Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 185

Archive 180

←

Archive 183

Archive 184

Archive 185

Proposal to add brief description of Trumpism in lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe something along these lines?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goszei edit:

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

the reversion by Nikkimaria:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the main diff that has been reverted by @Moxy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I support the creation of an RfC. — Goszei (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the was no consensus here after my question and tagging of editors. There should be ground to open an RfC as per WP:RFCBEFORE. I would phrase it like this:

Do you agree to add this phrase to the Donald Trump lead to describe his first presidential campaign?

In 2015, Trump launched a presidential campaign characterized by right-wing populism, "America First" nationalism, and economic protectionism.

Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The Tone of the 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 have read through the article and noticed it seems to have a tone that is very much against Trump and is quite a biased sounding tone. Could we edit certain parts of this article simply to give it a neutral tone? This is simply my opinion on a problem I think I have spotted with this page. I don't mean I think we should edit the whole page,simply parts of it to give it a neutral, non-bias tone. 2A02:8086:C99:AD00:6F34:22E:3366:6BBB (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

see FAQ Q1 at the top of this page. ValarianB (talk) 18:55, 11 December 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 John, Donald" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Trump John, Donald has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 6 § Trump John, Donald until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2024 Suggestion

In the section labeled 2024 Presidential Campaign: Please change, the text, "In late 2024, Time (magazine) named Trump its Person of the Year." to "On December 12, 2024 Time (magazine) named Trump its Person of the Year. That same morning Trump rang the opening bell of the New York Stock Exchange for the first time."

In addition to the source already cited for that line please also cite the following 2 sources: https://apnews.com/article/trump-stock-exchange-time-nyse-bell-ringing-91a59ff0f4ce77c0c6f87e55a38c6c75

https://time.com/7201565/person-of-the-year-2024-donald-trump-transcript/

Thank you! Middle Mac CJM (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Mandruss! This is my first suggested edit on a more protected article. I don't believe this change is controversial so I am looking to make it happen. What is the process for establishing a consensus on an edit like this? Should I just add a new topic section and let editors discuss or is there something else I should do to help move that process along? Thank You!

Middle Mac CJM (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Start a talk page thread asking for this edit, then get consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Slatersteven! Sincerely, Middle Mac CJM (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Reverting consensus 20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support. It's not particularly notable. Riposte97 (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support per above. Maybe instead:

His presidency saw a marked increase in political polarisation.

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

• Support, as I think the get-togethers of groups of people with signs saying "orange man bad" isn't key for the reader base to understand Trump. I must say, it reeks of UNDUE and comes off as an artifact of RECENTISM. BarntToust 22:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2024

Change "is an American politician, media personality, and businessman" to "is an American politician, media personality, crisis actor, and businessman" Doncuppjr (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

No --2A02:810D:BCBF:FD88:4054:7E4E:3F2D:4A57 (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree to the addition of "crisis actor" so we can also refer to Biden as a "walking corpse with a crack addicted son who engaged in incestuous pedophilia and sex trafficking of minors" as proven by Hunter's very own laptop. Thanks. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is this article so negatively biased and not neutral?

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.

---

Shouldn’t Trumps page not clearly be biased by people who hate him, but neutral, especially given that most Americans don’t agree with most of the negative views since he won by millions of voters? 2603:6080:F601:5E82:1577:5621:7CA2:B61F (talk) 11:24, 14 December 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.

Assassination attempts

I was reading the article, and noticed the words Thomas Matthew Crooks and Ryan Wesley Routh appear ZERO times in this article. Is there a particular reason for this? Trump was millimeters away from the unthinkable on July 13, 2024. I strongly believe the assassination attempt deserves its own section, with links to their respective main articles. President Reagan's and Roosevelt have their own section on attempted assassinations, in detail with links to the main articles. The same should go for Trump. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm genuinely curious and would like an answer or explanation as to why that same standard is not held to Trump's article. 132.170.212.77 (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at retrospectives on the 2024 election done by reliable sources, this may be eligible for marginally more emphasis, but was not the primary focus. Until we have better retrospectives which allow us to place it in perspective of his political career better, such as scholarly retrospectives of the election or biographies, this is metric we have for determining how much emphasis to place. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the political campaign, I'm pretty sure that the assassination attempts are important enough to have their own category. And why "marginally" more? Why can't they have their own eloquent paragraphical sections like this or this? I think it's ridiculous how there is zero mention of the perpetrators' names (especially Crooks who injured Trump) in the article.

Covering the assassinations decently enough doesn't have to depend on retrospectives of the 2024 election in my opinion, the fact that Trump got injured in one attempt by Thomas Crooks is a fact (not to mention the Routh situation) that doesn't have to depend on scholars and historians looking back years from now. And it's not political or controversial to include such a statement, as they are facts. 132.170.212.77 (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Because we reflect the emphasis placed by reliable sources. In those cases, apparently reliable sources placed more emphasis than here. The lack of sustained coverage of Trump's assassination attempts has been noted [1]. It doesn't depend on what we think is important, as you are making a case for here. As I said, it may be expanded marginally, if Thomas Crook being the perpetrator is what they emphasise about, that is how it should be expanded. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, media bias (as exhibited by lack of coverage) should definitely dictate what goes on Wikipedia! 132.170.46.162 (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), 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." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Let us think plainly: is the fact that he was assassinated, is that not more important than a dude named "Crooks" and a guy named "Wesley"? The existence of a bullied teenager, and the existence of a wannabe Ukraine war recruiter are both about as relevant to Trump as the price of weed in california: what remains the actual affecting part was that he had attempts against his life. BarntToust 15:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Reagan lost over half his blood volume and was not considered recovered for six months. Trump's wound was superficial and he was back on the campaign trail two days later. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The perpetrators are not important, the assassination attempts are. They meet Wikipedia noteworthiness guidelines. It happened, it's provable, and it's noteworthy, it's useful in an encyclopaedia. ~ Smellymoo 18:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you are replying to me. I agree with your position. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Fake electors plot

Why is there no mention of the Eastman memos or the fake electors scheme in here? Seems very important Zzendaya (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Huh, I would've thought this article would have included that. Maybe it did at one point and was cut? We have issues with WP:ARTICLESIZE here. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Just that those are central themes in the indictments surrounding overturning the election results. Doesn't seem appropriate to leave them out. Zzendaya (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

He was never convicted of any of it is the issue. All those cases are over. Liger404 (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Also now the Democrats are trying to deny the election results, not the Republicans. 2601:483:400:1CD0:25E9:1076:C813:F5F6 (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Article does not follow policy guidelines.

I am going to copy and paste a previous argument I made because they closed my other discussion. On this whole article, I see one point of view. That Trump was a bad president and did pretty much nothing good during his presidency. On the whole article, not only is the way in which it was written not from a neutral point of view and makes untrue statements (which is what I addressed with my proposed changes), it doesn't align with the policy "Articles must fairly represent all significant points of view that have been published by reliable sources." as is required in the NPOV policy (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) I can quote some points of view that have not been fairly listed along with the negative ones in the article. "The economy grew at a rate of 4.2 percent, the fastest pace in nearly four years" — The Wall Street Journal. "The tax cuts have brought economic growth, higher wages, and more investment into our economy" — The Washington Post. "The First Step Act is a step forward for criminal justice reform that is long overdue" — The New York Times.

Sources: Employment Situation Summary." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Dec. 2019, www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm.

Piel, Matthew. "How the Tax Cuts Are Boosting the Economy." The Washington Post, 15 Jan. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/tax-cuts-economic-growth.

Smith, John. "Trump Signs Landmark Criminal Justice Reform Bill." The New York Times, 21 Dec. 2018, www.nytimes.com/trump-first-step-act. Charles337 (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Your edit request was closed for a reason. This 'bias' argument has run its course. see Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 19:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

You didn't reply to any claims I made, or the obvious infraction of Wikipedia policy that is being made. 2603:8081:4100:7A0F:880E:B6BB:530F:6D84 (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

"We say content is biased if it doesn't have a neutral point of view, 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."- Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Yes, this is the NPOV policy I already talked about. There are numerous and very significant points of view not represented in the Donald Trump article which are published by reliable sources (I gave examples of these above) these reasons are a very big part of why over half of the United States Of America's citizens voted him in for office for the second time, and yet I do not see any of these views represented. 2603:8081:4100:7A0F:880E:B6BB:530F:6D84 (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, to be accurate he received less than 50% of the vote and about 32% of eligible voters. He won the popular vote by less than Hillary Clinton. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

He got 49.99% of the vote, Kamala Harris received 48.4% of the vote. Regardless, it doesn't matter. There are still numerous significant views published by reliable sources, not represented fairly in the article. Charles337 (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

We know that. Point is 32% of eligible Americans voted for him, not over half of the United States Of America's citizens as stated. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point. You're right. But it's completely irrelevant, and you didn't address my actual argument. The majority of people who voted, voted for him.* Charles337 (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

If you can read that part can you at least agree this article is in violation of the NPOV policy? I understand you may have political views, but a lot of Americans already believe media is biased and I don't want Wikipedia to be lumped in with the rest. Charles337 (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

My political views are completely irrelevant. No, it is not an NPOV vio as explained at the link you were given. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Your original reply was a clear case of whataboutism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism) and yes it is, the link I was given says "We say content is biased if it doesn't have a neutral point of view, 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." my argument is that the article does not fairly represent all significant points of view published by reliable sources. I listed reliable sources and points of view not fairly represented in the article. Tell me why I am wrong, not just that I am. Charles337 (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Is is quite clear that only you wish to push an agenda in this conversation and falsely spread the notion and have refused to listen to the Wikipedians who have been rightfully telling you that this is not a NPOV violation, it's explained in the bias section of the talk page. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course you cannot represent all significant points of view, but you need to represent points of views that are published by reputable sources fairly. This is clearly not done in the Donald Trump article. Charles337 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Maggie Haberman gave a great summary in her 2022 book p. 5:

By the end of his presidency, he had assembled a record of historical consequence, changing the Republican Party's policy orientation toward anti-interventionism, nativism, and confrontation with China. He had accumulated a list of legacy accomplishments, including a dramatic reshaping of the U.S. Supreme Court with conservative appointees, a revision of the tax code, peace accords in the Middle East, and an economy that his predecessor had rebuilt and which Trump grew, with record low unemployment numbers. But none seemed as significant to him as the prize he lost—a second term.

Hope this helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Your excerpt seems rather cherry-picked given the title of the source: Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America, wherein the author states:

Haberman portrays Trump as president as childlike, easily influenced by flattery, obsessed with trivialities, unwilling to engage with the details, and dismissive of advice. Accordingly, the executive branch was "subject to the president's whims and moods, his ideas about friends and enemies", and that he "reoriented an entire country to react to his moods and emotions". Haberman concludes that Trump is "a narcissistic drama-seeker who covered a fragile ego with a bullying impulse".

If we include your addition we must include both for neutrality. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

What you are quoting is not the other side of his political legacy. It is more about temperament while in office. It may be included in a section on political practice if it is given appropriate weight there. The only part speaking to his political legacy is "reoriented an entire country to react to his mood and emotions": without elaboration this is too vague to include and is probably best served as an elaboration of a section on temperament if at all. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

No need to quote "both sides" from Haberman. She just was able to write a clear, positive paragraph about his presidency, something to keep in mind. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

That would be out of context. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Some people are able to say something nice about Mr. Trump. Keep that in mind. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course they are. Some people think he is the Second Coming (literally). But Haberman's book is 608 pages covering 49 years of Trump's history. It would be a highly misleading interpretation of her reporting to include that lone paragraph. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Who wants to add a whole paragraph from Haberman? That's WP:UNDUE. I posted it because we might learn from her. For example, the lead doesn't mention that Mr. Trump built a conservative SCOTUS majority (a pretty significant achievement). -SusanLesch (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

And trust in SCOTUS has dropped 24% since then. From 68% in 2019 to 44% in August 2024. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Trust in all major institutions, media and the government are at record lows. Maybe include some stats that not every 8 year old isn't already aware of? Thanks. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I apologize. I was not aware that every 8 year old knew trust in SCOTUS has dropped 24%, from 68% in 2019 to 44% in August 2024. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Susan, because I'm a bit unclear on this, how do you see this as able to be employed to further a neutral point of view? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm out of this discussion. After reading that Haberman paragraph I realized that it is possible to present Trump's presidency in terms achievements, not only negatives, as we appear to do in the lead third paragraph. Sorry I can't be of help today. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It's ok. But to the rest of you guys, I kind of agree with Rollinginhisgrave, how can we make this a neutral point of view if there is no neutrality? It would go against Wikipedia then. 2601:483:400:1CD0:25E9:1076:C813:F5F6 (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Project 2025 & Agenda 47

Make sure to draw attention to Project 2025 & Agenda 47. ColsenJohnSemplr (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

what, that Trump is against Project 2025? "The Trump campaign said the project’s demise 'would be greatly welcomed.' " - New York Times ~ Smellymoo 18:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Trump isn't officially associated with P 2025 and has disowned it. We can't include it here. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Well then again though, Project 2025 (also known as the 2025 Presidential Transition Project) is a political initiative published in April 2022 by the American conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation. The project aims to promote conservative and right-wing policies to reshape the federal government of the United States and consolidate executive power, originally under the premise that Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election. Turtletennisfogwheat has a point. 2601:483:400:1CD0:25E9:1076:C813:F5F6 (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

When he does we can, but not until he does. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Judge agrees to dismiss Donald Trump's 2020 election interference case

Judge agrees to dismiss Donald Trump's 2020 election interference case

Not sure if this is already in the the article so fyi in case you want to put it in. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

doesn't this mean he isn't a convict/felon and that allegation needs removing? ~ Smellymoo 18:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

No, because his felony convictions stem from the falsifying business records case (aka Stormy Daniel’s hush money case), this is one of the other cases that had not yet been ruled on. Storm0005 (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if he will self pardon or else the past doesn't change. Facts are facts. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Use of explanatory footnotes in lead

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

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

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

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

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

Apologies, here are the other removals the user made: [2] [3] [4]. Mb2437 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Change it to a tagged note then:

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

The tagged note is a lot better, great idea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think a note for the agreements is appropriate. I don't think notes are useful for the popular vote or Supreme Court nominee cases, however; they could be replaced with links to List of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote or Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates if necessary. — Goszei (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you make of the input of those who came across from MOS:LEAD? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

"Several international agreements" is too vague (he didn't withdraw from them purely because they were international), and the listing outside of a note is too long. However, I think the note is useful because there is a theme which emerges from the list – his nationalist and protectionist politics, which this paragraph of the lead is seeking to explain (his basic argument for withdrawal from the first two was economic first and sovereignty-related second, and the third shows his diplomatic approach just as much as the North Korean part of the paragraph shows). The note therefore ties well into the rest of the paragraph and serves as an useful explanation (contrary to WhatamIdoing's argument), and isn't a simple listing like the three Supreme Court justices. — Goszei (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

In short, I think the note explains what Trump's much-discussed "America First" principle means in practice. — Goszei (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

If "several international agreements" is misleading, then you are accepting that any readers who don't click the footnote (most) will be misled.

Cinemaandpolitics could you self-revert? Most of the editors participating here have voiced opposition to the way footnotes are being used in the lede here, including everyone who came in from outside (I'm not sure if Bruce came from the link), so your restoration appears to be against consensus. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it was misleading without the footnote, just vague and worth a few words more explanation in a way I think that a footnote does well. There are in fact valid use cases for explanatory footnotes in leads, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. All that said, my support for this particular case is pretty mild. — Goszei (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Can't you guys just say what's important for the reader to know? I.e., ...withdrew the U.S. from international agreements on climate, trade, and the nuclear program of Iran. Cinemaandpolitics, you're going against consensus. Why is this so hard? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Cinemaandpolitics has not edited after Rolling's request for self-revert. If you're certain you're on solid ground, you are well within policy to revert them. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@SusanLesch @Rollinginhisgrave

Like Goszei explained there is a difference on the usage of the footnote for the judges and for the agreements. It was also explained why it is specifically relevant. @Rollinginhisgrave @Goszei Would you agree to take those informations out of the note in the way that @SusanLesch suggested, with links to the appropriate pages?

Hardly a consensus with the amount of editors involved as of now. @Mandruss what is your opinion? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

None. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Then my suggestion is to open another separate discussion to get more editors involved. Removing things like this from the lead shouldn't be a matter of 5 people. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Now I have an opinion. "Another separate discussion" will make no difference unless it's an RfC. Per WP:RFCBEFORE, an RfC should not be started unless no consensus has been reached after some undefined reasonable amount of time. According to at least two experienced editors here, we have a consensus here, albeit a weak one. That said, I don't see a problem with leaving this discussion open until (1) someone chooses to do an uninvolved closure, or (2) the thread is idle for 7 days and gets auto-archived. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that this discussion started with different elements on the lead on its scope. Down to the last comments the reasoning to remove those footnote was mixing those different instances. Let's see how the other answers here, then. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The intention of this was to open a discussion about how we can trim the lead to an appropriate (visible) length, without completing stripping it of its content (policy and legislature). MB2437 15:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair, even though I feel like the lenght of the lead right now is very appropriate.

Maybe the three international deals on the footnote could find a spot near the other same theme bits? Paris agreement with 100 environmental policies, iran nuclear with north korea meeting, Trans pacific with trade war with China? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Cinemaandpolitics "Like Goszei explained there is a difference on the usage of the footnote for the judges and for the agreements." No editor here has responded simply to footnotes for judges, they have all expressed replied to the practice of footnotes in this lede, expressing sentiments of generally "if something is not important enough for the lead it is not important enough for a footnote." From my read, there are 5 opposed, including 2 from outside, and 3 in favor, including none from outside. I am sympathetic to your position, but a key aspect of the lede is its hard cap on length, unlike any other section. There is good reason for this hard cap, it is fundamental to the lede's purpose of being a brief summary for the limited time many readers afford. These footnotes, if they are necessary for understanding, must be considered part of the length. If they are not necessary, then they should not be in the lede. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies Goszei, I read "he didn't withdraw from them purely because they were international" as saying the text was implying that, inaccurately. ~~ Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Your rationale just changed (this didn't start out anything to do with the lead's length). Another discussion is a waste of everyone's time except those who wish to overturn consensus. Perhaps an adult here will concede the point, MB, or is that out of fashion? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Per the OP: As the lead is clearly being condensed in preparation for his second term, it is important we do not miss out key details. An adult here wouldn't make a PA because they're unhappy someone disagrees with them. MB2437 16:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

What is a PA? An OP? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack and Original Poster. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

And sorry if I misunderstood a shift in direction. Today you write The intention of this was to open a discussion about how we can trim the lead to an appropriate (visible) length, without completing stripping it of its content (policy and legislature). Your original point, and the topic of this thread is how clever footnotes are (rather than the length of the lead). -SusanLesch (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

We're all doing our best here. You lost the argument. How about you make an edit now? I gave you a plausible solution: ...withdrew the U.S. from international agreements on climate, trade, and the nuclear program of Iran. I would have done it yesterday but I think it's up to you to demonstrate understanding of what we're telling you. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss, can you please archive this one? Sorry I lost my patience. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Not without the OP's consent. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I proceeded to edit this in. I am glad you made a proposition. Better then discussing footnotes as a technicality in my opinion. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

2nd US president to serve non-consecutive terms

Shouldnt this be in the lead? FMSky (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 181#Statistic and Grover Cleveland in the lead. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Considering that he hasn't served two terms yet, no. He and Cleveland are the two people to have been elected to non-consecutive terms, but only Cleveland has served non-consecutive terms. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggest, "He is only the second president to be elected to serve non-consecutive terms." Bob K31416 (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

2024 election popular vote trivia

The paragraph about the 2024 election states "The first Republican to win the popular vote since 2004, as of November 29, Trump did so with 49.83% of the popular vote and a margin of 1.55% over his opponent, the third-smallest since 1888." I would suggest removal of these twin factoids because they are trivia not widely discussed by reliable sources about Donald Trump and his 2024 election victory. They are also both misleading: the first one because he is the first Republican to win a presidential election at all since 2004, and the second one because there are candidates who have lost the popular vote and won the election who should be counted as having a negative popular vote margin of victory. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Given a lot of talk about his landslide, elsewhere, it seems to me that stating what his margin is rat5rher significnat. Afer all is that not what we do, present people with the information they need to judge? Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not objecting to stating the margin, I am objecting to the twin factoids of "first Republican to win the popular vote since 2004" and "third-smallest popular vote margin of victory since 1888". Also, your argument sounds like it is based on WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. As it says there, "we are, by design, supposed to be 'behind the curve.'" Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Bzweebl here. The margin can be included, but these factoids should not be, especially since the margin fact is misleading. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

A small note, the content at MOS:TRIVIA doesn't support this text being "trivia", it's referring to a different concept. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that the details are not MOS:TRIVIA. They are, however, frivolous and trivial. Riposte97 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we include material you and I may consider frivolous and trivial so long as it reflects the emphasis in reliable sources. Our opinion on frivolity/triviality shouldn't come into it. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

In a presidential campaign, candidates apply their resources to winning electoral votes, not the popular vote. Trump won the election by a wide electoral vote margin of 312 to 226 [5]. I wasn't able to find this electoral college result anywhere in the article but here we are discussing putting in the article an item about the popular vote. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

a wide electoral vote margin Incorrect, per the data, which ranks the 2024 election in the lower third in terms of margin of victory. Harris' 226 E.V.s are the 7th-highest for a losing candidate. Characterizations of the race as "close," "landslide," or "a wide margin" are dabbling in fantasy. Zaathras (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

All vote totals will be certified "official" by all states on December 17th (thanks California, still counting, and counting, and counting, and counting). Only then will people be able to break down the popular vote by age, race, gender, etc, etc. Shifting voter demographics within parties (Democrat, Republican, and Independents) secured a historic win for Trump, one of the biggest political comebacks in US history.

Trump shifted almost the entire country right or conservative (49 out of 50 states) anywhere from 1-2% points up to 18% or more making even several Democratic stronghold states now competitive while at the same time sweeping all swing states. Self-identified independent voter turnout reached the highest on record, outperforming Democrats and tying with Republicans. The popular vote totals can be thoroughly dissected once the vote totals are certified official by all 50 states plus DC. Only then can 2024 election popular vote trivia be accurate. Cheers. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

We really can't have this discussion independent of reliable sources. We shouldn't try. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Zaathras, I was going by what the reliable source said, "... Trump had a fairly wide 312 to 226 Electoral College victory..." [6]. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for altering a lede sentence

The sentence "He promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics." is slightly problematic for several reasons.

First, the use of the word "many" is subjective, and redundant because the subsequent clause contextualises it with to an unprecedented degree. Both of these refer to the same concept (i.e. high/degree/number of statements relative to others in the field, by the word "unprecedented" and "degree"). Further, I believe it's appropriate to change it too:

"He promoted conspiracy theories and extensively made false and misleading statements..."

The term "extensively" would indicate that he made such an unprecedented degree of false misleading statements throughout his position, or at least over an extensive period. This detail would replace "many" and is uniquely important because such many false/misleading statements were not isolated to specific circumstances/time period. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposes to amend current consensus item 49. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Support in principle; I don't necessarily like the use of "extensively". Feels awkward. "...degree unprecedented" is not quantifiable; "many", not as problematic IMO but still non-quantifiable. Cessaune [talk] 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Support per Cessaune. R. G. Checkers ^talk 21:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose; it's very important for the lead to mention that the amount of false statements made by Trump is "to a degree unprecedented in American politics". The emergence of post-truth politics is an essential aspect of Trump's rise to power and the use of "extensively" does not imply "unprecedented". Loytra (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

You are arguing a strawman, as we support the removal of the term “many” because it’s redundant with “unprecedented degree”. The latter should be kept. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, apologies, I thought you had removed that part in your example sentence (I didn't notice the ellipses). I've stricken the comment. Loytra (talk) 10:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and no problem! Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Support, in my opinion it's a valid request. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

List title of President-elect in intro paragraph?

Trump is currently the President-elect of the United States. That role, a constitutionally recognized position in which the officeholder must be given the means to take the oath of office on Inaguration Day, is more currently relevant than the fact he won the election so editors should consider listing him as the president-elect before listing he won the election, and since it is his current position, it is more relevant than his tenure as the 45th president.

Suggested paragraph:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the president-elect of the United States. He previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021 and is scheduled to be inaugurated again as the 47th president on January 20, 2025 as a result of his victory in the 2024 election.

--ECSNDY (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)-

I agree with this logic. Cessaune [talk] 17:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The logic is fine but the implementation could be improved. Suggest: "is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the president-elect of the United States. He served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021 and is scheduled to be inaugurated as the 47th president on January 20, 2025." Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

New York Stock Exchange Bell

Hello fellow editors! I had an idea for an edit but it was suggested I should establish consensus first so I would love to hear all of your guys' thoughts on it first:

In the section labeled 2024 Presidential Campaign: I would suggest changing, the text, "In late 2024, Time (magazine) named Trump its Person of the Year." to "On December 12, 2024 Time (magazine) named Trump its Person of the Year. That same morning Trump rang the opening bell of the New York Stock Exchange for the first time."

In addition to the source already cited for that line I would also suggest citing the following 2 sources: https://apnews.com/article/trump-stock-exchange-time-nyse-bell-ringing-91a59ff0f4ce77c0c6f87e55a38c6c75

https://time.com/7201565/person-of-the-year-2024-donald-trump-transcript/

What are your guys' thoughts on this? Sincerely, Middle Mac CJM (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems a bit trivial really and just adds words to an already overly large article. Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand that the article is already quite lengthy but I feel like an individual ringing the New York Stock Exchange Bell is significant though. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean we do not mention it on Miss Piggy's page. Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess I'm not really sure it just seemed like a novel thing that was interesting Middle Mac CJM (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Amazing the amount of WP:FART that people attempt to give weight to here, all the while large portions of the encyclopedia are ignored and/or unmaintained. So much for NPOV, WP:NOTNEWS and "the sum total of human knowledge". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Trivia, unworthy of inclusion. Zaathras (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Health section

FMSky, I see you reverted this one addition to the page. Do you have a suggestion of a better section it could go in? BootsED (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

not sure, maybe here somewhere Public image of Donald Trump - - FMSky (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

That could be a good place, it looks like that page needs some more work done on it either way. I put it in the health section as there are whole sections about it in the Age and health concerns about Donald Trump page. Doesn't health include mental health and temperament?

Also, FMSky, I think you forgot to sign your comment above! BootsED (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Public image of Donald Trump would be an inappropriate target, unless it was restricted to the public's perception of Trump in light of the assessment, rather than the assessment itself. This scope was recently determined on the talk page.

Given the source is reporting on his personality with regards to him as a political figure, #Political practice would be a more appropriate target. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Removed some details from sentence

I made an edit [7] that removed some details from a sentence,
The change was from this.

In June 2020, during the George Floyd protests, federal law-enforcement officials controversially used less lethal weapons to remove a largely peaceful crowd of lawful protesters from Lafayette Square, outside the White House.

to this,

In June 2020, during the George Floyd protests, federal law-enforcement officials removed protesters from Lafayette Square, outside the White House.

The edit was reverted [8]. I removed the details because I thought they were excessive and awkwardly presented. It was a matter of judgement. What do the reverting editor and others think? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

They are also why this incident was notable. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I think It was notable in the media because Trump came to nearby St. Johns church afterwards. Otherwise it would not have been related to Trump by the media and would just be another case of police removing protestors. For the sentence's context, see the last paragraph of the section Race relations. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The incident was notable because the police "controversially used less lethal weapons"?

I don't have the edit history but judging from the source used the title is "Barr personally ordered removal of protesters near White House, leading to use of force against largely peaceful crowd", and the text specifically says that there was "a directive that prompted a show of aggression against a crowd of largely peaceful protesters, drawing widespread condemnation". Nothing in the source says that "less lethal weapons" was controversial. I think someone else added in "less lethal weapons" at some point in the past that led to this confusion. I will remove the mention of "less lethal weapons" as it is not backed up by the provided source. BootsED (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit. It's a good start and I think there is more to remove, as indicated above.

Regarding "Barr personally ordered removal of protesters near White House,...", that didn't happen. Here's an excerpt from a reliable source a year after the incident and after an inspector general investigation. Watchdog Report Says Police Did Not Clear Protesters To Make Way For Trump Photo-Op

The incident commander said the Park Police wanted to clear the area "to erect the fence and de-escalate the situation. He added that the Attorney General was 'not in his chain of command' and that clearing the park had 'nothing to do with [him] or the President wanting to come out.' He stated, 'This plan doesn't get developed in 2 minutes. ... [The Attorney General] might be a very important guy in the Government, he's just not my boss.' "

Bob K31416 (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 December 2024 relating to assassination attempt.

Hello! I would like to request an edit in the 2024 presidential election section, talking about the 2nd assassination attempt. I would like to request it changed from:

"On September 15, 2024, he was targeted in another assassination attempt in Florida."

To: On September 15, 2024, he was targeted in another assassination attempt at Trump's golf course in Florida." to add more information about the location of the attempt, as is with the first assassination attempt. Thank you. Hinothi1 (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Why not "47th President of the United States" instead of "President-elect of the United States"

It looks like it is appearing to say that he will become the President-elect on January 20, not the President. Vlklng (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about the infobox? This is due to the silliness of filling out listings for things that haven't happened yet. Technically he isn't even the president-elect yet, as the Electoral College hasn't met. But he definitely isn't president yet. He is the presumptive president-elect and is scheduled to be inaugurated as president on 20 January 2025.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

You're joking right? He's not inaugurated yet. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

clearly you haven’t read what i said Vlklng (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. But yeah maybe it should be changed. As Khaj stated above, he's not even president-elect yet, the electoral college hasn't met Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

There are a slurry of articles describing him incorrectly.

For political science's sake, it should be addressed with specific electoral college facts, for the kids at home.

just a thought, Augmented Seventh (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

(See diff for the revision, not for the change per se) Special:Diff/1260412893 this seems to be the precedent/pattern that most articles for x-elects use. I think this might be a candidate for discussion on the template itself. It's pedantic for sure, but also arguably inaccurate as it stands. DarmaniLink (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

So-called Muslim ban targeted only 12% of Muslims

I disagree with this edit by User:Nikkimaria. Shouldn’t we briefly indicate that Trump targeted only a small percentage of the world’s Muslims? What’s the impression we give without this information? This subject is significant enough that it is in the lead, but not even our article body should include this info? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

We say that the proposal was limited to specific countries; saying that this is "only" 12% is editorializing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The cited source said, “In fact, in January 2017, the Pew Research Center estimated that Trump’s original executive order would affect only about 12 percent of Muslims in the world.” That said, why can’t we just remove the word “only”? That would be fine with me. Presently, the lead says Trump ordered “a travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries.” That doesn’t in any way suggest that some Muslim-majority countries were exempt, much less that 88% of Muslims were exempt. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Saying that "several" Muslim-majority countries were affected absolutely indicates that not all of them were. I don't see a need to elaborate further. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It obviously does not indicate that. Why do you insist on being so vague in both the lead AND the article body? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's vague at all. But let's see if anyone else wants to weigh in. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

several Muslim-majority countries definitely does suggest that some were exempt, and it definitely implies a chunk larger than 12%. several is the opposite of quantifiable. I think it is far too vague and a little misleading. I disagree with the addition of an "only", but I can't think of a non-clunky way to fit 12% in the lead. Cessaune [talk] 06:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe start with the article body and then worry about the lead? Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)