elsewhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure if you've seen the unbiased raw video of the Oaks, PA event. On the webpage of C-SPAN's presentation of the full video [23], to the right there is a list of the points of interest in the video: Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) Remarks, Fmr. President Trump Remarks, Affordable Homeownership, Family Request Congressional Hearing, Cost of Living, Immigration, Russia-Ukraine War, Immigration & Deportation, Medical Emergency. Notably missing from C-SPAN's list is "weird man-dancing". Bob K31416 (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  What's your point? The C-SPAN video shows the entire event. The music starts at 45:00 and continues until the end. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  For context, note that the first medical emergency began at 39:00, 6 minutes before your start time. Viewing the video starting at 39:00 will give a better idea of what's going on. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  I've seen the video and I don't see your point either. Trump just said that he is ahead in every one of the 50 states in the polls. Every state. His goofy, silent dancing was far more rational. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What particularly irritates me here is the double standard of invoking WP:MEDRS in regard to this. No-one is asking for Wikipedia to state that Trump has dementia, or that he has suffered a medical cognitive decline; the issue here is that his increasingly erratic behavior has become a significant news story, and is being reported in reputable MSM sources such as the NYT and WP, who have bent over backwards to be fair to Trump, wouldn't have dreamed of doing eveen a few months ago. Yet for some reason, we're not allowed to use these WP:RS to report these events and the public concern about them in the MSM. This is a profoundly un-encyclopedic things to do that breaks the fundamental WP:NPOV policy. Rejecting any mention of significant major MSM coverage because you don't like it is just another form of WP:OR, — The Anome (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

But that is the consensus on this article. That MEDRS sources are required, even to have the conversation technically. PackMecEng (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If this is absolute, then it could not be in the Biden article. But it is. Therefore there is no way to deny the pro Trump bias. MEDRS cannot only protect Trump, but ignore Biden. To me the deletion sounds politically motivated. And that is a major problem. Andol (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Andol Look at the top of the page in current consensus #39. Nothing is politically motived. PackMecEng (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I made a WP:BOLD edit to see how this plays out [24]. Maybe there is consensus? DN (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm good with it and hope it sticks. PackMecEng (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry DN, could you link to your change? I can't seem to find it. Riposte97 (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

He changed it on the Joe Biden page, not the Trump one. I had the same confusion initially. Just10A (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you. Riposte97 (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do NOT refer to me as "he". They or them is fine. DN (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree MEDRS applies there any more than it does here, but I don't particularly care if it's in the lead or how much weight to give to it, so long as it's there. I will revert if someone tries to remove all three paragraphs about it in the other article though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

An editor has now re-added Age and health concerns about Joe Biden back into the lead on Joe Biden's BLP. I am not going to remove it, and agree that we should leave it. IMO Age and health concerns about Donald Trump now seems over-DUE here. DN (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Mx. Nipples, the existence of a section on another page has absolutely zero bearing on what should be on this one. None. We go by consensus, not by precedent. Riposte97 (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic about gender pronouns. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not refer to me as "Mx." or "Mr." as that appears to be your intent. They/them is accurate. DN (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC) (Given that "x" is nowhere near "r" on a keyboard, I'm guessing "Mx." was not a typo but an attempt to be gender neutral. It can be read as a convenient shorthand for "Mr., Ms., or M-other, as you please". It's the best attempt available, since "They/them Nipples" would be nonsensical. Maybe we don't need to go any further down this rabbit hole, at least not on this page.) ―Mandruss ☎ 06:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC) I simply asked for them not to call me that, I did not get upset or make a personal attack, I just made a simple request. I'm aware of what Mx. means and I simply do not wish be referred to in that manner. I do not care why you think it's any of your business or why you feel the need to intervene here, and that is a rabbit hole that certainly does not belong here. DN (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC) I read "Mr." as that appears to be your intent to mean you thought they meant (intended) "Mr.". Sorry if I misread easily-misread writing. I do not care why you think it's any of your business or why you feel the need to intervene here - Now you're gettin' me riled. Look, you comment on this page, regardless of the topic, and you open yourself up to replies from anybody. There are no "private" conversations here or almost anywhere else at Wikipedia. You want a "private" conversation, use email. That's how it works, like it or not. End. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC) You're the one that brought it up here, and I have since moved it to a personal talk page, where it belongs. DN (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

↑↑↑↑ Agree as to process. Other articles never affect this article unless a community consensus says they do for a specific discrete situation. This is a common misconception, understandable given the human desire for consistency, but you won't find it anywhere in policy, and not for lack of attempts to make it so. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That was more of an aside. See Riposte's removal of cited content on the current subject, referring to a now seemingly dormant discussion. DN (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. It's been covered extensively in media reports, which is the only criteria that really matters here. Cessaune [talk] 17:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Question Riposte97 See edit - There has been no further discussion here for the last few days. What is still being discussed? BTW, "age and health concerns for Joe Biden" was added back into his BLP in the lead, and I see no further arguments over MEDRS. DN (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  If you have a problem with the Biden page, take it to the Biden page. There is currently no consensus to add the disputed material to this page. Riposte97 (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I never had a problem with the Biden BLP, but I asked you what is left to discuss here. DN (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'll ask again. What is left to discuss? DN (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you that there isn't a ton left to discuss. But the discussion did not end with your proposed addition achieving consensus. As already outlined in this thread: (1) wikipedia is not a source, what occurs on a totally different page has no bearing on this one; and (2) Even if it did, the situations are clearly distinguishable. It's included on Biden's page as relevant primarily because it's the reason Biden dropped out of the race. The same is not true for Trump. Thus, since the situations are distinguishable and consensus has not adopted it, it's unlikely to be added. Just10A (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, it wasn't my proposal, and the primary argument against the addition seemed to be that it violated MEDRS, not because this BLP needed to be like the Biden BLP. The Biden BLP was only used as an example of how the MEDRS argument didn't seem to hold water. DN (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  "It's included on Biden's page as relevant primarily because it's the reason Biden dropped out of the race."

  I thought we weren't using edits from one BLP as an example to justify similar edits to the other?

  Anyway, that content was added BEFORE Biden dropped out.

  So, there goes that excuse. DN (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I thought we weren't using edits from one BLP as an example to justify similar edits to the other? We aren't. That's why I explicitly began the point with "Even if it did". We don't use another page as a source, but even if we did, the situations are clearly distinguishable for the reasons already outlined throughout the post. The addition doesn't have consensus, so it's not going to be added at this time. Just10A (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for the Oaks Town Hall to be used as evidence for concerns about age and health, especially in VOICE. Far from it. I simply disagree that there is any clear violation of MEDRS to include something like (below)

  • Trump, if he served his full second term, would become the oldest President of the United States ever. Since his emergence as a politician, Trump has provided less information about his health than is normal for presidential candidates WaPo

  Cheers. DN (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, that's not really what this thread entitled 'Oaks Town Hall' is about. Perhaps start a new one with your suggested text. Riposte97 (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Why start yet another thread? Seems like an additional time sink. DN (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - sorry, I missed this on the talk page. Now extensive and increasing sourcing on the topic. Blythwood (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Seems like the Harris campaign and news media have moved from age and health concerns to fascism. Do you have any new links that came out this week for age and health concerns? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Seems there was a YouGov poll and pieces in Time magazine and the New Yorker, recently...

  "As the calls grow for Donald Trump to release his medical records, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris called out her opponent once more during a rally in Houston, Texas, on Friday. She pointed towards the legal battle of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and other Texas right wing leaders to access the private medical records of patients who seek out-of-state abortions." Time 10-27-24

  "Over half of Americans, 56 percent, said they believe that Trump’s age and health would impact his ability to serve as commander-in-chief at least a little bit, according to another YouGov poll conducted earlier this month.

  Over one-third, 36 percent, said the former president will be “severely” undercut by his age and health. Another one-third, 33 percent, said those factors will not impact the Republican nominee.

  Inversely, 62 percent of Americans said Harris’s health and age will not affect her work in the White House if she is elected president, according to the survey." The Hill 10-26-24

  "couple of weeks ago, Donald Trump turned in one of his strangest performances in a campaign with no shortage of them—part of a series of oddities that may or may not constitute an October surprise but has certainly made for a surprising October. 'Who the hell wants to hear questions?' he hollered at a town hall in Pennsylvania, after two attendees had suffered medical emergencies. Then he wandered the stage for nearly forty minutes, swaying to music from his playlist—'Ave Maria,' 'Y.M.C.A.,' 'Hallelujah.'" The New Yorker 10-27-24

  "An increasing number of Americans say Donald Trump is too old to be president — but not as many as when President Joe Biden faced similar concerns about his age over the summer.

  A new poll from YouGov found that 44 percent said Trump, at age 78, is too old to lead the executive branch. That figure is up from 35 percent who said the same in a similar February survey." The Independent 10-27-24

  Cheers. DN (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Respectfully, there is no way this is going to get consensus here. If you feel really strongly, maybe start an RfC. That would probably be the most appropriate way to displace the existing RfCs. Riposte97 (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I was replying to Bob K3416's recent request..."Do you have any new links that came out this week for age and health concerns?"

  Your declarative statement may be a bit out of place in this context, and brings up what appears to be an inconsistency.

  [25] As you also stated in your recent removal of cited content that is months old (clarify - irl - not the article itself)... "This is still being discussed on the talk page"

  What are the means by which to reconcile "this is still being discussed", at the same time as, "there is no way this is going to get consensus here"?

  Cheers. DN (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for your response with the links.

  Regarding the rest of your message, the logic isn't clear. Various messages here are evidence that it is still being discussed and the point that you are trying to make with your sentence, "What is the means..." is unclear. For one thing, note that you are comparing an edit summary on the article page with a message on this talk page. Seems like apples and oranges. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Darknipples has now edited their comment, although the argument isn't any more compelling imo. Riposte97 (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I was about to add (Btw I corrected my grammar slip) Reverting under the auspices of "it's under discussion", gives the appearance of contradiction to the recent declaration that "there is no way to achieve consensus"

  Granted, I wouldn't completely disagree with Riposte97's removal of some of the context, but the rest seems like it could be DUE. (below)

  • Trump, if he served his full second term, would become the oldest President of the United States ever. Since his emergence as a politician, Trump has provided less information about his health than is normal for presidential candidates.

  A partial revert leaving this portion would seem fine. DN (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  The second sentence wasn't in the given source. The insinuation of being in poor health since becoming a politician is contradicted by the fact that he served 4 years as president without any apparent chronic health problem or physical weakness, and he is currently vigorously campaigning for president. Be careful of age discrimination where healthy people are presumed weak and unhealthy because they are old. If you were elderly, healthy and strong, I don't think you would like people insinuating that you were unhealthy and weak because you were chronologically old. Be well. Bob K31416 (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  "The second sentence wasn't in the given source."

  Good catch, I pulled it from the edit that was reverted so maybe the citation might have been placed further in.

  As far as "insinuating he is in poor health", that is not what the proposal is about. The proposal was for reports regarding public concern for his age and health, that does not involve speculation or "insinuate" anything specific as to violate MEDRS.

  • "The age of presidential candidates has been a key issue for voters this year. A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll, conducted before last week’s Republican convention, found that 60 percent of Americans said Trump is too old for another term as president, including 82 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of independents and 29 percent of Republicans."

  DN (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  His age is already in the article. Riposte97 (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Water is wet. DN (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. There is overwhelming and WP:SUSTAINED coverage of it at this point; the fact that it is speculative (which some people object to above) doesn't matter, since we do cover speculation when it has sufficient coverage and is clearly relevant to the subject. As WP:BLP says, If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it, emphasis mine. For recent coverage, which someone requested above, see eg. ; for older coverage, there's a massive number of sources on Age and health concerns about Donald Trump. --Aquillion (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. See Public image of Donald Trump#Temperament. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• I think it's time to close this discussion. Bob K31416 (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  What rationale? Stale? Consensus? We need a rationale or we just let things fall off the page naturally. Of course we've just added another 14 days by merely saying this. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  There is at least consensus to change Consensus item #39 (last modified July 2021) to allow discussion regarding Trump's mental health or fitness for office even without diagnosis. Biden's cognitive health has been in his article since 9/2023: Special:Diff/1175184377 Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Uninvolved close sounds prudent. Cheers. DN (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was confusing "close with consensus assessment" with "close to get stuff off the page per consensus 13". Sorry Bob. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Trumps felon status should be added to his intro summary

This is literally done for everyone on Wikipedia except for Trump. This is a wilful hiding of information that is favorable to Trump and hides this important information from his google search summary. Please add, convicted felon to his intro to show an unbiased article. 2600:1700:5240:E50:549D:94AA:51E0:CB3 (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

is it? Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It is in the lead, in the final paragraph. A recent discussion concluded it shouldn't be in the first sentence. — Czello ^(music) 15:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

no, per MOS:CRIMINAL. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

^ 2601:280:5D01:D010:ADA6:3506:15FF:D881 (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

yes it should be added plus president 45 and 47 :) 2600:1009:B1C0:E89F:B806:558E:13B5:FD2B (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Please remove any terms referring to Trump as a "felon" or "convicted felon" from the lede and anywhere else throughout this page. Trump is not a "felon" or even a "convicted felon" until the JUDGE that is actually overseeing the case CONVICTS him and SENTENCES him. THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET. This is how the legal system actually works for those who do not know.

Any publication, news outlet or otherwise, is actually guilty of LIBEL for referring to someone who hasn't been convicted and sentenced BY THE JUDGE as such. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect, per Wikipedia content policy. See WP:TRUMPRCB for elaboration on this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

More specifically, the policy at WP:BLPCRIME addresses this. It says nothing about sentencing. He has been convicted. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

He has not been convicted. The jury has merely rendered a verdict. The judge can still throw away that verdict.

Trump is not a convicted felon. McDonaldsGuy (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

And please refer to WP:SHOUT. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

And even Wikipedia's definition of convict says he has to be sentenced as well:

"A convict is "a person found guilty of a crime and sentenced by a court" Convict - Wikipedia

AND sentenced by a court. AND, not OR. Because a jury cannot "convict" only a JUDGE can. If you want to know why Trump won, this is why. McDonaldsGuy (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be used as a source for itself. Please provide reliable sources for your claim that Trump has not been convicted, or refer to WP:NOR. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

This source good? Official Justice dept website

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-609-evidence-conviction 2600:1700:95FB:5120:3CD6:700D:15A0:DF96 (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

No. That source says nothing about Trump. See WP:SYNTH. Looking for reliable sources that say something like, "Trump has been found guilty but not convicted." ―Mandruss ☎ 06:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

"In United States practice, conviction means a finding of guilt (i.e., a jury verdict or finding of fact by the judge) and imposition of sentence."

That says it all. He is not a convict. McDonaldsGuy (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You're confusing the noun with the verb. A jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts, i.e., he was convicted of a felony. That makes him a felon. The judge hasn't sentenced him yet, therefore he's not a convict, i.e., under sentence for a crime, which is exactly what Convict says. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 00:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I would be ready with updates for the 'Donald Trump convicted felon' part. Donald Trump's New York hush money case has been called off as the court decides how to move forward. The Trump Manhattan Fraud Case brought forth by Alvin Bragg has been stayed. It is indefinitely 'adjourned' as the Trump legal team moves to outright dismiss the case. More sources will follow this continuing development. Donald Trump's hush money sentencing is called off Daily Mail. "The case could be delayed until after Trump exits the White House in four years or be dismissed outright." 104.230.247.132 (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 13:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Here are USA Today and Bloomberg for more sources. There are many more. Trump's Nov. 26 hush money sentencing in NY called off without explanation Bloomberg. "Whether Justice Juan Merchan decides the hush money case should proceed to sentencing, gets delayed for four years or is simply dismissed outright is an open question hanging over the president-elect."

Donald Trump's Nov. 26 sentencing in hush money case on hold as prosecution due to weigh in USA Today. "President-elect Donald Trump's Nov. 26 sentencing date in his New York hush money case is on hold as prosecutors face a Tuesday deadline to advise the judge on how to proceed in light of Trump's election victory." 104.230.247.132 (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The only thing that might affect "convicted felon" is a successful self-pardon. Per policy, we will look to reliable sources as to whether that means he was never convicted—our personal reasoning is irrelevant, as are (as I understand it) legal sources that don't specifically talk about Trump. Anyway, we are probably at least six months away from even considering a change, so this is more than a little premature. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate it. I would imagine the change will occur in under 9 weeks or before January 21th, 2025, possibly sooner. I guess it's a wait and see. Cheers. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean pardons can't erase historical events, just the present definition. If he self pardon it should be noted he self pardoned. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

"A jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts, i.e., he was convicted of a felony."

Juries do not convict. Only a judge can do that. McDonaldsGuy (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello please reason with me. Where it says "2024, he was found guilty of falsifying business records,[e] making him the first U.S. president to be convicted of a felony." Please someone correct me If Im wrong but shouldnt the second part of that sentence have a cited source just like the first part of the sentence does? How about replacing the second part of the sentence with ",making President-elect Donald Trump the first convicted felon to hold the White House, after beating Democratic candidate Kamala Harris to return to office after leaving in explosive fashion four years ago." That is updated and factual. If no one disagrees with my comment does that make it the consensus? JaneenGingerich (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Please re-write the entire first section.

I have read more than 10,000 biographical articles in Wikipedia, and I haven't seen a single article which is written in a more biased, and pessimistic tone than Donald Trump. Please be professional and at least re-write the entire first section again in a more neutral tone. The entire world is reading this article and it must be written professionally. Thank you. Nir007H (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Its important to mention these things, but the bias on both this page and the election page as well as his campaign page, is widespread. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

How? Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Because all of them have paragraphs upon paragraphs regarding many allegations, many of which Trump himself has denied. They also excessively refer him to Fascism, and provide far-left and often non-reliable sources for these. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have their fair bit of criticism, but this is rarely mentioned on their pages and when it is, its usually reverted or downplayed due to 'non reliable sourcing'. Keeping in mind Fox and the like should be considered as reliable as CNN and the like. Its overall quite biased. Dont get me wrong, these things need to be mentioned, but their absolutely has to be more weighting as to criticism of Trump and his Democrat opponents. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Also to quickly add to this, it needs to be mentioned more that Trump has denied Project 2025. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:MANDY. The sources are what we go with, not Trump's own claims. — Czello ^(music) 10:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Left sources that go against what the topic at hand himself said? Wikipedia can be interesting sometimes. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, WP:MANDY and WP:PRIMARY are why we prioritise independent sources. — Czello ^(music) 13:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree with these criticisms of the article. Please see my added topic which includes three edit requests, for some proposed changes to the opening section. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that based on current consensus number 61, that you should review this link: Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. (Not 100% sure though, so I will leave this thread open.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. I hate Trump and am sad that he won, but this lead is just too much. It discredits Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone for the regular user. At least add a few positive things. Lucafrehley (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Find some. We can't include things that don't exist.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Jesus you are literally a wikipedia editor. Your bias is what we do not need on wikipedia.

For example we could add things like:

The First Step Act, signed in 2018, aimed to reform the federal prison system by reducing sentences for non-violent offenders, increasing funding for rehabilitation programs, and reducing the three-strike rule’s penalty.

the VA MISSION Act, allowing veterans more access to private healthcare and aimed at improving the VA's efficiency and accountability.

Operation Warp Speed facilitated the rapid development, manufacturing, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, which reached the public in record time.

just to name a few DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my own topic, this is not about adding "positive things". Trump won an election in 2016 which was widely reported from reliable sources as a complete surprise. Those reliable sources tried to understand why people voted for him. The lead has no direct mention of why he won. While having mention of Russian interference and protests.

This has nothing to do with things being positive or negative, there is a lack of social analysis that doesn't help to present a complex BLP. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I have never seen an article of this scale be so obviously biased and favored against its subject. This bias becomes even more distinguishable when you compare it to other articles such as Joe Biden, who has been heavily criticized even by people on the left. For example, he faced a ton of criticism for the withdrawal from Afganistan (CNN, MSNBC, MSNBC again, CBS, NPR, Associative Press, NYT, etc), yet that is nowhere to be found in the lead. Meanwhile, Trump's lead section will mention every bad thing he did, as well as the opinions of his non-supporters. The opinions of those who support him are not even mentioned. It just comes across as completely lacking integrity. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 17:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I would not define it as "biased", those info could be considered notable. But it is surelly tone deaf in trying to give social context to Trump success. Poor writing that actually doesn't even give a change to complex social criticism, for which there are many reliable reportings even from the same major US newspapers used in the current "fact checked" style. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Nobody rewrites entire first sections (leads). That isn't how Wikipedia works, and Trump would be dead long before we reached a consensus on such a rewrite. See Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

yea, I agree on that, a substantial rewrite is not happening soon. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

This entire article needs re-written, but the introduction is a total disaster. Even aside from the partisan hackery, it is a hodgepodge of incoherent sentences that look like (and probably were) added disjointedly as time went on with little to no continuity with each other. Most of them are factoids that are irrelevant to a high altitude summary of the man's life and achievements. Embarrassing. The Pittsburgher (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Specific suggestions, please. It's nigh impossible to rewrite an entire lead section to everyone's liking. Simple saying 'rewrite the entire lead' isn't going to get us anywhere. Cessaune [talk] 15:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The idea that a mythical "unbiased" lead section could exist that literally every Wikipedia would agree upon for such a polarizing political figure is absurd and preposterous. People act like shouting "bias"! is some kind of objective statement when it is essentially entirely subjective opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nir007H: There's only one way to get a re-write. You gotta put forward a proposal & see if it will get a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I may be drawn and quartered for speaking this heresy. I've long felt Wikipedia content policies are sufficiently vague, complex, nuanced, and self-contradictory as to be extremely vulnerable to the biases that we all have (anybody who claims to be without bias is either lying or completely lacking in self-awareness). That the policies prevent the effects of those biases is largely an illusion and a mass self-delusion. I've advocated massive overhaul of policy to simplify and streamline, and the silence has been deafening. Wikipedia's system of self-selected self-governance simply lacks the capacity for such massive change, and the Wikimedia Foundation will never intervene while Wikipedia is the most popular free encyclopedia on the web.

If this article has been dominated by anti-Trump editors, the solution is more pro-Trump editors, people who are prepared to take the time to learn the policies and how to use them. WP:CONSENSUS is everything at Wikipedia. I've been saying this for many years and it seems to me a large majority of pro-Trumpers lack the energy for anything but arm-waving rants about fake news and the resulting fake encyclopedia encyclopedia (a lazy intellectual cop-out)—merely following their leader's example. I say quit whining whining, put on your big boy pants, and do something that might have some effect. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC) Edited after replies 23:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

"It seems to me a large majority of pro-Trumpers lack the energy for anything but arm-waving rants about fake news and the resulting fake encyclopedia—merely following their leader's example." An astute observation that actually reveals the root of the problem: That's all they do because that's all there is to back up their POV. The lead is a dry restatement of dull facts, it only appears unflattering because the man's behavior has been consistently and objectively unflattering. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I’d say it’s more to do with the polarisation of the American media, and one end/side being deprecated on Wikipedia. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment I generally stay far away from Trump related articles because of my extremely strong prejudices against the man. But as much as it pains me to say this, I think the lead is problematic. It reads like it was written by the DNC. Most of what is in there belongs in the article. But not all of it belongs in the lead. Clearly I'm not the only one with these concerns as there are multiple editors, in multiple threads on this page raising similar concerns. If the article wasn't linked on the main page right now, I'd seriously consider slapping an NPOV tag on it. Tone matters. The lead reads like an indictment. The laundry list of everything the man has ever been accused of is UNDUE and should be condensed into more general statement noting his controversial history, statements, legal issues etc. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

the problem is not the list of "negative" actions, which could maybe be condensed just to achieve a better lenght, the problem is that the lead completelly fails to convey why Trump is popular, how he got to power etc etc. It sounds tone deaf and devoided of social analysis. Look at the Hitler lead (not a comparison between individuals) and you can see how it can be done properly. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a very good analysis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that the lead as it is in part resulted from having too many cooks in the kitchen. Is there one person who can draft a lead for Trump based on the structure of Hitler's lead for others to review? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The current structure seems decent to me for the time being, @Goszei is pointing out a good and clear path forward regarding content that should be added. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It’d be so good if this article were actually educational Kowal2701 (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree that this is the best step forward. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Castlemore7 (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I can imagine you counting the biographical articles you read like pushups "9,998..9,999...10,000! Now I can finally say I have read 10,000 of those! 68.57.163.100 (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I think whatever has been done in the last few days to the lead has made it a lot better. And for those complaining about how stuff is brief, that’s because there’s a lot of stuff to cover without making the lead too long, especially now in his second term there will be more stuff happening. Still, the flow is much improved even if there could be a few tweaks I think it’s heading in the right direction Eg224 (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The heading is very biased. Chuterix (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

“First convicted felon as president” placement.

The Felony thing in like the opening sentence or second sentence I think is excessive, where it was before was next to the stuff about Stormy Daniel’s/Insirrection/etc. that is more logical, but someone reverted it and added it back to the first part. It’s one of those things where we gotta figure out how to level the weight, there’s a whole part in the lead right now addressing all the stuff so I think that’s fine but I would like to hear some unbiased consensus. Eg224 (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Editors can argue DUE or UNDUE all day long, but the policy is sufficiently vague that, in reality, it comes down to how much one hates/loves Trump and how much they let that affect their Wikipedia editing. I hate Trump immensely (making me just a terrible person, probably possessed by demons) but I don't let it affect my editing. And this just feels like POV-pushing that high in the lead. I'm happy with it where it is at this moment, in what is currently the fourth paragraph of the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it’s perfect. definitely feels biased to have it in the opening, the first president without prior experience isn’t as much so. I think that’s alright since it compares him to past Presidents in the next part too, and is talking about being the 45th/47th president Eg224 (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe you are making a mistake. He can not be labeled a "convicted felon" as long as his appeals processes are unconcluded. The fact that courts have granted the appeals indicates that they believe he has a chance of having the rulings reversed. 99.33.126.209 (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. WP:BLPCRIME: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." NOT: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law and all available appeals have been exhausted." ―Mandruss ☎ 06:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Look, the facts are that Trumpty-Dumpty being convicted on felony counts will never be as important as his presidencies. His political career will be the most important thing to impart, not the tax evasion or fraud or whatever the hell it was NY prosecuted him for. Not to say that it isn't important enough to be mentioned in like the fourth paragraph, but his political career is the most important thing to note. Hate to get all Orwell on ya'll, but some animals are more equal than others. BarntToust 02:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

A person becomes a convicted felon the instant the conviction is handed down. Sentencing does not matter. Appeals do not matter. The only criterion for "convicted" is the conviction itself. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think a lot of people can't get past intro so I think it's time to make a change because it needs to be updated anyway because of current events. We can finally all table it if "2024, he was found guilty of falsifying business records,[e] making him the first U.S. president to be convicted of a felony." Gets changed to " 2024, he was found guilty of falsifying business records,[e] making President-elect Donald Trump the first convicted felon to hold the White House, after beating Democratic candidate Kamala Harris to return to office after leaving in explosive fashion four years ago." Or something close to that and if it doesn't get changed shouldn't there be a cited source for the whole sentence considering so many different opinions on what really makes him a convicted felon? Am I wrong or? JaneenGingerich (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The weight and emphasis given to facts in the lede should reflect that given in the body. Given the weighting currently seen in the body, a high placement is appropriate. If editors want to move it down, they should contest the weighting given in the body. That is the place to evaluate DUE/UNDUE. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thought experiment, not an actual proposal: (1) Go through the lead and make a list of the discrete topics therein. (2) Find the related body content for each item and count the words therein (i.e., weight), updating your list with those numbers. (3) Sort the list by descending word count. (4) Restructure the lead according to your sorted list.

I think you'll find that your new lead lacks all structure and organization. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It's true that the lede serves functions beyond being a weighted summary (e.g. contextualizing the subject, establishing notability) which gives it some structure and organization. I did intend to sidestep the wordcount weighting critique by mentioning emphasis, e.g. whether a topic is given its own heading, how high in the article/section it is, whether it is a summary or example as well as just the importance the article ascribes.

On my broader point, what do you understand as the relationship between the lede and body re; WP:DUE? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't. Frankly I think you're putting too fine a point on it, considering all the other issues going unaddressed, such as article length. We've been discussing that for years without significant progress. We need to get the body into summary style, gutting much of it, and we need more smart guys like you to help with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that length is a very big issue. I also think if editors want to focus on other issues, such as emphasis, they should do it in a different way.

I'm working on Public image of Donald Trump at the moment before summarizing it in this article, I'll be interested to see how that goes before taking on a meatier section. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Biography organization

Hi Space4Time3Continuum2x, I saw you moved the discussion of religion and family back to "Early life and education". I don't think there are any good options here, as the article is not structed as a biography. The article to compare to would be Ronald Reagan, as he is the most recent president that is a featured article (and helpfully he also had a prominent pre-political career). Some thoughts on reorganization to better meet this I'd like to hear your perspective on:

• Break up the section Donald Trump#Wealth, placing most into Business career where it is relevant.
• Break up religion paragraph into the bits relevant to early life, and then a brief discussion in presidency discussing the relevance to his relationship to religion as president.
• Ronald Reagan#Marriages and children is placed a lot more chronologically.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll get back to this tomorrow, too complicated for my addled brain today. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm generally not too fond of "one size fits all", including conform[ing] to others on Wikipedia, for example Donald Trump's two predecessors, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. This is the edit that moved "Personal life" to the top of the body on February 1, 2017. I wasn't editing here at the time, briefly looked for discussions in the archive but nothing jumped out at me. I never questioned it because it made sense to me: family, wealth, tabloid and later media personality — it's all interwoven and difficult to separate into business/profession/political positions (whatever the subject is notable for) and personal life with spouse(s)/kids, hobbies, etc. Seven years later one editor shows up, questions it, and it gets fixed a few minutes later (see "MOS Layout", above). Good process — no dillydallying with time-consuming discussions.

MOS:SNO also says: Because of the diversity of subjects it covers, Wikipedia has no general standard or guideline regarding the order of section headings within the body of an article. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, Trump's personal details have been part of his public persona for more than 40 years and shouldn't relegated to the end of his bio like an afterthought. I moved them back to the top of the body, along with the "Racial views" and "Misogyny/sexual misconduct" sections that had been newly added to the "Personal life" section. I agree that these two sections also deal with views and conduct predating his first term as president and continued throughout his political career. The "Public image" section is gone, so there's no other logical place for these sections. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about the best way to address this. I will narrowly respond in two ways:

• Racial views and misogyny could be folded under a s section 2 heading #Prejudice.
• There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Public image of Donald Trump#Article scope which is relevant and I hope you'll participate. It's responding to me cutting down the article 20% of its size (seen here) based on the principles laid out at the top of the discussion.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, Space4Time3Continuum2x. I object to organizing this article based on your personal preferences. Please read all of MOS:SNO. Exceptions are given and this isn't one of them. Why didn't you contribute to the MOS Layout thread? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I've spent a bit of time thinking through my objection to commenting further at this time, and it has been resolved. Susan sums up my thoughts here. We can reopen to the MOS Layout thread before it's archived to discuss further or simply restore. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Already gone.[26] ―Mandruss ☎ 21:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, thanks for the correction. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss, is there a procedure to restore the MOS Layout thread? I'll assume that Space4Time3Continuum2x was occupied elsewhere and didn't get a chance to weigh in. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

No procedure, just do it (using copy-and-paste) or ask someone to do it. I did it. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

based on your personal preferences — the layout predates my first edit of this article by more than a year. Considering the number of editors who have collaborated on this page, there have been astoundingly few objections to this particular feature (none, until now, that I recall). The full text of MOS:SNO is Wiki-vague, as usual: Because of the diversity of subjects it covers, Wikipedia has no general standard or guideline regarding the order of section headings within the body of an article. The usual practice is to order body sections based on the precedent of similar articles. For exceptions, see Specialized layout below. No general standard or guideline vs. usual practice. I think you may have misunderstood the "exceptions". They are types of articles where layouts are generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow though occasional exceptions may apply. Bolding added by me, i.e., even for these exeptions, where editors are advised to "attempt to follow the generally accepted standard", "occasional exceptions may apply". And about a precedent you cited in "MOS Layout": Barack Obama has an "Early life and career" section with "Family and personal life" following "Education". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

By the time I saw the "MOS Layout" thread, it had already been closed saying Rolling "fixed" the flagged grave violation of — uh — usual practice within minutes. Bold edit, I challenged, needs to be discussed. I've already commented here, don't see any point in reopening "MOS Layout". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x:

• The edit that moved up "Personal life" is from a blocked possible sockpuppet.
• Donald Trump is a human being like everybody else. What section is it that you want to front load?
• We have some leeway. Do you want to restore a §Public image section?
• We had an objection just yesterday to starting with §Personal details.
• Right you are that MOS:SNO is vague. But it's an indication of why most Wikipedia biographies begin with §Early life. More examples: Louis XIV, Elon Musk, Mao Zedong, Nelson Mandela, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Vladimir Lenin, Charles de Gaulle, Joe Biden and Ronald Reagan. George W. Bush and Barack Obama both have §Personal life higher than I'd like, and they both begin with §Early life and career. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• I don't have anything to add here beyond that we still have a section for Public image: Assessments#Public. Content was moved out of #Public image for the reasons laid out in most depth at Talk:Public image of Donald Trump#Article scope; I earnestly hope you both could weigh in at that discussion as it needs more eyes and as you can see it affects this article. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the 10 or so edits the alleged sockpuppet made at this article. They all improved the formatting or fixed poor wording, e.g., replacing "2000 presidential candidacy" with "2000 presidential campaign". The "objection" replaced "Personal details" with "Early and personal life" — I can live with that. The editor did not object to the positioning of the material I restored to that section at the top of the body. I don't know what to make of Trump is a human being and front load. Are you accusing me of something? both have §Personal life higher than I'd like — sounds like personal preferences to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x? May we close the restored MOS Layout thread? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: No, there's no Public image section, only a Public subsection of Assessment. I won't be contributing to your thread on Article scope which discussed a narrow issue (orange skin). I am spread too thin over several threads. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, nobody is accusing you of anything.

• Your personal preferences show ("I can live with that") same as me (I don't plan to edit Barack Obama or George W. Bush to match my prefs.).
• May we close the restored MOS Layout thread?
• To answer your question, Trump is just a man, and he merits a biography that's no different from everybody else's. (Here's the dictionary definition of front load.) I'm just asking you, what sections do you want to come early? Do you want to add a §Public image section? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I've changed Assessment#Public to Assessment#Public image in this diff. SusanLesch It's on me cutting 80% of the article, orange skin is just an example. No fuss if you are spread too thin, what you have been able to spare is appreciated. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, I removed the Religion section because it was word for word the same as a paragraph in Early life. If Religion is one of the sections you want front-loaded then I'll move the first one down (it has all the original refs). I asked for the MOS Layout thread to be archived. Can you please answer which sections you want to appear at the top? Right now we look bad with "Early and personal life: Early life, education, family" which is empty and repetitive. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x at this time, we have two editors in favor of the rearranged section order and one against. This is a very very weak majority, especially in light of the long-standing page consensus. How would you like us to proceed? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Three in favour, with me. Riposte97 (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Riposte97, you seem very familiar with Wikipedia's rules, and will understand why a simple +1 is generally insufficient to support a stronger consensus, per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Could you elaborate on what your thinking here is, even if in a short sentence or link to a comment? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I think an orthodox application of MOS:SNO is best here. I hope it will structurally encourage trimming of some of the extraneous trivia in the body, which I see as a chronic problem, though not as acute as in the lead. Riposte97 (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Reverting consensus 20

Bringing two comments down from Talk:Donald Trump#Motion to repeal Current Consensus item 8 to a new thread. They are addressing the sentence His election and policies sparked numerous protests in the lede.

I have no strong opinion on this one. But the mention of protests after his first election 100% is UNDUE in the lead. R. G. Checkers talk 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree on protests. They didn't lead anywhere.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Support The lead in general needs to be trimmed, I think we should focus on the information with the most WP:RS coverage for the lead. I am not sure how we will determine what constitutes as "enough RS coverage for the lead," perhaps we will need another topic for this. Artem...^Talk 02:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Some of us think it should be "enough RS coverage for the body" and "enough body coverage for the lead". Body comes first. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be a good determining factor. I suppose it would then be down to "What constitutes enough body coverage for the lead?" But I am again getting off topic and will leave this for another discussion Artem...^Talk 02:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The question is not of volume, but of quality. We need retrospective coverage that puts it into the context of his life/presidency to determine emphasis. And from this, as Mandruss notes, lead follows body. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Clearly UNDUE and maybe even RECENTISM that should have never been in the lead in the first place, and certainly not now. R. G. Checkers ^talk 03:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Could you expand on why you understand this fact is given undue weight? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

    Protests happen for every president. Just because the protest had a more people come does not mean it needs to be I in the lead. R. G. Checkers ^talk 03:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. What does your comment have to do with UNDUE? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    Look at this sentence instead: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery R. G. Checkers ^talk 05:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

    An article can discuss information in great depth, in a lot of text etc while still maintaining a neutral point of view. The way it can do that is by fairly represent[ing] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. You need to determine the emphasis of reliable sources first: looking at information and thinking "that's a lot of detail [for something like this or otherwise]" is insufficient for determining if it is DUE. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support removal Needs to be significant trimming in the lead to fit in the 2nd term info. The protests against him are less important to cover relative to other infomation in the lead.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 06:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, as I think it's fair to say his latest election has also led to protests. Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Other stuff may happen that we may want to include" isn't a rationale for removing. The protests included the largest single-day protest in U.S. history at the time (it's been surpassed by the George Floyd protests in 2020). AFAIK, no other president's election has resulted in protests, especially not with the protesters far outnumbering the spectators at the inauguration. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  It is mentioned briefly in the body. This is not defining of trump himself. We don't need room for things that are going to happen we need room for things that already have happened. R. G. Checkers ^talk 03:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Question What has changed to constitute this change? DN (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  We (with Farkle Griffen doing most of the heavy lifting) are finally taking on serious lead reduction, essentially raising the DUE bar for the lead. The lead is down 40% from two weeks ago. Under discussion is whether this item still clears the bar. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support the poor pussyhats didn't accomplish anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Neither did Trump's photo-ops with Kim Jong Un (consensus 44). Misogyny still rules but, for a brief moment, by sheer numbers, it looked as though there was hope. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. A little bit below the threshold of importance for inclusion in the lead. — Goszei (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support, not particularly notable. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support per above. Maybe instead:

His presidency saw a marked increase in political polarisation.

Kowal2701 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

References

PEIS revisited, yet again

According to my experimentation, the addition of ~12 typical-sized citations would cause the article to exceed the system-imposed WP:PEIS limit. When that happens, templates near the bottom of the article start breaking with an error message. Otherwise, the article is fine; nobody is even aware there's a problem unless they scroll down there and see the message. Still, it's a problem worth addressing and I think it's better to be proactive than reactive about this. Possible solutions:

• Reduce WP:OVERCITE.
• Remove content, with the associated citations.
• This was a recurring problem in the past (see archive). Eventually, someone removed one or more navboxes at the bottom, which freed up a huge amount of PEIS. I don't know if there is more potential reduction in that area.

Other kinds of templates will also contribute to PEIS, but I don't know how much without looking into it more.

Anyway, the PEIS limit would appear to impose an arbitrary upper limit on article size, assuming the number of citations is roughly proportional to article size—and this article is very close to that limit. Maybe that's not all bad? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Lots of overciting, been meaning to tackle it but it's a lot of reading. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Did the change to short footnotes cause any part of this? If so I'm sorry. I will try to lessen overcites when I run across them. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I see a total of six footnotes. Not a significant contribution to the problem. Thanks for asking. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh boy. Page size said 15672 words today, which is over the top limit at WP:SPLIT. I have never seen an article fail but golly, I'm retracting my proposal to rewrite Early life without prejudice. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm possibly looking in the next weeks at proposing we apply The Earth Test, which should be appropriate given the extensive use of Template:Main. Does anyone here have initial rejections of this as my activities are lining up with that direction. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like an arbitrary limit, and Wikipedia hates arbitrary limits. Why not get us as far as possible into summary style and then see where we are? That might well be all we need in the area of article reduction. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Before we can summarize, we need to know how much detail the summary should contain. Two sections summarizing their main articles in the same number of words will certainly violate NPOV by giving undue weight to a topic. When we know how many words will cover the subject overall, when we are summarizing a section we can know if we are allocating 5% or 10% of the wordcount and be make decisions on detail of summary that align with NPOV. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Update: Edits have increased the ~12 to ~37. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I would support a consensus item asking for editors' care with minimal article size and extra citation. Have you ever had one of those before? (I can see that article size has been a problem for at least about seven years.) -SusanLesch (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we've found that vague consensuses aren't of much value. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I would change my edits if I even knew about the problem (and did just above). I can try to think of something un-vague. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

You are an unusual editor. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Aren't we all. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Update: Edits have increased the ~37 to ~68. If anyone thinks it would help as we move into his second term, I could track this on an ongoing basis a la #Tracking lead size. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's useful. Can we pin the section? Not meaning to burden you, can you add the number of citations (or approximate citations remaining), and the prose total size? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Done at #Tracking article size. Pinning is not necessary when the section contains no timestamps. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to add brief description of Trumpism in lead

Should the lead contain a brief description of Trumpism, which it currently mentions without further explanation? I added one, but Farkle Griffin reverted me, citing length concerns. I agree with the recent lead cuts, but the statement "Trump created Trumpism" without further description is meaningless, and I think it benefits readers to briefly explain what he stands for politically without requiring them to click through and read the lead of the other article. Here is a brief, 12-word proposal: "In 2015, Trump launched a presidential campaign which led to the Trumpism movement, characterized by right-wing populism, "America First" nationalism, protectionism, and loyalty to himself." See my new proposal below. The specifics are up for debate. — Goszei (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this proposal. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a reason? — Goszei (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Goszei: there's an entire article (slightly biased against Trump) about Trumpism, in my opinion there's no need to create more material. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Neither support nor oppose here, but what are your thoughts on simply including it in a footnote? Farkle Griffen (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's important enough to state outside of a footnote. — Goszei (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe something along these lines?

"In 2015, Trump launched a presidential campaign, during which he promoted nationalism, anti-establishment rhetoric, and conspiracy theories. His policies and rhetoric led to the Trumpism movement." Rexxx7777 (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I prefer a mention of "right-wing populism" to "anti-establishment rhetoric", as that is how this article currently describes his positions; the other article also helps connect Trump's rise to the global context of emergent figures such as Viktor Orbán, Giorgia Meloni, Jair Bolsonaro, and Javier Milei. I also think mentioning "'America First' nationalism" is better than "nationalism" alone, as that article helps explain the non-interventionist and economic protectionist elements of Trump's brand of nationalism, which is not implied by simply stating "nationalism". — Goszei (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• At a minimum, this should be added to the body before considering adding it to the lede. Trumpism is not really discussed in the body. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps not all in one sentence, but the body does in fact mention Trumpism, right-wing populism, America First, and protectionism, and even his cult of personality. I think my proposal does a good job of tying this all together. — Goszei (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't relate these to Trumpism. It also doesn't mention the "loyalty to himself" comment. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  What is Trumpism but the rhetoric, ideology, and political actions of Donald Trump, which form the bulk of this article's content? The last part about "loyalty" I am less confident in than the rest, and will bow to opposition to it. — Goszei (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I am not opposed, I am just asking that the lede doesn't develop separately from the body per the manual of style. The lede shouldn't be the only place that defines Trumpism. defines Trumpism. How you define Trumpism is also at odds with the lede of Trumpism: a political movement in the United States that comprises the political ideologies associated with Donald Trump and his political base.Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC) Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I am slightly modifying my proposal to this: In 2015, Trump launched a presidential campaign which gave rise to Trumpism, a political movement characterized by right-wing populism, "America First" nationalism, and economic protectionism. — Goszei (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I think loyalty to Trump is an important part of it.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's kinda implied by the name. Let's give our readers the credit of putting together that "Trumpists" are loyal to Trump Farkle Griffen (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

For a few weeks we have been discussing the need for this kind of addition in multiple talk pages. Some editors agreed, some didn't. For me this seems mandatory, since Trump winning the first election is the most notable event of his life and it needs proper context. In my opinion Goszei additions to the second paragraph manage to make that description clear and concise. Editor @Nikkimaria reverted them with explanation "overdetail". I disagree, there is a missing flow in the lead that is filled in by these additions, they are also not overdetailed and the second paragraph has space for them.

Goszei edit:

In 2015, Trump launched a presidential campaign which gave rise to Trumpism, a political movement characterized by right-wing populism, "America First" nationalism, and economic protectionism.

the reversion by Nikkimaria:

In 2015, Trump launched a presidential campaign which led to the Trumpism movement.

Also another detail that said "and focused on luxury accommodation" was removed. It helps to define what Trump was known for. Before that the lead went in even more detail with the kind of properties Trump invested in.

Similarly to what @Farkle Griffen is saying I do not believe that the "loyal to himself" part is needed.

I've done 2 reversions in the last 24h so I'll avoid going further, someone else can reinsert these if there is consensus. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead does not need any more detail, particularly (as noted above) detail that is not in the body. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

but they do are in the body. you could argue there is a repetition from general rethoric before being a president to the official acts, but it's different imo.

and him having mostly luxury accomodations has now completelly disappeared, I'll edit that in since I don't see any reason to remove it and gives proper context. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Added the details back by connecting them directly on Trump and not on Trumpism, as it was noted here before. Should be good now. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Nope, definitely not good, those additions should be reverted until you've got consensus for them. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The "luxury accomodations" part was present in the lead for a very long time in an even more developed form, so why revert that? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the main diff that has been reverted by @Moxy

In 2015, Trump launched a presidential campaign characterized by right-wing populism, "America First" nationalism, and economic protectionism, which led to the Trumpism movement.

How do other editors feel? Is this relevant enough for the lead and properly present on body?

@Goszei @Farkle Griffen @Rexxx7777 @Rollinginhisgrave @Jack Upland (editors that participated in this discussion) @JacktheBrown @Mandruss @Thistheyear2023 @Димитрий Улянов Иванов @PizzaKing13 @750h+ @BootsED (editors of the newer 50 edits)

If you got the time please motivate your reasoning in favor or against this addition, so that we can look for consensus. If this is too close I will consider doing a RfC for it. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd support it's inclusion as it appears to be an accurate description. Thanks, Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Since you pinged me, I'll reply. I completely agree with Moxy's edit, and therefore disagree with the inclusion of content. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the most important thing is that it keeps mention of Trumpism. I like the edit before it was removed, and thus support the inclusion. If the consensus is to remove the edit, as long as Trumpism is still mentioned, I am okay with it. The page for Trumpism mentions how it is right-wing populist as nationalist. BootsED (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

What would this ass we do not already say? Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

For me it is a mather of order and logical steps. This is what he said and did before being a president, what made him popular. The formulation is in the right place in the lead (second paragraph) and feels more direct that just refering to policies later on. This is consistent with the lead of Hitler, for exemple (no comparison between individuals but of how to develop an high quality complex lead). Antisemitism is mentioned in paragraph 2, while he was not in power, despite references to his antisemitic policies obviously having a spot later.

For me, this how a lead should be written. Anything else is sloppy and with major logical holes. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

So this would not add anything, just change the order of the lead? Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it does both. The current formulation does even worst. It removed elements that define his first political campaign, one of the most notable events of his life, and moved even the Trumpism reference to the last paragraph by making the reading full of holes. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Other editors opinions on order? Now the first political campaign is almost non existent on lead on a chronological order. Is this acceptable? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so I would propose simply mentioning that his rise led to the creation of Trumpism. I don't think we need a description of Trumpism in the lead. The page for Trumpism itself goes into detail of what Trumpism is. This would also remove any need to talk about right-wing populism or nationalism, as that would be covered by Trumpism. I think it is common sense that anyone who has a political movement named after themselves that is described as becoming the largest faction of a major political party should have that movement mentioned in the lead of their own article. BootsED (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

If we follow this logic we end up with a lead that his only links and has no summarization of informations. It doesn't seem good at all to me.

Other editors opinions? Or should we bring this to a RfC? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

In my view, if there is any piece of information that a reader should take away from reading the lead, it is that Trump politically stands for right-wing populism and nationalism. If the reader finishes reading without gleaning that knowledge, we have failed. — Goszei (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Goszei, and I especially find it relevant to highlight his first political campaign, which was the most notable event of his life and was commented and analyzed by countless sources. @Goszei since not many are answering this topic should we move forward with a Rfc? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

"facilitating the January 6 United States Capitol attack"

Right now the lead states that Trump facilitated the Jan 6 attack. He has never been convicted of such an act and the lead doesn't give a source. Just seems to be an opinion. Trump has not been convicted of any such crimes in relation to Jan 6. Liger404 (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Just for starters, you may have noticed that the lead doesn't give any sources. Related citations are in the supporting body content. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

well the Stormy Daniels comment does have a link. But regardless, this claim doesn't re appear in the body and so ultimately remains an unsupported opinion/false accusation. Trump has never been found guilty of any such offence. Liger404 (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not a court of law, and the substance of our articles are not dependent on judicial verdicts. The statement in the lede is supported by the info found in Donald_Trump#January_6_Capitol_attack. Zaathras (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this issue and the sourcing closely, but per WP:CRIME: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell that is just circular support. Yes that article does say " including facilitating the January 6 Capitol attack." but does not have any source to support that. Indeed I would say that article requires the phrase changed for the same reasons. Liger404 (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

This comes under MOS:WEASEL: "words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." "To facilitate" means to make something easier. The Capitol police for example facilitated the riot by having ony 500 police present. Congress facilitated the riot by not declaring Trump elected. Of course neutral editors would not put that into their articles without explanation. We should just explain how Trump made the riot easier without using big words many readers may not understand. TFD (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Misogyny and cabinet appointments

A misogynist is a person who hates or discriminates against women.[27]

In this article there is the section Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct.

Here are some of the positions where Trump has appointed women to cabinet positions in his next administration so far: Attorney general, Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary of Labor, Director of National Intelligence, United Nations Ambassador, Secretary of Education, Surgeon General.[28]

I don't know of any sources so far that reconcile the characterization of Trump as a misogynist and his cabinet appointments of women, and suggest we be on the lookout for such sources so that the article can be appropriately edited. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Bob, this is a "I have black friends so I can't be racist!" fallacy, as women can be misogynist too. It is not a prejudice exclusive to men. But even beyond that, the president-elect nominating women to his administration does not counterbalance his past words and deeds that numerous reliable sources have characterized as misogynist. I don't know of any sources...and suggest we be on the lookout for such sources suggests that you have already formed a personal opinion about content to add to a BLP, and hope it can someday be validated. That is literally a textbook example of confirmation bias . Zaathras (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

This being said there is an issue in misogyny being in wikivoice while every other prejudice/label is attributed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, this does just seem like opinion not fact. This isn't supposed to be gossip. Certainly some think he is sexist. But some think he isn't and Wikipedia isn't really supposed to be elevating particular opinions over others. The allegations/liability in sexual misconduct is fact, that bit is solid. Liger404 (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV. Wikipedia content policy is complicated, nuanced, and not always intuitive. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but that you're exhibiting very little understanding of policy. For starters, what "some think" is irrelevant. A prime example: "Some think" the 2020 election was stolen. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Zaathras, There appears to be an inconsistency that you may be able to explain: How can someone who supposedly hates or discriminates against women, appoint women to the above mentioned cabinet positions? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Well if we are going to use OR, someone has to make the tea. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I can tease no valid question in that sentence that relates to anything encyclopedic, sorry. Zaathras (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead to body links

Are we doing lead to body refs now? Not that I'm opposed, been supporting them for years but was told that we couldn't use cross-refs that look like links to other articles because reader confusion or something. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

"In 2015 he launched a a presidential campaign" in the lead

The following sentence was added recently:

In 2015, he launched a presidential campaign that led to the Trumpism movement.

Challenged here, new version:

In 2015, he launched a presidential campaign that led to the Trumpism movement, and subsequently won the 2016 presidential election.

Partially reverted here, splitting up the sentence and moving the second clause into the next paragraph:

In 2015, he launched a presidential campaign that led to the Trumpism movement.
Trump won the 2016 presidential election.

My edit based on body text, moved into the fourth paragraph which describes some of the rhetoric:

Beginning with his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump's politics and rhetoric led to the creation of Trumpism.

Partially reverted here, leaving the above-cited sentence which IMO isn't leadworthy. Comments? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It will be helpful if you clarify why you don't think content is "leadworthy" so editors can evaluate your reasons. Not intending to put burden on you. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Burden — huh . The stated intent for trimming the lead of much of the content that I consider vital to understand Trump's vita and obsessions (e.g., having won the 2016 election while losing the popular vote by 2.9 million) was reducing its length. Adding redundant information after the trim seems a tad counterproductive. The lead says that Trump was president from 2017 to 2021 and that he won the 2016 presidential campaign; do we need to say that he campaigned to become president? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

To it, it makes sense to mention the campaign insofar as we introduce the populist, nationalist, and other positions that were so closely associated with it. This info is notable because it was a break with Republican orthodoxy at the time, and gained Trump much of the initial support that became his movement, which should be mentioned in the same sentence. I made a proposal for adding a brief description of Trumpism above, but a short list could just as well be attached to the description of his 2016 campaign. — Goszei (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

this went even worst from the last time I could edit. Chronologically, on lead, the first political campaign is a black hole. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

First paragraph (lead) amendment proposal

I am proposing an amendment to the first paragraph of the lead.

Old version: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. He won the 2024 presidential election as the nominee of the Republican Party and is scheduled to be inaugurated as the 47th president on January 20, 2025.

New version: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the president-elect of the United States and who is expected to be inaugurated as the 47th president of the United States on January 20, 2025. A member of the Republican Party, Trump previously served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

Rationale: I thought that by MOS, the highest-ranking position goes first. In this case, wouldn't the office of president-elect go before his presidency? Yes, I get that he isn't sworn in as president yet, but this irks me (though apparently no one else.) ItsABlackHole (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposes to supersede current consensus item 50. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. President-elect isn't an office or a position, and, even if it were, it wouldn't outrank president. That position is held by Biden until noon, January 20. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sources

@SusanLesch, you have recently removed multiple sources in the political practice and rhetoric section. My initial edit added in multiple peer-reviewed journal articles that backed up the claims which were made, which @Nikkimaria then further condensed in half, which you have now condensed even further to one source per claim. However, I take issue with your recent condensing and your use of direct quotes that now tell the reader that only this "one" researcher found that Trump's rhetoric used fearmongering or that it was essential to his support, where previously multiple researchers in multiple peer-reviewed articles had come to that conclusion. I believe this engages in whitewashing and presents an inaccurate view of the scholarly consensus and suggests to the reader that such opinions are not widespread and only one or two researchers believe this, which is not the case. I would like to recommend restoring the edit as Nikkimaria had made it. You also removed a journal article because it had "no access", however, this is not a reason that a source should be removed. Rather, you should add an appropriate template to the reference noting that it requires a subscription. Others may have access to the source if you require access to it. BootsED (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Individual researchers opinions shouldn't really be cited unless we can verify they are representative in some sense to avoid giving undue weight. Citing two isn't much better than just citing one in such a sense; it doesn't constitute a scholarly consensus. Use review articles etcetera for these purposes. Agree on not removing a source simply because of no-access per WP:SOURCEACCESS, but if two sources are of equal verification value and we only need one, the more accessible one should be preferred.

I don't find the accusations of "whitewashing" helpful; consider that by using such a term, you are implying Susan is acting with malice. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave My initial edit added multiple sources, many more than two, but it was reduced by Nikkimaria in order to avoid overciting. For the fearmongering claim I have about ten that I shrunk down to four very strong peer-reviewed journal articles, which were then shrunk down to two by Nikkimaria, which were then shrunk down to one by SusanLesch who reworded it to simply state that this one researcher thought Trump used fearmongering, which as you yourself stated, "individual researchers opinions shouldn't really be cited unless we can verify they are representative in some sense to avoid giving undue weight." Susan has been on a source removing spree and has also removed many other sources on this page so far for various reasons as a look at the page edit history will show. BootsED (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

As I'm sure you can understand, citing even ten sources rather than two does not signify that the opinion represented therein is representative of academic consensus. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

So first I am told I have too many peer-reviewed sources and need to remove them. Then I am told I do not have enough peer-reviewed sources and need to have more. Now I am told that even if I had many peer-reviewed sources, they are not enough. I have acted in good faith here. BootsED (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The easiest solution is to cite review sources, if they exist - do they? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

You've been run around a bit, which isn't very fair, but it doesn't justify engaging in original research. The reason this is original research is because these journal articles are primary sources, and taking multiple together to extrapolate conclusions not made in such sources is synthesis. We need to use secondary sources to make such claims, such as review articles. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I have multiple (10) news articles such as this one from the NYT or this one from WaPo that provide further, explicit statements that Trump has engaged in fearmongering, vitriol, and ecetera against immigrants and minorities, not counting the roughly one dozen peer-reviewed journal articles that all state the same conclusion. These are not opinion pieces, but actual news articles and articles labeled as "analysis". I can get lots of opinion pieces too (obviously in this case!). Do these count as reliable secondary sources? If not I am unsure what you are specifically referring to as "review sources". I can even get book reviews if you need them or roundtable discussions with scholars posted in academic journals. I am not engaging in original research, as this is well documented, but if I need even more citations that is not an issue on my part and is simply a chore on my end to satisfy the requirements of the editors on this page. BootsED (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm occupied at the moment so won't be able to comment further for a bit, but review articles are a type of journal article that assesses scholarly consensus. Some examples of journals publishing these are Political Studies Review or the American Political Science Review. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, some of the sources in my edits are from those two journals. I believe some of the sources I am using are already review articles, although I am a bit confused as each site seems to have its own labels. It's late for me right now but I will do some more digging into this later. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. BootsED (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Good morning. I only had ten minutes this morning but have already found one review article and that at least one of the articles I have used so far are classified as a review article by Google scholar. Other sources that were used have sections dedicated at the beginning to review existing literature, but are not listed as review articles. However, I've noticed that several publishers do not provide an option to search by review articles, and some list review articles as simply "article" which also has non-review articles on them. Other non-review articles contain sections that review existing literature. So this makes it confusing to say the least. BootsED (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Access is a poor justification for removal, my bad. (Bustinza & Witkowski seems to be an observational study, not a review, but you're welcome to add it back in.) Per WP:INTEXT, it is bad form to directly quote a researcher without attribution, otherwise the wiki could be plagiarizing. Your edit added Research has identified Trump's rhetoric as heavily using vitriol, demeaning language, false equivalency, exclusion. Dr. Stuckey wrote He depends heavily on vitriol, primarily using demeaning language, false equivalency, and exclusion. I believe the final study you provided, used in the sentence beginning wih Jacobson (please note spelling), and attributed to "other researchers," has aspects of a review but we should keep looking. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that was the source I saw pop up as a review article when I did more searching this morning. I can't check right now as I am not at my computer. I likely won't be able to work on this further until later this week as I have a full-time job, (un)fortunately. BootsED (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Just an update, I spent a few hours this weekend and found some more good more review articles on this topic. I also found some other good review articles and sources that can be used on this page to remove some lower-quality sources we have now. I will hopefully be able to update the page sometime later this week. BootsED (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The cases were dismissed

"Special counsel prosecutors dismissed the two federal criminal cases against Donald Trump in separate court filings on Monday": [29]. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of lede

Moved from Talk:Donald Trump#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2024

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 and won the 2024 presidential election as the Republican nominee. He is set to be inaugurated as the 47th president on January 20, 2025.

Trump graduated with a degree in economics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1968. He took over his family’s real estate business in 1971, renaming it the Trump Organization. The company became known for real estate development and branding. Trump also gained public recognition as the host and producer of the reality television series The Apprentice from 2004 to 2015.

He launched his first presidential campaign in 2015 and won the 2016 election. His administration focused on tax reform, deregulation, trade policy, and immigration. Trump appointed three justices to the Supreme Court and pursued significant changes to U.S. foreign and domestic policy, including renegotiating trade agreements and withdrawing from several international accords. His term was marked by notable events such as a trade dispute with China, tensions with North Korea, and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump ran for re-election in 2020 but lost to Joe Biden. After the election, he challenged the results, citing allegations of voter fraud, which were dismissed by courts. His tenure and rhetoric remained polarizing, inspiring strong support from his base and criticism from opponents. He was impeached twice during his presidency but was acquitted both times by the Senate. In 2024, Trump campaigned again for the presidency, emphasizing issues such as the economy, energy policy, and border security. His victory in the election secured his return to the White House. 70.51.245.90 (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

What are editors thoughts, not necessarily on the whole thing but also on components. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm just trying to imagine how this would fit into our consensus process. Say we reached a consensus on a lead rewrite. Then, no change to the lead would be possible without a prior new consensus. If you can suggest a way to do this without throwing out the long-standing process, I'm all ears. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't imagine there will be much support for a complete swap; if there somehow is we can come to that bridge when we get there. What there may be is support for elements and emphasis; a small example is saying he received a "degree in economics" rather than a bachelor's degree in economics". Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Then each such element should be addressed separately for the sake of organization. ToC minimization is not a priority. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to recognize if we don't invite discussion as to what can be taken from this rewrite, no elements will be discussed. We can't put the cart before the horse; we need to first consider that elements may be addressed before we address them. Conversations can be spun out. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That's weird, discussing what we can/should discuss. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It is a bit. We know that no action will be taken on the IP's rewrite because they didn't follow correct procedures, it will likely be archived and forgotten. This goes against Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If the IP had followed correct procedure and proposed the rewrite in a process of consensus, it would look like this. Editors could support the whole rewrite or support parts. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

This lead says too little. He "focuses on" and "emphasizes" issues, but what are his basic stances? He is "polarizing" and inspires "support and criticism", but on what grounds? This is a prime example of what over-trimming a lead to the point that it says almost nothing looks like. Our goal is to write a solid framework for the reader to learn more, not to raise twice as many questions. — Goszei (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Your suggestion of a rewrite remove every single meaningfull element of the current lead. Everything becomes bague and opaque. What did he do on tax reform? What did he do on immigration? What about covid? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the current lead is fine as is. This lead removes mention of his racially charged rhetoric, falsehoods and conspiracy theories, and the January 6 attack, which are very notable and historical things. We have consensus to include those things in the lead as it currently stands, so approving this lead would overturn those prior consensus items and require consensus for every single change to the lead going forwards. BootsED (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Support NPOV breath of fresh air that makes our lead look like an annotated dirty laundry list. This <300 word version isn't off-putting and encourages the reader to read the article. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

oppose this is better suited for the Simple Wikipedia, not this article. too much meaning and context is lost. ValarianB (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think Simple Wikipedia would pass. They prefer facts, too. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Was this an actual proposal or AI trolling? The phraseology ("became known for", "gained public recognition", "remained polarizing, inspiring strong support from his base and criticism from opponents", "His victory in the election secured his return to the White House") reads like the book blurb of an authorized Trump biography, hazy and whitewashed. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

CARES Act in lead

This edit from User:Space4Time3Continuum2x makes little sense, nullifying the largest stimulus package in U.S. history here and simply stating he "downplayed" the pandemic is not a neutral account with WP:DUE. Both should be mentioned in my opinion. Describing the footnote—which are used extensively throughout this lead to explain key acts—as "op-ed" is ridiculous; there is no opinion stated on the matter, it is a fact reverberated on the article linked, of which the wording was based around, and gives key context to the reader as it does with the other acts listed. His main response to the pandemic was the CARES Act, regardless of whether it required bipartisan support or not... Such acts are mentioned at Joe Biden (American Rescue Plan Act) and Barack Obama (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009), absolutely no reason not to include it here when it was his main official response—focusing solely on his words and not his actions makes little sense here, even if it does elsewhere. Mb2437 (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mb2437: you're 100% right, I've added the information. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

JacktheBrown Best to allow some time in situations such as these to see if other editors want to oppose, otherwise content is going on and off and on and off the page in quick succession, which can raise temperatures. We can wait at least a day to see if consensus gathers. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Mb2437, could you explain (with reference to policies and guidelines) what makes the discussed content DUE or UNDUE? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The edit reduced his response to the pandemic to merely his comments on its potential impact, rather than his actual response via policy: don't give undue weight to traits unrelated to notability, per WP:BIODD. This legislature was highly notable for being the largest U.S. stimulus bill in history—whether that is a good or bad thing is not implied, simply stated neutrally. The current wording is misleading, suggesting that his only response was to 'play it down' when COVID-19 was arguable the greatest flashpoint in his presidency, comprising of 22% of the prose in his first presidency section (per WP:LEADBIO, the lead should reflect the entirety of the article). As shown in the suggested edit, I do not strictly believe we should remove that point, although the juxtaposition of A to B may fall under WP:PROPORTION, given the CARES bill is more widely discussed in secondary sources: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject, as well as we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources in WP:UNDUE. It was the most commonly viewed bill throughout 2020 on the Congress website. Google Trends shows the two terms to be relatively even in 2020, although this does not consider the long-term relevance to present day, which proves that such comments will not retain historical relevancy as much as the multi-trillion dollar stimulus package: Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective, per WP:LEADBIO. The footnote—a consistent detail with the rest of the lead, again WP:DUE not given—was removed on the basis of WP:EDITORIAL, which is nonsense; no persuasive writing or false implications were present. The notability of similar acts are verified on the Barack Obama and Joe Biden articles, where stimulus bills of less significance [30] [31] are discussed in the leads. Mb2437 (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Mb2437. Ironically, by not mentioning this in the lead we are the ones downplaying the pandemic, or more specifically the magnitude of the official response to it. I think that both the CARES Act and Trump's personal attempts to downplay the severity of the crisis with his public disputes with health officials, etc. should be concisely mentioned in the lead. — Goszei (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

His disputes with health officials could be added to an efn adjacent to the statement of him downplaying the pandemic, keeping in mind this lead is being trimmed in preparation for his second administration, hence the extensive use of footnotes. Should definitely have a couple of lines on the pandemic. Mb2437 (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I would be satisfied with that. — Goszei (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mb2437 for laying this out. I appreciate your application of PROPORTION, but it falls short; you identify that we should place emphasis on the COVID pandemic in discussing his presidency, but you don't then continue to see what that section itself places emphasis on. According to my read of the section, him applying pressure to downplay receives the most emphasis (multiple subsections, discussed in others). This contrasts with one sentence on CARES that does not receive particular emphasis or treated as summative of its section. As such, the proposal is at odds with PROPORTION. If you think it should be included, the section on his COVID response should be rewritten. Having the lede develop separately to the body is bad.

On using Google Trends and bill viewcounts here; this is far too crude a method. The chosen phrases are very specific and don't reflect reliable sourcing, but reflect attention. What you should be using is a secondary source that attempts to put his approach to COVID in the perspective of his presidency overall. Once such source would be Public policy and health in the Trump era. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

In the updated edit suggestion, three examples are given of his downplaying the pandemic, with one example of his policy; this has been designed around the weight given in the section, to satisfy PROPORTION. Mb2437 (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't explain how we can justify including the CARES act in the lede. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

There are four examples of policy given in the initial response section: the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, travel restrictions, declaring a national emergency, and the CARES Act. It would not satisfy PROPORTION to completely avoid mentioning the bulk of that section in the lead, misleading the reader with a simple statement of his downplaying the pandemic. We could simply describe them as "emergency measures" and include all four in a footnote, or select the most impactful piece of legislature; it being the largest stimulus bill in U.S. history seems a pretty logical call for inclusion. Here, it is by far the most widely discussed COVID policy under "Policy and technology response": COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. The source you've listed above is specifically about his health-related policies, stated very clearly in the opening line of the abstract, not his economic policy. Mb2437 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph discussing those example policies you list is a minority of the #Initial response section. Further, if It would not satisfy PROPORTION to completely avoid mentioning the bulk of that section in the lead, even more emphasis is given to the White House Coronavirus Task Force. The same amount of emphasis is given to the World Health Organization, Outbreak at the White House and Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign as that paragraph discussing those policies.

Yes, I commented on it as health policy because that is how this article characterizes it, as a function of his public health policy rather than in a discussion of his economic policy. If you would prefer different retrospective sources, it was merely a suggestion. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It borders on a lie by omission to exclude any mention of a response while only mentioning his downplaying. We can always change the weights within the sentence/footnotes to emphasize one over the other. — Goszei (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Our job is to reflect the weighting of reliable sources. If the most important thing about his COVID response according to them was him downplaying, then that's what we reflect. That's how the body is currently written and the lede should reflect that. The body does not emphasise his economic response. I am planning to review the section on his COVID response at a later time to see if the article's writing actually reflects the weight, but I am currently preoccupied with other parts of the page. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

We could leave it as:

He responded to the COVID-19 pandemic with emergency measures,<efn|Including the CARES Act, travel restrictions, and establishing the White House Coronavirus Task Force.> and downplayed its severity.<efn|Trump pressured health officials to reduce testing efforts, and health agencies to approve vaccines. The U.S. withdrew from the World Health Organisation in July 2021.>

for now. All headings are concisely noted, with no added detail for each. Its current form is incomplete and does not satisfy any of the policies laid out. Mb2437 (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It is sufficient to exclude the footnotes. If a reader wants to better understand what emergency measures were took, they can read the body the lede is summarizing. There is less emphasis in the body on emergency measures than downplaying, but there is enough to justify inclusion. If you think the CARES Act is very important, see if reliable sources place the same emphasis and then rewrite the body accordingly. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

If I can ask, why do you think it's important to put the content in footnotes in? The purpose of the lead is a high-level summary; putting large quantities of content in footnotes is still putting it in the lede and still counts for DUE weight. The one sentence on CARES in the body is UNDUE in the lede, whether it is a footnote or not. You can fix this, you just have to rewrite the body to give it more emphasis. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC) The addition to the lead was a bold edit that was challenged and shouldn’t have been reinserted for at least 24 hours or until a consensus has been reached. Since it was reinserted by a different editor, I’m not sure what the proper procedure is or should be. It was also undue per MOS:LEAD (the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents) because the CARES Act wasn’t mentioned in the body. Edit history:

1. Cares Act added to lead
2. Reverted
3. CARES Act added to body
4. CARES reinserted in lead

As for the "but Biden" argument: Biden didn’t just sign the American Rescue Plan. It was his plan, presented a week before his inauguration. As for the "Google trends" argument on notability: Really, trending on Google? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Its lack of inclusion was frankly bewildering, hence why it was not checked beforehand; it has been added since to reflect the suggested change. The Google data proves it has maintained historical relevance amongst secondary sources, and is more than just "trending". Trump was heavily involved in the build-up, negotiations and endorsement of the CARES Act [32] [33] [34] [35] [36], even if signing it into law wasn't relevant enough—either way, the most notable factor is signing the bill, not lobbying for it. Mb2437 (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The current version makes it sound like Trump's administration did absolutely nothing in response to the pandemic. To use a historical parallel, Herbert Hoover did very little in response to Great Depression in terms of direct aid, instead encouraging charities to help people, but he did pass some measures like the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. In the lead of his article, we characterize this as "his response to the depression was widely seen as lackluster". We acknowledge that he was forced to make an official response to the crisis, albeit one considered poor, instead of implying that he did nothing by omission. — Goszei (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Updated suggestion

He responded to the COVID-19 pandemic with the CARES Act in March 2020,<efn|This was a $2.2 trillion economic stimulus bill, the largest in U.S. history, in response to the economic fallout of the pandemic.> and downplayed its severity.<efn|Trump pressured health officials to reduce testing efforts, and health agencies to approve vaccines. The U.S. withdrew from the World Health Organisation in July 2021.>

Added important headings from COVID section to the second efn, as well as the month and year as its timeline is important to the response itself. Mb2437 (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump Covid response — lead whitewash

Our longstanding content was an accurate summary of body content as well as an accurate description of Trump’s response to the pandemic:

He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments.

Somehow this two-day discussion over Thanksgiving (!), involving four (4) editors, went from including the CARES Act in the lead to replacing the longstanding content with this nebulous statement:

He responded to the COVID-19 pandemic with emergency measures, and downplayed its severity.

Aside from MOS:LEAD and the reality in 2020, four editors over two days, including a major holiday, are insufficient participation for changing the longstanding content to a vague "responded with emergency measures and downplayed the severity". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus seems pretty clear from this discussion that the new version is an appropriate summary.

Reacted slowly is subjective, and 'whitewashes' the administration's reaction. This information was removed long before Thanksgiving, as if that's a valid argument. This efn: <TagNote|Trump pressured health officials to reduce testing efforts, and health agencies to approve vaccines. The U.S. withdrew from the World Health Organisation in July 2021.> is also in discussion. Mb2437 (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Reacted slowly: see Donald Trump#Initial response. "Long before Thanksgiving" — due to 3RR and a 1001 edits since November 5 it took me a while to get around to this. The valid arguments are the lead section is ... a summary of [the article's] most important contents and what RS reported. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That section does not state he reacted "slowly" at any point with any citations or consensus amongst reliable, secondary sources, it is left for the reader to determine. the lead section is ... a summary of [the article's] most important contents, "He reacted slowly" is not content in the article, thus should be removed from the lead... "He responded to the COVID-19 pandemic with emergency measures in March 2020" is a more appropriate statement, with no editorialising. Mb2437 (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The pandemic and his response to it is a huge deal. Surely there's something better that we can say than "reacted slowly" that is better than merely "downplayed its severity". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, SpaceTime made a good edit and resolved this. Well done. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much every sentence and sometimes every word in the preelection lead was discussed and litigated thoroughly. I don't remember how the exact wording came about; I'll go through the archived discussions tomorrow. I also think that "reacted slowly" is a tad pussyfooting around what the [LA Times] called delay[ing] or bungl[ing] basic but crucial steps to contain the spread of infections and prepare the country for a pandemic: our body text says that Trump initially ignored persistent public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration and Secretary Azar. Throughout January and February he focused on economic and political considerations of the outbreak. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Mb2437 ([37]): no consensus in the discussion. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@JacktheBrown: There's no consensus for the version you reverted to. The version you reverted was the longstanding one, "trimmed" on November 16 — along with much of the lead content — as "unnecessary details" to read: His reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic has been heavily criticized for being slow and generally imprudent. Please, self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I readded ignored or contradicted recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread unverified information about unproven treatments, i.e., the longstanding content that had been removed from the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed editnotice

Rollinginhisgrave suggested an editnotice which is a bright idea new to me. I installed one on my user page: SusanLesch. No tit for tat, no coercion, or behavioral suggestions, just information. I realize we already have three editnotices hogging the entire first screen of this article. Can we make room? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Same rationale as here. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: I didn't realise how long the three current edit notices are. They are so long, you have to scroll. I don't think any are being read, but they are all more important than this notice and should be above be placed above it. I think if we added this note then, it may ironically only serve to bring us closer to breaking templates. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Rollinginhisgrave well how about we get some more people approved to edit. I don't know how to edit but figured it would be pretty easy for y'all to just change it for me since I'm not allowed to edit the article? can you at least acknowledge that the whole sentence should be cited instead of just part of it JaneenGingerich (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi JaneenGingerich, I'll discuss this further with you on your user page if that's okay. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave yes that's perfect thank you! JaneenGingerich (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

"Scheduled to be" inaugurated in the lead

Re: [38][39]

As seen in the diffs:

• I changed "is scheduled to be inaugurated" to "will be inaugurated" with the edit summary rationale: "this will happen barring incapacitation or death, both highly unlikely".
• User:Gluonz reverted the change with no edit summary rationale, an apparent instance of "I just don't like it". This kind of revert should be immediately re-revertable in my opinion.

Comments, please. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Hi; I had not actually seen your aforementioned edit. I changed it because I incorrectly assumed that no one had been deliberately supporting the "will" wording over the "is scheduled to" wording. I have changed it back. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 04:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. So it sounds like you had no objection to the new wording, but reverted because you didn't see any "support" for it? The support was implicit in the fact that it had not been reverted. Your proper options were to change it back with a content-related rationale or to leave it alone. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I suppose that I also partially had my own reason (I preferred the other wording due to a lack of guarantee, similarly to with the issue described below), but I had not specifically addressed this when changing the article. I reverted after you started this thread because my feelings about this were not particularly strong (what is meant is quite clear either way). –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 14:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Whenever I see "will" in regards to a future event, it's always WP:CRYSTAL. We don't predict the future as anything can happen, however unlikely it may seem. I oppose using will be inaugurated as the word is to be avoided for any sort of future event. Noah, BSBA^Talk 13:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Then we'll need to find a way to change the infobox: "Assuming office January 20, 2025". Please go to Template talk:Infobox officeholder and propose changing that heading to "Scheduled to assume office". Let us know how that turns out. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The WP policy literally says Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident whether you agree with it or not. This pretty much precludes using "will". Noah, BSBA^Talk 13:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

See my preceding. Obviously the community does not feel that policy should apply to office assumption dates for officeholder-elects. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

After you succeed in changing the infobox heading, please ensure the article JD Vance is also changed: "He will resign on or before January 20, 2025, when he will be inaugurated as vice president of the United States." My emphasis. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

VPP discussion started two days ago without notification here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:CRYSTAL in officeholder articles and infoboxes. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Use of explanatory footnotes in lead

This is more of a general formatting query, but edits like this have removed the explanatory footnotes from the lead, noting major legislature and policy. As the lead is clearly being condensed in preparation for his second term, it is important we do not miss out key details; I thought the use of efn's was a smart and neat way around this, it is important the lead doesn't completely gloss over such information and demand the reader find it for themselves. Mb2437 (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section is the appropriate place to make enquiries of this sort. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Forwarded this discussion to that talk page. Mb2437 (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

You inadvertently linked to a version of the article, rather than to the edit that created that version. Here's a link to the edit.

The question is whether the names of Trump's three appointees to the Supreme Court should be given in an explanatory footnote in the lead. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, here are the other removals the user made: [40] [41] [42]. Mb2437 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead footnotes added 4 templates to our total. They repeated generally-known information almost verbatim. None were cited. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead is to summarise the body, the removal of that information gives an incomplete analysis. Some of these edits have removed entire sections of the article from mention in the lead. The fact it is generally-known supports its conclusion as notable information, and all of it is cited in the body so does not need citations here. Mb2437 (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Mb2437, you should know that most readers who read the lede do not read the footnotes. Many think they're just references. If an article summary is fundamentally incomplete without this content, it should not be in a footnote. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Change it to a tagged note then:

My point is that it is an incomplete summary with such content stripped—especially examples of legislature to go with points such as "he rolled back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations"—but the lead requires trimming to stay within a reasonable length. Moving such information to an efn doesn't impede the reader, who may choose to avoid it, or the totality of the summary. The other options are to strip the lead of all individual acts and policy, or to expand the lead to 1,000+ (immediately visible) words. Mb2437 (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The tagged note is a lot better, great idea.

I am interested to see how it applies the manual of style's comments on ledes more than any other consideration, although I appreciating you stepping it out more. If you could go further and answer a question that occurs to me, many other presidents pages are featured articles. After lots of scrutiny to ensure they are very high-quality, their leads have been judged to summarize sufficiently without footnotes. Do you think there is something unique to Trump? Do you think all these pages insufficiently summarize? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

As a reader, I would not expect to see the names of Trump's appointees to the Supreme Court in the lead. As a reader of the news, I know that his appointments were newsworthy, and the lead should certainly mention that he made them. But the actual names of them, that's the sort of thing to leave for the main body of the article.

The heavy emphasis in MOS:LEAD is not on what you must include, but on what you must leave out. The article is long, and is going to get longer, but the lead is short, and is not going to get longer. By the end of Trump's second term, even more stuff will be left out of the lead than is left out now.

Putting material in a tagged note is not leaving it out. Of course, it's not unheard of for the lead section to have tagged notes. For example, sometimes tagged notes are used to tell how to pronounce the person's name. (Don't need that for this article, I guess.) But this mechanism has to be used judiciously. The boundary between what belongs in the lead, and what has to be moved out to the main article, is important, and the use of tagged notes doesn't move that boundary. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The Supreme Court nominees probably shouldn't be listed, I'm more concerned about the omission of all policy. Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective, per WP:LEADBIO. The excessive focus on words and not policy that has genuine historical implications doesn't serve much encyclopaedic value. Mb2437 (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mb2437 makes sense to me I agree JaneenGingerich (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mb2437 this guy could do it better JaneenGingerich (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the compliment, but I'm by no means stating I should write it; Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we're working towards an amicable solution. Please don't spam replies, one suffices. Mb2437 (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mb2437 makes sense to me JaneenGingerich (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Mb2437, I agree with WP:LEADBIO. If something is that important, it should be readily accessible up front in the lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the most important contents of the article. If parts of the summary need explanatory notes, they're either incomplete or not important enough to be included in the lead. We used to have one efn to explain the electoral college to readers not familiar with the U.S. presidential election (of course, that clause — won the election while losing the national popular vote — has also been deleted as unimportant); IMO that's an exception and a valid reason for having a footnote. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

This exception was distracting because the US method can't be reduced to a single sentence. See how it hedges in parentheses? "Presidential elections in the U.S. are decided by the Electoral College. Each state names a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress and (in most states) all electors vote for the winner of their state's popular vote." I support an addition to the 2016 election results. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I saw the note at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Explanatory footnotes in Donald Trump lead.

Generally speaking, if a detail is not important enough to be put in plaintext in the lead, then it's not important enough to add a footnote that contains those details. We call them "explanatory" footnotes because they are supposed to contain an actual "explanation". An explanation might sound like "Like all other articles about US presidents, this one refers to 'Trump' instead of 'President Trump' throughout, because it is more concise". An explanation does not sound like "In case you were looking for this exact detail, the names of the 'three people' mentioned in this sentence are Alice, Bob, and Chris."

If the goal is to make it easier for people to find the names, then that sentence could link to Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The SC noms are the least concerning points trimmed, it's more about crucial policies that are being cut out that give an incomplete summary. Mb2437 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The point was made that if something is crucial to understanding, it should be spelled out in the lead (not put in a footnote. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly what I meant. If it's necessary, then don't hide it in a footnote. If it's not necessary, then don't clutter up the lead with markers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Mb2437, the international agreements deserved the note. I am restoring those since they have a completelly different pourpouse that giving out the names of the judged, without it you do not know what kind of agreements we are talking about at all. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Goszei what do you think about the usage of the note here? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Childhood

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I added, and you reverted, two book sources written by Pulitzer-winning journalists. They were consulted because this article is thin on sourcing. I object to your revert of Trump's childhood. Every detail was chosen because, as the man said himself, when he looks at himself in first grade, he's basically the same person. Yes, this is a long article. I have been cutting for the past couple weeks to make room for book sources. Please revert your revert. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I still haven't found the edit that cut this text about Trump's four draft deferments, including the one about the bone spurs he may or may not have had: While in college, the past and future Commander in Chief obtained four student draft deferments during the Vietnam War. In 1966, he was deemed fit for military service based on a medical examination, and in July 1968, a local draft board classified him as eligible to serve. In October 1968, he was classified 1-Y, a conditional medical deferment for bone spurs, and in 1972, he was reclassified 4-F, unfit for military service, permanently disqualifying him. That seems a bit more relevant for the past and future Commander in Chief than elementary and high school. "Thin on sourcing" — 834 cited sources? Most of them are newspaper articles because Trump is still making news, and, as biographers keep digging into his past, more details about his past are being reported in newspaper articles and books. Haberman and D'Antonio have written excellent biographies on Trump but quotes such as "a bit of a terror" and details such as commander of A Company and voted ladies' man in his high school yearbook don't belong in an encyclopedia article, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 23:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is a long article. I have been cutting for the past couple weeks to make room for book sources. is a curious statement, as it sounds like you are trying to implement your failed "eye for an eye" proposal even though said proposal did not gain consensus. Whatever you deleted from the article to "make room" should be restored, and all of this this may be considered disruptive. Zaathras (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it sounds like that, and I opposed that proposal. Please make sure you are assuming good faith here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Zaathras, I made that WP:SNOW proposal after looking at the article sourcing, seeking advice here on what books to buy, and after discussion. Why bring it up again? -SusanLesch (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Because...you're clearly trying to carry it out? You deleted content from this article, added new content, and then demanded that its removal be reversed. The basis for your demand was, quote, I have been cutting for the past couple weeks to make room for book sources. It's not rocket science. Zaathras (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Zaathras This is a bit confusing as there's two "basis for her demand": she is laying out merits for the content she added (they are based on high-quality sourcing, which this article is in particular need of given its reliance on low-quality sourcing), and also responding to Space4Time3Continuum2x's critiques of the added content (UNDUE ["childhood trivia"] and added a lot to the byte count). She addressed concerns about DUE and then addressed concerns about byte count. I understand concerns about byte count for Space4 and Susan to be about approaching the PEIS limit. What would be a reasonable response for Susan here in your eyes? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

based on high-quality sourcing, which this article is in particular need of given its reliance on low-quality sourcing. The guideline is WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". That's what we've been relying on. Please, point out the low-quality sources we are using. For all I know, some may have escaped the eagle eyes watching this article, especially since November 5. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Some types of sources discusses tiers of quality of reliable sourcing for material. An addition consideration is giving due weight, as sources published further from an event have a better ability to evaluate whether an event was important in retrospect. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x:

• Curiously, I found the A-company story a parallel to President Trump's reaction to the January 6 attack on the Capitol (he was just sitting in the office). Regarding the 854 citations, Carlos Lozada read 150 books which were "a fraction of the Trump canon". The more familiar we are with that canon the better if you want this article to improve.
• To your point. Agree the draft deferments are important for a Commander in Chief. I've never read what was cut, thank you. Can we combine that lost text with less of the new stuff? -SusanLesch (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to get too down on Lozada, but could you clarify from your readings how he treats the books he's reading? We have degrees of reliability on Wikipedia which create hierarchies within the canon; is he doing the same or treating sources as equally valuable? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Entirely off topic, congesting this thread. Disliked Lozada's writing and put him down before 20 pages. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

A review of Lozada's book: CEU Democracy Institute. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the sources cited in books about Trump, you'll probably find many of them cited in this article, too. Haberman and D'Antonio are journalists who presumable do their own research and interviews but also rely on other journalists' reporting. This is an article about a person who's been in the news for many years, not, e.g., an article about a medical procedure where you need to summarize scientific consensus found in medical journals and/or books written by medical experts. IMO, there are two reasons this article won't be GA-rated anytime soon: neutrality (the alleged anti-Trump bias — if he was a better person, better businessman, or better president, we'd have more positive things to write about) and stability (that went out the window on November 5 and it's been getting trampled ever since). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

We are off-topic, if you respond to this or may be best to split it off into its own thread, although given some is a general discussion about bias, it may be best to take it to your talk page for a discussion. I have performed perhaps 4/5 source reviews since coming to this page, and in all but one this article has been more down on Trump than the sources, in one case to the point of inaccuracy. In the exception to this, the sources placed a different emphasis on a "positive" aspect. My analysis hasn't been random sampling, but it certainly seems to be true that the article doesn't place the same emphasis and weights on viewpoints and information as reliable sources, in a way biased against Trump. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, would you like to restore your text about draft deferments? -SusanLesch (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I will note for you both that I removed the draft deferments content after reviewing the weight placed on it in a biography, Trump Revealed. It received far more emphasis in this article's discussion of his early life than it did in the books, so I cut it as given disproportionate weight. With an expansion of the early life section a mention may be merited as giving due weight. Other biographies may give it more or less emphasis. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x and Rollinginhisgrave, I propose to cut down what I added to three sentences (and no footnotes). Then one sentence about draft deferment would be about the right weight. Sound good? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't really comment on it further without looking into it. My relevant comment in a previous discussion on the draft's weight is [43]. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I've got the new stuff down to 42 words. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I have performed perhaps 4/5 source reviews since coming to this page — sounds like random sampling to me but what do I know. The way to handle something like this would be to boldly edit the text with s.th. like "failed verification" in the edit summary or take each inaccuracy directly to the Talk page. Another biased against Trump isn't going to improve whatever — allegedly — needs improving. Please specify which sources you reviewed and found to have been rendered inaccurately in the text.

draft deferments content after reviewing the weight placed on it in a biography. It took my a while to track down the edit that removed the draft deferments and the cited sources (Kranish/Fisher, NYT, and WaPo). I don't see how the "weight" in one 450-page biography on 70 years of a life measures up against the considerable coverage the draft deferments received in RS. SusanLesch, not my text, "the" text. It's been edited quite a few times over the years, with different sources going back to 2011. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Of the books I checked, D'Antonio gives the most about the draft. He says 60 percent of Trump's peers got deferments, so I don't think we should make much of it. I'll be bold and add minimally to §Early life and education. Please see what you think. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC) P.S. The 60% includes special status, not only medical deferment. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Close to 100% of his peers didn't run for or become president. The exception who did, Bill Clinton#Vietnam War opposition and draft controversy, opposed the Vietnam War but registered for the draft without resorting to bone spurs. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC) Forgot the other peer who became president, George W. Bush, whose connections got him into the Texas Air National Guard, fighting the Vietnam War in Texas and Alabama. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not an improvement, IMO. Before:

He attended the private Kew-Forest School through seventh grade and New York Military Academy, a private boarding school, from eighth through twelfth grade.

After:

Young Trump attended Kew-Forest School, a private college-preparatory school, through seventh grade. He was a difficult child and showed an early interest in his father's business. Stepping in to guide his son's behavior, his father enrolled him in New York Military Academy, a private boarding school, where Trump completed his secondary education, and where he learned to excel in a strict regimen.

Anyone else have an opinion on adding these details? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Also added He was exempted from the draft during the Vietnam War due to bone spurs in his heels.:

In 1964, Trump enrolled at Fordham University. Two years later, he transferred to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, graduating in May 1968 with a Bachelor of Science in economics. He was exempted from the draft during the Vietnam War due to bone spurs in his heels. In 2015, he threatened his high school, colleges, and the College Board with legal action if they released his academic records.

-SusanLesch (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Of the books I checked Could you clarify which books these were?

Kranish & Fisher, Lozada, D'Antonio, Haberman, Fred Trump, Mercieca. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Close to 100% of his peers didn't run for or become president. We reflect the emphasis reliable sources place, not the counter-arguments we can put together for why things aren't important.

This is not an improvement, IMO. Could you expand on your thinking here? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Another editor trimmed the childhood part to Trump attended the private college-preparatory Kew-Forest School through seventh grade. He was a difficult child and showed an early interest in his father's business. His father enrolled him in New York Military Academy, a private boarding school, to complete secondary school; he learned to excel in a strict regimen., and I've just restored the pre-bold edit version for the duration of this discussion, haven't removed the books yet. Difficult child, interested in Dad's business, father enrolling him in school — sounds like an average childhood to me, and all of it just a wordier way of saying "He attended the private Kew-Forest School through seventh grade and New York Military Academy, a private boarding school, from eighth through twelfth grade". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@ValarianB: You just reverted my restoration of mostly longstanding content, i.e., my removal of the childhood trivia boldly added here. Most of the content about Trump's education and medical draft deferments was removed from the article, unchallenged, here. I haven't a clue what our current status is concerning the merits of longstanding content. Was your restoration of the text concerning Trump's childhood years collateral damage while restoring the bone spur sentence? And what is the point of He was exempted from the draft during the Vietnam War due to bone spurs in his heels without the info on the other draft deferments? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Request for change in Current Consensus #13

Since the talk page is currently (as of 21:56 30 November) at 379kb and has 40 open sections, I think it's best to change the archiving time currently outlined in #13 to 7 days, from the current 14 days. This was the set archiving time during Trump's presidency, and I think it is time for us to return to that. Mgasparin (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. The linked consensus was for 7 days, and I don't recall when or how the item and the auto-archive parameter got changed to 14. Do you? Doesn't seem like something I would do, being the notorious process wonk around here. I'd be inclined to return to the documented consensus and then people could propose a change from that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Here are the changes:[44][45] The first edit was a consensus vio and should not have been allowed without a new consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and corrected the process error:[46][47] ―Mandruss ☎ 06:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss Thanks, yeah I think the change happened somewhere around 2021, after Trump left office. Mgasparin (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Merging together the several disambiguation pages on his presidencies

So far there are 6 disambiguation pages (assuming I'm not missing something), with at least 3-4 more to come when he appoints judges, ambassadors, etc. Each of these dabs only disambiguate 2 entries (first term/second term). It is my suggestion that these disambiguation pages be merged together into a single List of articles on presidencies of Donald Trump, so that it is easier for visitors to navigate instead of at least 10-12 separate dab pages with 2 entries each. What is your opinion? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 23:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• The dabs so far are: Presidency of Donald Trump, Cabinet of Donald Trump, First 100 days of the Donald Trump presidency, Inauguration of Donald Trump, Political appointments by Donald Trump, Presidential transition of Donald Trump —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 23:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed split: Political policies of Donald Trump

Political policies of Donald Trump would be a more specified article to keep Trump's policies in, so we can give a broad overview of them here and a proportionally broader look in both presidency articles. Perhaps this would work best as an offshoot of Political career of Donald Trump? BarntToust 15:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

or Political positions of Donald Trump? Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, just all the content of his policies. We can cover all we want about his project 2025 or whatever in that one. BarntToust 15:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I feel his positions are an offshoot of his career, and that Political policies would be another good child. Actually, lots of his policies are BarntToust 15:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Which raises a good question: Should the Political positions article be more oriented towards his stances on the various subjects he has stances on, and this proposed split more centred on the policies he enacted/will enact as part of his career. BarntToust 15:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

---

Political policies of Donald Trump would ideally be sectioned into subsections on content found in the First Trump presidency, and content to be found in the Second Trump presidency, where the various policies he enacted during the courses of each would be detailed.

Political positions of Donald Trump would ideally be refocused to be about Trump's opinions on the various topics he has opinions on, and the content of that article can detail how those opinions are reflected on him, how those opinions influence his political actions, including but not limited to enacting policies reflective of these ideals, and other relevant information. BarntToust 16:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me that you're not proposing a split but a new article on Trump's opinions. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. It's a tad complex, but yes, in practice I'm proposing a new article and a refocus on content in another. BarntToust 16:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I would support splitting this article. We’re already at 400+ kb. It should have been split a long time ago. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)