Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 176

Archive 170

←

Archive 174

Archive 175

Archive 176

Archive 177

Archive 178

→

Archive 180

Fake information, don't repeat otherwise under behalf of trump administration I can take action... Now wikipedia is not left leaning!

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

---

Just a comment about the dastic edit of today. This "undoing" is not normal editorial process. The attempt at revisionist history begins even before the actual new Administration is implemented. Such a foreboding warning foregoes collaboration. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 19:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What edit? Context, please. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It appears that the editor is referring to this edit [1]. It was reverted [2], which I think is what the editor wanted when they started this section. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Reverted five minutes before they posted this. Should've been left to the original editor to open a discussion if they wished. Closing. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Lead: "A Republican, Trump is currently the president-elect..."

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

---

The final sentence of the first paragraph: "Trump is a member of the Republican Party" comes off as unnatural. Can we remove it and simply modify the second sentence to "A Republican (or "A member of the Republican Party", Trump is currently the president-elect..."? Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 14:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Why, it says what he is. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

For umpteenth time. We don't need the word "current" or "currently". There's no other bios saying "former president-elect", so there can't be confusion as to who's the president-elect. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Lead needs stability

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

---

I think we need to come to an agreement on how the lead (between now & Inauguration) should look. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess it's a lost cause, trying to keep mention of the 2024 election out of the opening paragraph. We don't need it mentioned, since we're already pointing out he's the president-elect. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Totally biased article

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

---

This article is one of the best examples of why I no longer contribute to Wikipedia. It is completely one-sided propaganda with many un-referenced negative statements. This could easily be a press release from the DNC. Shameful. 2600:6C50:47F:6478:6429:FB35:D71F:D895 (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Totally biased article

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

---

This article is one of the best examples of why I no longer contribute to Wikipedia. It is completely one-sided propaganda with many un-referenced negative statements. This could easily be a press release from the DNC. Shameful. 2600:6C50:47F:6478:6429:FB35:D71F:D895 (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

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

The lead needs a complete rewrite

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

---

The lead isn't even close to something that can be considered neutral, it sounds like the ramblings of a far-left extremist. Every single sentence is an attack. It needs a complete rewrite. Tagging @JacktheBrown: who agreed with me earlier and called the lead "unpresentable" --FMSky (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Was it necessary to open yet another thread about the lead when there are multiple open on this page now? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Duplicates Talk:Donald Trump#Please re-write the entire first section.. Please don't start duplicate discussions. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Category: Golden Raspberry Award winners

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

---

Vinnylospo, this edit is a 24-BRD violation. I didn't revert it, though, and opened this discussion instead. Mandruss, I think the category is justified because Trump received the Razzie for worst supporting actor for some truly cringe-worthy, wet-lipped pouty work. Two WP mentions: Ghosts Can't Do It#Accolades and Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actor#1990s. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The category has been proposed for deletion, and so far it looks as though it's headed that way. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Arbitration enforcement

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

---

@Morgankarki: You're not following the current arbitration remidies: You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message. You made a bold edit here, but then edit warred to restore it here. Please self-revert immediately and discuss on the talk page, otherwise you're in violation of the restrictions on this page. — Czello ^(music) 09:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Czello: I don't see the requested self-revert, but this looks stale. Ok to close? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, please do. — Czello ^(music) 07:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Education level of voters

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/14/politics/the-biggest-predictor-of-how-someone-will-vote/index.html 50.100.82.183 (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

If this needs to be anywhere it is the article about the election. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: (Maybe I missed) Child detention

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

---

I see the photos and discussion, but I must have missed where the fact are mentioned that Obama had the detention fencing built? - and used it as well. In fact some photos used in the media were from Obama's administration. 99.33.126.209 (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Remove historian/scholarly ranking of Trump presidency in lead

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

---

Referring to this line: "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history."

Primarily because, now that he is due to serve another term, his presidency is not over yet. The scholarly ranking of presidents is usually only added to the lead of a president's article after their administration has concluded and can be judged properly; Trump's has not. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024 (4)

The following text at the end of the first paragraph constitutes a matrix of ungrounded, one-sided opinions and depends on who characterizes what. It is, in essence, a political view.

"Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, and misogynistic."

Something like the following replacement may be more fitting to a free and non-partial encyclopedia: "Trump has made many controversial claims and statements during his campaigns and first presidential term, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. Some of his comments have been been characterized as "racist" and "misogynistic" by his political opponents." Minimala (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Improper use of the edit request facility, a normal discussion thread would have been more appropriate. Edit request is for changes that are uncontroversial, like typo corrections etc. This is hardly uncontroversial.

See the consensus list; most of this is covered by hard-fought consensus. Anyway, we certainly wouldn't use quotation marks when these assertions are made in various different ways not necessarily using those exact words. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2024

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

---

The introductory paragraph of this article should be edited to include that Mr. Trump is a convicted felon, which is consistent with Wikipedia biographies of other famous people, including politicians, who are also criminals. AMHERST (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

First time in awhile, a complaint has been made that the paragraph is too pro-Trump. Anyways, ya gotta be more clear & propose a write up. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Negative bias

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

---

This bio on Donald J. Trump is seriously biased and, in my opinion, needs to be re-written. ChrisgenX (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2024 (2)

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

---

If you value Wikipedia's credibility, I would recommend fact checking this entire page. 136.33.250.6 (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

So vague as to be useless. I would recommend you suggest specific change(s), and provide supporting reliable sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Link to U.S. trade war with China

I think the China–United States trade war should be linked in the lead. Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. Tariffs were a major part of Trumps economic policies. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The edit in which I added the link, along with another edit in which I added a link to his political positions, has been reverted. I've read the RFC, but I think exceptions could still be discussed on the talk page, because the two links I added are clearly relevant and helpful to the average reader, don't make the lead too bloated, and are linked in the body of the article as well. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Real Estate Rental Segregation

Is it really DUE for the first sentence of the Real Estate section to read: 'Starting in 1968, Trump was employed at his father's real estate company, Trump Management, which owned racially segregated middle-class rental housing in New York City's outer boroughs.' ? I'd propose just saying 'Starting in 1968, Trump was employed at Trump Management, his father's rental real estate company.' Riposte97 (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

THis seems to be one of the many allegations against him, that he is racist. Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not surprising given his prominence, sources still reference the DOJ case from 1973, practically to this day. PBS Frontline Sept 2024...Cheers DN (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is kind of the point, this involves him and is part and parcel of his image. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Granted. But allegations of racism are well covered explicitly, as they should be, rather than ham-fistedly insinuated in a section on business. Riposte97 (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It's due. "Racially segregated" is more of a euphemism in this case. The policy was "Whites only". Pappy Fred named Trump president of the company in 1971, and in 1973 the Nixon administration DOJ sued the company, its president, and its chairman of the board (one member, one chairman=Fred) for discrimination against Black applicants for available housing which was then rented to White applicants. In 1975, the Trumps signed a consent degree (the "settlement") agreeing to desegregate. They started to rent to Black applicants mostly in a few run-down housing complexes, leading to another DOJ complaint in 1978. The case was closed in 1982, by which time it had become moot because "[s]hifting demographics would soon make it impractical to turn away black tenants". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Well again, why not just say that? Why are we whispering behind our hands? Riposte97 (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Change initial paragraph of short biographic to clearly show criminal status since it is of utmost importance

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

---

The first line needs to read as follows to keep up with events:

“ Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and convicted felon who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. 199.33.99.249 (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Please review existing discussions before starting new ones. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Redirect template

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

---

Not sure why {{other uses}} would be changed to {{redirect|President Trump|other uses|Donald Trump (disambiguation)}}. There aren't any other Presidents with that last name. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the editor who did it can 'splain themselves. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I would've challenged by reversion and left it to them to open a discussion if desired. That prevents situations like this one. But that's just me. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Reconsidering the wording for consensus 54

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

---

I've already commented on this above, but I think this is separate enough to warrant its own topic.

The sentence Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. implies that his whole presidency has been considered as one of the worst of all time, which was accurate up until two days ago. Now Trump is in a bit of a unique situation, as having two non-consecutive terms that are contemporary with Wikipedia. His second term has not even started yet, so of course it cannot have been assessed yet by historians, and it remains to be seen whether it will change his assessment in future surveys. The sentence as is, however, implies that his whole presidency has been evaluated in these surveys.

It also seems common practice to not have assessments for ongoing terms in articles altogether, see Joe Biden and discussions about including the rankings on the talk page.

The sentence should reflect that and be reworded to something like Trump's first term instead of Trump, to explicitly make clear this statement has nothing to do with his second term so far. 2003:CD:EF0D:4800:DD0E:6701:F480:1B8B (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence to say "After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump one of the worst presidents in American history." in this edit. — Goszei (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

And I have partial-reverted you per existing consensus.[3] Seems some editors don't get how the long-established consensus process works at this article, or just don't care. The DO NOT CHANGE hidden comments are there for a purpose, as is the consensus list. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The edit you reverted was an improvement, your revert was not.

Please do not treat Wikipedia as a bureaucracy. I do not believe the bold edit conflicted with the spirit of the pre-existing consensus. Similarly, we have a consensus of the lead sentence, but let us assume – for the sake of argument – that Trump dies and we know that as a fact; do we need to "revisit" the consensus or do we amend the lead sentence using common sense? If you fail to self-revert, I guess our only option is to waste the community's time with an RFC.

Moreover, I think it would help the article if you could pause to think for a reasonable amount of time before reverting and/or subject yourself to a voluntary 1RR restriction for a while. Politrukki (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I would refer you to the edit notice: "Please review current established consensus before editing this article, especially the lead section. Changes against established consensus without prior discussion can be reverted on sight." I see nothing there about editors' subjective opinions about spirit. My revert was entirely consistent with how things have been done at this article for some seven or eight years. I've been very present here that entire time except for a one-year attempt at full retirement in 2022. You have not. If you want to talk about process, that might be worthwhile, separately. It's off topic in this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to me, and it appears to satisfy our informal "significant change in the external (to Wikipedia) situation" criterion for revisitation of a consensus (one of two, the other being significant new argument(s)). Can't help noticing the absence of reliable sources in your argument. That would be a first step; otherwise I think we're committing WP:OR. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want to source here? The fact that the surveys cited only could have considered his first term is self-evident by their publishing date and the fact the second term has not even started yet. 2003:CD:EF0D:4800:C40D:258B:7336:16B3 (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Point. We could be headed for an amendment to 54. Agreement among the three of us won't be enough unless, maybe, nobody else pipes up for about a week (which could be interpreted as no objections). ―Mandruss ☎ 10:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Clarifying that this assessment relates to his first presidency seems reasonable to me. Historians have not yet had time to assess a second presidency in the same detailed way. --Tataral (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

With that added support and no opposition to date, I'm prepared to go ahead. I get that one or two of the editors in this discussion are confusing process with bureaucracy, making me look like an obstructionist. It's not worth it. I have updated the article and I will amend consensus item 54 to match. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Social Security Funding

In this edit, Darknipples reinserted a part of the healthcare section dealing with social security. Leaving aside the placement of social security in healthcare, is this due? Of all the crazy shit Trump says, a single comment in 2020 with no policy implications seems low on the list. Riposte97 (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

? Medicare is a health insurance program for people age 65 or older and younger people with disabilities, so the healthcare section seems appropriate. Trump's budget for 2021 proposed spending reductions, and he also proposed cuts to Medicaid. He's also saying during the current campaign that he’s open to cuts to Medicare and Social Security but that would belong elsewhere. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to 'other social safety net programs', which I took to refer to SS. In any case, the core criticism is that it doesn't seem DUE. Riposte97 (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

bogus information

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

---

items on this page are politically incorrect and politically bias. In favor of Democrats remove the bias and only post true information not implied information 2600:8800:8880:2B70:0:0:0:CE2B (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Convictions of federal crimes

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

---

First president that is a criminal 2600:6C5E:357F:8115:B9FB:15E2:E9DE:50CF (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You should be more specific. Trump is a convicted felon. A specific kind of criminal. EDIT: On second thought... he may be a criminal in more ways than just that, I'm not sure. 75.142.254.3 (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Worst President consensus inappropriate in lead

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

---

Now that he is going to be president again I think it's inappropriate for this statement to remain considering his presidency is not yet done per se. Rather under his first term a statement such as "his first term was considered by historians as one of the worst in American history" for example could be used until his second term is complete. Not saying that the statement isn't true or won't be true come 4 years from now, however I believe it no longer has a place in the lead until then or at least needs to be changed. Joecompan (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that his first term is considered one of the worst and that it should be tweaked to say so. It is not yet known what the status of his upcoming second term will be. It could be worse or it could better than his first for all we know. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

"It is not yet known what the status of his upcoming second term will be." And how is this at all relevant to the sourced content? Historians were not asked to rate what Trump will do in his later career. Dimadick (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dimadick because his later career is his second term as president. Historians ranked his first term as president so it should be phrased that way now that he is going in for a second term. All I am saying is change the phrasing, not the judgement. Joecompan (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Has the assessment by historians suddenly changed since his reelection? Zaathras (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

See current consensus item 54. Do you have any significant new arguments not raised and considered in the discussions linked there? If not, this is a settled issue. We don't keep revisiting a consensus every time someone comes along who disagrees with it; that's a terrible waste of editor resources. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Joecompan: If I'm understanding you. Historians can't make an assessment, until after Trump leaves the White House in January 2029. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay By saying 'his presidency' is overcompassing. So yes, they cannot make an accurate judgement based on his presidency until its complete? They can however make a judgement on the individual term which they have and I agree it was really bad. That is a stupid question.

@Mandruss By no stretch of the imagination am I disagreeing with the consensus on his first term but rather that it is phrased to encompass his presidency as a whole. It is hella biased to say 'his presidency' as a whole is the worst before its even complete. You seriously call this place unbiased when judgements on a guys presidency have been made before its even finished. All I am saying is change it to his first term rather than his whole presidency. This change should be inarguable and literally doesn't change anything about the consensus other than its phrasing.

So no @Zaathras, it hasn't changed but their judgement was based on his first term, so it is inappropriate under 'his presidency'.

I can't believe that this is even an argument. I have my doubts that he will do anything in his second term to fix his first and change it, but none of us can predict that. This consensus was made prior to him winning and was very reasonable. Now it is outdated and needs to be changed. Joecompan (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you seen the second discussion linked at #54? It was just the other day. Its purpose was precisely to clarify that it applied only to his first term; it is phrased to encompass his presidency as a whole is false. I'm sorry you weren't around to participate, but that's just how it goes. As for placement in the lead, that was established by the RfC in the first link. I'm sorry you weren't around to participate, but that's just how it goes. See my comment above about editor resources. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah you didn't link it in your initial response but that's ok this was what I was mostly arguing. Thanks. Joecompan (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Joecompan: So you're ok with my closing this? Just wanted to be sure. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mandruss yeah, all good. Thanks for clarifying that we were basically arguing the same thing lmao. Joecompan (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2024

Donald Trump, despite being accused of mysogony has appointed the first ever Female chief of staff. And in his previous term as President mandated that airports are required to have breast feeding stations for women. 2A00:23C8:A85E:4901:6D04:AADB:5F2F:F834 (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Czello ^(music) 12:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Want a shortcut to the bias response page?

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

---

So Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias has been around for 4+1⁄2 years and it looks like it's here to stay. It's also apparent that we will be using it for at least the next four years. The full page title is cumbersome to deal with, so I'm proposing we create a shortcut that could be easily typed like all the other shortcuts we type. Support or Oppose? If Support, what should the shortcut be? Something easy to remember, and not longer than ten characters not including the namespace prefix, I suggest. As to the namespace prefix, is there any issue with using "WP:"? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC) Edited 09:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• I support this, that title section is more than a bit annoying to deal with and a shortcut would make it easier to reference in response to comments and such. As for a shortcut, we can't use WP:TRUMPBIAS because an editor already claimed that for their essay. My suggestions are WP:TRUMPFAQ, WP:TRUMPNPOV, and because I know Wikipedians love their three letter shortcuts, WP:DTB, for Donald Trump Biased. Sirocco745 (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support as proposer, and I'll add WP:TRUMPRCB to the mix. Very easy for me to remember, but then I've been using the page probably more than anybody. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support WP:TRUMPRCB looks good to me. I definitely support having some sort of shortcut, although I don't agree with TRUMPFAQ since I wouldn't describe that page as a FAQ page. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  Since this has been open for a few days and garnered no opposition, I went ahead and BOLDly created a shortcut. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was going to wait until this was about to fall off the page, but whatever. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Also, I just discovered that WP:TRUMPBIASED has redirected to that page since 2021. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Lol. Starship.paint did that without bothering to tell anybody, and didn't add the shortcut box to the page, thereby making the shortcut largely useless, which is why it has never been used. I question whether it's still needed. I've always failed to see the benefit of multiple "names" for the same thing. It requires editors to learn that they are the same thing. @QuicoleJR: You could delete TRUMPBIASED with my wholehearted support. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  @QuicoleJR: After further thought, I have removed TRUMPBIASED from the shortcut box per my own reasoning. If somebody wants to deal with the bureaucracy for deleting the redirect, they are free to do so; otherwise it can stay indefinitely as far as I'm concerned. Its existence does no harm aside from the minuscule amount of wasted server space. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  I have updated consensus item 61 with a reference to the new TRUMPRCB shortcut. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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

First Paragraph

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

---

The first paragraph is a mess. It should be like this: 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, and the 47th president-elect. His inauguration as the 47th president is scheduled for January 20, 2025. 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:95B8:E52B:2241:E1EC (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't look like "a mess" to me, and it's the product of collaboration among quite a number of experienced Wikipedia editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Sayings that he is a member of the Republican Party should not be included in the first paragraph because it is already included in the side bar and it is repetitive info. Can someone make the improvement? 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:95B8:E52B:2241:E1EC (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

How's Trump the 47th president-elect? There were presidents never elected & presidents elected when already president. GoodDay (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Well thanks for your opinion, but we're not going to change the article based on it alone. That's not how it works. Many others are happy with the current first paragraph, including yours truly. Anyway, how does "Republican Party" make it "a mess"? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

…because it is repetitive info. The fact that Donald Trump is a member of the Republican Party is already included in the side bar. Repetitive info makes the page redundant which is not pleasant and helpful to the avid reader. 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:95B8:E52B:2241:E1EC (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

And a large part of the first para is included in the "side bar" (infobox). Starting with his birthdate and his occupations. So that reasoning doesn't hold a drop of water, does it? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

If that’s the case this is much more encyclopedic: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) member of the Republican Party is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, and the 47th president-elect. His inauguration as the 47th president is scheduled for January 20, 2025. 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:95B8:E52B:2241:E1EC (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how that's "much more encyclopedic". As to the first sentence, see current consensus item 50. Long-settled issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

For the second time. He's NOT the 47th president-elect. GoodDay (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Your statement clearly needs citations. Here are a few reliable sources that have already called Donald Trump the 47th president elect: [4], [5], [6], [7]. 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:95B8:E52B:2241:E1EC (talk) 07:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Already well discussed on this page, and it was decided that "47th president-elect" was problematic because there haven't been that many president-elects. See talk page archive for more information, but this appears to be settled. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The first Encyclopedic paragraph should be: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) member of the Republican Party is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, and the 47th president-elect. His inauguration as the 47th president is scheduled for January 20, 2025. 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:95B8:E52B:2241:E1EC (talk) 07:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

At this point, it appears you're WP:NOTHERE & are merely playing around. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Mandrussand @GoodDay. Looks fine as is and not appropriate to call him the 47th P-E Artem P75 (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

In fairness to the IP, note that the current version of the first paragraph was changed [8] from when the IP was here, and the change includes at least one of the IP's suggestions re Republican Party. Also note that the IP has been blocked for a week [9] so I don't expect they will be responding. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That point did occur to me. We'll see how long the status quo sticks. I have a special place in my heart for drive-by users who display their complete ignorance about Wikipedia editing, are completely unaware of (and uninterested in) prior discussion, assert lazy and clearly flawed reasoning such as The fact that Donald Trump is a member of the Republican Party is already included in the side bar., and do all that in a very aggressive manner. We simply do not have the time. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2024

Assuming office January 20, 2025 Vice President JD Vance (elect) Succeeding Joe Biden ↑↑↑↑↑ "should be Kamala Harris not Joe Biden" 2601:C8:C003:2B50:C610:CFD2:E9DE:696D (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No. It's not saying Vance is succeeding Biden, it's saying Trump is succeeding Biden. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

External Links

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

---

https://www.history.com/news/donald-trump-father-mother-ancestry Aurounivers (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Per its title, it's about Trump's family, not Trump alone. Probably better proposed at Talk:Family of Donald Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Support removal on this basis. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to remove. They were proposing inclusion. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It's currently used in the article to reference "the fourth child of Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump. He is of German and Scottish descent." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright, still nothing to remove. :) The content needs a cite. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I've referenced it to Trump Revealed per WP:RSPHISTORY. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2024 (2)

Please change the racial views section to include a paragraph about the Haitian Immigrants "eating the dogs" and how this was stated at rallies and debates. NZStyleDeckSealant (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Extremly Biased language used purposfully as hateful rhetoric againt Trump.

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

---

This whole segment of Trumps 2024 Presidential campaign is extremly biased and has un-needed information which is only on the page to slander Trump's name. This information is purposfully added on in a harmful way to stur hate against Trump and paint him as a bad figure. This is un-needed information that should be removed or heavily re-worded. We do not need mention of Trump allegedly claiming he will arrest political opponents, is a far-right extremist, discribed to be a authoritarian, facist, using some medical experts claim to say that trump has "behavioral disinhibition" This is un-needed information which is being used to try paint Trump as a "far right extremist & authoritarian facist" which is obviously biased asf. Lets please get this re-worded or strait removed. Its important to talk about his 2024 run but not in this manner what-so-ever.

Here is the biased excerpt from the wiki page: "During the campaign, Trump made increasingly violent and authoritarian statements. He also said that he would weaponize the FBI and the Justice Department against his political opponents and use the military to go after Democratic politicians and those that do not support his candidacy. Trump used harsher, more dehumanizing anti-immigrant rhetoric than during his presidency. His embrace of far-right extremism and harsher rhetoric against his political enemies have been described by historians and scholars as populist, authoritarian, fascist, and unlike anything a political candidate has ever said in American history. Age and health concerns about Donald Trump also arose during the campaign, with several medical experts cited by The New York Times highlighting an increase in rambling, tangential speech and behavioral disinhibition.

He mentioned "rigged election" and "election interference" earlier and more frequently than in the 2016 and 2020 campaigns and refused to commit to accepting the 2024 election results. Analysts for The New York Times described this as an intensification of Trump's "heads I win; tails you cheated" rhetorical strategy; the paper said the claim of a rigged election had become the backbone of the campaign." Lampot (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey Lampot, thanks for commenting here :) A key cornerstone of Wikipedia is the neutral point of view policy, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Reliable sources means something specific on Wikipedia, you can have a read of the linked page. If you have any questions about it, you can ask at the teahouse. If you think we are not fairly and proportionately representing the reliable sources published on Trump's political career, please show us the reliable sources being underrepresented. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Essentially the above response has been pre-packaged at WP:TRUMPRCB, to save editor time. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand. I think it reads as too bitey and dismissive. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Main Photo of Article

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

---

Photo is 8-10 years old 2601:282:8A80:5FF0:69DB:A637:1E54:E27 (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I suspect it'll soon be replaced by his new official portrait. — Czello ^(music) 08:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

...which is expected some time after he takes office. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Trump statue in Philadelphia

Has anyone taken photos of the Trump statues in Philadelphia? Best regards --Yoursmile (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Add Successful ISIS raid to Lede

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

---

Hello I am looking to add mention of the successful 2019 ISIS raid which resulted in the assassination of the leader of ISIS, al-Baghdadi to the lede. President Obama’s lede contains mention of the raid on Osama Bin Laden, so I believe precedent should be followed in including the al-Baghdadi raid here. Thistheyear2023 (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Body comes first, then lead. Lead does not include anything not covered in the body. Try a BOLD edit to the body, with citation of at least one reliable source. If that sticks (I'd give it a week), then you can try a BOLD edit to the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough 73.210.30.217 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Lets see, 9/11 vs what major attack in the USA? Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This edit is not going to stay for a week. The cited sources are a WH press release and a CNN piece that is a "Trump said" recap of Trump's Sunday morning announcement, complete with "died like a dog". "Oversaw"? The description of events at Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi mentions Trump involvement in one sentence: With Trump's approval, McKenzie, as operational commander, gave the order for the mission to start October 26 around 9 a.m. After the operation, he tried to turn it into his Killing of Osama bin Laden moment. Bin Laden directed the first attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor, killing 3,000 people. I'm not convinced that his killing belongs in Obama's lead, either, but the coverage of his death was huge (WP:WEIGHT). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

So challenge by reversion, per BRD. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

There's that pesky 3RR. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It hardly matters that you removed it, it’s contained in the real history of the world which can’t ever be erased or altered Thistheyear2023 (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Opening sentence

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

---

"Has been the president-elect since the 2024 election" is a bit odd, sounds like this is an office in which he's been actively serving, besides being redundant when it says later that he "became the second elected to non-consecutive terms in 2024". I suggest changing it to just "who is the President-elect of the United States", as it was in the past [10], followed by ", and served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021". Lucafrehley (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You may have a good point. To be clear about what you are suggesting, you might copy and paste here the sentences that you want to change and then show your suggested version. Thanks, Bob K31416 (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

FAQ Q2: convicted felon

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

---

Seems to me FAQ Q2 is unnecessary overkill and a waste of space. We already have ample mechanisms for dealing with recurring attempts to raise settled issues, starting with the consensus list. It's not like anybody reads the FAQ before commenting here (no, I can't "prove" that; sue me). So Q2 is essentially redundant with consensus 50. The function of this page is to discuss improvements to the associated article, not to educate the general population about How Wikipedia Works. We have other venues for that purpose, including WP:TEAHOUSE.

I propose removing Q2. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I think you're right. Riposte97 (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Done.[11] ―Mandruss ☎ 17:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Violations of current consensus

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

---

@Maxim Masiutin: These three edits, one, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1257217837&oldid=1257203253 two and three, are violations of current consensus #25 and added a whopping 160,000 bytes to this article. Please self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I did it. Zaathras (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I attempted to restore the minor grammatical fixes that got lost by reverting the dead-sources stuff, but I must have mis-copied something at it came out to +240 bytes which was way to much. Will have to leave that to someone else as I have to be offline for the night. Zaathras (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It's all fixed now. You missed Sdkb's c/e, and the bot actually did some good, i.e., removed some random white space in cites. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 23:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to Zaathras for saving the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

The list of professions in the opening sentence could be reordered in chronological order

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

---

He is initially a businessman, then he became a media personality with the show The Apprentice, then he became POTUS. So it makes sense to reword the opening sentence from "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." to "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, media personality, and politician who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021."

136.143.219.17 (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Well discussed, well settled. See current consensus item 50. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Could someone please edit this article?

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

---

I only ask because it seems that whoever wrote it or last edited it only included in it the bad things Trump has done, said, or been accused of and they have failed to mention any of the good things he's done or said. I feel like the article needs to be more balanced. NOBODY is either ALL bad or ALL good. 174.202.168.101 (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Taking office/Assuming office

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

---

Maybe I'm just a sticker when it comes to grammar and format, but I'm just not a fan of the "Taking office" or "Assuming office" designations in articles about elected officials.

How about instead using the designation "Term begins"? Sean 2015 (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I dont really think this is a matter worth pursuing, from what I have seen the way it is written now is the standard terminology among political articles and more of a style preference than anything Artem...^Talk 01:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I attempted to add more details to further explain what I meant but I was blocked from doing so.

Grammar, format, style...call it what you will. I find the "Assuming office"* field in the infobox to sound very "presupposed" . What if, for example, an individual were to (God forbid) die, resign or become otherwise incapable, or even ineligible, to assume his/her new post between the date of the election and the date of assuming the new post? The phrase Term begins sounds more "neutral" and more accurate.

• -- I've seen it in previous articles as "Taking office"

Sean 2015 (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You might find having a look through WP:MOS and MOS:VAR to be useful... I cant really see a substantial reason for change Artem...^Talk 03:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with grammar; it's a style preference. I'm not sure what you mean by "format".

"Takes office" sounds fine to my ear. The only "assuming office" currently in the article is an infobox "heading", and this is not the place to advocate for a change to that heading (and you wouldn't have any luck with that anyway, as a practical matter). ―Mandruss ☎ 01:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The only "assuming office" currently in the article is an infobox "heading"

-> That's precisely what I was referring to. And what do you mean this is "not the place to advocate for such a change"? This is the Talk page, which Wikipedia says is the place to suggest improvements to an article. Sean 2015 (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Been using "Assuming office" for years, with political offices. No point is changing that now, let alone trying to. GoodDay (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

We don't have control over those headings. The infobox is a "template" into which we plug the variable values such as names and dates. The heading is part of the template. Look at any president-elect's (or any officeholder-elect's) article and you will see that same heading.

So any proposal for a change to that heading would have to be made at Template talk:Infobox officeholder, and would likely fail. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess, then, what I'm proposing is a change to the template. I'll go ahead and do that. I don't know why you say it will "likely fail". That's such a defeatist attitude. Sean 2015 (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to work on my defeatist attitude. Best of luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Why wish someone "best of luck" if they're just going to fail anyway? Take care. Sean 2015 (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2024

Minor Change:

The third paragraph under the column "Political Career" or under the paragraph titled "Presidential campaigns (2000–2016)", President Barack Obama has his title president capitalized.

Wikipedia does not capitalized titles like president. It needs to be lowercased. TimeToFixThis (talk) 07:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per MOS:JOBTITLES, bullet 1. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of "reliable sources" for Trump information

Here's an excerpt from "Opinion polls have Harris and Trump locked in a tight race. ‘Gambling polls’ say otherwise",

“I don’t think it’s a coincidence that these markets have been becoming more popular as trust in the media has been declining,” said Harry Crane, a professor of statistics at Rutgers University. “The public wants information and is looking for sources of information it can trust.”

Bob K31416 (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

So? Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Huh? Are you actually claiming that the sources WP considers reliable aren't any more reliable than gambling sources, and it's all just a matter of opinion? Quoting your source: "If you are dumb as a rock and have a lot of money, you can move the markets in whatever direction you want by simply moving money." Not quoting the source: if you're a member of the public that is getting their information from a betting platform, your family should cut up your credit cards. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Bob, I have warned you about your inappropriate off-topic posts here. And I see from your talk page history that I'm not the only one. Reliable sources are reliable on Trump. And they also point out how betting markets are not reliable. If you keep doing this, I will elevate your conduct to the appropriate noticeboard. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Please discus user conduct on their talk pages, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Although reliable sources are required per WP:V for adding material, material in what is called a reliable source is not required to be added to an article if it's questionable. Sometimes what has been called a reliable source will say something that is questionable, and if it is fact-checked by looking at the primary source that the material is based on, one can see that it is dubious. For example, recently there was widespread reporting that Trump was acting "bizarre" in an event at Oaks, PA. I checked this for myself with the unedited C-SPAN video of the event, and his actions in context were not bizarre. The point of the excerpt in my previous message is that we have to be careful because the credibility of reliable sources is declining, especially since this is a biography of a living person who is in a heated political contest where reality is sometimes set aside by what are called reliable sources that are opposed to Trump. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe (wp:undue covers that), but this talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vague assertions. And no we do not have to be careful, we go by our policies not what the general public thinks. Thus a source would have to be challenged at wp:rsn for us to not use it (and even then consensus would have to be not to use it). Thus this is a waste of everyone's time. Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The majority of sources say he was acting bizarre for a very good reason. You can challenge the reliability of all the sources at the proper forum if you wish. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I checked this for myself with the unedited C-SPAN video of the event, and his actions in context were not bizarre. WP:OR. Textbook. You're not the only editor who does it, but that's not an excuse for you to do it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss, WP:OR applies to material added to an article, not to discussions on the talk page. See the first and last paragraphs of the lead of WP:OR. Regards. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

You are claiming that reliable sources aren't reliable because you personally disagree with them. This is disruptive, pure and simple. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I would dearly love to see you take that to WP:NORN. Always open to learning. For now, I'll stick with my comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

This sort of thing is grounds for a filing at WP:AE. Disruptive and bad-faith timewasting. Zaathras (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Lol. Love it when people suggest that other people file at AE. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If this is grounds for a filing at AE why don't you take it to AE? Cessaune [talk] 04:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Cult of personality citations readded

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

---

Hi BootsED, I removed those two sources as there is an issue with WP:OVERCITE. The essay advises If there are six citations on a point of information, and the first three are highly reputable sources (e.g., books published by university presses), and the last three citations are less reputable or less widely circulated (e.g., local newsletters), then trim out those less reputable sources. There are 11 sources by academics who study cults of personality, and two opinion pieces/analyses in newspapers by non-subject-matter experts. These should therefore be removed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

[12] edit for context Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks for the clarification. I tend to overcite due to the contentious nature of this topic. BootsED (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

First U.S. president without prior military or government service

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

---

Technically, the military is part of the government under the department of defense. So military personnel are also government employees. It can be made clear Trump is the first one who was elected POTUS without military or public office service rather than military or government service.

"Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican Party nominee, defeating the Democratic Party candidate, Hillary Clinton, while losing the popular vote, and became the first U.S. president without prior military or government service." can be reworded to "Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican Party nominee, defeating the Democratic Party candidate, Hillary Clinton, while losing the popular vote, and became the first U.S. president without prior military or public office service." 136.143.219.17 (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

See current consensus item 8. We sometimes revisit consensuses, but we need more justification than what you have provided. Operative word: Technically. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but not all public servants work in government. Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Not an improvement. Merriam-Webser definition of public office: an office created by a constitution or legislative act, having a definite tenure, and involving the power to carry out some governmental function. Trump never served in the military or held any public office with governmental function. Our current text is the shortest way of saying that. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

"First U.S. president without prior military or government service" is wordy and redundant

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

---

The military is part of the government under the department of defense. Anyone who has served in the military automatically has government service. IMO the phrase "First U.S. president without prior military or government service" could be better rephrased as "First U.S. president without prior government service". 23:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC) 136.143.219.17 (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It's alright, as is. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

See current consensus item 8. We sometimes revisit consensuses, but we need more justification than what you have provided. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Edit request

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

---

In the box 47th president, it says "succeeding by Joe Biden" it should be "Preceded by Joe Biden". The box 45th President states correctly, "Preceded by ...Obama Succeeded by ... Biden". Stating Joe Biden will Succeed Trump again is incorrect. 2600:1011:A18F:8B19:86BC:65C1:BB85:5CDD (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Have another look. It says "Succeeding Joe Biden", NOT "Succeeding by Joe Biden". There is no "by" there. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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

"First presidency" section heading

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

---

Section "First presidency" should simply be "Presidency" since Trump's second presidency has not started and won't until January 20. Noah, BSBA^Talk 03:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe premature, but not in a way that harms the article. I he dies between now and January 20, we'll fix that heading pronto. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It does harm the article since it's an inaccuracy. While he has been elected for a second term, this is an issue of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. He hasn't assumed the presidency for a second time and it's not 100% certain that he will until noon on January 20. Noah, BSBA^Talk 04:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You are correct that as of now, the writing on his first term covers his entire presidency so far. It is, however, also correct that he has been elected for an upcoming second presidency, so titling this text "First presidency" is also accurate. Changing is therefore a style preference, and there isn't any compelling reason to prefer this style. Moreover, we shouldn't write text that will WP:ASTONISH readers. While readers may click on presidency and expect some discussion of a second presidency, they will not have unmet expectations by navigating to First presidency. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If you think TOOSOON AND NOTCRYSTAL apply, this should be evaluated by putting Second presidency of Donald Trump up at AfD. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

That article makes it clear that it's a future event set to begin on January 20. There is no second presidency of Donald Trump in the present tense as things stand currently. It's simply inaccurate to have First presidency listed when the second hasn't even commenced. He's still in his post presidency and it's also the second presidential transition period as well, not second presidency. Noah, BSBA^Talk 04:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Unconstructive pedantry that does not serve readers (that's what we're here for). ―Mandruss ☎ 04:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Inter-presidency was changed back to post-presidency. Clearly wasn't unconstructive pedantry for that change and it's the exact same issue for this section title. Noah, BSBA^Talk 04:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Off topic about edit permissions. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I would've tried a BOLD in your position. The system sometimes punishes those who seek prior agreement. I didn't create it. But you're an experienced editor, so I'll pay you the respect of backing away and waiting for other voices. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Mandruss, I cant edit the article since I lack EC perms as things currently stand. Noah, BSBATalk 04:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC) I must be missing something. You need 30 days and 500 edits. You have 9 years and 29,412 edits. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC) The EC perm was removed along with my other ones nearly a year ago, thus why this started as a request here. Noah, BSBATalk 04:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Didn't even know that was possible. Learn something every day, if you're lucky. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hurricane Noah You're right that, from one perspective, his presidency can be said to only have comprised one presidency. From a different perspective, post-election, his presidency can be said to comprise a first term and a second, upcoming term. From the perspective of each, the other is incorrect, but neither are more correct. It's just different ways to look at it; a style preference issue. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: Could we at least mention and link to the second term page? I searched through the article last night and didn't see either. If it is going to be stated as "first presidency", then we should have the second mentioned and linked to as an upcoming thing. Noah, BSBA^Talk 11:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Added. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Nope. This was settled with Cleveland, long before Wikipedia existed. A presidency runs from a persons inauguration until the inauguration of a different person. Consecutive terms are a single presidency, nonconsecutive terms are separate presidencies. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

He owns 500 LLCs

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

---

No mention of his ownership of 500 LLCs https://www.nbcnews.com/business/taxes/what-trump-s-disclosure-his-500-llcs-can-can-t-n874391 71.241.134.156 (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really sure this would be noteworthy...although I can see the argument to include it under "Business Career" Artem...^Talk 01:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

See The Trump Organization. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2024

His diplomatic region does not explain why he is who he is today 50.232.238.198 (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

His what? Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Impeachments in the lead

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

---

I suspect I'm out of reverts. I was kind of attached to this language:

He is the only U.S. president to have been impeached twice: once in 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden, and again in 2021 for incitement of insurrection; the Senate acquitted him in both cases.

Now we have:

He is the only U.S. president to have been impeached twice: in 2019 and 2021. His 2019 impeachment for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden, and his 2021 impeachment for incitement of insurrection; the Senate acquitted him in both cases.

Part of the rationale for the change was "Fixed WP:EGGs", so I would be interested to know where a reader might expect to end up upon clicking "once in 2019" or "again in 2021", other than the articles they linked to. Where is the possible "surprise"? Without a plausible answer to that question, those aren't EGGs.

If there's nothing misleading, the reader is free to predict the link target using only the surrounding context. So, again: What is misleading about "once in 2019" and "again in 2021"? If I'm a reader, I'm reasonably guessing "once in 2019" would take me to information about the first impeachment, and "again in 2021" would take me to information about the second one. I say let's give readers that much credit.

Moreover, that second sentence isn't even grammatically correct. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Misleading? Probably not. I tend to overuse WP:Egg, just because it's easier to type than MOS:LINKCLARITY (Though this is probably just a pet-peeve). Generally, the rule-of-thumb I follow is that the only context you should expect the reader to know for a link is the section title and the first few sentences of the article.

The average reader isn't thoroughly reading each line, they're reading the first paragraph, skimming the rest, and jumping between sections, and usually mostly reading links since they draw the most attention. If I gave you the context of "The article is about Donald Trump", and "the link is 'again in 2021'," would you know what that link is about?

It's also just generally difficult to draw the line of what can be an "acceptable" link name, if you start loosening the reigns. So I tend to take a much stricter stance on this than probably necessary.

And what's wrong with that sentence grammatically? Farkle Griffen (talk) 07:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

As to grammar: Let's take the part of that second sentence preceding the semicolon. It comprises what are, structurally, two nouns separated by the word "and":

1. "His 2019 impeachment for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden"
2. "his 2021 impeachment for incitement of insurrection"

To simplify, let's substitute two one-word nouns, "dog" and "cat". Now we have: "Dog and cat; the Senate acquitted him in both cases." Does that look structurally correct? Unless I'm very mistaken, the presence of the first sentence doesn't change the rules of grammar for the second. I'm not an academic grammarian, or I could say it using academic, authoritative-sounding terms and point you to something on the web supporting what I say. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see the ambiguity there. I'm reading those an with implicit "was" before "for", eg "His 2021 impeachment was for". But you're right, your reading makes more sense.

I'll leave it up to you whether to just fix the grammar or revert it back to yours. My objection has more to do with a personal pet-peeve than a real policy issue. Farkle Griffen (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Semicolons are used to link independent clauses. To be independent, a clause must be able to stand on its own as a complete sentence; specifically, it must have both a subject and a predicate. The previous sentence correctly uses a semicolon as both of its clauses are independent. In the article, the clause His 2019 impeachment for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden, and his 2021 impeachment for incitement of insurrection; has two subjects:

1. His 2019 impeachment for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden

2. his 2021 impeachment for incitement of insurrection

Independent clauses and complete sentences may have more than one subject; a sentence about Donald Trump and Grover Cleveland being the only people elected to two non-consecutive presidential terms would likely have more than one subject. However, although the above clause has two subjects, these subjects make up the entire clause. The lack of a predicate means this clause could not stand on its own as a sentence and is grammatically incorrect.

If I were to take a shot at fixing the impeachment language, it might look something like this: He is the only U.S. president to have been impeached twice: in 2019 and 2021. His first impeachment was brought for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden; his second impeachment was brought for incitement of insurrection. The Senate acquitted him in both cases. But I'm also not opposed to the original language. mdm.bla 15:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

One of us is in need of new glasses. The punctuation mark in question looks like a colon to me. Colons (:) introduce clauses or phrases that serve to describe, amplify, or restate what precedes them. Often they are used to introduce a quote or a list that satisfies the previous statement. For example, this summary could be written as "Colons can introduce many things: descriptors, quotes, lists, and more." Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC). Or are we talking about the semicolon separating the two independent clauses: the one about the two impeachments with the colon before the definition and the one about the Senate acquittals? Don't see why the semicolon can't be replaced by a period, so I'll just do that. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This edit yields:

He is the only U.S. president to have been impeached twice: in 2019 and 2021. His 2019 impeachment was for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden, and his 2021 impeachment was for incitement of insurrection; the Senate acquitted him in both cases.

correcting the grammatical issue, and I still prefer the original. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This edit yields:

He is the only U.S. president to have been impeached twice: once in 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden, and again in 2021 for incitement of insurrection. The Senate acquitted him in both cases.

Same as original except for a change of semicolon to period, and I'm happy again. Just keeping the discussion updated with the play-by-play action. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Second paragraph

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

---

The second sentence of the second paragraph reads After becoming president of the family real estate business in 1971, Trump renamed it the Trump Organization and reoriented the company toward building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses. Seeing as the official name of the business is The Trump Organization, shouldn't the word "the" be capitalized? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 23:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

No, per MOS:THEINST, bullet 1.2. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Omissions

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

---

Why aren't certain items mentioned?

• Trump was fired from The Celebrity Apprentice. If I were he, that would be an important life event, even a turning point.
• Trump studied both Norman Vincent Peale and Dale Carnegie. I have limited knowledge of these men but I don't think their influence can be avoided.

References

-SusanLesch (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about body (I hope), the firing is at "Racial views". ―Mandruss ☎ 14:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed it. Millions of people knew about him because of TV, so I looked in §Media career. I was surprised "The Apprentice" didn't rise to TOC level. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Donald Trump talk page with its current 65 open discussions. #4, Religion in Donald Trump's life, discusses Peale. Carnegie: wasn't aware of any purported influence on Trump. Did Trump at one point say that "How to win friends and influence people" was his second-favorite book after the Bible? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer to #4. But Peale isn't in the article. All I found on Carnegie is Trump's tweet, tweet. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

studied — I'm not aware of any RS saying that he studied their writings. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Lol, are you seriously equating his (or possibly his social media team) tweeting to "studying" ? Zaathras (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

SusanLesch This page in particular is in desperate need of reflecting the emphasis placed in reliable sources in general. While being reported in multiple high-quality reliable sources is usually sufficient for demonstrating DUE inclusion, because of the volume of coverage, it's really important to note verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss, you could archive this. Thanks, apparently I chose the wrong word (studied). -SusanLesch (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: Thank you, thank you, thank you for saying that. I wish more editors would do that. It makes my janitor job SO much easier! ―Mandruss ☎ 00:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Suggest renaming section from post presidency to intra presidency.

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

---

Just a friendly suggestion to change the headline of the section to inter/intra presidency. Joe Biden has the same on his page from his time inbetween VP and President.

Perhaps its prudent to wait on this till he takes the oath of office. But either way. I believe this edit is/will be in order once this event occurs. 2600:1008:B10B:112E:90BD:B72C:DA6F:B884 (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you would be okay with closing this thread now? If no response in 24 hours, I will do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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

"Person of the Year" in 2016

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

---

In 2016, Trump was declared "Person of the Year" by Time magazine (see: [13]); I think this information should be mentioned in the lead, or at least in the article. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

In all honesty, I don’t think it carries enough weight to even have a mention in the article, let alone the lead. However, it seems like a category mention might be due. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I see coverage by many of the majors, including NYT, BBC, CBS, NPR, Politico, etc. I think that passes DUE for the body. It could go in Political career→Presidential campaigns (2000–2016)→Election to the presidency, since it was obviously tied to his election. Definitely not for the lead.

One upside: When people come to complain that the article doesn't have anything good to say about Trump, we could say: "LIE! It says he was Time's Person of the Year 2016!!" Just kidding! ―Mandruss ☎ 06:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Being named Man of the Year is simply an indicator of notoriety and impact on the world in that moment. It is not necessarily awarded for positive accomplishments. Zaathras (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: I didn't write that he was "awarded for positive accomplishments"; I simply wrote that this information should be added (in the most neutral way possible). JacktheBrown (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

What does it tell us we need to know? Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

BOLD edits: [14][15] ―Mandruss ☎ 22:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Suggestion: Combine these two sentences in the lead

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

---

"Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, and misogynistic."

The most common objection right now is the length of the lead. These two adjacent sentences are really saying the about same thing, and can be combined somewhat more concisely:

"Trump has made several comments considered racially charged, and misogynistic, promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements, to a degree unprecedented in American politics"

I don't think this goes against consensus on these sentences as it doesn't remove or downplay any details, just re-orders them.

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? Farkle Griffen (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no content objection. This would break new ground as to our long-standing consensus process. There are four existing consensuses involved: 49 and 53 for the first sentence; 30 and 51 for the second. 49 and 30 show precise wording thoroughly hashed out in discussion(s): Four discussions including two RfCs. We have not in the past just thrown out the products of all that work so easily. One could argue that shortening things in this manner reduces the weight established by the discussions. How do we do this without another RfC? If we did another RfC, could we limit it to the restructuring alone, or would it need to reconsider everything covered by those four consensuses? So this is all problematic from a process standpoint. One could argue WP:NOTBURO, and a number of us would respond with WP:PI.

So maybe we could find other ways to reduce the lead. Me, I would just "raise the DUE bar", bite the bullet, and eliminate many of the things that other editors feel are "essential". ―Mandruss ☎ 06:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you're overthinking this a bit. This is clearly an edge case, and you don't have to set a precedent with each new addition. At some point, you can just call WP:IAR, discuss and move on. I don't think there's anything controversial here, nearly everything is preserved, down to the individual word choice, it's just more concise.

But, to respond to your last points: WP:NOTBURO is a Wikipedia policy, and WP:PI isn't even a guideline, I don't see how that would be a proportional objection. And I agree, I expect raising the DUE bar is soon to come, but I also expect that to be much more controversial and a much bigger fight than just this sentence. I'm working the less controversial trimmings for now. Farkle Griffen (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

NOTBURO is neither absolute nor a trump card. So what would you do in the consensus list? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Personally? I would just leave a note on 30, 49, and 51 saying "merged with 53" and one on 53 saying "merged with 30, 49, and 51", and append the combination to 53.

Of course I agree that policy is important, but the policy is only as strong as the users are willing to carry it out. I think this situation is just an edge case, and we have the right to notice that. Farkle Griffen (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, and I do have content objections. it doesn't remove or downplay any details, just re-orders them — um, really? Current text:

Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, and misogynistic

. Proposed text

Trump has made several comments considered racially charged, and misogynistic

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Good eye! But does your Oppose go away if they fix that oversight? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

No. I also oppose turning two much-discussed and litigated sentences into one long sentence for the sake of saving three or four words. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

See "Suggestion: Combine 3rd and 4th paragraphs". These two sentences make up a large part of the first paragraph. Shaving off even a few words is a lot of progress, especially if the goal is word-count per Mandruss in that thread. Farkle Griffen (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

And, to be specific, the original has 38 words, the new has 27, shaving 11 words, nearly a whole sentence. Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2024 (2)

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

---

Change "In November 2024, he was reelected to a second term as president, defeating the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris." to "In November 2024, he was reelected to a second, non-consecutive term as president, defeating the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris." in the lead. AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: this looks a sensible request. If nobody objects to it (in the next 24 hours) and if it's not added by someone else, I will happily add it (please ping me if I forget). M.Bitton (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I support this change being made, it doesn't change the substance of the text other than by adding a fact that has been covered by WP:RS. I dont think it creates a WP:WEIGHT issue as although this has not been covered to a great extent by RS, it is only passing a brief mention of it in this particular sentence.

Would like to hear from some other editors who are active here and have previously engaged in discussion on the non-consecutive term topic, so pinging @Rollinginhisgrave @Muboshgu @SNUGGUMS Artem...^Talk 21:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not fussed about the change, I just think the redundancy I flag below makes it poor writing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It's the specific mentioning of Grover Cleveland that I object to, not so much the mentioning of non-consecutive terms. But I agree with Rollinginhisgrave on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: I won't answer the request, but including the end of the previous sentence, the text reads "who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. In November 2024, he was reelected to a second term as president". I removed nonconsecutive with the justification rmv "consecutive"; redundant given dates provided in this sentence, his election to a second term could not be retrospective I would prefer to see this point addressed before it's readded. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I was going to endorse the proposed change until Rollinginhisgrave mentioned the redundancy and made a good point there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks sufficiently redundant to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Because of the constant changes over the last roughly ten days. I'll faint if this remains the lead, between now & inauguration. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yup, it's been changed again. GoodDay (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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

This sentence is wordy, redundant, and confusing.

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

---

The military is part of the government under the department of defense, which has more than a million employees, more than any other department in the government. Anyone who has served in the military automatically has government service. Ergo, the sentence "Trump won the 2016 presidential election, becoming the first U.S. president without prior military or government service." should be shortened to "Trump won the 2016 presidential election, becoming the first U.S. president without prior government service." 204.197.177.33 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and is redundant. Artem^...Talk 03:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

We are considering removing the words "becoming the first U.S. president without prior military or government service" in the immediately preceding discussion thread. It's looking like that will pass, so I'm closing this as unnecessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Can we add some positive things about his presidency to this article?

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

---

I’m not a fan of Trump but this article is so biased. Can we add some positive things to the first portion of this article? At least mention forcing NATO countries into paying, positive economic growth, or fairly fast economic COVID recovery compared to other first world nations, or something neutral like tax cuts or recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. There are positives and negatives to even the worst presidents, but the first portion of this article reads like something straight out of Mother Jones. Don’t pretend like Trump hasn’t done like one or two good things. C9crab (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? If you can share some examples, perhaps it will gain consensus to be added. DN (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I can help C9Crab a bit with an example. Currently on this talk page there's a proposed positive thing that needs help getting in the article. It was previously put in the article and reverted. It's in the talk page section Support for Trump's missile strike in Syria. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I notice the founding of the space force isn't mentioned anywhere in the article despite being significant. The Abraham Accords could have a mention in the lead. Increased funding for NASA, the Artemis program, and the Artemis accords are significant things that could be mentioned in the article but aren't. Anotherperson123 (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I second this. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 18:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I tried to add this, but the whole edit got reverted, with the reverter saying its not due. Some part of this edit is probably due. We shouldn't just omit any significant things that could contribute to a positive view of Trump in the article. Anotherperson123 (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

We do mention the Abraham accords. Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Appointed the first Indian American to his cabinet (who happened to be a woman), Nimarata (Niki) Randhawa Haley, a first generation Indian American, who's parents where Sikh immigrants from Punjab India, you have her in Wiki.

I agree, this is so blatantly skewed, especially the racism and misogynistic comments and the interpretation of Jan 6 There is a more logical way to reference things, including the information surrounding the silencing on social media of an alternate view, that even Zuckerburg admitted to. Many falsifications about Russia interference as well as the whole laptop thing, which eroded alot of his credibility right before the 2020 election. We are now becoming all too aware of the media biased, and lawfare as anyone with a grain of knowledge and a bit of investigation into the charges would see. A lot of this is quite frankly, what overwhelmingly put Trump over the top... in a landslide.

To obtain credibility, many of your assertions need a counterpart.

There are many other firsts and accomplishments. Deborahlivermore (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no issue with adding the line "Appointed the first Indian American to his cabinet". Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Indian American implies Native Indian Kowal2701 (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You may be thinking of the term "American Indian". Anotherperson123 (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want to add something "positive" to the lead, I'm not sure that recognition of Jerusalem as the capital city really fits the bill. The move was highly controversial, and widely condemned by world leaders.

What some may consider positive, others may see as negative, and vice versa. Either way, this sounds like a call for WP:FALSEBALANCE which goes against policy. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you're mistaking false balance with NPOV?

WP:FALSEBALANCE states that "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized." For example, we shouldn't try to legitimize the Flat Earth conspiracy theory by giving it equal weight through comparison to widely accepted science. However, Donald Trump does not fit any criteria listed on WP:FALSEBALANCE -- he's a candidate for the presidency of the U.S who is widely disliked, but is also equally liked, based on the fact that he and Kamala Harris are basically tied in the polls. His presidency from 2017-2021 included positive and negative aspects, as with practically every presidency, and this article should reflect that in accordance with NPOV. C9crab (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

FALSEBALANCE is a part of NPOV. It leads with While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. Balancing negatives with positives to make it less negative is FALSEBALANCE. We go by WP:DUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

If you think Donald Trump is a “ minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim” then prepare to be amazed that 70,000,000+ people thought that Donald Trump aligned with their beliefs and voted for him in 2020. Making his article reflect both the good and bad of his presidency isn’t FALSEBALANCE, FALSEBALANCE is meant to be applied to actual “minority” or “fringe” views that go against widely refuted ideas, among those being flat earth. C9crab (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Beliefs and opinions, may or may not be DUE. DN (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Higher-educated people lean Democratic, which hinders the inclusion of pro-Trump views in WP:RS, even if they are popular with the public. The fact that Trump was elected with millions of votes is already in the article. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Having a lower degree of education isn't the same thing as being uninformed or stupid. Trump's greater appeal to blue-collar workers (who tend to be less educated than white-collar workers) can also have something to do with their economic interests regarding trade policy, for example. Farmdudler (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

nnnnn 207.174.237.68 (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

"Equally-liked" and "tied in the polls" are not the criteria by which we judge inclusion or exclusion of material in a Wikipedia article. If you approach this as a popularity contest, prepare to be disappointed when your suggestions for article additions go nowhere. Zaathras (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This isn’t about a popularity contest, it’s about making an article fair and balanced in alignment with NPOV. Not sure what you’re not understanding. C9crab (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Trying to make Wikipedia an objective and bipartisan website is like trying to boil the ocean. Freespeech2024 (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Especially if they deny climate change. DN (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The climate is and always has been changing, could you please elaborate more than describing what's been occurring on Earth since it was formed approximately 4+ billion years ago. Thank you comrade. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

No. DN (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you strike "comrade". WP:PA O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@C9crab: I will quote what another user said in a similar conversation about a request to add more positive statements to the Laura Loomer Wikipedia article.

In that discussion, Aquillion wrote: Your argument above seems to misunderstand how balance on Wikipedia works - our job is to reflect the overall tone, focus, and weight of the highest-quality sources available. If those sources are overwhelmingly negative, then a balanced lead will also be overwhelmingly negative ...

For the most part, it seems that the things that get considerable and persistent coverage by the press are also the things that will get more weight and coverage here on Wikipedia. That's what I meant when talking about false balance in a previous comment. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

1) "forcing NATO countries into paying" - this is based on Trump's own mischaracterization of how NATO is funded. The actual payments (direct funding) have always been made. What some countries are failing to do is meet the military budget targets. There is no "payment" here, it is their own investment in their national militaries. 2) "positive economic growth" - Trump assumed office in the middle of a long term economic growth cycle, he can hardly claim this as his accomplishment. 3) "fast economic COVID recovery" - ummmm, the recovery came after he left office. 4) "tax cuts" - which were heavily skewed towards the top 1% with little lasting impact on the majority of the population 5)"recognizing Jerusalem" - thereby stirring up more trouble in the Middle East. I'm still waiting on you to mention something positive. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

He didn't participate in any wars during his presidency, making it one of the only ones in US history; this should be added, it's very positive. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you serious? So who do you think nearly doubled the US forces in Afghanistan from January 2017 to January 2018? Who deployed 3000 US troops to Saudi Arabia in 2019? Etc, etc, etc. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Trump leaves office and a year later Russia invades Ukraine and starts a continuing war, and 2 1/2 years after Trump left office Hamas makes a major attack on Israel with hostage taking which starts the continuing Gaza War that is currently being picked up by Hezbolloh from Lebanon with the beginnings of another war in progress. This wasn't happening when Trump was in office. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Russia had no need to invade Ukraine when Trump was appeasing Putin. And if you want to connect October 7 to Trump not being in office, there's a tag for you. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

LOL, really? Also no, let's not mock. Russia was in occupation of Crimea (that is an invasion of Ukraine), 11 terror attacks in 2017 (alone) in Israel what peace do you want us to add? Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

plus i found a newsela article saying biden headed to inauguration in city scarred by last days of trump so he wasnt positive 206.57.152.111 (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Congress has a budget on all entertainment. The internet is full of biased opinions 🙄 wiki leaks is sold out like every other lawyer. Guess what trump did that no other electoral did... which was go vote in person. He didn't do the mail ballot, or any other fraudulent way to gain dead votes. Americans has spoke 👏 👌🏻 2601:5CF:8581:10:B48C:CC4D:B4A:3A7A (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this article lists nothing but negative things that occurred during his administration and seems incredibly biased. Fxncy (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this article is so biased it makes me sick. 73.207.114.168 (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:TRUMPRCB. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Vios of WP:NOTFORUM, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Nah there is no way, Wikipedia says ONE good thing about Trump? No way. This place is inherently biased and is essentially a leftist propaganda arm. Yet Biden has been "sharp as a tack" until Kamala was declared the latest great thing and Biden was quickly forgotten. Fsckwiki (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NPA vios. At least. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is bias, so it’s fair to write negative speculative opinion based narrative, he was not impeached twice if it was thrown out, Covid he was right about knowing the numbers were inflated and the vaccine was not created by Pfizer or maderna it was NIH. So perhaps as president at the time he knew or knows more than you and the media. The so called J6 insurrection is a hoax and not once did he say to do any of the things that happened that day by patriots prior military personnel who love and fought for this country. The election was stolen with Covid to create mail in ballots to pad the numbers add in the dominion voting machines and how does Joe Biden get the most votes ever 81,000,000 is ridiculous when clearly you can see the votes being counted and all votes going to Biden when Trump was leading. Wikipedia is just more fake news narrative how about stick to the facts!! 2603:6080:D000:5688:E496:7D49:1F68:8C8B (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's a positive that was rejected. Trump scores a long-awaited coronavirus win with vaccines on the way Regarding the question, "Can we add some positive things about his presidency to this article?" I guess the answer is no. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess the answer is no. Please WP:AGF. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM vios. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

AGF? This is Donald Trump we're talking about. There are no good things that came from his presidency, and that's supported by so many sources. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC) One good thing came from the Trump presidency: the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022, which we can indirectly credit to Trump and his attempts to steal the election. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC) No it isn't. He made 4 peace deals, no new wars, expansion of economy, illegal immigration down, etc. Biden on the otherhand.....numerous new waes, chaos in the world, russia is winning the war in Ukraine, cultural destruction, open borders of migrants, violent crime at multi decade highs, etc. 149.62.206.91 (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC) No new wars does not mean no wars, and which peace deals did he make? Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC) Reply to 149.62. The US crime rate has trended downward for decades, and recent data confirms this pattern. However, while the national violent crime rate decreased by 1.6% in 2022 compared to 2021, the property crime rate rose by 6.7%. Rates vary by region due to factors including urbanization levels, economic conditions, and law enforcement effectiveness. From usafacts.org--Updated on Fri, February 23, 2024 by the USAFacts Team Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC) Lies as usual. The ABC tried to "fact check" Trump on that during the debate, and they lied. The FBI recently revised data on violent crime from 2022 upwards. Original reporting had shown a 2.1 decrease in violent crime from 2021 to 2022. The new numbers show a 4.5 percent increase So they waiting until well after past the debates and released the "corrected" report in the last moment before the election to cover up for the previous lies. Fsckwiki (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I support mentioning Operation Warp Speed. Not sure why others don't, but I know it's been discussed. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

That tale does not tell anything "positive about Trump." What's positive is his unprecedented political skill - holding the GOP captive even while destroying what remained of it after the Bushes. Also, though it was not on his initiative, he continues the Republican corruption of the Federal judiciary, remarkably to his personal benefit. Most Americans may dislike those outcomes, but the are extraordinary personal achievements. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I would support mentioning it (despite the fact that his involvement was basically just signing his name) if he hadn't spent the entire time flouting the suggetions of actual doctors, hosting what amounted to spreader events, and saying mind-numbingly stupid things like the idea of putting bleach into people. You don't get to claim credit for the science when you spend so much time denigrating it. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Odd things about Operation Warp Speed were that, IIRC, Pfizer, who developed the first usable Covid vaccine, was not a part of Operation Warp Speed. And the true genius who spent decades researching the concept of mRNA vaccines, winning the Nobel Prize for doing so, was an immigrant to the US but left due to lack of funds to complete the research. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It was branding. See Katalin Karikó (the genius O3000 mentioned), BioNTech, Pfizer–BioNTech, and "America first". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Warp Speed should be mentioned. R. G. Checkers ^talk 18:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If you have some examples, than I suppose you may add them (with consensus) in. Should Trump return to the White House on 20 January 2025. I suppose his second term, would gradually change the info in his bio. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

agreed. This is crazy biased and the more I see everything against him, the more I like him honestly (I've never been a big fan of his) this is pretty ridiculous 2605:A601:AF64:8000:A6CF:B505:D9F5:DE32 (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I might agree with you if I understood little to nothing about Wikipedia policies and the underlying principles. I suggest you start at: Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Users can take that on board, or not, as they please. But we are not going to have yet another time-wasting extended discussion about this on this page. Avoidance of that is why the response page was created in the first place—after literally years of time-wasting extended discussions about this. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Another positive not in the article is that the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, died in a raid by U.S. forces during Trump's presidency. From CNN,[17]

"Esper told CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning that the President approved the raid 'late last week' after being presented with different options. The objective, Esper said, was capturing Baghdadi or if necessary, killing him.

'He reviewed them, asked some great questions, chose the option that we thought gave us the highest probability of success and confirmation that the head of ISIS would be there and either captured and killed and then we executed from there,' Esper said."

Bob K31416 (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Did this change anything, was it a positive? Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, he aced the cognitive test. Man, camera, chicken, TV. SPECIFICO talk 07:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

He was "top in his class" at the Wharton School too, right? But I think that claim has been debunked. He didn't even make the Dean's List? We could at least put in the lead that he falsely claimed to be first in his class. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Jokes aside, would it make sense to mention the First Step Act? That wasn't a Trump accomplishment really, but it was something he signed. VQuakr (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the problem, people are asking for positive achievements, not just signing something. Some he actually did, worked for. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

People seem to be forgetting that we can add in what he has accomplished already as being president-elect in 2024. Such as the four major leaders in the war (Russia, Ukraine, Israel, and Palestine) reaching out to Trump to negotiate peace, keeping men out of women's sports, etc. We don't only have to add in things he did in 2016-2020. And also, this is supposed to be a NON-BIASED article. That means that it doesn't even matter if you state mainly negative things, it just has to be COLD HARD FACTS cited with reliable sources that are not left or right leaning in their agenda. 73.207.114.168 (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:TRUMPRCB. Per WP:AGF, please refrain from accusing Wikipedia editors of bad faith motives unless there is "clear evidence" of that. Adhering to Wikipedia policy is not "clear evidence" of bad faith motives. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

All I am saying is that you may want to look over your sources again and make sure that the company publishing them isn't leaning either left or right in their agenda, because you may be getting false information and putting it into this Wikipedia page. 73.207.114.168 (talk) 05:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

But that isn't how this works. We are already doing the best we can in good faith. There is a rewrite of the WP:TRUMPRCB page currently underway, and I believe it does a better job of explaining things. This can be found at User:Rollinginhisgrave/sandbox. But using information from a biased source is not a policy vio provided it's used correctly. So there's that. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I just think you should be careful is all. but thank you for getting back to me. 73.207.114.168 (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

We are as careful as humanly possible, while not being perfect. Feel free to make specific, policy-based suggestions for improvement to the article. I honestly don't think vague reminders like this help anything, but they have consumed roughly an hour of my time that could have been better spent on other things. This is the whole point of the TRUMPRCB page. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, we could add that to Donald Trump#Social issues right after mentioning that Trump supports the use of interrogation torture methods such as waterboarding, the Trump administration executed 13 prisoners, more than in the previous 56 years combined and after a 17-year moratorium, and Trump’s anti-marijuana actions. Or not. Bipartisan bill, and after Trump signed it, his DOJ was working hard not to release people and to put parolees back in prison. For example, a former inmate was singing Trump's praises at a WH presser while Trump’s DOJ was trying to send the man back to prison. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Not in the article is Trump orders strike on Syria in response to chemical attack, which begins with,

"President Donald Trump ordered a strike on Syria Friday in response to last weekend's chemical weapons attack.

Addressing the nation Friday evening, Trump said the strike was a joint operation with France and the United Kingdom.

'A short time ago, I ordered the United States Armed Forces to launch precision strikes on targets associated with the chemical weapons capabilities of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad,' Trump said.

Trump said that the 'massacre' last weekend in Syria 'was a significant escalation in a pattern of chemical weapons use by that very terrible regime.'

'The evil and the despicable attack left mothers and fathers, infants and children thrashing in pain and gasping for air. These are not the actions of a man,' Trump said, referring to Assad. 'They are crimes of a monster instead.' "

Bob K31416 (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If this belongs anywhere, it would be in the presidential article. But it's mostly quotes from Trump. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the missile strike is already in the article. My mistake. It's any mention of the support it got that is missing from the article whereas the article mentions criticism for Trump's other actions in Syria. See the Talk section Support for Trump's missile strike in Syria. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Just a general impression. This is an article, and it is in Wikipedia, but I don't think calling it a Wikipedia article would be appropriate. It's something else. Too much of an attack orientation. Just my opinion. And with that, I think I've spent enough time in this section. Best regards. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Are we talking about positive things or just things that have gotten support from somewhere? Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

IMO the more we talk about adding "positive things" the more it appears to look like a misinterpretation of policy. For example, it's not any editor's fault Trump chooses to promote conspiracies for his supporters who also appear to believe in them.

"When reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." Where is the contradiction, AKA the positive perspective, among reliable sources? Wikipedia doesn't rely on sources that promote conspiracies, so in a way our hands are somewhat tied. DN (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• "forcing NATO countries into paying" is just plain wrong and demonstrates you don't know how NATO works, recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital is highly controversial and not followed by any major ally, and tax cuts for the rich is not "neutral". Don't pretend you're being neutral point of view with rubbish like this. AusLondonder (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Get ready to update this to "President Trump is the 45th and 47th President of the United States with the largest Electoral College victory in the entire history of the United States while also electing more Supreme Court Justices than any other President in US history." Enjoy champ. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  What has this to do with adding passive things? Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It really is so biased. If people can't agree on anything positive, at the very least the extreme negative hyperbole needs to be removed. The phrase "and unlike anything a political candidate has ever said in American history" regarding his public statements in his 2024 campaign made me laugh. Whoever added this to the article, are you aware that the US had presidents who were openly advocating for slavery and the KKK? RedrickSchu (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You're citing the clause out of its context (His embrace of far-right extremism[713][714] and harsher rhetoric against his political enemies have been described by historians and scholars as populist, authoritarian, fascist,[b] and unlike anything a political candidate has ever said in the recent American history.[715][708][723]) You can easily look up "whoever" in the revision history, and they backed up the clause with three reliable sources that say "Never before has a presidential nominee openly suggested turning the military on Americans simply because they oppose his candidacy", "No major American presidential candidate has talked like he now does at his rallies — not Richard Nixon, not George Wallace, not even Donald Trump himself", and "Trump Is Speaking Like Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini ... Until recently, this kind of language was not a normal part of American presidential politics." If you have any sources saying that this has been the norm or even happened before, please present them. If not, we have nothing to discuss here. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

While there's nothing wrong with that section, I think the "unlike anything a political candidate..." part could be improved. The longer an unquoted sentence goes on, the more it sounds like an opinion, even though it isn't. I tried to write a version which addresses this, but didn't have much luck. But I do think the word 'ever' can be removed, as it just adds confusion (between the whole of American history and recent American history).

The only real problem with it is people mistaking it for an opinion, which is what's happened here, right? This seems to be something which happens frequently in this article. 300AD (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

"His embrace of far-right extremism[713][714] and harsher rhetoric against his political enemies have been described by historians and scholars as populist, authoritarian, fascist"??? YOU'RE TELLING ME RIGHT NOW THAT THAT IS 'NOT BIASED AT ALL?' FIRST OFF, USING THE WORDS "Extremism", "fascist", and "authoritarian" are just plain wrong, second off, source [713] is written by Ann. E. Marrimow for the Washington Post, and she graduated from Harvard University. Both Harvard and Washington are far-left propagandized sources, that cannot be valued as a non-biased, reliable source. So that source is worth nothing and that claim of far-right extremism is nothing but political biased in this article. Third, source [714], which is also cited in that claim of far-right extremism, is written by NBC news, which, can you guess it? Is far-left and anti-Trump, making them a biased source and a non-reliable source. That is just ONE part of a sentence that needs to be fixed. I recommend an extremist take to this article to create it non-biased. It needs to be completely erased and rewritten by a voter of one of the independent runners, that way it is not biased towards Biden or Trump. 73.207.114.168 (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

We should at least explain why people vote for him.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• My 2 cents: The article, and especially the lead, are indeed driven by negative views of Trump, that reach an umprecedented level. That much is ackowledged but justified by those defending the current version -- which is enough to clarify that we should no longer be referring to this article as fair coverage of its subject (even though he is a living person.

It caught my eye that much of the text focuses on a supposed scholarly consensus that he is a fascist. Now even if this were the supposed consensus, it is easy to find scholarly views who, even when critical of Trump, dispute the fascist label as inane, and have been doing so for years (at random: Harris, Jerry and Davidson, Carl and Fletcher, Bill and Harris, Paul, 2017-12, 1-17, Trump and American Fascism}, vol 7 of International Critical Thought, DOI 10.1080/21598282.2017.1357491. Let alone that this preemptive allegation of fascism is now squarely in the "aged like milk" category -- not even the wildest theories about what Trump did on Jan 6 corroborate or substantiate the label, whereas "stood down amd won a second term, in coalition with dissatisfied libertarians and democrats, and survived assassonation attempts by disgruntled left-wing militiamen" scream out as the exact opposite of fascism. Let alone that there are actual authoritarian rulers in the world who don't get this much harping about fascist analogies in their articles. (And that even for many such regimes, the openly authoritarian ones, the label of fascism does not automatically take hold when simply vented by more or less levelheaded academics.)

In addition: unless you're waiting out on a third and successful assassination, this article, and the lead above all, is overfocused on past events. There must be a path forward to where we at least agree on adding and subtracting elements that aren't/are part of a 2017 scare (or scaremongering). Dahn (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

this is why I take Wikipedia with a "grain of salt". The article, whether the editorial consensus wants to admit it or not, is heavily biased with overwhelming left-leaning views of Trump. I can think of one good thing Trump did while in office, he spear headed the "missing and murdered Indigenous women ". So to say there isn't any positive aspects of the Trump presidency is just outright intellectual dishonesty. This is one of many reasons I voted for him for the very first time for his run in 2024. JBurris123 (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)]

He did, as far as I can tell this initiative was started in Canada, and it was in fact the Democratic House passed H.R. 1585 (Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019) by a vote of 263–158, which aimed to increase tribes' prosecution rights much further. This act was stalled in the Republican Senate up until 2022, when Biden stepped in. Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, he pushed for it and he signed it into law. Yes, it began in Canada and if i remember correctly it was a bipartisan bill because there were Republicans that voted for it. I get though, orange man bad. God I'm so freaking glad he won. JBurris123 (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Significant, important and positive are not synonyms. This is about positives, we would need RS (in the long term) saying it was positive. Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually no. What this discussion highlights is the fact that the man, like every other sitting president before him, has done (many) things that are genuinely not-negative, i.e. that are not notable merely because (many) sources focus on venting negative editorializing, warnings etc. For instance, his creation of the Space Force or his work to reduce gvt spending or his approach to peace in the Middle East may still be criticized on various partisan or objective grounds, but they are facts in themselves; unlike the theories about his being a fascist, which are opinions, implicitly negative ones, and which are spread about as if to prevent the reader from forming his/her own opinion. Saying that we can only present major facts once they receive positive coverage (where? at MSNBC?) betrays the method employed for writing this article up to this point: like any piece of propaganda, it was written from negative coverage of Trump. Which is something we won't even do for Idi Amin or other mass murderers. Dahn (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2024

Source required in regards to -

“Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, and misogynistic.”

Personal viewpoints of one sect of voters in the US does not constitute a source. Sources providing examples of racist/racially charged actions or comment’s required. 2600:1008:B120:1062:2C1D:C15A:31EA:5F52 (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

True, which is why it is sourced to RS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

That content is found in the lead of the article, and, like other content there, the sources are found in the body of the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Unjustified removal

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

---

Re: [18]

Since I restored it, this subsection (the result of the work of numerous users), full of reliable sources, has been deleted again. Why? JacktheBrown (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It hasn't been removed: Election. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Less bitey and more actionable response to bias page

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

---

A lot of editors to this page are new, and their comments on this talk may be among their first. It's crucial we don't bite. I've rewritten Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias be more welcoming and actionable for these new editors. The draft can be seen here. I also think the page should be renamed to "Is Wikipedia biased against Trump?" to better meet the same goals. I hope to see if there is consensus for either or both changes to be accepted. Best, Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Re proposed page move:

• Somewhat problematic considering we just created the WP:TRUMPRCB shortcut. I suppose we could abandon it like we did TRUMPBIASED and create WP:IWBAT!
• I wouldn't presume to speak for other Trump articles, which may very well be biased against Trump. It was merely a local solution.

I am not opposed to de-biting if that's what editors think you've done. It didn't seem all that bitey to me, but my perspective is different. Otherwise no opinion at this juncture. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh... the part about "specific, policy-based" suggestions seems absent from your proposal. How is that not important? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I also don't think the version in use is bitey, but I'm not against trying to make it less bitey. Your draft is fine with me, but I agree with Mandruss that the "specific, policy-based" part is crucial. Hence the emphasis. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I feel mostly neutral on this topic, but I guess it can be very difficult to tell tone just by reading some words on a screen, so am all for reducing any perceived biting towards newer editors and making their efforts feel more welcomed Artem...^Talk 03:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Added in "specific, policy-based", with emphasis.

Less bitey may not be a useful phrase, perhaps "more welcoming", which is applying the same guideline would be better.

To avoid presuming for other Trump articles, how about "Is Trump's page biased?" Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"Is the Donald Trump article biased?", if you seriously think phrasing it as a question makes a significant difference. Might as well use correct terminology, and "article" is more specific than "page". Then we have WP:IDTAB for the shortcut (which will work until Wikipedia invents something called an "ID tab"). ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, no. The page does not discuss whether the article is biased; rather, it says it is not. So that's actually misrepresenting the content of the page. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mandruss, this is an important point. At this point, I do not know if the article meets NPOV (as with essentially all articles), although I am somewhat sceptical. If you think a page change would misrepresent the contents, it should not be changed.

I should note a difference made in the draft if you have concerns about drawing this distinction. Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias says: "Since reliable sources are widely critical of Trump, this article reflects that." The proposed draft says "Editors have evaluated reliable sources and have determined they are generally critical of Trump. His article reflects this." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You and I have recently discussed the "larger issues". They are outside the scope of the page in question. sceptical Ut oh! You have outed yourself as a likely Brit. I would like to say that I'm still fuming over that whole Revolutionary War thing. ;) I'm okay with that change. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

A bit is outside the scope, but most is not. A low-hanging fruit is that with the end of the election, we have just had several major outlets post summaries of Trump's last four years; if we evaluate the weight they put on issues and opinions for that period, we can move closer to a NPOV by reflecting such weighting. Even better sourcing exists for earlier periods (e.g. [19]) You can see why in particular I don't presume familiarity with sourcing ;) Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. Are you suggesting the response page should reflect said fruit? If so, how exactly? If not, aren't you off topic? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that until we have undertaken activities we know will either bring us closer to NPOV / affirm we have it, we should take on more of a posture of humility to its status re; NPOV. Which would involve not making strong claims that the page is definitely not biased. That's the impact on title. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

That's the impact on title. The current page title is "Response to claims of bias". The title itself makes no claim whatsoever about bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe it can be read as taking a defensive posture. Some editors will take a neutral read and others will take a defensive. It should be changed to one that is purely neutral to avoid the latter. If you don't think that's a natural read that editors will not be making then no need to change it. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't. I think it's possible to overthink this, and I think we're getting there. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You know, most pro-Trump readers making bias complaints will take a defensive no matter what we do. You do understand this? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries, let's leave it as "Response to claims of bias". I don't think there's been opposition to the content change after I made requested changes, I'll leave this up for a day to see if anyone else weighs in then I'll make the change.

I will have to think about that latter comment. Best not to pursue it here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

We could maybe give it four days. No deadline, as they say. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think you can merely copy-and-paste your new page into the old page. Wikipedia rules require the retention of the page history for attribution to the editors who wrote it (which now includes me). I'm not sure how that's done; maybe you or someone else knows. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Could just move the draft over the existing bias page, deleting it in the process, and then undelete past revisions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I can leave a link to the relevant revision differences [20] which should meet copyright obligations (based on Copying within Wikipedia). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: We're at 4.5 days, no further discussion. Time to move and I'll leave that to you due to the copyright aspect that I don't understand. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done [21] Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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

"Lead too long" banner

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

---

Inclusion of {{Lead too long}} has been disputed of late. Last two edits:[22][23] See similar current consensus item 64, which is about article length. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

If we want to avoid users placing the banner, we need to trim the lead. I just made an effort for the fourth paragraph here. Further cutting likely needs to take place to the enormous second paragraph (which some editors keep trying to split into two paragraphs, which does not solve the problem). However, that paragraph contains more contentious material which has been recently removed and added back (legal actions, Mueller investigation, and cult of personality, in particular). — Goszei (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that's off-topic. This is about the banner, not about the lead's length and what to do about it. They are completely independent issues, as shown in consensus 64. We don't need the banner to address lead length (evidence of that: we are addressing lead length as we speak, separately on this page, without the banner). ―Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I oppose the banner as unnecessary clutter. Exactly the same rationale as with #64. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong in including this banner for a limited period of time. The purpose of a tag is to draw attention to a problem. If there is wide agreement that a problem exists, include a tag until the problem has been solved or the discussion dissipates. We do not need a formal discussion that prevents us from using the tag for months or years. Politrukki (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This is why I've been pointing to consensus 64 as a similar situation; I believe we can and should learn from experience. {{Very long}} had been in the article long enough for editors to determine that it had no effect on the amount of attention given to the article's length. But it did add clutter that every reader had to see as soon as they arrived at the article—clutter that meant exactly nothing to them. Hence, we decided, cost exceeded benefit.

Both banners may provide some benefit for articles that need more eyes on the respective length problems. That's hardly the case at one of the most active articles in the encyclopedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Suggestion: Combine 3rd and 4th paragraphs

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

---

Keep in mind, over the next 4 years, we will almost certainly have to introduce a new paragraph about his 2nd term.

These two paragraphs are about his first term, and I think it's reasonable to set a precedent now of one paragraph per term, unless we want to add two more paragraphs to the lead during his second term.

Some details can probably be dropped or made more concise, but those details can be ironed out later. For now, I'm just looking for general opinion on setting this precedent to keep the lead from becoming abhorrently long later. Farkle Griffen (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If I'm reading you correctly, this is a proposal to remove a paragraph break? If so, I'll oppose the resulting extremely long paragraph, which would impede readability. The issue is not number of paragraphs but lead length. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes and no... I'm saying combine them into one paragraph, however that has to happen.

If the concern is length, then remove some less important details. Whatever we do, we should expect about the same amount length as the eventual paragraph about next term. Whatever the exact details are to combine them can be ironed out in edit summaries and further discussion. But this is just about agreement to (abstractly) combine them, apart from any specific details. Farkle Griffen (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Still oppose. Combine paragraphs after shortening them, not before. All readers need a (paragraph) break from time to time. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I haven't been clear enough. This is not about how or when to merge them, just a general agreement between editors that we need to start moving in the direction of merging them.

Your "Oppose" here seems to contradict what you're saying later. An "Oppose" here would be similar to saying "I think these paragraphs should remain separate, regardless of future edits." You can support this suggestion, and still revert merges you believe are done poorly. Farkle Griffen (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

just a general agreement between editors that we need to start moving in the direction of merging them. Seems too vague to be useful. I think we should propose specific changes when we're ready for them, not seek agreement on general statements of principle. But that's just how my brain is wired. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the paragraph lengths we have now is about the maximum I could tolerate, and I don't know that we could remove enough to combine two without exceeding that length. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Paragraph lengths at this moment are: 55, 96, 88, 126, and 120 words. I guess I'd set 150 as my max. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, there's been some significant shortening going on of late. I went back two days and para 4 was 176 words. So I asked my self, "Self, does that look unbearably long?" And my self replied, "Well I suppose not." So I'll up my max to a round 175. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

At current, if we replace the two sentences with the proposed one in my previous discussion, the word count would be down to 178 Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll take your word for that despite your inadvertent misrepresentation in that discussion[24], but I oppose that change for the reasons given. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I won't press that discussion any further. Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Conservatism template reverted

I take issue with @Space4Time3Continuum2x's revert[25] on the grounds that: "Conservatism" isn't the first ( or second or tenth) thing that comes to mind when talking about Trump. The template adds clutter to an article that's already very big.

I don't think the article was particularly cluttered by my edit and, for better or for worse, Trumpism is a key aspect of the conservatism movement in the US today. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

You may have a point. We've come a long way from The Apprentice. DN (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Even if Trump loses, we'll probably see US conservative figures try to imitate him for decades.

If nobody objects, I'll restore it now that the 24h window closed. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The template belongs. The article size is too large, but there are many things we should cut before this super-relevant navigational aid. From a visual perspective, inclusion where BH15 put it is comfortable and not too cluttered. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

We can include a template on the far-right, but not a template on conservatism. He is far-right, not conservative. --Tataral (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I can only think of Template:Neo-fascism instead. @Tataral, I did delete Trump from its "people" section a few weeks ago though and for a good reason. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Serious issues with the impartiality of the article - Edit Requests due

The opening section is a series of subjective and opinionated anti-Trump talking points, such as focusing on "the only U.S. President to have been impeached twice" (with an extensive decription of the dismissed allegations, yet only a brief mention that both impeachments against Trump resulted in acquittals on all counts), making similarly charged yet one-sidedly worded mentions about other (dismissed) lawsuits, discussing how an arbitrary pool of "scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst Presidents in American history" (arbitrary, vague weasel wording and ignoring the growing discussion around left-leaning bias in academia) and a band of partisan editors preventing any mention of notorious Trump Administration achievements such as the Abraham Accords or establishment of the US Space Force. The US Space Force is not even mentioned once in the article.

Evidently, by today's (5th Nov 2024) election results, the majority of American society is at odds with the biases of the partisan editors and arbitrary vague cited "scholars and historians" of this article. This majority consensus of American society includes industry leaders such as Elon Musk, Peter Thiel and Bill Ackman. Serious discussions and arbitration processes need to take place, as to how this article became so biased and politically weaponized.

Edit requests:

1) I make a formal edit request and suggest that positive Trump Administration achievements are immediately included in the opening section - appropriate ones may include the Abraham Accords, establishment of the US Space Force and increased funding of NASA.

2) Also remove the charged wording of "the first U.S. President to have been impeached twice" and add greater emphasis on the allegations having been "alleged" and dismissed by fair legal process. Change "the first U.S. President to have been impeached twice" to: "Trump faced two impeachments during office as U.S. President, but was acquitted by the Senate on both counts. The first impeachment attempt was in 2019, for alleged abuse of power and obstruction of Congress relating to the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, while the second was in 2021, for alleged incitement of insurrection."

3) Also change "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history" to: "Trump has attracted controversy and polarized levels of support from academia and industry leaders".

There are other impartiality issues in the article, but I will leave it here with these three edit requests. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this follows 61 enough, but I will note per your first request that no President has been convicted following an impeachment trial/vote. The text in parenthesis implies that a former President has been convicted. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

You are correct in your criticism about impeachment convictions - I will edit my contribution to reflect this. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Everybody would be better off with one thread per proposed change. Combining them never works very well and consensus is hard enough to assess without combining them. Also, bring sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Experience

In the lede it talks about Trump having no military or political experience. That was true Jan 20 2017 but of course for his second term he now has political experience. I suggest rewording GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

of course for his second term he now has political experience. You said it. We don't need to state the obvious. I promise you, no reader is going to be misled by the current content. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The lede paragraph needs cleaning up

We had an RfC on whether to include the felony conviction in the first sentence of the article and that discussion resulted in "no consensus". The fact that he was convicted of a felony is currently in the lede, and while the result of that RfC didn't say this can't be included in the first paragraph, there ideally should be an RfC before that becomes an accepted part of the lede paragraph. The same goes for "the only without prior military or government experience" and "the second to be elected to non-consecutive terms." The first sentence is also hard to read and should be split into two sentences one you decide whether his status as president-elect should come before or after his years served as president. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Re convicted felon: Step 1: Somebody needs to challenge it by reversion. Step 2: Attempt to reach a consensus. Step 3: Failing step 2, consider RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe I've already made one revert on this article today so for now that somebody can't be me. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

If reverts to different content are a violation, I'm in big trouble and better skip town. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:EW: "an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material" which also applies to articles under 1RR (including this one). So if it has to be me, it's going to be a while. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of 1RR at this article. But I'm well over three so I guess I'm in big trouble. I throw myself on the mercy of the court. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Loo, @Mandruss, pay better attention from here on out. We've got bigger fish to fry than to be pitiful about some petty negligence to policy. If you do it again, yeah, you'll probably get blocked, but for all intensive purposes, just watch this kind of policy carefully. BarntToust 21:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I won't do it again, I promise. I so rarely revert in the article, generally leaving that for others, that I forgot the rules there. Still don't see any 1RR notice at the top, though, and I'd like to clear that up so I actually know the rules. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Step 1 done, next comment section. Eg224 (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree it reads clunky right now. The felon stuff could be mentioned in one of the following paragraphs. Not sure the political experience stuff is important enough to justify a mention in the lead at all, let alone the first paragraph. At this point, the first paragraph should stick to why he's notable. That's being president, losing, and now being re-elected. Nemov (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the felon point should be mentioned lower down, and commend BarntToust for moving it to the paragraph about his felony convictions. — Goszei (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

absolutelly agree with you that there are is no reason to have the following part on opening paragraph, they add almost nothing. I would skip them entirelly tbh.

Trump became the only U.S. president elected without prior military or government experience in 2016, and is the second elected to non-consecutive terms, after Grover Cleveland. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic about the lead/lede controversy, and associated drama. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It's spelled lead Anonymous8206 (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Please educate yourself before attempting to correct others on issues of grammar. Thanks. Zaathras (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC) This is not as black-and-white as you claim, and I suspect you know that. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and the newspaper meaning of "lede" does not apply here. That's why many editors say "lead", and see MOS:NOTLEDE. More importantly, please stop trying to bully people on this page. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC) The user above attempted to be snarky and correct someone's perceived typo. I corrected them, as people with a more formal education and writing background tend to use lede. The rest of your commentary is meritless. Zaathras (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC) Lol. You, criticizing another editor for their tone. Baselessly. That's funny. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

business on lead - curiosity

Editor @Goszei added back details about Trump business career on lead. I found it interesting the new world "pivoted". I've read a bit of the story on body, but I can't really grasp a more general social analysis of it. Why did he pivot? Why did he fail so many times? How did he get refinanced again and again? How did that influence his friendships in the political world he would join later on?

If @Goszei or other editors know a bit more that I could read, I am interested. Maybe the lead could benefit from one or two extra words to make those info about hotel and golf courses meaningful. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The word "shifted" or similar could also be used here. It's worth mentioning in the lead because building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses is how Trump became famous within New York (consider the Grand Hyatt New York, Trump Tower, his Atlantic City casinos, 40 Wall Street, Trump International Hotel and Tower, etc.), made his billions, and gained much of his name recognition. If he didn't pivot his father's company away from its previous business of houses and apartments, he wouldn't be the prominent figure he is today and most probably wouldn't know who he was. — Goszei (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, this is the info that should be added on lead. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Add both terms to the starting infobox.

He was the 45th President and is the 47th President(elect) of the United States. The infobox currently suggests he is only the 47th. ActualOswinOswald (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not of the opinion that it should list him as the 47th yet. That is predicting the future. He's won the election and probably has enough Republicans in Congress to turn back any attempt to declare him ineligible under the 14th Amendment, but you never know. And even if he takes office on January 20, it's predicting the future that he would be the 47th. Again, it's unlikely, but Biden might not serve out his term. We don't know and shouldn't predict. Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

That's why I clarified President-Elect which he is. If Biden died Kamala wouldn't be President-Elect but rather President, there are no cases he does not remain the 47th President-Elect. ActualOswinOswald (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

See my comments just above. Tyler, Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Ford were never president-elect, unless you count a situation where an incumbent has won but has not yet been inaugurated for four more years as "president-elect", in which case it still isn't working out to 47 because, for example, FDR would have held the status four times. Suggest "president elect" and "45th president" be separate entries in the infobox and then on January 20, we do whatever has been done for Grover Cleveland. Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Write him as 37th then. ActualOswinOswald (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

No wait, 38th. Miscount, my fault. ActualOswinOswald (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I was at first glipse thinking that it might violate WP:CRYSTALBALL but now that you clarify it is the term, "president(elect)" this makes more sense. I'm for it. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump isn't president-elect yet. The electoral college meets on December 17 to vote. And we still have consensus #50 for the first sentence in place. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

consensus #50 Yeah, see last night's page history for my futile attempts to enforce that, as well as order in general. Help in that was in very short supply. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Our own article on president-elects says that There is no explicit indication in the U.S. Constitution as to when that person actually becomes president-elect. More importantly, reliable sources like the AP are referring to Trump as the president-elect. I agree that #50 prevents this from being in the first sentence without an amendment (which would be pointless in just about 74 days), but I do think that we should mention it somewhere else in the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Do we need two threads on the same topic? Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

My goodness. The infobox is alright as is. Are we really gonna fuss over his not officially being the president-elect? From now until the EC actually elects him (in mid-December) or until a joint session of Congress certifies him (in early January 2025)? I appreciate accuracy, but come on. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Expansion on "Health Habits"

Health Habits states "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs." This is generally thought to be a falsehood in regards to alcohol. While there is no concrete proof of cigarettes or drugs, there are eye-witness testimonies over the years in regards to alcohol. There are also photos from the late 90's of him drinking champagne, a photo in 2017 drinking wine at an UN luncheon, and claims from the book "The Methods of Madness" with first hand accounts from NYC bartenders that he would drink beer, liquor, and wine in order to impress women. src: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7189873/Life-long-teetotaer-Trump-drank-Miller-Lite-liquor-champagne-90s-New-York-clubs.html https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-donald-trumps-one-stop-parties-attendees-recall-cocaine-and-very-young-models/ 2603:6000:B300:1B29:D878:D6B4:3869:BD4E (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're proposing the article should debunk that "lie" based on one or three sources, I'll oppose per WP:UNDUE. As Trump lies go, that one isn't worth the space. And WP:DAILYMAIL gets you down to two sources (including a book whose reliability is impossible to assess), and WP:DAILYBEAST gets you almost down to one. Looking a lot like a non-starter. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Fascism

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

---

Donald Trump is a fascist.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/27/us/politics/trump-fascism.html

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-fascist-meme-returns-donald-trump-election-voters-5e513359

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/literally-hitler-or-reminiscent-of-lincoln-trump-election-72c9a194

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/10/24/politics/fascism-trump-what-matters

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/10/12/mark-milley-donald-trump-fascist/

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/22/us/politics/john-kelly-trump-fitness-character.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4948511-john-bolton-donald-trump-fascism-2024/amp/ 193.154.125.9 (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Read wp:blp. Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, there are enough sources for an article, so BLP concerns are right out. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there an editing suggestion you'd like to make? Zaathras (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Saying many controversial phrases doesn't mean being a fascist. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

We know. The article on Trumpism notes its neo-fascist and fascist elements in its first paragraph. This is not new information. Dimadick (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I would argue adding a sentence after mentioning his 2024 campaign. Something like, "His second campaign was widely described as using authoritarian and dehumanizing rhetoric, which some said featured parallels to fascism." BootsED (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@193.154.125.9 Not surprised you used every left wing media to cite your sources. KnoSpaces (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

All of those are from reliable sources (though some are opinion pieces). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No there's not. There are leftist progressive sources. If you take these are reliable then you can brand all the democrats as communists citing right wing sources. 46.97.168.128 (talk) 46.97.168.128 (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I suspect many of the "right wing sources" you speak of have not been deemed by the Wikipedia editing community to possess the characteristics defined as "reliable" at WP:RS, including "editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." See WP:TRUMPRCB for more. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mandruss: please close this thread, it's becoming toxic (actually it was toxic from the beginning). JacktheBrown (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it rises to the level of needing closure at this time. I take closure very seriously, and I waited until long after that other thread had descended into forum discussion before I closed it. But I am not the only one authorized to close threads around here. Any editor can do that, subject to challenge. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2024

On August 17, 2024, at the Milleridge Inn in Jericho, New York, the New York State Conservative Party officially nominated Trump for President at their Presidential Nomination Convention. EliTfab01 (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: That belongs at Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, not here. This article is too long as it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Proposed multiple image and rewrite in Early life

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

---

Trump at bat, 1962

Trump second from left, 1964

Trump is Ladies' Man: class Popularity Poll, 1964

Trump in borrowed jacket, 1964

The Shrapnel yearbook, 1962 and 1964, New York Military Academy

Tweaks are welcome. Normally I would have cropped out the text in two of these images, but they're all from a yearbook so maybe OK. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's what I'm working on. To expand Early life...

Trump was born on June 14, 1946, at Jamaica Hospital in Queens, New York City, the fourth of five children of Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump. He is of German and Scottish descent. He grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert in a mansion in the wealthy Jamaica Estates neighborhood of Queens.

Young Trump was a difficult child and attended Kew-Forest School, a private college-preparatory school, through seventh grade. Oldest brother Fred was charming but failed to serve as their father's assistant, and Donald showed interest. Hoping to guide his son's behavior, his father enrolled him in New York Military Academy, a private boarding school, where Trump attended eighth through twelfth grade. He was an average student, and Trump did well in the school's strict regimen, and learned to shine his shoes and polish his belt buckle to earn his teachers' favor. When he graduated in 1964, the class Popularity Poll pictured Trump as "Ladies' Man". At the academy, Trump learned the value of winning. He joined the wrestling, soccer, and football teams and was a skillful first baseman. As a senior, he rose to captain and commander of the school's A-Company, a student's highest possible rank, and then pulled back on his responsibilities, leaving duties to those he outranked. The school shuffled leadership, and Trump transfered to administration, still a captain, but in what nephew Fred called a "kick upstairs" promotion that Trump characterized as a "major triumph".

• D'Antonio, Michael (2015). Never enough : Donald Trump and the pursuit of success. Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-1-250-04238-5.
• Trump, Fred C. (2024). All in the family : the Trumps and how we got this way. Gallery Books. ISBN 978-1-6680-7217-2.

References

I would avoid using Fred Trump III, as he's more a primary source than secondary. Even Never Enough may want to be avoided, given the author is a CNN correspondent and has a very politically apparent preference from his list of published books. I would like to read some more academic reviews. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

And Jonathan Karl works for ABC, and Maggie Haberman works for the New York Times, and Carol Leonnig works for the Washington Post. I have two sources who agree on the story here and that's what I'm interested in. By the way, except Karl and Fred Trump these people have won Pulitzer Prizes. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I see you retracted the proposal, but I will leave this note regardless. CNN's entry in the list of perennially discussed sources note Some editors consider CNN biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability. By definition sources with bias will emphasize different information than those considered "unbiased" (to conform to their bias, in this case, political). This has serious ramifications for NPOV when it is the main source relied upon. The other outlets you mentioned, at least at reliable sources noticeboard, don't have the same issues. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think using four yearbook images is well past excessive. I would recommend picking one of those images, although I could maybe see an argument for two. Four is way too many. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks QuicoleJR, those pix were good finds but yes, four's too many. Mandruss, please archive. Apparently we can't afford another sentence. What a bummer. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: Best to ping me with things like this. I don't read everything. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)}}

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

MOS Layout

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

---

Why do editors here think that this biography must lead with the subject's §Personal life? I looked in on this last week and was surprised to find this bio doesn't conform to others on Wikipedia, for example Donald Trump's two predecessors, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. I read through the archives and found nothing. Wikipedia has no guidelines for biographies and the Manual of Style says at MOS:SNO: The usual practice is to order body sections based on the precedent of similar articles. May I offer the suggestion that you consider beginning with his early life, his family, and education? Like everybody else. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

P.S. My feeling is that if the sourcing holds up, you've done a remarkably good job on this biography. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You might check your first sentence re placement of Personal life. It seems to be a misunderstanding. If not, suggest you clarify. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's what the article looked like at the time she wrote that. This is why I try to update discussions when related edits are made, as here. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, an editor can use a permalink when referring to a part of the article that may change, e.g. using the permalink §Personal life. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: Is this resolved to your satisfaction? If so, I'll close so it can be manually archived. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Mandruss, Rollinginhisgrave fixed it within minutes. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Restored from archive and re-opened per user request. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Please archive. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Proposal to Address Implications of Pending Legal Cases on a Potential Trump Presidency

In light of Donald Trump’s pending criminal cases, we may consider including a neutral section on how his legal proceedings could impact a presidency if he were re-elected. Specifically, legal analysts suggest that while charges would remain active, any sentencing might be deferred until the end of his term. This could be relevant to discuss in terms of historical context and how it might influence both governance and legal precedent. Input on maintaining neutrality and accuracy here would be valued. Shencypeter (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

NO we need to wait until they have an impact, we do not speculate. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Losing the popular vote

The lead in the past mentioned that he lost the popular vote in 2016; is that still something lead worthy or is it unnecessary due to the length that the lead already is? I know this article in particular some stuff is written a little more concise since there’s a lot to say. Before I added that in I wanted to get consensus. Eg224 (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Given stop the steal, yes. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Hayes, Harrison, and Bush all include mention of losing the popular vote, so I believe it should remain. Plus, this is frequently brought up when discussing the election.3Kingdoms (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

hearing “yes” doesn’t answer my question when there were two questions I posed back to back Eg224 (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

luckiest man in the world

According to Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/06/how-trump-won-us-election-president

Does it have a place in this article? 46.103.47.184 (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No per wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it does. From the page you mentioned:

Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source).

The Guardian is a noteworthy source and an outspoken Trump critic. 46.103.47.184 (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No, The Guardian is considered a reliable source, not a noteworthy one. What evidence do you have to support such a claim? Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

According to its wikipedia article, The Guardian is considered a Newspaper of record in the UK. 46.103.47.184 (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

So? it is one newspaper, it is not a journal of luckology (which does not, in fact, exist anyway, there is no scientific measure of luck). Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You are not supposed to take this remark in face value. It is only rhetorical. 46.103.47.184 (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

So then you have no valid argument for inclusion. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aren't a reliable source. Newspapers, no matter how prestigious, do not magically impart noteworthiness. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: My argument for inclusion is that it can be used to highlight that Trump got elected inspite of a long list of events that should have tarnished his public image beyond repair. Inside quotes, obviously.

@Kcmastrpc: here are the sources given in said article: 46.103.47.184 (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

A, that is not what you said. B, This is an article about him, not his election. C, We already list much of this anyway. Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I already raised this concern on another topic and yes, there should definetelly be a hint of analysis of why he won the election, not this one though, but the 2016 one, which was extremelly notable, probably the most notable event of his own life. Realiable sources reported on it extensively. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

And we discuss it at length in at leat two articles. Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

If it’s known as a Trump critic that makes it sound like they have media bias so I don’t think it would fit WP:NPOV but that’s just my opinion. Eg224 (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources