Talk:Political career of Donald Trump

"One of the worst presidents in US history"

From article: "[Trump] is regarded by historians as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history."

This is an incredibly biased claim that comes far too soon. Practically everyone but ideologues know that it's hard to impossible to judge a president's performance less than 4 years after they left office. Political sentiments and tensions are too fresh for objectivity. Like so many other Wikipedia articles, this is a left-wing hit piece masquerading as objective fact. 2600:8806:2404:8000:AD53:4A5C:1E9E:D6A0 (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"This is an incredibly biased claim that comes far too soon." No, it is not. See Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Dimadick (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

According to this reply by Dimadick (and after reading the Wikipedia article to which he refered), I understand that Trump is ranked among the 5 worst presidents, according to polls, which are held periodically by Siena & C-SPAN, but this article finds its main argument from an article of the New York Times of Feb. 19, 2018 (see reference below) :

"We surveyed presidential politics experts to sketch out a first draft of Trump’s place in presidential history. (...) according to the 170 members of the American Political Science Association’s Presidents and Executive Politics section who filled out our survey, he has at least three years to improve on an ignominious debut."

The writer of that same article (written within the first year following the election of Trump) concluded this way:

"Trump’s initial rating places him in an ignominious category, but dozens of presidents have had slow starts and have course corrected to improve their public esteem. Beyond his reputation or ranking, Donald Trump’s very presidency may alter perceptions of presidential legacies as his unique approach to the office continues to surprise."

https://web.archive.org/web/20180305092423/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html

Yes, his first 4 years were marred in controversy, culminating with the events of January 6, 2021.

But for the sake of fairness, we will see in 4 years, what these pollers and experts will say, whether things are different or not, this time around. 205.193.170.4 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I have modified the sentence. Took me a couple of goes but ended up with

In scholarly surveys he is ranked among history's worst when compared to other presidents of the United States

I didn't find linking to Historical rankings of presidents of the United States using the word "worst" to be representative of where the link was taking people. I left in the word "worst" as it seems an accurate summary the surveys. I removed the neutrality disputed flag, but if someone disagrees I (or anyone) can put it back. Commander Keane (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah this totally wasn’t biased lol 189.223.58.149 (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Inexact statement: "racist Birtherism conspiracy theory"

Identifying the "Birtherism conspiracy theory" as "racist" is purely a matter of personal judgement. If someone wants to identify Trump himself as racist, they have the right to state their case. But identifying Birtherism as racist is a judgement INFERRED. It is intellectually inaccurate, as Birtherism itself does not refer to race as an object or a topic. 205.193.170.4 (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps. The souces given are:

• Vox (which can have reliability issues in partisan polictics like this per Wikipedia:RSPVOX) which mentioned racism in the article title, and
• NYT. I couldn't read this article it is paywalled.

Our article on birtherism (Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories) mentions "racial resentment" in the first paragraph, but the Donald Trump section has no mention of racism. Commander Keane (talk) 09:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality

The lead section in this article reads more like a column in the Washington Post than an actual encyclopedic article.

Trump is the only U.S. president to have been impeached twice, or to be impeached for incitement of insurrection against the United States, for his role in the failed 2021 United States Capitol attack after losing the 2020 election. One representative survey of presidential experts rated Trump last in overall ability, background, integrity, intelligence, and executive appointments, and next to last in party leadership, relationship to congress, and ability to compromise.

Aside from the second half of this paragraph being a series of one-sided politically charged attacks against Trump, many of which are subjective and disputed, the first half fails to mention that he was also acquitted both times.

Trump subsequently became the 2016 Republican nominee for president of the United States after beating sixteen other candidates during a controversial campaign that drew praise and support from foreign dictatorships, domestic white nationalists, and the global far right.

This bit is dreadful and completely ignores the millions of people that make up a majority of Trump voters and supporters who are none of these things. Which "foreign dictatorships" praised Donald Trump's campaign? Vladimir Putin called Trump a bright person in 2016, but this is not praise so much as it is, say, regular diplomacy. I mean, he said Biden in 2024 would be best for Russia, but that's not highlighted in the Biden 2024 campaign article and for good reason one might say.

U.S. Intelligence officials later determined that the Government of the Russian Federation had illegally intervened in the election to aid Trump's victory.

One sides information makes Trump seem like some sort of agent working on behalf of Russia.

He saw numerous allegations of misconduct that resulted in investigations by Congress and Special Council, as well as two impeachments.

Mentioning the two impeachments twice in the lead section seems like abundant repetition to me, and it could probably help the article if some examples of his misconduct were given.

Trump continues to push the false idea that he is still the true president of the United States, which has led to ongoing controversy within the Republican party.

Really? Ongoing controversy? Among whom, the Mitt Romney Republican Party Caucus? Mitt Romney is not really taken seriously by his fellow Republicans anymore. Other anti-Trump Republicans in Congress have seen their political careers more or less die out (they may recover them one day but it is not Wikipedia's job to make predictions), such as Liz Cheney.

I think the lead section has several issues and does not seem even remotely neutral to me. Maurnxiao (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The statements are factual though, correct? That makes them encyclopedic. 4.7.251.50 (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Maurnxiao for your detailed analysis. It has been a while since you posted but I took a look. Firstly I don't read the Washington Post but I do see it listed as mostly reliable (green) in WP:WAPO. Maybe you were commenting on the article being like a newspaper column? I guess a newspaper favours recentism whereas an encyclopaedia should have an historical perspective.

I will say this a long lead and thus I think it should have full citations.

1. You said the second half of this paragraph being a series of one-sided politically charged attacks against Trump. I agree it is difficult to sum up such a vast survey in a few words, moving that part lower in the article may be good. It does lack neutrality in ignoring Trump's luck and party leadership. On the other hand it does point out the areas out where Trump was ranked absolute lowest. Maybe just use the lowest ones only? Not sure on that one.
2. You said the first half fails to mention that he was also acquitted both times. I think it is implicit in "impeached" that he got equitted. Otherwise we would say say "first president to be convicted twice" (not that you could get convicted twice within the same presidency).
3. You complained about the drew praise bit in Trump subsequently became the 2016 Republican nominee for president of the United States after beating sixteen other candidates during a controversial campaign that drew praise and support from foreign dictatorships, domestic white nationalists, and the global far right. It is implicit that he was popular with the voters (that is how he won the nomination). The drew praise bit needs sources.
4. You said ...makes Trump seem like some sort of agent working on behalf of Russia. I don’t read it that way, Russia may have backed him without his knowledge if they feared the other candidate etc
5. You said Mentioning the two impeachments twice in the lead section seems like abundant repetition to me, and it could probably help the article if some examples of his misconduct were given. Totally agree about the repetition and the article needs more info on misconduct.
6. The article says Trump continues to push the false idea that he is still the true president of the United States, which has led to ongoing controversy within the Republican party.. The false idea part needs a source, the Rep. party controversy can be removed in my opinion.

Commander Keane (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Biased, inaccurate

Let’s be completely real. Who wrote this garbage article and is protecting it from edits? It’s biased to the left and is not only inaccurate but intellectually dishonest. For months now, you’ve had multiple complaints with details on what’s wrong with this article and it has not been fixed. Wikipedia continues to prove itself as a worthless site with no credibility and no real use. This page should be updated immediately to be neutral and factual, not an obvious lie filled advertisement against Trump while he’s running for a second term. 172.87.20.90 (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia is edited by volunteers and sometimes it takes a while to respond to to multiple complaints. I have replied to some directly above, anyone is welcome to discuss so we can improve the article. It is protected currently, you can see why in the log. I imagine this protection helps against extremely biased edits in both directions which steer away from neutrality. Commander Keane (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

When I read this article I was shocked at how biased against Trump it is. Filled with mostly media talking points. Little fact. Trump isn’t perfect by any means but article needs to be neutral and balanced not ‘orange man bad’ TPS-B3 (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Total re-write required, especially the lead

I have tried to address neutrality concerns about the lead piecemeal, one by one. This is how I normally approach neutrality complaints. However upon further reflection it occurs to me that the lead in its current state is highly problematic. A total re-write of it and the article is required.

Problems include mentioning things in the lead not covered in the article (eg birtherism, felony conviction, impeachment, approval ratings, cabinet turnover, Russian intervention).

It is a sprawling lead, I can see how it must have developed independently of the article but it is time to either trim the lead or expand the body (or both).

Per summary style, this article is meant to expand on Donald_Trump#Political_career but that section is much more balanced. I don't know how this article is meant to fit in the Donald Trump ecosystem within Wikipedia, a scope needs to be defined. Commander Keane (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Commander Keane I think much of it should comprise of summaries of sub-articles, for instance Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign, First presidency of Donald Trump etc. The weighting is quite a bit off: a lot of weight is given to campaigns and very little on office.

I don't think the weighting in the Trump article is what should be emulated, rather RS' weighting is what should be emulated. While you can think of this article as an expansion of a subheading, it's generally better to think of those subheadings as a summary of this page. This as more than one page may accurately use Template:Main. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

i just made some improvements to the lead and cut down the length, with things like the impeachments having previosly been mentioned in multiple places and the 2024 election not even being addressed; still, I'm not sure how much of this is necessary for the lead, a whole rewrite still is needed to make it not four paragraphs of "orange man bad, here's all the controversial stuff that happened." I'll let the jury figure out what should and shouldn't be in there, but some things that were trivial or mentioned several times, like I said, were removed. Eg224 (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Trump formally accepted te nomination on 19 July 2024.

"Te"? Didlidoo (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Russian Collusion in 2016 disproved

False allegations of Russian collusion. Disproved and people charged with lying to FBI. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59168626.amp TPS-B3 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)