Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:34, 11 February 2024 editSpace4Time3Continuum2x (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users15,758 edits →De facto leader of Republican Party? (No RS to assert this)← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 02:45, 7 January 2025 edit undoPillsberrydoo7 (talk \| contribs)154 edits →Indictment Dismissal: new sectionTag: New topic
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header\|hide_find_sources=yes}}
	{{stt}}
			{{Controversial}}
			{{Calm}}
	{{Warning RS and OR}}		{{Warning RS and OR}}
	{{Talk header\|hide_find_sources=yes\|archive_age=14}}
	{{pp-move-indef}}
	{{FAQ\|collapsed=no}}
	{{anchor\|FAQ}}
	{{American politics AE\|Consensus required=no\|BRD=yes\|1RR=no}}		{{American politics AE\|Consensus required=no\|BRD=yes\|1RR=no}}
	{{tmbox		{{tmbox
	\|image = ]		\|image = ]
	\|text = '''Want to add new information about Donald Trump?'''<br/>Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:		\|text = '''Want to add new information about Donald Trump?'''<br/>Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:
	{{div col}}		{{div col}}
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
			* ]
			* ]
	{{div col end}}		{{div col end}}
	... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{t\|Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!		... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{t\|Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!
	}}		}}
	{{~~Banner holder~~ \|collapsed=~~yes \|1=~~		{{FAQ\|collapsed=no}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell \|class=B \|blp=activepol \|collapsed=yes \|vital=yes \|listas=Trump, Donald \|1=
			{{WikiProject Biography \|a&e-work-group=Yes \|a&e-priority=Mid \|politician-work-group=Yes \|politician-priority=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Business \|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Climate change\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Conservatism \|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography \|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject New York City \|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Politics \|importance=High \|American=Yes \|American-importance=Top \|political-parties=yes \|political-parties-importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Television \|importance=Mid \|american=yes}}
			{{WikiProject United States \|importance=Top \|USTV=Yes \|USTV-importance=Mid \|USGov=Yes \|USGov-importance=High \|USPE=Yes \|USPE-importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject United States Presidents \|importance=Top \|trump=yes \|trump-importance=top}}
			{{WikiProject University of Pennsylvania \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject 2010s \|importance=Top}}
			}}
			<!-- end wikiproject banner bundle -->
			{{Banner holder \|text= Page history \|collapsed=y \|1=
	{{Article history		{{Article history
	\|action1=GAN		\|action1=GAN
Line 68:		Line 84:
	\|topic=Politics and government		\|topic=Politics and government
	}}		}}
			{{Afd-merged-from\|Health of Donald Trump\|Health of Donald Trump\|13 June 2019}}
	{{WikiProject banner shell \|class=B \|living=yes \|activepol=yes \|collapsed=yes \|vital=yes \|listas=Trump, Donald \|1=
			{{Press \| collapsed=yes
	{{WikiProject Donald Trump \|importance=Top}}
	{{WikiProject United States \|importance=Top \|USTV=Yes \|USTV-importance=Mid \|USGov=Yes \|USGov-importance=High \|USPE=Yes \|USPE-importance=Top \|USPresidents=Yes \|USPresidents-importance=Top}}
	{{WikiProject Conservatism \|importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject New York City \|importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject Politics \|importance=High \|American=Yes \|American-importance=Top \|political-parties=yes \|political-parties-importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject Business \|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject Television \|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject Biography \|living=Yes \|a&e-work-group=Yes \|a&e-priority=Mid \|politician-work-group=Yes \|politician-priority=Top}}
	}}
	{{All time pageviews\|233}}
	{{Annual report\|], ], ], ], ], ], and ]}}
	{{Top 25 report\|Jun 14 2015\|Jun 28 2015\|Jul 19 2015\|until\|Sep 27 2015\|Dec 6 2015\|Dec 13 2015\|Jan 3 2016\|until\|Jan 17 2016\|until\|Jun 12 2016\|Jul 3 2016\|until\|Jul 31 2016\|Aug 21 2016\|until\|Dec 18 2016\|Jan 1 2017\|until\|Apr 2 2017\|Apr 23 2017\|May 14 2017\|until\|May 28 2017\|Jun 11 2017\|Jun 25 2017\|Oct 8 2017\|Oct 22 2017\|Nov 26 2017\|Jan 14 2018\|Jun 10 2018\|Sep 30 2018\|Oct 28 2018\|until\|Nov 25 2018\|Dec 9 2018\|Sep 22 2019\|Dec 15 2019\|Jan 5 2020\|Feb 23 2020\|Mar 1 2020\|Apr 12 2020\|May 31 2020\|until\|Jun 28 2020\|Aug 9 2020\|until\|Aug 23 2020\|Sep 27 2020\|until\|Dec 13 2020\|Jan 3 2021\|until\|Jan 31 2021\|Jul 10 2022}}
	{{afd-merged-from\|Health of Donald Trump\|Health of Donald Trump\|13 June 2019}}
	{{press \| collapsed=yes
	\|org='']'' \|date=November 16, 2013 \|author=Cuozzo, Steve \|title=Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages		\|org='']'' \|date=November 16, 2013 \|author=Cuozzo, Steve \|title=Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages
	\|url=http://nypost.com/2013/11/16/dont-trust-anything-on-wikipedia/		\|url=http://nypost.com/2013/11/16/dont-trust-anything-on-wikipedia/
Line 107:		Line 110:
	\|org14='']'' \|date14=26 November 2018 \|author14=Martin, Alan\|title14=The Trump penis Misplaced Pages war has kicked off again\|url14=https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3066986/the-trump-penis-wikipedia-war-has-kicked-off-again		\|org14='']'' \|date14=26 November 2018 \|author14=Martin, Alan\|title14=The Trump penis Misplaced Pages war has kicked off again\|url14=https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3066986/the-trump-penis-wikipedia-war-has-kicked-off-again
	\|org15='']'' \|date15=December 3, 2018 \|author15=Brandom, Russell\|title15=Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack\|url15=https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/4/18125359/wikipedia-trump-admin-account-security-hack		\|org15='']'' \|date15=December 3, 2018 \|author15=Brandom, Russell\|title15=Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack\|url15=https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/4/18125359/wikipedia-trump-admin-account-security-hack
	\|org16='']'' \|date16=May 28, 2019 \|author16=Mak, Aaron\|title16=Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone\|url16=https://slate.com/technology/2019/05/donald-trump-wikipedia-page.~~html~~		\|org16='']'' \|date16=May 28, 2019 \|author16=Mak, Aaron\|title16=Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone\|url16=https://slate.com/technology/2019/05/donald-trump-wikipedia-page.htm
			\|org17='']'' \|date17=March 7, 2020 \|author17=Pasternack, Alex \|title17=How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation \|url17=https://www.fastcompany.com/90471667/how-wikipedia-volunteers-became-the-webs-best-weapon-against-misinformation

			\|org18='']'' \|date18=May 21, 2020 \|author18=Flood, Brian \|title18=Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics \|url18=https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-says-online-dictionary-scrapped-neutrality-favors-lefty-politics
	\| author17 = Alex Pasternack
			\|org19='']'' \|date19=November 19, 2020 \|author19=Evon, Dan \|title19=Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump’s Misplaced Pages Page? \|url19=https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/loser-com-trump-wikipedia-page/
	\| title17 = How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation
			\|org20='']'' \|date20=October 23, 2023 \|author20=Williams, Zoe \|title20=Why is Elon Musk attacking Misplaced Pages? Because its very existence offends him \|url20=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/23/why-is-elon-musk-attacking-wikipedia-because-its-very-existence-offends-him
	\| org17 = ]
			\|org21='']'' \|date21=May 31, 2024 \|author21=Hays, Gabriel \|title21=CNN host suggests Trump conviction not mentioned prominently enough on former president's Misplaced Pages page \|url21=https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-host-suggests-trump-conviction-mentioned-prominently-enough-former-presidents-wikipedia-page
	\| url17 = https://www.fastcompany.com/90471667/how-wikipedia-volunteers-became-the-webs-best-weapon-against-misinformation
			\|org22='']'' \|date22=June 4, 2024 \|author22=Harrison, Stephen \|title22=The Most Heated Debate on Trump’s Felony Conviction Is Happening on ... Misplaced Pages? \|url22=https://slate.com/technology/2024/06/donald-trump-felony-wikipedia-debate.html
	\| date17 = 7 March 2020
			\|org23='']'' \|date23=October 17, 2024 \|author23=Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv \|title23=Go ahead and use Misplaced Pages for research \|url23=https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/17/opinion/use-wikipedia-reliable-source/
	\| accessdate17 = 9 March 2020
			}}

			{{All time pageviews\|233}}
	\| subject18 = article
			{{Annual report\|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]}}
	\| author18 = Brian Flood
			{{Top 25 report\|Jun 14 2015\|Jun 28 2015\|Jul 19 2015\|until\|Sep 27 2015\|Dec 6 2015\|Dec 13 2015\|Jan 3 2016\|until\|Jan 17 2016\|until\|Jun 12 2016\|Jul 3 2016\|until\|Jul 31 2016\|Aug 21 2016\|until\|Dec 18 2016\|Jan 1 2017\|until\|Apr 2 2017\|Apr 23 2017\|May 14 2017\|until\|May 28 2017\|Jun 11 2017\|Jun 25 2017\|Oct 8 2017\|Oct 22 2017\|Nov 26 2017\|Jan 14 2018\|Jun 10 2018\|Sep 30 2018\|Oct 28 2018\|until\|Nov 25 2018\|Dec 9 2018\|Sep 22 2019\|Dec 15 2019\|Jan 5 2020\|Feb 23 2020\|Mar 1 2020\|Apr 12 2020\|May 31 2020\|until\|Jun 28 2020\|Aug 9 2020\|until\|Aug 23 2020\|Sep 27 2020\|until\|Dec 13 2020\|Jan 3 2021\|until\|Jan 31 2021\|Jul 10 2022\|Jun 11 2023\|May 26 2024\|Jun 23 2024\|Jul 14 2024\|Jul 21 2024\|Oct 20 2024\|until\|Nov 24 2024}}
	\| title18 = Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics
			{{Annual readership\|scale=log}}
	\| org18 = ]
			<!-- end page history banner bundle --> }}
	\| url18 = https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-says-online-dictionary-scrapped-neutrality-favors-lefty-politics
			{{Skip to talk}}
	\| date18 = 21 May 2020
			{{Skip to bottom}}
	\| quote18 =
			{{Banner holder \|collapsed=yes \|1=
	\| archiveurl18 =
			{{Section sizes}}
	\| archivedate18 =
	\| accessdate18 = 22 May 2020

	\| subject19 = article
	\| author19 = Dan Evon
	\| title19 = Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump’s Misplaced Pages Page?
	\| org19 = ]
	\| url19 = https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/loser-com-trump-wikipedia-page/
	\| date19 = 11 November 2020
	\| quote19 =
	\| archiveurl19 =
	\| archivedate19 =
	\| accessdate19 = 19 November 2020
	}}
	{{Daily pageviews\|scale=log}}
	}}		}}
	{{section sizes}}

	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|algo = old(~~14d~~)		\|algo = old(7d)
	\|archive = Talk:Donald Trump/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Donald Trump/Archive %(counter)d
	\|counter = ~~165~~		\|counter = 186
	\|maxarchivesize = ~~200K~~		\|maxarchivesize = 150K
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1		\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|minthreadsleft = 4		\|minthreadsleft = 3
	}}		}}

	__TOC__		__TOC__

			== Current consensus == <!-- Must be on this page, not the subpage, to support mobile users -->
	{{/Current consensus}}		{{/Current consensus}}


			== Racially charged ==
	== Include mention of Abraham Accords in opening section ==
			<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message\|}}<!-- ] 10:51, 10 November 2034 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2046768684}}<!-- END PIN -->
	The opening section of the article is heavily critical of Donald Trump, citing his controversial policies, controversial actions and failings. I am not disputing this, but I suggest that it may improve the article's balance and neutrality, to also mention successful aspects of his administration. The ] are the main achievement I suggest; under the Trump administration's mediation, ] normalized relations with 4 Arab nations: the ], ], ] and ]. This was a significant development, creating diplomatic relations between key US allies and advanced economies in the region. It was also a key step closer towards ending the ]. Looking to build consensus. ] (]) 18:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
			Hello all, I see Consensus #30, based particularly on ] says: "The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist."" I can also see that this is the only mention of "racially charged" in the article. Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? ] (]) 04:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			:{{tq\|Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body?}} Not this one, per process. We're not going to amend #30 until the body is fixed, then reverse the amendment. "Racially charged" appears to have enough RS support, so just find a way to work it into the body. ―] ] 05:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::<s>What does "reverse the amendment" mean? Go back to Consensus 24? ] (]) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)</s> I understand. ] (]) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::I see the grammatical ambiguity. :) ―] ] 07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::This seems backwards. Lead follows body. We shouldn't treat the consensus list as sacrosanct, it's merely there to keep track of RfCs. If the article has moved on, I'd support a new RfC to challenge the previous one. ] (]) 07:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{u\|Riposte97}} I think an RfC should be avoided if it can be. Do you think you could ]? I'll have a go as well in a bit. If we don't have luck we can look at overturning Consensus #30.
			:::Given it's an ] claim, high-quality sources will be needed. I wouldn't accept journalists being arbitrators of whether his comments were "racially charged", political scientists will have written on it and we shouldn't accept inferior sourcing. This is the standard that was applied for "cult of personality". ] (]) 07:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::Your reasoning seems consistent with ]. A departure, probably more impactful (disruptive?) than you realize, but maybe ultimately good for the article. No strong opinion provided we adhere to the established consensus process. If that means revisiting #30, I suppose you pass the "significant new argument(s)" test. ―] ] 08:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::@], apologies that I've not had the time to properly devote to this. I'll see what I can add to your page in the coming days. ] (]) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			:Yep definitely. ] (]) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

			I have created a page ] as a space for research on this article. I intended to use academic sources in ] as the basis to follow summary style, but extremely disappointingly, only six of the almost 500 sources are academic.
	:This has here, and the consensus has been that they are not relevant to Trump's bio. ] (]) 20:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
	::How an arbitrary pool of scholars and historians rank Trump is relevant, but one of his greatest tangible achievements from office isn't?
	::Now that the dust has settled a little more, this should possibly be open to discussion again. The current state of the article is imbalanced and everything that Misplaced Pages should avoid being. ] (]) 21:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
	:::{{tq\|one of his greatest tangible achievements from office}} ? Lol what? {{emoji\|1F602}} The Abraham Accords were largely ceremonial agreements between states already in de facto peace agreements. Trump himself didn't even have a personal hand in any of it, until it was time to put pen to paper. It has no importance to this article, and is better covered ]. ] (]) 22:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
	::::A lot of this is your own opinion, on a contentious topic. I can see from the past archives that you have been quite active in promoting this view here. Something tells me that you likely do not apply similarly high standards of scrutiny to the successes done under other administrations - just the Trump one. Please do remember what Misplaced Pages is for.
	::::We could debate about Trump's level of involvement in the Abraham Accords, but this is a red herring. Ultimately the Abraham Accords were a hugely successful accomplishment under his administration.
	::::Just because it is covered in other articles about the Trump administration, does not neglect the importance of including it in the Donald Trump article, amid paragraphs extensively discussing his actions and policies in office. ] (]) 22:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
	:::::This is a can of worms. In addition to having just about nothing to do with Trump, it would open the door to the RS narratives concerning his son-in-law's pandering and cultivation of the Saudi's that culminated in an otherwise inexplicalble investment in the young man's untested and undistinguished investment fund. The talk archives have repeatedly determined this Abraham bit is UNDUE for this page.]] 23:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
	::::::Thank you for your input. May I ask you to clarify what you mean by "RS narratives"? Genuinely sincere question. ] (]) 01:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
	:::::{{tq\|Something tells me that you likely do not apply similarly high standards of scrutiny to the successes done under other administrations - just the Trump one}}. My my, Whataboutism and casting aspersions in one go. Your stay here may be a short one. ] (]) 23:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
	::::::It's interesting that you chose to focus on one sentence, out of the seven wrote in my response, ignoring the more pertinent points. This tends to be known as cherry picking. Anyhow, it is clear that we shall disagree on this topic. I shall wait to see if any further consensus arrives. ] (]) 01:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::]:
	:::::::Provide ] that back up your claims. Since no one has done so to back up any claim in this thread, be the first one to do so. If the Abraham Accords are truly {{tq\|one of greatest tangible achievements}} then it shouldn't be too hard to find sourcing.
	:::::::{{tq\|Ultimately the Abraham Accords were a hugely successful accomplishment under his administration}}—according to who? To you? It sounds like {{tq\| lot of this is your own opinion}}, or am I mistaken?
	:::::::{{tq\|It's interesting that you chose to focus on one sentence, out of the seven wrote in my response, ignoring the more pertinent points. This tends to be known as cherry picking.}} It is not, and will never be cherrypicking to point out behavior that goes against enwiki policy. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 18:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
	:The Accords, and Trump's personal involvement, are far less significant than some would have us believe. The agreement was not significant because the parties were not in conflict and it was an open secret they had been cooperating on various levels for years, they just didn't publicize it. Trump needed a foreign policy win going into an election year and this was a fairly easy one that his campaign and base could tout as worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. His direct involvement was negligible beyond telling Kushner to get it done, and even then, Kushner needed to pull a 180 (annexation of West Bank settlements) in his long-awaited peace plan he had released months earlier to get it done. Then Trump showed up for the signing ceremony photo op. It was nothing close to the ]. ] (]) 02:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
	::Leave it in..if it`s the best he could come up with in 4 years w/e...he signed some half-hearted bill regarding ivory importation the first day when he was signing everything his handlers were putting in front of him qualifying it with " I don`t hunt " ] (]) 03:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
	:::We can't leave it in if it isn't in to begin with. ] (]) 03:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

			This is collaborative so please help! If this can be pinned to the top of this page for a short while it would be valuable. Remember, for ], we are not merely looking for multiple sources describing him or his comments/actions as racist/racially charged, but for the weighted response of high-quality academic sources to these questions. ] (]) 10:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	:{{tq\|It was also a key step closer towards ending the ].}} In light of recent events, simply ignoring the Palestinians for preelection photo-ops of people signing documents seems to have been towards the current war. ]] 13:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
			:{{u\|SusanLesch}} Pinging you in case this effort is of interest. Been working mostly on collating books right now as journals are daunting for finding discussion of general scholarly consensus. If you find other useful texts along the way providing a scholarly retrospective assessment on aspects, I'm currently dropping them in ]. ] (]) 17:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
	::Quite so, and the acceptance of various narratives boosting the purported significance of the cleverly-branded "accords" is symptomatic of the larger NPOV issues yet to be resolved on this article page -- in particular the portrayal of Trump as a successful businessman rather than a successful street-level media star.]] 15:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
			::Will do. Sorry if I'm slow today with journals but I will catch up. On this topic per ], {{tq\| not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text}}, however this statement absolutely should be cited per ]. Seems like a good place for a perfectly cited footnote. -] (]) 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Neutral Editor 645}} I doubt you'll get a local consensus for such an addition. As for going the RFC route? That's up to you. ] (]) 15:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
			:::Thanks :) Yes the key issue is definitely it being uncited. ] (]) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
	::Respectfully, ], stop suggesting RfCs when RfCs are not warranted. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 18:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
			:'''Support removal'''. "Racially charged" is . When you consider that in the same sentence we are saying that Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as outright racist, it makes even less sense to "soften" the characterization with this term. Reading that old discussion, I think the true reason that many editors tended to support the euphemism was because it softens the perception that we are saying he is racist in ]. "Characterized by some" was rightly rejected by editors as too vague, but perhaps "characterized by critics" could be used to clearly attribute the characterization and prevent reader misunderstanding. — ] (]) 01:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::I was responding to Neutral Editor, not you. ] (]) 18:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
			::it needs removing for sure. it's against ] on multiple counts, but specially "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" ~ ] 18:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::You're missing the point. It's not helpful to suggest an RfC for every single issue, especially one with such broad consensus to not include. It doesn't matter ''who'' you're talking to, as the RfC is something we ''all'' collectively have to deal with. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 18:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
	:::~~::Not~~ ~~discussing~~ ~~this~~ ~~with~~ ~~you,~~ ~~any~~ ~~further.~~ ~~Neutral~~ ~~Editor,~~ ~~can~~ ~~make~~ ~~their~~ ~~own~~ ~~choices~~. ] (]) 18:23, 26 ~~November~~ ~~2023~~ (UTC)		:::It's sourced in ]. A citation should be added to the lead per ]. – ] (]) 18:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::~~:::Agree~~ ~~with~~ ~~Cessaune.~~ In a ~~one-against-many~~ ~~situation,~~ ~~launching~~ an ~~RfC~~ ~~after~~ ~~only~~ ~~two~~ ~~days~~ of ~~discussion~~ is a ~~waste~~ of ~~community~~ ~~time.~~ ~~And~~ ~~you~~ ~~don't~~ ~~get~~ to ~~pick~~ ~~who~~ ~~responds~~ to ~~you~~. ] (]) 15:59, 28 ~~November~~ ~~2023~~ (UTC)		:::To be clear, I do not oppose the lead's inclusion of the fact that many characterize Trump as racist. I am only supporting the removal of the term "racially charged", which I feel is redundant. — ] (]) 17:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	~~:::::::See~~ ~~discussion,~~ ~~below~~. ] (]) 01:53, 30 ~~November~~ ~~2023~~ (UTC)		*Suggest you look up the meaning of "racially charged". Regards, ] (]) 23:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:This comment is going over my head. ] (]) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Honestly, an RFC on this topic is probably warranted at this point. There have been at least 4 other threads about this in the last year and a half asking for some mention of the Abraham accords to be mentioned in the article , and the last discussion that looks anything like an RFC was in early 2021 . Over this time, 14 editors have expressed support for inclusion (Bob K31416, GoodDay, myself, Bill Williams, Chrismorey, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Andrevan, Anon0098, Anythingyouwant, Pavlor, Berchanhimez, Szmenderowiecki, Chrisahn, HAL333, and now Neutral Editor 645) and 11 editors have expressed opposition (Zaathras, Firefangledfeathers, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Specifico, Crazypredictor, Slatersteven, ValarianB, Calton, Pincrete, Symmachus Auxiliarus, and soibangla).
	:::Every discussion since 2021 has essentially been met with a couple editors saying "this is a settled issue." If every editor from every thread opened participated in a new RFC, consensus may look stronger than what we have from 2021, where only 12 people participated. If we go the RFC route and get a stronger consensus on this issue, I'd support adding it to the FAQ list as a reason to stop re-litigating this. ] (]) 22:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
	::::There's repeatedly confirmed lack of consensus to include this. RfC would just waste lots of editor time and attention, which is increasinngly limited given the many AP recent events and developments.]] 23:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
	:::::{{tq\|There's repeatedly confirmed lack of consensus}}; there most certainly is not. ] (]) 01:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
	::::::Instead of that comment, all you'd need to do is link to the consensus you think is affirmed. Please.]] 03:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::You're right - lack of consensus to include isn't actually consensus to exclude. The latter is what there isn't. ] (]) 04:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::Right, so thats why its a big waste of time.]] 04:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::RFCs are intended to generate consensus in the absence of clear consensus, so... ] (]) 04:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Are you unaware that WP does not require consensus to exclude? ]] 16:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::PhotogenicScientist, the addition of the Accords to this BLP, would be acceptable to me. ] (]) 04:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::Considering the fact that such a proposal has ended multiple times with a lack of consensus to include, why would an RfC be any different? ] </nowiki></span>''']] 04:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::An ] should attract more discussion than a regular discussion, would it not? Also, we could invite anyone who's had an opinion on the matter in the last 5 discussions to participate - get a holistic idea of consensus from all the editors that have expressed interest about this topic. 04:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC) ] (]) 04:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::What is the significance of the Accords for Trump's personal biography, per the majority of recent reliable sources? ]] 12:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::You cannot require editors to come here for no reason to repeat their views. You can see the entire range of views by reading the archive. That's why we archive past labors. What are you trying to say with "holistic"? Do you mean comprehensive? We already have that.]] 12:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::So, to avoid running an RFC, you say we can just look through the archives to assess consensus. Alright then - there are two ways to interpret the 5 talkpage discussions on this article: 1) There has never been a local consensus to include this content, or 2) A majority of editors on the talk page agree that this content should be included. Why is it more fair to go with the first interpretation? ] (]) 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Oh hey, you and I were here last November, where we discussed that exact point: . I mentioned that it's <u>really weird</u> to draw this ] line in the sand here.
	:::::::::::We don't make that distinction at other points in this article ({{tq\|The Trump administration "water down the toughest penalties the U.S. had imposed on Russian entities" after its 2014 annexation of Crimea...}}; {{tq\|...the Trump administration sanctioned 12 companies and 13 individuals suspected of being involved in Iran's missile program}}...). We don't make that distinction on the article for ] ({{tq\|In 2016, the Obama administration proposed a series of arms deals with Saudi Arabia worth $115 billion...}}; {{tq\|The Obama administration asked Congress to allocate money toward funding the Iron Dome program...}}). We don't make that distinction on the biographies of any other president, it seems ({{tq\|In February 1996, the ] administration agreed to pay Iran US$131.8 million (equivalent to $245.93 million in 2022) in settlement...}}; {{tq\|] administration continued discussions with the Soviet Union on START I.}} I just don't see a compelling reason why we wouldn't include it here. ] (]) 15:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Obama, Clinton, Reagan: any problems with their articles need to be discussed on their Talk pages. I the sentence on the sanctioning of the suspected collaborators with Iran; it's the same sentence as in the ] article, and that's where it belongs. Watering down the penalties on Russia: this belongs in his personal bio because of ]. ]] 15:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::And ] just my removal. The point is consensus #37: ''Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy.'' Neither one of these is likely to. ]] 15:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::You conveniently left off the second half of consensus #37: '' If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply.'' I think Trump's first dealing with Iran in his presidency is rather notable for his presidential legacy. It affected the tone of 4 years of US-Iran relations. ] (]) 15:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::I don't think it's borderline or debatable? Six years later, are there reliable sources saying what the lasting impact on his life or long-term presidential legacy was? ]] 17:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::We're debating it now, aren't we? The consensus item does not specify "debatable <u>by whom</u>." Just that if it's debatable, it doesn't apply.
	:::::::::::::::Moreover, Trump's policy toward Iran in his presidency was one of increasing tensions - one of the mechanisms by which he did this was sanctions. , shortly after the killing of Suleimani, which mentions his sanctions in the context of his broader strategy: {{tq\|He took the United States out of the nuclear agreement and imposed sanctions against Iran — which some see as setting off a crisis that continues today — on claims that it was “on the cusp” of acquiring nuclear weapons “in just a short period of time.”}} Also from that article, there's this quip: {{tq\|How Confusion Fell Over America’s Iran Strategy... Part of the uncertainty is <u>specific to Mr. Trump</u>.}} Which sounds pretty personal, for this personal biography of his. ] (]) 21:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::{{tq\|We're debating it now, aren't we?}} If memory serves, I'm the author of that sentence. I doubt it was my intent that unanimous agreement was required for application of the consensus item. If memory serves again, the sentence lacks a strong connection to the underlying discussion; it just seemed like a reasonable thing to add at the time. Had I known the word "debatable" would be used in this manner, I would have been more circumspect about its use. ―] ] 21:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::@] regarding the proposition that the Iran sanction had , Trump's policy of escalating tensions with Iran, of which sanctions were a part, is noted as having contributed to the crisis that followed the ]. See the NYT source above. ] (]) 21:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::If it's important in that context then the article should say so. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 01:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::There are 3 paragraphs and numerous additional mentions of Iran in the article. Exactly the perfect amount of Iran.]] 02:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
	WP does not require consensus to omit. There has never been anything close to agreement for inclusion. No, RfC will only attract a waste of time. You posted a long list of the participants in past rejections of this content. There's no reason to think that yet another rehash is going to "attract more discussion" that will produce a tidal wave of support to overwhelm the well-established rejection of such content. ]] 11:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
	Consensus is not a majority vote count. ]]] 16:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

			== Tracking lead size ==
	{{ping\|PhotogenicScientist}}, I say you ''should'' have an RFC & put this include/exclude argument to rest. After all, there can only be two possible outcomes. ] (]) 15:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
			Word counts by paragraph and '''total'''.
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header = — '''614''' = 29 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121
			\| content = — '''657''' = 46 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 43

			— '''418''' = 62 + 76 + 153 + 127
	Users need to read ], it is down to those arguing for inclusion to get consensus. ] (]) 16:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
	:Indeed. Therefore, I'm curious as to why ] has been ignored, concerningt the other major topic being discussed. ] (]) 16:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

			— '''406''' = 56 + 70 + 138 + 142
	=== RfC for inclusion of Abraham Accords in article ===
			}}
	{{archive top\|In this discussion, Wikipedians try to make yet another content decision about Mr Donald Trump, whose article sucks up absolutely astonishing amounts of community time and attention. In this case the discussion concerns the ], in which the United Arab Emirates and Israel normalized relations. They are, perhaps, still less than firm friends. Although the US wasn't one of the parties to these accords, and although the accords haven't been ratified by either side, our American friends do like to think of this as an American foreign policy achievement. With varying amounts of reluctance, many editors tend to credit Mr Trump for it, and Mr Trump certainly wants us to think it's a huge win for him. At issue here is whether to include the Abraham Accords in Mr Trump's article and, if so, how much prominence to give it.{{pb}}This matter involves both Israel and Donald Trump, so it's incredibly contentious and virulently toxic on Misplaced Pages. Previously, an editor closed it against the numerical consensus. This close was brought to close review on the Administrator's Noticeboard. For transparency reasons I should disclose that in that close review, I personally opined that the close should have been "no consensus to include". This doesn't make me involved within the meaning of ] because I haven't edited the article, I haven't edited any closely-related articles, I haven't taken a position in the debate, and I haven't taken a position in a closely-related debate.{{pb}}As a result of the close review, this discussion was reopened and additional contributions were made. These additional contributions are closely reasoned and helpful to the closer. They change my view of the outcome. I now conclude that the community's decision is to mention the Abraham Accords in the body text. The consequent edits can be made.{{pb}}The RfC question also asks whether the Abraham Accords belong in the lead, but the community gives me a whole lot less guidance on that topic. I think I have to say that owing to a lack of community input I can't be confident that there's consensus to mention the Abraham Accords in the lead. Therefore they should not be mentioned there for the time being.{{pb}}The community's decision is to support the ''principle'' of mentioning the Abraham Accords, not to endorse the specific wording given in the RfC question. That wording can still be edited in the normal way.{{pb}}I do hope this is helpful and sufficient to fully resolve the dispute. Questions, comments, criticism, and complaints about this close are welcome and should be directed to my talk page in the first instance.—] <small>]/]</small> 09:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)\|CONSENSUS TO INCLUDE}}
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header = — '''418''' = 53 + 64 + 158 + 143
			\| content = — '''413''' = 54 + 62 + 153 + 144

			— '''422''' = 58 + 57 + 141 + 166
	In an attempt to end the never-ending proposals for including the Abraham Accords in either the article or the lead section, I propose an RfC. A mention in the article body would be a prerequisite for inclusion in the lead. I am not supporting or opposing its inclusion, but I believe that the following proposal would be the most likely to be supported by consensus, being minimal and based on lead content from the Abraham Accords article.

			— '''437''' = 58 + 57 + 156 + 166
	Should the Israel subsection of the foreign policy subsection be updated to include the bolded sentence below? (Edit: Proposed addition in bold.)

			— '''465''' = 87 + 60 + 154 + 164
	{{tq\|Trump supported many of the policies of Israeli Prime Minister ].<ref>{{cite web\|last=Sommer\|first=Allison Kaplan\|date=July 25, 2019\|title=How Trump and Netanyahu Became Each Other's Most Effective Political Weapon\|work=]\|url=https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-how-trump-and-netanyahu-became-each-other-s-most-effective-political-weapon-1.7569757\|access-date=August 2, 2019}}</ref> Under Trump, the U.S. ]<ref>{{cite web\|last1=Nelson\|first1=Louis\|last2=Nussbaum\|first2=Matthew\|date=December 6, 2017\|title=Trump says U.S. recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital, despite global condemnation\|work=]\|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/trump-move-embassy-jerusalem-israel-reaction-281973\|access-date=December 6, 2017}}</ref> and ] over the ],<ref>{{cite web\|last=Romo\|first=Vanessa\|url=https://www.npr.org/2019/03/25/706588932/trump-formally-recognizes-israeli-sovereignty-over-golan-heights?t=1617622343037\|title=Trump Formally Recognizes Israeli Sovereignty Over Golan Heights\|work=]\|date=March 25, 2019 \|access-date=April 5, 2021}}</ref> leading to international condemnation including from the ], the ], and the ].<ref>{{cite web\|last1=Gladstone\|first1=Rick\|last2=Landler\|first2=Mark\|author-link2=Mark Landler\|date=December 21, 2017\|title=Defying Trump, U.N. General Assembly Condemns U.S. Decree on Jerusalem\|work=]\|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/21/world/middleeast/trump-jerusalem-united-nations.html\|access-date=December 21, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|last=Huet\|first=Natalie\|date=March 22, 2019\|access-date=October 4, 2021\|title=Outcry as Trump backs Israeli sovereignty over Golan Heights\|work=]\|agency=]\|url=https://www.euronews.com/2019/03/22/outcry-as-trump-backs-israeli-sovereignty-over-golan-heights}}</ref> '''In 2020, the White House hosted the signing of the ], normalizing the foreign relations of Israel with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.'''}}
			}}

			== Tracking article size ==
	] (]) 16:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC) 10:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			] size in words – Wiki markup size in bytes – Approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the ] limit.
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header = — 15,818 – 421,592 – 103
			\| content = — 15,883 – 427,790 – {{0}}46

			— 15,708 – 430,095 – {{0}}12
	:Pinging ],], ]. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 22:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

	::Why ping? ]] 22:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			— 15,376 – 414,196 – {{0}}67
	:Grammar issue: Who or what normalized the relations? Current phrasing says that it was the WH (by hosting the event). ]] 17:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Clarify. ]] 12:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
			}}
	<s>:'''Support'''. Probably one of his greatest acheievements. ] (]) 12:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)</s> <small>Account <s>'''before''' they posted here</s>. ]] 10:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)</small>
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header = — 15,479 – 415,176 – {{0}}64
			\| content = — 15,279 – 404,464 – 122

			— 15,294 – 405,370 – {{0}}80

			— 14,863 – 402,971 – 190

			— 14,989 – 409,188 – 180
			}}

			== Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump <span class="anchor" id="Request for consensus: Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump"></span> ==
			<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message\|}}<!-- ] 14:00, 25 November 2034 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2048076023}}<!-- END PIN -->
			{{small\|1=Uninvolved closure requested. ―] ] 14:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)}}

			OK. Here's my proposal: that a section be added that reports the ''public discussion of concerns'' about his health, which are now a major part of public discourse. It should obviously not ''itself'' speculate on Trump's mental fitness, only report on the comments of ] according to the ] guidelines. This would not violate ], because it would not express an opinion on his mental state, only report on the opinions of others. Opinions, please? — ] (]) 11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			:A consensus/new consensus can be established without an RfC. You've already started the discussion on this page. Opening an RfC at this point would be improper, IMO. ]] 11:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			:If you insist on going that route, this is the procedure: ]. ]] 11:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

			* Just to start off: '''support''' as proposer, per comments above. — ] (]) 11:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:Anome, I suggest you notify the talk page of the article from which your proposed content originated. That page is 6 years old, so the editors there are likely knowledgeable.]] 20:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:Best 'not' to hand out such a notification at another talkpage, Anome. Less that be construed as ] for support. ] (]) 21:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*'''No''', it is media speculation, not a clinical diagnosis, and this is a BLP. ] (]) 11:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*'''yes''' it is time, esp after the 39 minute dance this week the topic has received quite a bit of coverage. whether it is a 'diagnosis' or not is not an issue, a encyclopedia is not drawing a medically-based conclusion it is just reflecting the preponderance of the sources. ] (]) 13:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:No. You are attempting to create a false narrative. ] (]) 05:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

			*''' No''' or at best, very limited yes. I know we don't cite other wiki pages. But just for comparison, the ] main page only gives it about a vague sentence or two, and that's for a figure who's cognitive decline has been much more prominent and widely discussed by RS. Also, that section is titled much more neutrally simply as "Age and health." So overall, this is a "no" unless ''significantly'' scaled back. ] (]) 13:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*'''No''' It looks like they are not sincere age and health concerns but political attacks with no consensus of medical professionals. In the last stages of an election campaign, I think it's just part of an expected full court press. ] (]) 14:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:That's a straw man. The topic is concerns, which have been found NOTABLE on the abundantly sourced wiki page from which the recent content and deletion originated. If it were a medical diagnosis, the lead of this page would simply state "Donald Trump is the demented former POTUS and the demented candidate for 2024." But it isn't a diagnosis and nobody's suggested it is. There should not be a formal poll of any sort here. It's already under discussion and {{ping\|GoodDay}} has provided no policy or content-based rationale not to include this summary of a relevant article, similar to many others on this page. Lacking any such rationale, the removal appears meddlesome and destructive.]] 15:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::Are you suggesting editors who oppose the addition, are disruptive? ] (]) 15:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::SPECIFICO was topic banned from Donald Trump a couple of months ago and their above comment was given as the last example of why. ] (]) 14:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''No''' - as he hasn't been diagnosed with having any such medical issues. ] (]) 14:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*'''No''' - We are not going to use non-MEDRS soucres to speculated on someone's mental or physical health. We wouldn't do it with Joe or anyone else. It's also laughable un-encyclopedic. Also it should probably be an RFC to overturn two RFCs and a bunch of previous discussions that all found the same thing. ] (]) 14:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:Kinda seems like we did do that with Joe . ] (]) 15:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::Ugh, well we shouldn't. ] (]) 16:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I don't see a way to "unring" that bell. ] (]) 20:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:Not to point fingers or drag this out even further (see below), but <s>this</s> (correction, see comment by Just10A above) seems to be where comparisons to the Biden article actually started. Cheers. ] (]) 10:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Yes''' See ]. "After the debate raised questions about his health and age, Biden faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Democrats and the editorial boards of several major news outlets". I understand BLP's require extra care, but "concern" doesn't seem to be ] enough, as long as it's attributed in a verifiable context outside of VOICE. If the same rules that apply to Biden also apply to Trump, "Refuses to release medical records" with "attributed concerns" is where the bar currently sits. See "More than 230 doctors and health care providers, most of whom are backing Vice President Kamala Harris, call on Trump to release medical records" , , . Also see ] Cheers. ] (]) 15:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:And Biden did step down, is there any indication of similar pressure on Trump from within the GOP? ] (]) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::It's not a qualifier as far as I know. Was the "raised questions about Biden's health" only allowed to be added AFTER he stepped down? Cheers. ] (]) 15:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Well I recall making the same arguments there as here, and it all changed when it actually had an impact on the election. ] (]) 15:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Let's look at the tape. {{tq\|Looks like concerns about Biden's health were added on the 4th of July}} "After the debate raised questions about his health, Biden faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Democrats and the editorial boards of several major news outlets" and {{tq\|Biden didn't resign until July 21st.}} Did I miss something? ] (]) 15:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::NO, but I did, as I had opposed that in the past, and did not see the addition. ] (]) 15:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::I can see wanting to err on the side of caution, but the cat is out of the bag and fairness is the name of the game, and other such idioms... ] (]) 16:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::So we could say then "After a series of rallies raised questions about his health, Trump faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Republicana and the editorial boards of several major news outlets", would this be supported by RS? ] (]) 16:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::AFAIK There is no policy stipulating the statements must be similar. Only that it must be based on what the sources say. ] (]) 20:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::1.) Do not substantively edit your comments after editors have already replied to them without indicating it. That is against ].
			*:::::::::2.) I don't know how you can argue {{tq\|"There is no policy stipulating the statements must be similar"}} when ''just'' above that you argued {{tq\| "Kinda seems like we did do that with Joe"}} and {{tq\|"fairness is the name of the game."}}
			*:::::::::I agree that policy doesn't mandate they match, but you gotta pick a side. You can't argue "Policy says they don't need to be similar" and then simultaneously say "They gotta similar or else it's unfair." ] (]) 20:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::@] If I acted improperly I apologize, as it wasn't my intent to mislead anyone, hence the clarification. I wasn't aware adding afaik is considered a substantive change.
			*::::::::::I believe my yes vote implies that I have picked a side. TMK I'm allowed to make observations and express views on the appearance of possible inconsistencies in the application of policy in good faith. Cheers. ] (]) 22:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::No problem. I was referring to you adding the ABC source in your earlier comment though just to be clear. I agree that adding AFAIK is more minor. ] (]) 22:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::Oh, then I was way off on what I thought you were referring to. I was about to start adding TMK and AFAIK to all of my sentences. I meant to add the ABC source in my original edit, but I goofed. Truly sorry if that screwed something up, I've had similar experiences so I empathize. ] (]) 22:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::@] I would briefly add that, TMK the application of policy and the substance of the context being proposed do not represent two conflicting interpretations of the same policies AFAIK. ] (]) 22:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::True, but it also means they are not the same situation, which was my point, that they are not analogous. ] (]) 10:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
			*{{ec}} I'd like to see someone confirm what sort of {{em\|secondary}} coverage is here, but ] is irrelevant here because biographical information is {{strong\|not biomedical information}}: we should almost never include things like how a disease works or how it is diagnosed (except insofar to mention the subject {{em\|isn't}}, when that's the case) on a biographical article in the first place. That is not to say we should not ask for the absolute best quality sources, but MEDRS is an inappropriate guideline here. Also, discussion on this topic will also need to consider how and where primary sources are used on the subarticle. Due weight concerns don't go away simply because the content happens to be on another article, and not mentioning something we have an entire subarticle on even once in the main article is close to essentially {{em\|forcing}} the subarticle to be a POV fork, an outcome I'd expect neither those supporting nor opposing inclusion should want. ] (] • ]) 22:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			::I also don't see how ] (identifying reliable third-party published secondary sources accurately reflecting current knowledge on ] (information relating to or could reasonably be perceived as relating to human health)) applies. If a majority of reliable sources describes the candidate's speech as increasingly incoherent and his , it's not a medical diagnosis. Consensus 39: {{tq\|This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office.}} ]] 13:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

			:No. This is still a BLP. ] (]) 22:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Comment''' For anyone interested in additional details about "]" being added to the LEAD of ]'s BLP, they appeared about nine days before he bowed out of the 2024 presidential race. It made it onto the LEAD on July 12, . On the 18th a CFN tag was added , then removed , then re-added and removed again on the 19th , back on the 20th , removed same day , then again re-added by {{U\|FMSky}} on the 20th , then removed again same day , re-added same day , and finally within the next 8-24 hours he dropped out . Cheers. ] (]) 02:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
			::Let me clarify 2 more things then I'm outta here. First, I goofed again when I pinged FMSky, total brain fart that might be perceived as intentional CANVAS or sabotage, I'm just tired from editing all day and got distracted putting diffs together. It's no excuse it's just being honest, you can check my contribs. I doubt they would agree with my vote anyway. Second, I'm not saying this is a good reason to do the same thing here, I just think it's relevant somehow. Sorry if I screwed up, it wont happen again (here at least). Cheers. ] (]) 02:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Include'''. In the last 5-14 days since Harris released her "excellent health" report, there has been renewed coverage in RS about Trump's refusal to release his medical records<ref>{{Cite news \|date=2024-10-12 \|title=Harris releases a health report, shifting the focus to Trump's age and health concerns \|url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/harris-releases-a-health-report-shifting-the-focus-to-trumps-age-and-health-concerns/articleshow/114175162.cms?from=mdr \|access-date=2024-10-17 \|work=The Economic Times \|issn=0013-0389}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|last=News \|first=A. B. C. \|title=Trump would be the oldest person to become president. He's not sharing health details \|url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trump-oldest-person-become-president-sharing-health-details-114859051 \|access-date=2024-10-17 \|website=ABC News \|language=en}}</ref> and the recent town hall that was even beyond the usual performance standard. Even after Biden it was mentioned ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 05:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
	{{sources-talk}}		{{sources-talk}}
			:*'''Yes''', there is polling and Trump hasn't disclosed his medical records.
			:] (]) 02:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Yes'''. People say that it should not be included because there is no MEDRS-level source that lists Trump's health. However, this did not stop concerns about Biden's health being added to the Joe Biden page, nor did it stop the creation of the ] Misplaced Pages page. There is also an ] page. Misplaced Pages is governed by the consensus of reliable sources, and multiple reliable sources have brought up this topic to the extent that an entire individual page on the wiki exists to cover it, thus the content is ]. To not ''at least mention it'' on this page would be a violation of ] and ] through the introduction of editorial bias by having Misplaced Pages editors decide that the issue is "not important" enough to mention on this page, despite multiple RS clearly making the case that this issue is worth mentioning. ] (]) 03:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			* Regarding the rally in Oaks, PA that's been mentioned in this section and in various news media sources, here's the full video of it from C-SPAN . I think it's been mischaracterized as age and health concerns for Trump. ] (]) 07:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Yes'''! Its absurd having a long article ] with 120 references but trying to hide that in the main article. This is really a hot topic in the media (US and abroad) so deleting it here is really ridiculous. Especially with the ] entry featuring ]. ] (]) 19:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
			::''Comment:'' Amen to this. Biden has never been diagnosed with dementia, so it would be wildly improper to suggest that he does, per ], but we ''can and should'' report the widely ]-reported ''public political controversy'' regarding the possibility of dementia, per ], as it is politically significant. Trump should not be treated as a special case who is somehow privileged over others. — ] (]) 06:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Yes''' for basically the reason Andol gave. There's a long article on these concerns, so we clearly have ample sourcing for them, so it's weird we're not mentioning them much here. ] (]) 01:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. The decline may not have been as obvious as Biden's because it started from a much lower baseline, but it was noticeable and noticed. Just this week, there was the 39-minute musical interlude at the Oaks, PA, town hall; the non-responsive rambling during the Bloomberg interview; on who his favorite president was when he was little. Trump said "Reagan", then rambled on about Lincoln, the Civil War, Ukraine, Russia, October 7, buying oil from Iran, etc.; and at yesterday's rally in Latrobe, PA, where he and regaled the crowd with tales of Arnold Palmer being "strong and tough" and "unbelievable" in the shower, adding to the "impression of as increasingly unfiltered and undisciplined". Quoting the AP headline: . "an unusually energetic rally for the former president, who has looked and sounded tired of late while doing multiple events and interviews a day across multiple swing states".<ref>{{cite news\|last=Gold\|first=Michael\| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/19/us/politics/trump-vulgarity-pennsylvania-rally.html\|title=At a Pennsylvania Rally, Trump Descends to New Levels of Vulgarity\|work=]\|date=October 19, 2024\|access-date=October 20, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news\|last=Bender\|first=Michael C.\| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/20/us/politics/trump-meandering-remarks.html\|title=Four of Trump’s Most Meandering Remarks This Week\|work=]\|date=October 20, 2024\|access-date=October 20, 2024}}</ref>]] 15:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			{{sources-talk}}
			*'''Oaks Town Hall''' — (Good-faith ] of distracting side issue was reverted. The following posts were in response to . ]] 16:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC) )
			::It wasn't a rally. It was a "]" staged by the Trump campaign, with Republican operatives posing as "constituents" and reading off cue cards. One of them, "Angelina who had voted Democrat all my life and was from a Democrat union household" had to correct herself because she forgot to say "union household"; she's Angelina Banks who was the Republican nominee for Township Commissioner and State Representative in Pennsylvania's 154th and lost with 19.3% to Nelson's 80.7%.<ref>{{cite news \|last=Wolff \|first=J.D. \|url=https://www.meidasplus.com/p/busted-former-republican-candidates \|title=Busted! Former Republican Candidates Posed As Constituents at Trump's PA Town Hall \|work=] \|date=October 17, 2024 \|access-date=October 17, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news \|url=https://southbendtribune.com/elections/results/race/2022-11-08-state_house-PA-39234/ \|title=2022 Pennsylvania State House - District 154 Election Results \|work=]\|date=January 26, 2023 \|access-date=October 17, 2024}}</ref> Mischaracterized? The campaign had prepared 10 Q&As but the Q&A turned into a with Trump giving a minion a playlist and then standing on stage not even dancing. Just standing, occasionally swaying, jerking his arms, finger-pointing at the audience, and making faces/smiling(?). <small>And, in keeping with the musical theme, two days later Fox unearthed the set of ] for an all-women town hall with an asking curated puff questions.</small> ]] 11:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
			{{sources-talk}}
			::{{tq\|I think it's been mischaracterized...}} You personal analysis of reliable sources is of no concern to this page. If the sources cover this as an example of the subject's mental decline, then so shall we. Not necessarily in the proverbial "WikiVoice" but as "sources say." For now. ] (]) 12:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

			*'''No''' There are no reliable secondary sources reporting that Trump has age-related cognitive decline, just speculation from his opponents. One editor mentioned that we covered this for Biden, but it was in the article about his recent presidential campaign. That's where this informtion belongs. It isn't possible to list every accusation made by his opponents in this article, so there is a high bar for inclusion. ] (]) 11:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
	====Survey====
			:: Speculation from his opponents? You mean denial of his supporters? I think it is obvious to ''everyone except is supporters'' that he has massive issues. This is not a political campaign. It is a topic reported in international media all over the world, even making headlines. And everyone can see it. The only news outlets that don't report on this are the conservative media in US! Think about that. Greetings from Germany, where Trumps decline seems to be better covered than in (the conservative) parts of the US media. ] (]) 19:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Improper RfC'''. The first two sentences are the current text of ]. The proposal is the addition of the last sentence ("hosted the signing" ] — that was about the extent of it (photo-op), formalizing would be better than normalizing, "foreign" is redundant). ]] 11:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			::Is there something askew with these sources? They seem to be speculating at the very least.
	*:How is that improper? The addition is bolded. ] (]) 11:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			::
	*:The RfC is alright. A piece of additional text, clearly marked, is submitted for consideration and comments. -] (]) 12:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			::
	*::RfC's attract users who are not previously familiar with the details and context of the page content. The RfC, even if valid or necessary, should have been worded with a straightforward question on the table, to wit: {{tq2\|Should the following text "..." be appended to the mention of the Abraham Accords in the "..." section of the page}}]] 15:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			::
	*:::{{ping\|SPECIFICO}} AFAIK, RfC questions are "community property", not "owned" by their original authors. Any editor can improve them, even involved, and clarity should never be controversial. I've made an attempt to improve that and I don't think inclusion of the existing text does any harm provided it's clear that it's existing text. It does provide some potentially useful context: Is the proposed sentence DUE in such a short subsection? ―] ] 16:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			::
	*::::I agree, but it all depends on which OP feels like complaining to which Admin, etc. Thanks for at least mitigating the damage. The other missing piece is that the horde of prior commenters has not been summoned.]] 17:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			::
	*:::::Then summon them. ―] ] 17:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			::
	*::::::Not my job. OP ordinarily does that.]] 01:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
			::
	*'''Improper RfC''' abuse of the RfC protocol, which is not meant to bludgeon views that have failed to gain support.{{ping\|Onetwothreeip}} {{small\|15:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)}} Please remove RfC formatting, banner, and notifications.]] 15:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			::Cheers. ] (]) 02:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
	*:A properly worded, formatted and posted up, RfC is, by definition, impossible to denote "]" activity. And by "posted up" I mean that if an RfC were to put across the same essentially question on a subject that was recently decided, then, yes, we'd have a problem. Has there? If not, nothing is amiss. As to your argument about "RfC's attract users who are not previously familiar with the details and context of the page content," I'd say that RfC's should actually ''aim'' to attract such users! ] knows, extended and heated discussions about a subject, "controversial" or not, ''always need'' outside, more detached input. -] (]) 17:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			:::Reliable sources lose their reliability when they express politically motivated opinion and manipulation during a heated election campaign. Buried in one of those sources is a glimmer of rational journalistic integrity, "...the experts in memory, psychology, and linguistics who spoke to STAT noted that they couldn’t give a diagnosis without conducting an examination...". Thanks. ] (]) 11:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
	*:{{ping\|SPECIFICO}} If I removed the RfC formatting then it would cease to be an RfC. I have never requested any addition of content to this article regarding the Abraham Accords, and I do not support it. This is to put an end to endless discussion. ] (]) 20:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			::::Not according to policy, bias it not a justification for rejecting a source, only lack of factual accuracy. ] (]) 11:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
	*::I doubt that I'm the only one puzzled by your theory of ending this silly little discussion by expanding and prolonging it for at least another month. Folks are allowed to propose things on the talk page, and when they do not achieve a reasoned consensus -- as this proposal had surely failed to do -- the disussion subsides and goes away. There is no requirement for a ''consensus not to include'' any proposed content. And you are always free to ignore discussions you feel are pointless rather than offer your services to exterminate them. I really think it would best be withdrawn, but that's up to you at this point. The only reason editors are responding at this time is because you have more or less forced a vote.]] 23:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			::::: Don't fall for the bias claim. It doesn't make you biased if you report on those glaring issues. They are obvious. Rather the opposite is true. It takes willful denial, i.e. bias, to not see it. The whole point here is that Trump as a whole is such an abnormal person that he has shifted the goalposts to such a distance that there is no standard to measure him and thus he can get away with anything. And that is a problem for Misplaced Pages, because Biden is compared to normal people (making him look old), while Trump is compared to himself. Add the near-total polarization in the US, which has his supporters deny everything, even the possibility that there could be anything. Please step back and look up, how the Rest of the world looks at Trump and this election. It's not how the US see it. Trust me. 80 % of the population is in utter disbelieve how Trump with all of his glaring issues even got there, lest how someone who is right in his mind can even think a second of voting for him. And we do really debate ''if'' he has issues? Claiming he hasn't is biased, not the other way round. This is a clear situation where the truth is ''not'' halfway in the middle. Look at . Just imagine Joe Biden or Kamala Harris being on stage bragging about the size of some dudes dick. The outcry would be thermonuclear and it would be broadly covered in his or her article in literally five seconds. Here? Thats Trump, normal day in the office, so what. Irrelevant, he made a thousand similar remarks. And that creates a systematic bias pro Trump, because there is no standard he doesn't fall short of, and therefore nothing is noteworthy, no matter how egregious. ] (]) 23:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' so what was its impact, this text is just a list entry. ] (]) 12:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			*'''No''' - If it was to be included, it would have to be introduced as mere speculation because of MEDRS, but I do not believe there has been any particulary significant RS reporting of speculation about cognitive decline as there was about Biden nor any substantive reason (like a drop out over it) to include it. Trump's speculated cognitive decline has only been popping in the news for the past couple months because he's now the old guy on the ticket, and Dems naturally want to capitalize on that. Not ] at this time. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
	*:A full analysis of the accords, including their significance or impact, is better found at their article: ]. Inclusion of events that happened during Trump's presidency on this article are meant to be limited to summary-level description - including links to appropriate articles and sub-articles is the better way to provide more information. ] (]) 16:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
			**{{ping\|R. G. Checkers}} And yet we have all the cites from mainstream media ] cited above. Mysteriously, this sort of reporting is regarded as ] when it comes to Biden, yet not for Trump. As Elon Musk would say, "Interesting." Is there any point at which you might regarded the public debate about Trump's mental competence noteworthy enough to mention here, or are you just waiting for the election to be over? — ] (]) 17:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' as it has been shown time and time again, in past discussions the "Accords" were between non-warring nations, had no significant geopolitical impact, and Donald Trump himself had no involvement into the process. Also '''Close''' this RfC now as inherently disruptive. This has been discussed ad nauseam - ], ], ], ], ]. This is a dead issue, and continuous rehashing is unwarranted as consensus to exclude is crystal clear. ] (]) 14:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			**:Yes, and it won’t be because he danced at a rally. It would be if there was sustained coverage over months long periods with concerns of cognitive decline or if he literally had drop out of the race because of it. But do I think that 3 weeks before an election with politics flaring and a sudden emphasis on his alleged mental decline is a good reason for inclusion? I answer no. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - mentioning the Accords in this BLP. ] (]) 15:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			**::In other words, ] but not before the election? I didn't know WP had to adhere to DOJ guidelines. ]] 20:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
	*:This is about the suggested text. ] (]) 15:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::I ~~know~~ & ~~support~~ ~~its~~ ~~inclusion.~~ ] (]) 15:16, 2 ~~December~~ ~~2023~~ (UTC)		**:::Is there some policy I'm not aware of that gives a waiting period, especially if your name isn't Joe Biden? ] (]) 20:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			**::::That's not exactly what Mr. Checkers said. I agree that we should ensure the content is ] by waiting to see if it's a blip, or something carried through by the sources for more than a few days. Space4Time3Continuum2x, you are usually a stalwart adherent of both established consensus and conservative application of policy - what gives? ] (]) 21:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
	*:::This is not an election, and votes without reasoned explanation may be disregarded.]] 15:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			**:::::. <small>(I'm still trying to unimagine the unbelievable Arnold Palmer in the shower — a few extra nipples, a rudimentary third leg, a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back? Although that one is on Roger Stone, I believe, another Trump friend.)</small> This isn't new. : "Trump's self-absorption, impulsiveness, lack of empathy, obsessive focus on slights, tenuous grasp of facts and penchant for sometimes far-fetched conspiracy theories have generated endless op-ed columns, magazine articles, books, professional panel discussions and cable television speculation." Now we have a flood of reporting on what was obvious for months for everyone who watched Trump rallys on C-SPAN. ]] 15:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	*::::Evaluating each editors' stated position, will be in the hands of the RFC closer. I'll accept the decision of this RFC when it's closed (in early January) & hopefully the entire include/exclude argument will be settled. ] (]) 15:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			**::::::Your personal analysis or perceived opinion on what's "obvious" about political candidates is irrelevant to the discussion at issue. You're getting seriously close to ]. Quit rambling and stick to neutral discussion about the topic at hand to improve the encyclopedia. ] (]) 16:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	*:I know previous discussions on this have been interminable, and you might not like re-litigating your opinion. But it's true that a simple comment of "Support" means very little in an RFC. Providing even a bit more justification would add strength to your position to the closer. ] (]) 04:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
			**:::::::]. ]] 17:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	*::I'm not one to over elaborate on my positions in RFCs or RMs & am always mindful of ] & so I leave the RFC evaluation in the hands of the closer. PS - Besides, other 'support' editors are making strong arguments. ] (]) 21:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
			**::::::::Asking you to stop violating policy is not a personal attack. ] (]) 18:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. The ] "marked the first instance of Israel establishing diplomatic relations with an Arab country since 1994," as the article puts it. This was a significant, perhaps major, change in Middle East relations. In the context of the article's section on Israel and U.S. foreign policy, the proposed sentence informs the reader of a ] important event occurred during Trump's presidency. -] (]) 17:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			**:::::This has been reported on maybe as far back as 2017.
	*:'''Sources''': The significance of the ] has been disputed in this discussion ("the Accords were between non-warring nations, had no significant geopolitical impact"). ] that, in fact, they were quite significant is ]:{{pb}}First, some 'primary' sources: ; ; and .{{pb}}Then organizations, think tanks, etc: , "landmark", "game changer"; , "opened new opportunities for defense and security cooperation"; , "Jews have the potential to play a valuable multicultural role in the UAE and Bahrain"; , "even in the Mideast, where passions are inflamed, interests can on rare occasions gain the upper hand"; , "important development"; , "greater than the sum of its parts"; ; , "a three-year success"; etc.{{pb}}Media: , "historic agreement"; , "major diplomatic agreement"; , "reflected a real political exhaustion with the Palestinian cause on the part of some political elites in Arab countries"; etc. Even media criticizing current Israeli actions, accept the Accords' significance, e.g. . -] (]) 18:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			**:::::
	*::That is a truly dreadful list of references, comprising statements by parties at interest, contrmporaneous reports later revised or reversed by the sources, and publications that do not stand up to the books subsequently published and cited by SpaceX and me in the comments section. These sources do not support any case for inclusion.]] 19:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
			**:::::
	*'''Comment''' While I am not supporting or opposing the proposal, I will explain why I justify this wording to be most modest proposal and the most likely of any proposal to succeed. The proposal uses language directly from the Abraham Accords article, and does not credit Donald Trump with any active role (such as "brokering"), only that the signing was hosted, implicitly by him, at the White House. I decided to specify that it was ''foreign'' relations being normalised, as opposed to economic or other relations. If editors believe that there should be even more content about the Accords in the article, they should support the proposal, and if they believe that there should be no content about it at all, they should oppose it. ] (]) 20:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			**:::::
	*'''Support''' per the other supporters’ explanations above. The accord opened the door to wider economic cooperation, and investment.] (]) 22:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			**:::::
	*'''Oppose'''. This addition doesn't demonstrate why the Accords are important/notable. It doesn't tie the Accords to Trump. It doesn't even ''mention'' Trump. At least relating to this wording specifically, this isn't something we should include in the article. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 22:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
			**:::::
	*:The Accords are ] "]". One has only to peruse the ] here. (I offered a sample of ] here, as well.) And they were signed during Trump's presidency, with Trump's Foggy Bottom actively involved, and in his presence. What's there to dispute the merits of mentioning them in the foreign policy section, Israel subsection? -] (]) 10:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
			**:::::
	*::You're misunderstanding what I said. I did not say that the Accords weren't important. I said that {{tq\|his addition doesn't ''demonstrate'' why the Accords are important/notable}}. The fact that we as enwiki editors ''can'' demonstrate why the Accords are notable is separate from the fact that none of the proposed texts actually ''do'' demonstrate why the Accords are notable. The proposed wordings belong in the ] article, not here IMO. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 00:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
			**:::::No one seems to be suggesting this goes into the lead sentence, and as far as policy goes, eerily similar material to ] made it into the the Biden article as far back as July 4th, and it's STILL there. ] (]) 19:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	*:::So, you would support some mention of the Accords in this article, just not the proposed wording? ] (]) 14:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
			**::::::As is frequently pointed out to new users of this page, the fact that some other page on Misplaced Pages has a different consensus has no bearing on this one. That is usually understood when we are resisting putting something positive in, but seems all to quickly jettisoned when convenient. Regarding the Oaks Town Hall which precipitated this thread, neutral RS seem to offer an explanation that is inconsistent with the line pushed by more partisan sources that Trump had some kind of mental episode. See for example: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-town-hall-derailed-after-medical-emergencies-crowd/story?id=114796716. I remain unconvinced that the content should be added. ] (]) 20:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	*::::Depends on if editors are willing to demonstrate how the Accords are specifically notable to Trump the man, as opposed to just Trump's presidency or the Trump administration. So far the vast majority of support arguments refer to the notability as it pertains to the Trump administration, and forget that this is not the Trump administration article. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 15:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
			**:::::::{{tq\|"neutral RS seem to offer an explanation that is inconsistent with the line pushed by more partisan sources"}}
	*:::::Not every tidbit included in this article needs to have a full analysis of its importance. MOST of the information in the Presidency section is not analyzed or given reason for import. Your criteria, if applied to all events in his presidency, would lead to a full-scale rewrite of the section. I do think the proposed wording could be better, but it does a better job than omitting mention of the Accords entirely - best not to let perfect be the enemy of good. ] (]) 22:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
			**:::::::These threads get so long it's hard to keep track. Please link or cite examples of partisan and neutral sources to which you're referring if you get the chance, it would be very helpful. Cheers. ] (]) 20:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
			**::::::Judging by the headlines, we shouldn't use the 2017 sources per the Goldwater rule (psychiatrists/psychologists diagnosing people they haven't seen as patients). ]] 12:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
			**:::::::Also, I may a bit confused as to where this thread begins and ends. I may be unintentionally conflating the Oaks town hall and the Proposal: Age and health concerns...Cheers. ] (]) 21:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
			*The 39 minute weird man-dancing (partly to YMCA, a song about gay hookups of all things) may actually be the worst example of his cognitive decline as he was quiet instead of rambling nonsense. Indeed, it could be an example of something not at all recent. It certainly doesn't belong in this article. Perhaps elsewhere. ] (]) 00:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:Not sure if you've seen the unbiased raw video of the Oaks, PA event. On the webpage of C-SPAN's presentation of the full video , to the right there is a list of the points of interest in the video: Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) Remarks, Fmr. President Trump Remarks, Affordable Homeownership, Family Request Congressional Hearing, Cost of Living, Immigration, Russia-Ukraine War, Immigration & Deportation, Medical Emergency. Notably missing from C-SPAN's list is "weird man-dancing". ] (]) 11:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::What's your point? The C-SPAN video shows the entire event. The music starts at 45:00 and continues until the end. ]] 12:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::For context, note that the first medical emergency began at 39:00, 6 minutes before your start time. Viewing the video starting at 39:00 will give a better idea of what's going on. Thanks. ] (]) 23:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::I've seen the video and I don't see your point either. Trump just said that he is ahead in every one of the 50 states in the polls. Every state. His goofy, silent dancing was far more rational. ] (]) 00:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

			{{outdent}}
	::::], we do not demonstrate "why the Accords are important/notable" by adding the information on the Accords to the article. This was never the intention and ''cannot be'' the intention! Demonstration of ] is ''exclusively'' ] by ]. And I have already provided a small sample of about a dozen such sources, out of a myriad out there, which demonstrate conclusively and irrefutably the Accords' notability. Please take a look and see what you make of them. Having certified the Accords' notability, the question arises as to whether to insert information about them ''here''. Well, a lot of items concerning or related to Trump's presidency are important enough to mention also here. The Accords, being a "game changer" in Middle East politics, per sources, certainly merit a mention here. All the noise about their signing being "only" a media event is unfounded. Take care. -] (]) 10:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

			What particularly irritates me here is the double standard of invoking ] in regard to this. No-one is asking for Misplaced Pages to state that Trump has dementia, or that he has suffered a medical cognitive decline; the issue here is that his increasingly erratic behavior has become a significant news story, and is being reported in reputable MSM sources such as the NYT and WP, who have bent over backwards to be fair to Trump, wouldn't have dreamed of doing eveen a few months ago. Yet for some reason, we're not allowed to use these ] to report these events and the public concern about them in the MSM. This is a profoundly un-encyclopedic things to do that breaks the fundamental ] policy. Rejecting any mention of significant major MSM coverage because you don't like it is just another form of ], — ] (]) 17:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::This is fundamentally mistaken. Yes, NPOV requires all information in any article to be assessed for its importance as evaluated by its prominence in high quality Reliable Source references. And again, folks should stop discussing what's significant for his presidency -- it is settled consensus that this page includes content that is significant for his personal life story and in which he has been personally instrumental. Those are the factors that should be addressed here, and clichés are the enemy of the good and no excuse for us to dilute the focus of the article content.]] 22:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::*{{tq\|it is settled consensus that this page includes content that is significant for his personal life story and in which he has been personally instrumental}} Could you provide a reference to this "settled consensus?" I don't see this anywhere. ] (]) 15:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::Friendly advice: Don't hold your breath. {{smiley}} -] (]) 13:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::*Actually, what I wrote is fundamentally correct, and that's speaking in literal terms. ] on ] that ] the information imparted, i.e. '''Abraham Accords are notable & significant''' are irrefutably satisfied. Against that wall of solid, uncontestable proof, we get ]s such as "this page includes content that is significant for his personal life story and in which he has been personally instrumental". What a valiant attempt to distract and derail, honestly! The very long, and quite rightly very long, section on ] includes a plethora of items that are ] unrelated to the man's "personal life story" {{smiley}}, as well as items in which he was involved simply in his capacity as President. A President is ''not'', and one cannot emphasize this enough, "instrumental" in every diplomatic or government action. End of story. -] (]) 13:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::P.S. One has to salute the appearance of a newfangled "argument," the one about the threat of ''diluting the focus of the article'', which is also just a lot of chaff. -] (]) 13:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

			:But that is the consensus on this article. That MEDRS sources are required, even to have the conversation technically. ] (]) 17:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - the Accords are a notable aspect of Trump's presidency with sufficient ] for the one sentence proposed. described the Accords in June 2022 as "one key pillar of Donald Trump's Middle East policy" and a "huge rupture from recent history in which Arab nations had made it clear they would not negotiate with Israel..." It also noted that the Biden admin has embraced the Accords. A fact noted by as well. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - ~~Sorry~~ ~~but~~ I ~~just~~ ~~don't~~ ~~see~~ ~~how~~ ~~hosting~~ ~~this~~ ~~signing~~ or ~~the~~ ~~signing~~ ~~itself~~ or the ~~accord~~ ~~itself~~ ~~had~~ ~~any~~ ~~historical~~ ~~effect~~ or ~~why~~ it ~~belongs~~ in the ~~this~~ ~~bio~~. ~~Maybe~~ in a ~~child~~ ~~article~~. ] (]) 01:19, 3 ~~December~~ ~~2023~~ (UTC)		:: If this is absolute, then it could not be in the Biden article. But it is. Therefore there is no way to deny the pro Trump bias. MEDRS cannot only protect Trump, but ignore Biden. To me the deletion sounds politically motivated. And that is a major problem. ] (]) 20:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::@] Look at the top of the page in ]. Nothing is politically motived. ] (]) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
	*:Proof that the Accords were and are still]] ] has been shown above. At to why mention of their signing belongs in "this biography", the answer is simple: Irrespective of what ], this happened during ''his'' presidency, with ''his'' State Department actively involved. It's truly a trivial matter. -] (]) 10:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
			::::I made a ] edit to see how this plays out . Maybe there is consensus? ] (]) 04:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' because this feels like a no-brainer item to include - it's a ] happening of his presidency for certain. Most prior Oppose rationales hinge on the argument that this article should make no mention of the Accords because they are mentioned at the ] article, pretty much in line with consensus item #37. However, from the numerous sources that have been discussed in the discussion above (and in prior ones), it's apparent that the Accords were notable enough to have a lasting impact, at the least on Trump's presidential legacy. Perhaps I'll be back to collect some of these sources once again (as I've done before) to link here, but for now, I'll note that the Accords get a mention from Foreign Policy in their analysis of Trump's presidency . ] (]) 05:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
			:::::I'm good with it and hope it sticks. ] (]) 14:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
	*:I'm not sure that the current wording is the best way to present the information, though. I like this proposal from Iamreallygoodatcheckers a while ago:
			::::::Sorry DN, could you link to your change? I can't seem to find it. ] (]) 20:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
	*:{{talkquote\|In September 2020, Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and two foreign ministers from the ] and ] signed the ], which formally normalized relations between Israel and the two Arab states.}}
	*:] (]) 05:18, 3 ~~December~~ ~~2023~~ (UTC)		:::::::He changed it on the Joe Biden page, not the Trump one. I had the same confusion initially. ] (]) 20:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Ah. Thank you. ] (]) 20:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
	*::This wording is better. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::~~...~~ ~~which~~ ~~one?~~ ~~The~~ ~~proposed~~ ~~RFC~~ ~~wording,~~ or ~~the~~ ~~one~~ I ~~just~~ ~~pasted?~~ ] (]) 05:29, 3 ~~December~~ ~~2023~~ (UTC)		::::::::Please do NOT refer to me as "he". They or them is fine. ] (]) 10:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I disagree MEDRS applies there any more than it does here, but I don't particularly care if it's in the lead or how much weight to give to it, so long as it's there. I {{em\|will}} revert if someone tries to remove all three paragraphs about it in the other article though. ] (] • ]) 10:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
	*::::One you just proposed ]<sup>]</sup> 01:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
			::::::An editor has now re-added ] back into the lead on ]'s BLP. I am not going to remove it, and agree that we should leave it. IMO ] now seems over-] here. ] (]) 05:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::Trump wasn't a signatory. Netanyahu and bin Zahyed al Nahyan signed the ; Netanyahu and Al Zayani signed the . ]] 12:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::~~He's~~ ~~not a "signatory" in~~ the ~~diplomatic sense~~ of ~~the~~ ~~word,~~ ~~but~~ he ~~did~~ ~~sign~~ it - ~~his~~ ~~signature~~ is ~~right~~ ~~there~~ ~~below~~ ~~those~~ of ~~the~~ ~~others~~ on ~~both~~ of ~~those~~ ~~documents~~. ] (]) 16:40, 4 ~~December~~ ~~2023~~ (UTC)		:::::::Mx. Nipples, the existence of a section on another page has absolutely zero bearing on what should be on this one. None. We go by consensus, not by precedent. ] (]) 05:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
			{{cot\|{{small\|1=Off-topic about gender pronouns. ―] ] 21:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)}}}}
	*:::::::Right after "Witnessed by". Ronald McDonald's signature would have had the same effect — none. It was just a show. ]] 17:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::::~~Equation~~ of ~~the~~ ~~importance~~ of a ~~sitting~~ US ~~president~~ ~~and~~ ~~Ronald~~ ~~McDonald~~. ~~Bold~~. ] (]) 18:19, 4 ~~December~~ ~~2023~~ (UTC)		::::::::Please do not refer to me as "Mx." or "Mr." as that appears to be your intent. They/them is accurate. ] (]) 06:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::{{small\|(Given that "x" is nowhere near "r" on a keyboard, I'm guessing "Mx." was not a typo but an attempt to be gender neutral. It can be read as a convenient shorthand for "Mr., Ms., or M-other, as you please". It's the best attempt available, since "They/them Nipples" would be nonsensical. Maybe we don't need to go any further down this rabbit hole, at least not on this page.) ―] ] 06:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)}}
	*:::::::::Nah, just equation of the importance of the witness signature of a sitting US president and Ronald McDonald on those particular documents. ]] 18:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
			::::::::::I simply asked for them not to call me that, I did not get upset or make a personal attack, I just made a simple request. I'm aware of what Mx. means and I simply do not wish be referred to in that manner. I do not care why you think it's any of your business or why you feel the need to intervene here, and that is a rabbit hole that certainly does not belong here. ] (]) 06:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': There is an erroneous '''argument''' in some of the suggestions here, to the effect that the Accords have failed to deliver what they promised and, therefore, they're not important enough and do not deserve a mention in Trump's biography. That is false, as false as arguing that, since they too failed, the ] do not deserve an article in Misplaced Pages.{{pb}}There ''might'' also be in play some kind of erroneous '''view''' of the whole issue. I hope no one opposes the inclusion of the Abraham Accords on the basis of their ] of Trump and abhorrence for his actions as president. I truly hope so! -] (]) 10:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::::::{{small\|I read {{tq\|1="Mr." as that appears to be your intent}} to mean you thought they meant (intended) "Mr.". Sorry if I misread easily-misread writing. {{tq\|1=I do not care why you think it's any of your business or why you feel the need to intervene here}} - Now you're gettin' me riled. Look, you comment on this page, regardless of the topic, and you open yourself up to replies from anybody. There are no "private" conversations here or almost anywhere else at Misplaced Pages. You want a "private" conversation, use email. That's how it works, like it or not. End. ―] ] 06:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)}}
	*:No, the principal objection is that this was a Trump media event and that the underlying relations and documents signed for TV had nothing to do with Donald Trump other than the insinuation of his family (and its ongoing business interests) into Mideast diplomacy and commerce.]] 15:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
			::::::::::::You're the one that brought it up ''here'', and I have since moved it to a personal talk page, where it belongs. ] (]) 06:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
	*::If your objection, or anyone else's, is based on the claim that the Abraham Accords were merely a "media event" then that claim is easily refuted by the extensive and widespread preoccupation with said accords undertaken by almost all major media in the world, as well as by think tanks and strategy institutions of ] credentials from most big world powers - not to mention what the signatories themselves have emphatically stated. None of those sources can be seriously labeled as Trump mouthpieces. "Media events" have a very short shelf life. The Abraham Accords were a "game changer" in the Middle East, to use just one term, among many, from those used in our sources. The claim that the Accords was merely a "media event" has not been seriously proffered except for obvious partisan reasons. -] (]) 15:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
			{{cob}}
	*:::Well, that's a new one. Of my dozens of flaws, nobody has previously accused me of not reading or following the sources. See my several comments here about sourcing. And anyone who takes a look at our ] article will see that it's largely Original Research and sources misrepresented or off-topic appended to original research.]] 17:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::↑↑↑↑ Agree as to process. Other articles never affect this article ''unless a community consensus says they do for a specific discrete situation''. This is a common misconception, understandable given the human desire for consistency, but you won't find it anywhere in policy, and not for lack of attempts to make it so. ―] ] 06:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
	*::::If the article is flawed, we should correct it. In the meantime, the significance of the Accords is beyond doubt, per the plethora of extant sources, a small sample of which I quoted here above. Did you follow up those? Do you dispute their relevance? Or perhaps their reliability? -] (]) 20:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
			::::::::That was more of an aside. See Riposte's removal of cited content on the current subject, referring to a now seemingly dormant discussion. ] (]) 06:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
	*:::Hosting the signing of an agreement between third parties was a media event. ]] 16:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
			*'''Yes.''' It's been covered extensively in media reports, which is the only criteria that really matters here. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 17:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
	*::::The ] signatories were Egypt and Israel. The UInited States hosted the signing ceremony and witnessed formally the signed documents. No one has yet disputed the legitimacy of including the Accords in Clinton's biography. Their signing too was a "media event"! But neither the Camp David Accords nor the Abraham Accords were '''only'' media events. They were both "game changers." And the U.S. actively mediated between the parties. See for America's "weeks of intensive mediation to broker the final deal." -] (]) 20:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::That document is not RS for anything. You don't appear to know the what, where, when or how regarding the Camp David Accords which had nothing to do with Mr. Clinton.]] 20:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::You're conflating the 2020 Camp David Summit with the 1978 Camp David Accords. I don't know enough about the 2020 Summit to have an opinion on it. The Camp David Accords are a peace treaty between two countries that had been repeatedly at war for 30 years, and Carter was actively and personally involved in the peace process for more than a year, cajoling both parties back to the negotiations a few times. Quoting the : ''During his presidency (1977-1981), Carter’s mediation was a vital contribution to the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, in itself a great enough achievement to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize.'' The Abraham Accords are between Israel and several Arab states Israel had never been at war with, and Trump's involvement was the photo-op. ]] 13:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per above. ~ ]] 15:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Inclusion of this media event - a ceremonial signing which amounted to a command performance by presidential election candidate Trump - gives UNDUE emphasis to the Trump media claim that he was involved in the establishment of these relationships. In fact, the parties had been warming relations for years and the insertion of Trump's son-in-law into the codification of these relations was consequential mainly as a factor in the solitification of young Kushner's financial interests in the region. If editors will give a careful read of our ] article, they will see that most if not all of the article text crediting Trump or his Administration for these artfully-named "accords" is sourced to Trump's own employees.]] 16:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:'''Comment''' Most of the "support" !votes here do not address the only pertinent issue -- the issue which has led to this failing consensus time and again in previous discusssions: ''What does this have to do with Trump the man?''. General anodyne statements "obviously important" "highly notable" etc. do not provide policy/sourcing based rationale to support such !votes and should be eliminated by whichever poor soul arrives to close this rehash.]] 16:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::{{tq\|What does this have to do with Trump the man?}} isn't really a '''hard''' criteria to make a decision on. The only thing remotely close to this is consensus item #37, which states that presidency events can be covered in this article as ''"summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy."'' The notability of the Accords as covered by plenty of RS here place them squarely into his presidential legacy. If you don't want to take my word for it, check out assessment of Trump's presidency from a foreign policy point of view.
	*::Not to mention ''"If something is borderline or debatable"'', consensus item #37 doesn't even apply for excluding content. ] (]) 14:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::See . No one foresaw the unintended consequence of that sentence. When it comes down to it, (1) at this article, any content of any significance is debatable, and (2) "borderline" is so subjective as to be useless as a guide. Emphasizing the letter over the spirit undermines the value of the consensus list and, imo, borders on wikilawyering. ―] ] 15:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::That consensus item got support <u>as written</u> in . This despite the fact that people did oppose at the time because "decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis" or "what constitutes borderline or debatable will be endlessly debated." On this article, quite uniquely, the consensus list is often used to shut down discussions where "strong consensus" has been shown before. When you have what amounts to local guidelines like this, the wording matters quite a bit. The letter of the item is quite clear, even when the spirit of it is not and subject to discussion. ] (]) 16:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::{{tq\|the wording matters quite a bit.}} I totally agree, and we do our level best to make the letter and spirit one and the same. That sentence was not my best performance. {{tq\|the consensus list is often used to shut down discussions where "strong consensus" has been shown before.}} I'm not sure what you mean by that. We at this article do exhibit a reluctance to repeatedly revisit an issue merely because an editor shows up who disagrees with the existing consensus, not because of any significant change in the situation surrounding the issue; in such cases, shutting down discussion is a feature not a bug. The article is not unique but unusual in its ability to remember consensuses as the editor mix changes; I call that continuity. Anyone who feels the system is too inflexible should note the number of supersessions in the list, many on fairly major issues. This is getting pretty meta and a collapse may be in order with the option of continuing the meta within the collapse. ―] ] 17:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::Your Foreign Policy cite said this about the Abraham Accords in October 2020: {{tq\|The move, which the White House heralded as "the dawn of a new Middle East," praised by Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike as a rare spot of good news. Still, some experts questioned whether Trump was claiming credit for diplomatic dealings that were long in the works; the UAE and Israel, for example, had been cooperating on security matters behind the scenes for years. "You’ve got to give them some credit for the Abraham Accords," said Emma Ashford, a foreign-policy expert with the Atlantic Council, referring to the deal by its official name. "This isn’t an earth-shattering change in foreign policy, but getting some of the Gulf states to come out and admit they were actually more friendly with Israel, that's something that's an achievement."}} Yay - direct flights between Israel and Dubai (currently suspended due to war). ]] 17:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::{{s\|I get that you're trying to chip away at the notability of the Accords themselves}} It's pretty clear you think the Accords aren't very notable - they involved more than just a direct flight route between Israel and Dubai, after all - but they quite plainly are already notable. Whether as an influence for or , the Accords are <u>still being talked about</u> for their impact on relations in the Middle East, by plenty of reliable sources. ] (]) 18:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::That's 1. a personal attack, 2. irrelevant, and 3. denying our NPOV policy. All unnecessary.]] 19:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::I feel that my comment was not "particularly offensive or disruptive," so isn't particularly helpful to discussion here. ] (]) 19:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::::Tip: never characterize someone else's opinion without simply quoting them, or be damn sure you're hitting it on the nose. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 22:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::::Also, referring someone to ] after they have accused you of a personal attack is... weird, and likely to be construed very negatively. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 15:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::A personal attack? What offends you? ]] 19:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::There was no pa ]] 20:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*: '''Comment #2''' If any further emphasis on this signing event is to be placed in the article, we would also need - per NPOV - to include additional content that reflects RS narratives of this event as another in a vast array of empty Trump media stagings in part based on his personal need to mimic the appearance that his presidency was similar to other conventional prediencies - in this case Jimmy Carter's role in the ].]] 16:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. (Do some of the commenters here think that WP doesn’t mention the ]?) The signing ceremony was a photo-op. As ] wrote , "the ] does not in and of itself demonstrate 'historical impact'". Trump as "a testament to the bold diplomacy and vision of President Trump, and he is honored to be considered by the Nobel Committee ]. President Trump will host the Israeli and Emirati delegations for a signing ceremony of the Abraham Accords on September 15 at the White House". Most of the sources Gnome don’t even mention Trump, and when they do it’s something along the lines of "brokered by the Trump WH" or "nother reason for caution was that the leaders of the United States and Israel at the time, namely, President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu, persistently advertised the Abraham Accords as their own achievements. President Trump hailed the Abraham Accords as a historic achievement during his run for re-election in the November 2020 presidential election". Also, only two of them were written after October 7 ("Oct. 7 also sounded the death knell of the Abraham Accords as initially championed by the Trump administration and latterly embraced by the Biden administration"). ]] 16:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:In other words, ], you are saying that a source that reports some major event involving U.S. foreign relations has no place in the biography of the president during whose watch the event occurred unless the source contains the name of the president. And if present in the article, that source should be chucked out. Is this truly a position you want to support? Is this something you'd want to see adopted as a rule for Misplaced Pages political biographies? A new interpretation of where the buck stops? Seriously. -] (]) 20:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::Huh? You get all this from me writing "photo-op without historical impact"? ]] 12:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::I could be mistaken of course, but it doesn't sound as if you've surveyed the RS accounts of the announcement, signing, and substance of the Abraham accords. Have you looked at our article page. I started to look through it and found that much of the narrative there is derived from self-serving press releases and other statements by the Trump administration and its spokesmen at the time of the election campaign. In fact there is plentiful RS detailing how little was accomplished by the so-called Accords, which codified existing relationships while trading away various bon-bons to the signatories. When you say "per-Gnome" or per-Socrates or whoever, your view takes on the collinearity of a parallelogram without internal structure to stand on its own. It would be more helpful and strenghten your !vote to hear what sourcing and policy-based rationale you have to include this sentence -- {{small\|you do understand the RfC is about a single sentence?}} -- in this article.]] 23:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::"Per-Gnome"?! {{smiley}} Where did I ever write "per Gnome"? (What ''are'' you reading?) The only instance I use here the word "per" is to point out to sources, i.e. "per sources" or "per source XYZ." Which is actually implementing Misplaced Pages policy. Nothing to do with geometrical convolutions. -] (]) 10:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Is this information well sourced? Yes. Is this an important aspect of the article subject (as demonstrated by reliable sources)? Yes. Is the proposed text short and written in a NPOV manner? Yes. Editorial decisions about what to include and what not (due weight) are one of the hardest tasks for an Misplaced Pages editor, because our own biases play a great role here. If I take my bias towards the article subject aside, the proposed addition is due for inclusion. Now if you excuse me, I will rather edit other articles than those about some American politician. ] (]) 06:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' as per {{user link\|The Gnome}}. Also, as a {{comment}}, it appears that most "Oppose" !votes are along the lines of "it wasn't ''actually'' a big deal"; "it was just a photo-op"; or (arguably the worst one) "it's already been decided". The first two are either the editor's subjective view of it, or a very weak ] providing sources about the state of conflict and implying significance through that. As for the "There's already consensus", the only marked RfCs provided aren't what I would say are landslide consensus; ], to try and shut down an RfC only because a razor-thin consensus was formed over 2 years ago, especially seeing the engagement in the current discussion, seems short-sighted and against the ethos of Misplaced Pages. - ] (] \| ]) 21:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' honestly it is absurd to me how people so obsessed with hating on Donald Trump (I obviously dislike him as well, but most of this talk page is just trying to bash him) are going to pretend as if this is not something worth including in the article. It was historic in creating new economic, military, and political ties between not only Israel and the countries it signed with, i.e. United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco (which merits inclusion as well), but also nations like Saudi Arabia that are beginning to have more open relationships with Israel. If this doesn't merit inclusion as substantial foreign policy, I don't see how recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights is somehow more relevant even though this changed quite literally 0 foreign relations with Israel, including our own. I fully agree that this may not be the best wording of the proposal, but if anything that is because it should mention more about how expansive the agreement is. It is hilarious to me for editors to claim that the negotiations were not a result of Trump even though it is clear to any foreign policy observer that the Accords would not have occurred under any other president. You cannot both dislike Trump for being too pro-Israel (e.g. Jerusalem/Golan recognition) and also act like he was not the reason for this deal occurring. ] 23:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:Bill, most of what is written in the so-called Accords predates Trump's presidency or even his candidacy. Are you aware of that?]] 23:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::And the recognition of Jerusalem was "written" into U.S. law for over 20 years before Trump actually followed through with what Congress required. It is irrelevant if negotiations had been underway for a long time, and if people had "written" anything before, the actual agreement went absolutely nowhere until Trump made them a priority. The normalization of relations was under Trump and because of Trump, and clearly that is notable for an article about Trump. ] 23:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::No, it's not that there were talks underway and Trump closed the deal. Read the RS reporting. The ''relations'' were already in place. And this poll has nothing to do with Jerusalem.]] 00:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::You fail to understand a basic point in response to your irrelevant mention of previous "relations," which is that it does not matter if they had been negotiated previously, if those negotiations went nowhere. Relations are official recognition between two countries, which didn't exist. There were no military and economic ties between the two countries. So you are mentioning some minor, under the table cooperation, meanwhile there is now billions of dollars in public deals being made. To compare these two is not a reasonable analysis of foreign policy, like saying if Taiwan declared independence and formed relations with the U.S. it wouldn't be substantial because we already had informal relations. ] 15:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::Sounds like you don't think there is such a thing as premarital relations. Well, fine.]] 19:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose change/support status quo.''' This seems to be a lot of fuzz and hot air about not much. This conversation is so far off the level of what a reasonable Misplaced Pages metric should be for inclusion. Does anyone have sources that the Abraham Accords are a significant accord in Arab-Israeli conflict history? Or are they simply the most recent accord that we happen to be talking about, and because it's Trump the man, we're having an, as usual, extremely overblown, self-obsessed, narcissistic, cartoon animal circus performer carnival barker huxter showman go of it? If someone will respond to this comment with a succinct, 3 sentence, maybe 4 sentence exposition of a specific source or 2 that states that Abraham Accords was 1) relevant to Trump's personal biography as pertaining to major presidential accomplishments and something he plans to run on or make central to his personal story, 2) relevant to historian or biographer views of importance to Trump's life or presidency, and 3) relevant to the Arab-Israeli conflict history, or some combination of 2/3, I will change my view. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:{{re\|Andrevan}} This meets at least prong 2 and 3. See my NPR source above saying the Accords were a key element of Trump's Middle East policy (prong 1) and marked a noted change in relations between the signatories (prong 3). Here's calling the ceremony hosted by Trump "historic". Here's a that says "this event marked the'' most important foreign policy accomplishment'' of President Trump's term in office and doubled the number of Arab states recognizing Israel." ]<sup>]</sup> 07:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::You are not addressing the issues under dispute: What is so important about the media staging that it should be added to this page. What sources credit this to Trump personally or any personal involvement other than the bolstering of his family's post-presidency financial wellbeing?]] 19:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::Did you actually read that Politico piece? It's all political puffery and campaign drivel by Trump and his flaks. Not to mention the ignorant and casual, now tragic, statement that this media event would pressure a settlement with the Palestinians.]] 08:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::Yeah, I agree with SPECIFICO about the Politico piece. That piece is from 2020 and it's a bit of a puff piece. It works fine for factual accuracy and for information that tells us what happened that day. Ie, it's more of a primary source (not a fully primary source, but not a great secondary analysis). The Fred Lazin 2023 is closer to what I had in mind. In my view that satisfies my argument of point 2. So, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, I am going to give you point 2. However we still don't have 1 or 3, in my view. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::Why does NPR not satisfy prong 1? It's dated to 2022. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::It satisfies point 2 - importance to Trump's presidency. Not point 1 that it's part of his biographical story or something he personally intends to run on or make part of his personal story. Also, it's more of a contemporary piece about Biden than an article about Trump's presidential biography. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::"{{tq\|In addition, this accomplishment is quite '''personal for President Trump and his closest family'''.}}" - This scholarly source also reiterates ''the fact'' reported in multiple reliable source -- secondary, academic, etc. -- that the Accords are considered to be a significant foreign policy achievement during the Trump Administration. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::::Think tanks are not what we consider "scholarly sources". Once again you beg the question -- Donald Trump vs. "Trump Administration".]] 16:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::::Hmm. That one is getting close, Iamreallygoodatcheckers. Its actual subject in the next 2 sentences is Trump's family member, ]. If we had a little more insight into Kushner's relationship with Trump and the Abraham Accords, I will give you point 1. Maybe in Kushner's or Ivanka's book, even. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 04:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::::::Agreed, if AA ends up in this article, we would also need to contextualize with the personal business interests of Trump/Kushner - which have been an integral part of mainstream RS discussion and ongoing coverage of their mideast activities.]] 16:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::::The sentiment in this discussion (and past ones) has been that Kushner's involvement has been an argument to say "it has nothing do with Trump then." When in reality, as seen in the source, the success of the Accords is personal to ''Trump the man'' as it's related to family and his son-in-law. Do what you will with that narrative in the Marshall source. To me, the fact that this is significant to his presidency, which is intrinsically part of his own legacy, is sufficient for the one sentence. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::::::I'm actually saying the opposite. I'm saying if there was some information about how Trump and Kushner talked about the Abraham Accords specifically, beyond what's in the Marshall source which certainly suggests it but is a little vague, that would be enough for me to tip it into the personal column and satisfy why it belongs here. Something about how Trump's relationship with Kushner and the Accords were related to his personal life or biography, absolutely makes it relevant in my view, and is not an argument against including this. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 06:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::::::: "We want to create peace between Israel and the Palestinians." Because: "It is something that I think is frankly, maybe, not as difficult as people have thought over the years." How: son-in-law to make the deal. Kushner's bold new plan the ] to surround Palestinian towns with Jewish settlements, creating little ]. Kushner, the " the recently released U.S. Israeli-Palestinian peace plan", "Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Israeli and Palestinian People". ]] 18:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:I also think the Accords meet the 2nd and 3rd criteria. For 2, it will be hard to provide opinions from biographers and historians, since those will pretty much be found in newer books, which aren't freely accessible - but sees the Accords as notable enough to mention in their overall analysis of Trump's presidency, and it's hard to get more credible than FP on the internet. For 3, here's at least and discussing the impact of the Accords in the Middle East, especially as they relate to the current war in Gaza. ] (]) 14:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::The ''Foreign Policy'' link is thin sauce. A brief article that quotes one person's lukewarm opinion and attributes nothing to Trump's personal actions. You ignore the issue that's been agreed to be the deciding factor -- is this relevant to Trump personally and not his bio. And as a thought experiment, look at how slimly we attribute the one million American COVID deaths to Trump personally, even though many RS and scholarly studies attribute about half of those to his personal negligence or malice.]] 19:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::I believe that the Responsible Statecraft and Intercepte piece definitely ''does'' go to point 3. We're getting somewhere. However, I think it probably still doesn't touch on point 1 and I'm not sure on point 2, as I agree it's a little on the thin side, but we I think satisfied point 2 above with the Lazin piece. However we still have a thin case for all three points. Feel free to continue. I consider point 1 largely untouched, and a solid punch on point 2 and one on point 3, so I'm still at an oppose for now. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::Respectfully, you said that if the Accords could be considered "relevant" to your criteria, that would be enough. Now it seems we need to get to "very relevant." Why do we need to demonstrate so much notability for a ''single sentence inclusion'' on this biography page, anyway? ] (]) 15:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::Well, PhotogenicScientist, you summoned me here, so I'm offering you a chance to get my support for the proposal. If you'd rather, I can oppose on principle and throw up my hands and be intransigent. That's not really my style though, which is why I prefer thoughtful probing and engagement, or at least I am attempting to approximate something that can be described as such. I certainly think that there is a case being made and I will absolutely change my position if I judge it over my personal view of where the line lies. It's not an exact science, but an art. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 04:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::Could you explain your personal criteria more - why they would result in exclusion of the content? In your initial oppose, you seemed more concerned with the length or the substance or the character of the discussion itself than the proposed content. ] (]) 14:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::::Well, it's all of that, the substance and the character to be sure, but also the length, but also the importance of it, but to me, if you're going to write in the header of "Donald Trump" that "Abraham Accords" is a primary aspect or chiefly associated with him, and not just padding his resume, we need to illustrate the 3-pronged test I laid out and honestly, it's closer than I thought it would be, since I probably have a prior belief that it is fluff. Is there a rejoinder to SpaceTime or shall we let it lie? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::::It's not going under any important "header" - it's going in the "Israel" subsection of the "Presidency" section of this article. Which in the grand scheme of things, is a rather small place to add a wikilink to an existing article. And honestly, I'm not sure what S4T3C2x is getting at with that comment. ] (]) 23:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::::::I wrote header, and I meant lead, that is just another brain fart. As you can tell, I have a few misfiring neurons at the moment. And that was going off the header of this talk section (''opening section'') which, at a glance, I misinterpreted - but my test still applies to the body, though much less stringently. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::::::If your test applies less stringently, do you still think the proposed sentence is not worth including in the body? ] (]) 21:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': (sigh) We are ''not'' here to debate the consequences, the outcome, or the developments following the Abraham Accords. We are ''not'' here either to discuss the ] of the Abraham Accords! That ship has sailed. A myriad of ] from across the planet ] in the affirmative. All we are here to discuss in this RfC is '''whether or not the suggested sentence merits a place in the Trump bio, section foreign policy, subsection Israel'''. That is all. It is quite sad to see people still arguing about the agreement's trivially established notability and denouncing it as a "media event." (As if there was ''ever'' in the modern era a significant agreement between nations that was not a "media event"!) If this had not happened during Trump's watch, with American mediation still "crucial" per the words of the signatories, I submit that no debate would be necessary, much less an RfC. So, can we please, pretty please, with sugar on top, get back to serious work? -] (]) 10:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:If it were true that such White House media extavaganzas are commonplace, that would be exactly why we would not include one in a biography. Please don't be offended, Gnome, but '''notability''' is not at issue. I've addressed that above and yet you repeat it -- apparently without having scrutinized our highly flawed article page and sourcing on the event, so that you might offer substantive comment. Above, similarly, you asserted something or other about the Camp David Accords apparently without even the most basic knowledge of the subject. And now -- again -- you refer to the political promotion and ego gratification of the Trump orbit, extensively and near-exclusively quoted in the bulk of RS praise, as if that sad feckless abuse of Trump's office should be elevated by this encyclopedia. If we draw special attention to this media event, it opens the door to RS discussions of the Trump-Kushner family's personal interests in the mideast, to the spectacle of a command performance that showcased Netanyahu and Trump, two leaders on thin ice politically, now on the verge of imprisonment, and a document that contrived an unnecessary bonus signature line for Trump to deploy his Sharpie. If this ceremony is added to the article, its context must also be added for NPOV, unduly lengthening the content and violating WEIGHT.]] 13:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::Still fighting the good fight, I see, to denigrate the established significance of the Abraham Accords. singatories to it call it a "game changer" but ], I guess. -] (]) 16:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::Easy <s>boys</s>, no fighting in the war room. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::{{smaller\|One boy (maybe) and a girl named Clark, rumor has it. "Easy guys" works better. ―] ] 01:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)}}
	*:::::<small>I'm not sure why I wrote boys, the quote I think is "gentlemen"</small> ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::<small> fight in here, this is the war room". ]] 13:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)</small>
	*'''Oppose''' not a meaningful foreign relations accomplishment and of no importance to Donald personally, also contemporary sources that lauded it as a grand accomplishment should be consigned to the same dustbin assigned to ]. with a few years to assess the impact, the present day opinion is quite different. , . ] (]) 13:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:The Abraham Accords, per the myriad of sources out there, a small sample of which I quoted above, have been extremely significant. They are still being cited in Mid East analyses. Present opinion only affects the assessment of what the Accords achieved or didn't achieve; not their notability. Once notable, always notable. The ], which failed miserably in their objective, are thankfully still in Misplaced Pages. There must be better arguments our there than the one abt throwing the agreement to the "dustbin." Start an ] proposal for the ] and see how that goes. -] (]) 16:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::and I quoted sources to say they were not significant. please don't misrepresent the sourcing in a contentious topic, that does not lead to good outcomes. also, no one mentioned notability here, so kindly do not fabricate what i said. ] (]) 20:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::Now, Mr. Gnome, in addition to your strangely uninformed comments about the history of Mideast diplomacy and peace accords, you again demonstrate that you do not attend to the difference between ] and ], the latter of which is under discussion and the former of which is irrelevant to this discussion.]] 19:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Significant signing of ] should be at least mentioned once on this page somewhere given its impact and forms part a key part of his administration's foreign policy in the region. ] ] 21:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - This article is 428k (!!!). This doesn't rise to the level of significance of the information already in there. We should be pruning specific details of his administration, not adding more. Regarding arguments like {{tq\|key part of his administration's foreign policy in the region}} - yes, that's why it's covered ''in multiple articles'' already. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:Word. That was the intent of consensus #37, which has proven to be too vague to be very effective. On the other hand, the article is the same size as in May 2019, so it could be worse. Watch what happens as we approach the 2024 election, and keep watching if he gets re-elected. ―] ] 00:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::The article will keep growing regardless of the election outcome or the outcome of his 4-5 major prison-sentence-carrying trials and sentencings, and of course, he will eventually die as well and the article will grow even more to cover that event and its legacy. And along the way we should, as Rhododendrites says, cut stuff that hasn't stood the test of time - but in my view, ''now'' is not the time to cut stuff. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:Size of the article has been brought up in , but not here yet. The article currently is ~428k bytes, and the Presidency section is ~223k. The addition being proposed weighs in at 154 bytes. This would represent a 0.069% expansion of the Presidency section, and a 0.036% expansion of the article.
	*:Is so minor an addition really a good enough reason to completely exclude all mention of the Accords in this article? Especially considering the other arguments above to their notability, or their relevance to Trump's presidential legacy? ] (]) 15:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::If this article were expanded by that teensy amount for everything on the page that's mentioned, or adjacent to, a ] topic, the article would bloat up bigger than the Hindenburg. I note that your last sentence ignores the arguments and concerns presented in opposition of the inclusion.]] 15:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::It's true that the article's bloat largely results from hundreds or thousands of applications of exactly that "it's just a little bit" logic. We don't say a lot about anything (much). By the way, the proposed addition would increase the Israel subsection's word count by 52%. ―] ] 16:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::And of course fans of Internet Irony will recall that it is OP of this goofball RfC, {{ping\|Onetwothreeip}} who has often called for cuts of significant detail from the page merely due to the overall page length.#Mandrusstotherescue.]] 17:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::Not helpful. ―] ] 18:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::Also not true. ] (]) 20:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::The only way to address the bloat is to change the fundamental nature of what we include in this top-level biography, which is about the man not the president. That was the goal of #37, but it has been met with resistance from editors, both regulars and drive-bys, who view the article as a political battleground and want their viewpoints placed where they have the highest visibility. They don't care (and/or understand) much about good article structure, size issues, etc., so here we are.{{pb}}(And #37 takes a piecemeal approach, not the slash-and-burn that would be required. As written, we would have to conduct protracted discussion about each little removal. That would be entirely impractical and it would take decades to achieve the goal.) ―] ] 19:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::One problem with this "not one more byte" approach, and drawing a hard line here, is that editors will likely to continue coming here asking why the Abraham Accords aren't mentioned. Or why any other single piece of content couldn't be added to the Trump article. I fully agree with you, consensus item #37 should be used judiciously to keep the Presidency section of this article summary-level and a manageable size. And by and large, the section here could and should be trimmed. However, the omission of even a <u>single</u> sentence of <u>this particular presidential event</u> strikes me as incredibly odd. The more notable stuff can stay - the rest can go (to another article). But how are the Accords not notable enough to include? ] (]) 20:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::{{tq\|how are the Accords not notable enough to include?}} If you're asking me specifically, I haven't taken a position and don't intend to. I use my semi-retirement as an excuse, but in truth I never got much into such political-content issues anyway. See my UTP for my full reply, which went very meta very early. ―] ] 03:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' With Gaza being bombed daily, touting Trump's "achievements" in securing peace in the Middle East would now seem farcical. There are much more important matters to be added to the lead, such as the looming plans for a 2025 Trump dictatorship and the end of American democracy. ] (]) 11:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:No one here uses this information as a means to promote (or "tout") a Trump "achievement." I'd be among the first to object to such an attempt! The Accords were signed during Trump's watch and this alone makes them unquestionably worthy of mention in the prez section. As to developments ''after'' the signing, these are ]. ] but to relay information ] on ]. And a veritable avalanche of sources proclaimed at the tine the Accords as "quite significant," a "game changer," etc. If, like the ], the aims and the expectations of the Abaham Accords were not met, this takes ''nothing'' away from the event's ]. -] (]) 14:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:P.S. your suggestions about inserting in the article Trump's plans for a dictatorship are a clear case of a ] approach to Misplaced Pages. But ]. -] (]) 14:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::{{red\|<s>The Accords</s>}}{{blue\|Orders to repaint Air Force One}}{{red\|were signed during Trump's watch and this alone makes them unquestionably worthy of mention in the prez section.}} -- Agree or disagree. You're baiscally just saying that your view is obviously correct.]] 18:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::Sounds like ]. And Gnome has already extensively explained above why they believe the Accords are worthy of mention. ] (]) 19:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::Gnome has extensively shared his view, and what you call ] refutes it.]] 20:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::I'd hardly consider your single counterexample here a refutation of Gnome's position, which they've detailed not only in this comment but numerous ones above. ] (]) 21:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::Do you have enough ] that ] the claim that repainting ] was a "significant", "game-changing" development in History? For which, the United States ''as an entity'' played a "crucial part"? Because these are <u>some of the words used in the sources I already provided</u>, and in detail too, in this thread! Sources whose content, in every response you since made, you have chosen to ignore. You simply paint over them a generic, unsubstatiated dismissal. And now you take the path of denigration, e.g. that I'm just saying my view is correct. This is a truly sad state of affairs. -] (]) 13:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' This received significant coverage and is a slam dunk for due inclusion in this biography. It is not our our job to decide if the the event was useful or a PR campaign. That's too much like ]. This part of the presidency is significant enough to be mentioned here. ] (]) 14:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' This is something that has perhaps taken on more significance and garnered more coverage from RS in the years after the fact. It's an enduring part of his presidential legacy and should be mentioned.] (]) 16:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

			*'''Question''' ] See - There has been no further discussion here for the last few days. What is still being discussed? BTW, "age and health concerns for Joe Biden" was added back into his BLP in the lead, and I see no further arguments over MEDRS. ] (]) 05:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
	====Survey (continued)====
			*:If you have a problem with the Biden page, take it to the Biden page. There is currently no consensus to add the disputed material to this page. ] (]) 05:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
	*The closure of the above discussion was contested at , where I found consensus to reopen the RfC. Please continue discussing. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
			*::I never had a problem with the Biden BLP, but I asked you what is left to discuss here. ] (]) 06:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' not a meaningful foreign relations accomplishment and of no importance to Donald personally. This article is already quite weighty and could do with some consolidation rather than coat-tailing. '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
			*::I'll ask again. What is left to discuss? ] (]) 20:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' We have an entire article on this, so the idea that this is "not a meaningful foreign relations accomplishment" is IMO a terrible argument. It clearly passed the notability guidelines to have its own, in fact quite lengthy, article. It's less clear that it can be credited to Trump personally rather than his administration, but that doesn't matter, because we regularly mention things a president's administration did in their articles. There are enough sources on this that it is very much ] to have at least a short mention of it in Trump's article. ] (]) 20:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I agree with you that there isn't a ton left to discuss. But the discussion did not end with your proposed addition achieving consensus. As already outlined in this thread: (1) ], what occurs on a totally different page has no bearing on this one; and (2) Even if it did, the situations are clearly distinguishable. It's included on Biden's page as relevant primarily because ''it's the reason Biden dropped out of the race.'' The same is not true for Trump. Thus, since the situations are distinguishable and consensus has not adopted it, it's unlikely to be added. ] (]) 20:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
	::{{ping\|LokiTheLiar}} I just started to go through that article and think it may have been plagiarized from or by one of the people involved in the Accords. See at the ] page. ]] 17:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
			*::::To be clear, it wasn't ''my'' proposal, and the primary argument against the addition seemed to be that it violated MEDRS, not because this BLP needed to be like the Biden BLP. The Biden BLP was only used as an example of how the MEDRS argument didn't seem to hold water. ] (]) 20:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - noticed I was pinged when I logged in though I'm quite inactive now so I don't expect my opinion to be given the weight of those who may be more versed in recent policy changes. The Abraham Accords are generally considered one of, if not the most, significant foreign policy achievements of Trump's presidency. Other presidential articles do not distinguish between things that the president directly did versus major achievements that they took major part in directing their staff to achieve. As one example, ] has multiple paragraphs about his foreign policy that merely review what his staff did or tried to do under his direction. Go back even further and you'll see that this follows at every president's article for which we have reliable sourcing as to who did what. Ultimately, people saying it's not relevant to Donald personally should consider that it ''is'', as he considers it one of his biggest achievements while in office (especially since he never forced Mexico to "pay for the wall"). Great deference needs to be given to precedent at other articles here such that Misplaced Pages isn't being viewed as withholding achievements from one President's biography just because editors have a bias against it being "significant" enough, or because the President didn't "have a big enough impact on the actions". Overall, this is no different than how I viewed before - ''the only reason not to include it here without also refactoring every other biography of a president on Misplaced Pages is because people think it makes Trump look good (which it doesn't) and want to avoid making him look any semblance of good on his biography''. In other words, bias. I likely won't be able to reply to replies here as I am virtually never on WP anymore, but I think my view is clear based on my past inputs to this topic and hopefully I've explained my view well enough above. I'm sure someone who wants to can feel free to add links to policies/essays that support this view - as many did above and as I did in past discussions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 02:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
			*::::{{tq\|"It's included on Biden's page as relevant primarily because it's the reason Biden dropped out of the race."}}
	*'''Support''' - User {{u\|Berchanhimez}} ("User/say hi!") nailed the reason for opposition with perfect accuracy: {{tq\|the only reason not to include it here...is because people think it makes Trump look good (which it doesn't) and want to avoid making him look any semblance of good on his biography.}} Exclusion of content on the basis of partisan feelings and home-brewed assessment of events flagrantly violates Misplaced Pages policy on neutrality and original research.
			*::::I thought we weren't using edits from one BLP as an example to justify similar edits to the other?
			*::::Anyway, that content was added BEFORE Biden dropped out.
			*::::So, there goes that excuse. ] (]) 05:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::{{tq\| I thought we weren't using edits from one BLP as an example to justify similar edits to the other?}} We aren't. That's why I explicitly began the point with "Even if it did". We don't use another page as a source, ''but even if we did,'' the situations are clearly distinguishable for the reasons already outlined throughout the post. The addition doesn't have consensus, so it's not going to be added at this time. ] (]) 13:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for the Oaks Town Hall to be used as evidence for concerns about age and health, especially in VOICE. Far from it. I simply disagree that there is any clear violation of MEDRS to include ''something like'' (below)
			::::::Trump, if he served his full second term, would become the oldest President of the United States ever. Since his emergence as a politician, Trump has provided less information about his health than is normal for presidential candidates
			*::::::Cheers. ] (]) 20:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::Well, that's not really what this thread entitled 'Oaks Town Hall' is about. Perhaps start a new one with your suggested text. ] (]) 21:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::Why start yet another thread? Seems like an additional time sink. ] (]) 21:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' - sorry, I missed this on the talk page. Now extensive and increasing sourcing on the topic. ] (]) 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:Seems like the Harris campaign and news media have moved from age and health concerns to fascism. Do you have any new links that came out this week for age and health concerns? Thanks. ] (]) 19:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::Seems there was a YouGov poll and pieces in Time magazine and the New Yorker, recently...
			*::"As the calls grow for Donald Trump to release his medical records, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris called out her opponent once more during a rally in Houston, Texas, on Friday. She pointed towards the legal battle of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and other Texas right wing leaders to access the private medical records of patients who seek out-of-state abortions."
			*::"Over half of Americans, 56 percent, said they believe that Trump’s age and health would impact his ability to serve as commander-in-chief at least a little bit, according to another YouGov poll conducted earlier this month.
			*::Over one-third, 36 percent, said the former president will be “severely” undercut by his age and health. Another one-third, 33 percent, said those factors will not impact the Republican nominee.
			*::Inversely, 62 percent of Americans said Harris’s health and age will not affect her work in the White House if she is elected president, according to the survey."
			*::"couple of weeks ago, Donald Trump turned in one of his strangest performances in a campaign with no shortage of them—part of a series of oddities that may or may not constitute an October surprise but has certainly made for a surprising October. 'Who the hell wants to hear questions?' he hollered at a town hall in Pennsylvania, after two attendees had suffered medical emergencies. Then he wandered the stage for nearly forty minutes, swaying to music from his playlist—'Ave Maria,' 'Y.M.C.A.,' 'Hallelujah.'"
			*::"An increasing number of Americans say Donald Trump is too old to be president — but not as many as when President Joe Biden faced similar concerns about his age over the summer.
			*::A new poll from YouGov found that 44 percent said Trump, at age 78, is too old to lead the executive branch. That figure is up from 35 percent who said the same in a similar February survey."
			*::Cheers. ] (]) 05:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Respectfully, there is no way this is going to get consensus here. If you feel really strongly, maybe start an RfC. That would probably be the most appropriate way to displace the existing RfCs. ] (]) 07:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::I was replying to Bob K3416's recent request..."Do you have any new links that came out this week for age and health concerns?"
			*::::Your declarative statement may be a bit out of place in this context, and brings up what appears to be an inconsistency.
			*:::: As you also stated in your recent removal of cited content that is months old (clarify - irl - not the article itself)... {{tq\|"This is still being discussed on the talk page"}}
			*::::What are the means by which to reconcile {{tq\|"this is still being discussed"}}, at the same time as, {{tq\|"there is no way this is going to get consensus here"}}?
			*::::Cheers. ] (]) 08:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Thanks for your response with the links.
			*:::::Regarding the rest of your message, the logic isn't clear. Various messages here are evidence that it is still being discussed and the point that you are trying to make with your sentence, "What is the means..." is unclear. For one thing, note that you are comparing an edit summary on the article page with a message on this talk page. Seems like apples and oranges. ] (]) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::Darknipples has now edited their comment, although the argument isn't any more compelling imo. ] (]) 20:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::I was about to add (Btw I corrected my grammar slip) Reverting under the auspices of "it's under discussion", gives the appearance of contradiction to the recent declaration that "there is no way to achieve consensus"
			*::::::Granted, I wouldn't completely disagree with Riposte97's removal of some of the context, but the rest seems like it could be DUE. (below)
			::::::Trump, if he served his full second term, would become the oldest President of the United States ever. Since his emergence as a politician, Trump has provided less information about his health than is normal for presidential candidates.<ref name="Renewed scrutiny">{{Cite news \|last=Kranish \|first=Michael \|date=July 22, 2024 \|title=Trump's age and health under renewed scrutiny after Biden's exit \|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/22/trump-age-health/ \|newspaper=] \|access-date=13 October 2024 }}</ref>
			*::::::A partial revert leaving this portion would seem fine. ] (]) 20:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::The second sentence wasn't in the given source. The insinuation of being in poor health since becoming a politician is contradicted by the fact that he served 4 years as president without any apparent chronic health problem or physical weakness, and he is currently vigorously campaigning for president. Be careful of age discrimination where healthy people are presumed weak and unhealthy because they are old. If you were elderly, healthy and strong, I don't think you would like people insinuating that you were unhealthy and weak because you were chronologically old. Be well. ] (]) 08:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::{{tq\|"The second sentence wasn't in the given source."}}
			*::::::::Good catch, I pulled it from the edit that was reverted so maybe the citation might have been placed further in.
			*::::::::As far as "insinuating he is in poor health", that is not what the proposal is about. The proposal was for reports regarding public concern for his age and health, that does not involve speculation or "insinuate" anything specific as to violate MEDRS.
			::::::::"The age of presidential candidates has been a key issue for voters this year. A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll, conducted before last week’s Republican convention, found that 60 percent of Americans said Trump is too old for another term as president, including 82 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of independents and 29 percent of Republicans."
			*::::::::] (]) 09:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::His age is already in the article. ] (]) 04:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::Water is wet. ] (]) 05:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Yes'''. There is overwhelming and ] coverage of it at this point; the fact that it is speculative (which some people object to above) doesn't matter, since we do cover speculation when it has sufficient coverage and is clearly relevant to the subject. As ] says, {{tq\|If an '''allegation''' or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it}}, emphasis mine. For recent coverage, which someone requested above, see eg. <ref>{{cite web\|accessdate=2024-10-31\|title=Americans are increasingly concerned about Donald Trump’s age and fitness for office\|url=https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/50808-americans-are-increasingly-concerned-about-donald-trumps-age-and-fitness-for-office\|website=today.yougov.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|first1=Rebecca\|last1=Schneid\|accessdate=2024-10-31\|title=The Controversy Over Trump's Medical Records, Explained\|url=https://time.com/7099183/donald-trump-medical-records-absent-controversy-presidential-election-2024/\|date=27 October 2024\|website=TIME}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|first1=Filip\|last1=Timotija\|accessdate=2024-10-31\|title=Many Americans worried about Trump’s age, but less than Biden: Survey\|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4955179-growing-concerns-trump-biden-age/\|date=26 October 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|accessdate=2024-10-31\|title=A growing number of Americans are concerned with Trump’s age\|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-age-voters-mental-health-b2636214.html\|date=27 October 2024\|website=The Independent}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|accessdate=2024-10-31\|title=Trump would be the oldest person to become president. He's not sharing health details\|url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-harris-presidential-election-age-health-medical-records-7bb8212c1024748371e43b85e137bae5\|date=16 October 2024\|website=AP News}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|accessdate=2024-10-31\|title=Trump acts erratically. Is this age-related decline?\|url=https://www.deccanherald.com/world/trump-acts-erratically-is-this-age-related-decline-3250551\|website=Deccan Herald}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|first1=Joanne\|last1=Lynn\|accessdate=2024-10-31\|title=I’m a geriatric physician. Here’s what I think is going on with Trump’s executive function\|url=https://www.statnews.com/2024/10/30/trump-cognitive-health-executive-function-biden-aging-president/\|date=30 October 2024}}</ref>; for older coverage, there's a massive number of sources on ]. --] (]) 15:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:the article have all the negatives about Trump or they have been put under a bad light. For eg: he met north korean president but without decreasing the nuclear prospect. It doesn't consider that Trump's predecessors or successors hasn't visited him and downright refused to that idea. And north korea did decreased thier frequency in building nuclear weapon. These article seems to be put forward by a Trump hater, and doesn't even mention all the good things he has done, like low inflation, boosting economy etc. ] (]) 07:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Yes'''. See ]. ] (]) 23:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
			* I think it's time to close this discussion. ] (]) 03:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:What rationale? Stale? Consensus? We need a rationale or we just let things fall off the page naturally. Of course we've just added another 14 days by merely saying this. ―] ] 04:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::There is at least consensus to change Consensus item #39 (last modified July 2021) to allow discussion regarding Trump's mental health or fitness for office even without diagnosis. Biden's cognitive health has been in his article since 9/2023: ] ] (]) 06:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::Uninvolved close sounds prudent. Cheers. ] (]) 10:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:I was confusing "close with consensus assessment" with "close to get stuff off the page per consensus 13". Sorry Bob. ―] ] 18:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''No''', go on about Trump not living up to his promises to release his health info, but jeez, just don't add speculation. Let's do a litmus test: if I speculated about @] having ] on Misplaced Pages, my ass would get a harsh warning, if not a ], so apply that thinking to Trumpty-Dumpty. It's a person, yes, and it's bad to speculate like that about any person. <small>I wonder what Trump thinks about all this Misplaced Pages obsession about him...</small> <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 14:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

			{{sources-talk}}
	:Supporters in this discussion have extensively documented reports and commentary in RS that characterize the Accords as important, significant, ground-breaking, etc. Opposers parry with dismissive personal evaluations and analysis, and so far, to my knowledge, have not offered a single specific RS citation that supports their dismissive views. However, even if opposers can show multiple RS that support their views, such documentation would only further confirm the overall noteworthiness of the Accords that BAL and NPOV tell us justifies inclusion of this single sentence. The idea that a single sentence about the signing violates NPOV is absurd on its face.

			== RfC on describing Trumpism in lead ==
	:This article misses no opportunity to describe and document negative aspects of the Trump presidency in a panoply of topics, whether in policy contradictions or adverse results and responses to actions, initiatives and policies. This event—signing of the Accords with Trump as MC—could be construed as a rare positive that happened during his term, and thus it remains a target for exclusion. My support for inclusion is unrelated to anything I think about Trump; it is based on the fundamental working of Misplaced Pages: we are prohibited from determining inclusion or exclusion of content based on our politically biased feelings about people or our personal analysis of events. We are mandated to determine content based on descriptions in reliable sources, while applying the principles of due weight and balance. By those measures, inclusion of the sentence is a no-brainer, and always has been.
			<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message\|}}<!-- ] 10:40, 14 December 2034 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2049705633}}<!-- END PIN -->
			{{rfc\|bio\|pol\|rfcid=E2D89B1}}
			The current lead contains a simple mention of Trumpism. Should a brief description be added to this mention? A proposed wording for the added text, which is also up for debate here: {{tq\|characterized by ], "]" nationalism, and economic ].}} — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)<br> Addendum: A shorter version of the proposed addition could look like {{tq\|led to ], a ] movement.}} — ] (]) 18:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{small\|Previous discussion at ]. — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			:'''Support'''. The statement "Trump created Trumpism" without further description is meaningless. If there is any single piece of information which a reader should take away from the lead, it is that Trump is America's leading proponent of right-wing populism, and the person who has done to most to reshape the Republican Party along these lines. It was argued by some in the previous discussion that details should be saved for the Trumpism article, but I believe that these words briefly and simply introduce what much of the rest of the lead and article are seeking to explain. Just as ]'s lead describes in broad terms what "]"ism is and ]'s describes what "]" is, so too should Trump's lead briefly describe Trumpism. This is especially relevant after the recent election, as Trump and Trumpism's importance in U.S. political history only continues to grow. — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Suppport''': we need to know what Trumpism is about.--] (]) 04:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' as I believe it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article. The article is not about ] - which is linked in the text for the purpose of providing a shortcut should people wish to know more about what constitutes such, without contributing further to the word count. <span style="border:1px solid#880808">]</span><span style="background:#880808;border:1px solid#880808"><span style="color:white"><sup>]</sup></span></span> 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Comment''' Further explanation of Trumpism seems relative in the lead, or at least, it likely will be within the next four years. ] (]) 06:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' a, this article is already too long, and 2, it might need a lot more explanation then we can give it in the lead, what is Trumpism? ] (]) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' but it should be limited to one sentence after a more detailed yet brief description is provided in the body. I agree that anyone with a political movement named after them should have some more description about it other than "they created it". I don't have exact wording but something along the lines of its impact on the Republican Party or American politics would be warranted as per Goszei. Any statement would need to be sourced in the body first, however, to avoid OR. Agreeing on a description in the political practice and rhetoric section would be helpful first before adding it to the lead. ] (]) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' since Trumpism is mentioned, then it should be explained what it is. A single sentence in the lede, and a brief elaboration somewhere else in the article. The wording in the lede could be as proposed above, or something a bit different. ] (]) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

			*'''Oppose''' as misplaced for the lead, and per Artem. ] (]) 01:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	:While I'm at it, I offer the following modification of the sentence proposed by the RFC to relate the issue directly to Trump, who is the subject of this article:
			*'''Oppose''' too wordy in an already bloated article. Artem is indeed correct. ] (]) 03:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' because “Trumpism” in the lead should be replaced with “MAGA”, which is a much more widely discussed and widespread thing.] (]) 04:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{ping\|Artem P75\|Slatersteven\|Nikkimaria\|Nemov}} To those opposing the proposed text based on concerns about length, would you support a shorter addition such as {{tq\|led to ], a ] movement.}}? — ] (]) 04:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' We don't have room for this, and this isn't the Trumpism article, it is the Trump article. Also, this would need to be added to the body first, since the lead follows the body. ] (]) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per Anythingyouwant. I've never heard of Trumpism before. Neither has Britannica, which instead has an article for MAGA movement. -] (]) 18:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:What the Britannica article describes is exactly what our article at ] describes. The term MAGA movement should probably be added to that article's lead as a synonym. — ] (]) 18:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::It's a redirect. The said, {{tq\|But is there such a thing as Trumpism? Well that might be stretching it.}} -] (]) 23:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::This article doesn't mention MAGA. Maybe somebody wanted to make something of Trumpism? -] (]) 16:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' mainly as {{TQ\|it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article}} per Artem, also because ] isn't a ''"a thought-through philosophy, a carefully mapped world view"'' inextricably linked to the man in the way that Marxism or Leninism are. Trumpism is more of a term descibing a series of populist instincts which are not very often used to characterise reactions/policies etc. When/if Trumpism itself becomes more elaborated, and the term more used, WEIGHT might then dictate a brief definition. At present it would be at least unnecessary and potentially confusing.] (]) 07:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

			:* '''Support''' Very much ] to summarise the key tenets of his political ideology, much more so than discussing specific policies as in the status quo. I’m very confused about the opposes, however the leads of ] and ] only mention their ideologies rather than describe them
	:"In 2020 at the White House, Trump hosted the signing of the Abraham Accords, normalizing the foreign relations of Israel with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain." ] (]) 05:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
			:] (]) 10:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - The ] themselves are very well covered by scholarship , but the test for inclusion here (]) is whether the sources for ''this'' article -- a biography of Trump -- include this as a significant aspect. The sources for this article are biographies of Trump. Abraham Accords was in 2020, and I was only able to find one post-2020 biography of Trump (by a reliable publisher), which is '']'' by Maggie Haberman. She mentions Abraham Accords on . It's a small sample size but it's good enough for me, for now. When more biographies of Trump are published, if they don't mention the Abraham Accords, then I'd vote to exclude it. But for now, include. I'm not particularly wedded to the specific language propsoed, but the Abraham Accords should be mentioned/linked somewhere where the article talks about Trump's Israel/Palestine foreign policy. ] (]) 17:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Weak oppose''', while it's only a few extra words it's still more to an already-too-big article, and the link to the Trumpism article is there for a reason. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 10:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	*:Kudos for checking a source that is not contemporaneous news and punditry. We need to be doing a lot more of that here. But Haberman mentions hundreds of events, incidents, and initiatives related to Trump that are not NPOV DUE for this article page. It's helpful to review our Abraham Accords page and see how weakly even that page content is sourced to independent third party references and how the best sources there, AP et al, covered the personal connection to Trump as one of his many promotional extravaganzas. We could include that NPOV framing on this page, but it's best IMO to draw on the RS that discuss his promotional prowess and proclivities more generally instead of recounting various otherwise UNDUE instances.]] 17:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::Thanks, and I agree about looking more at high-quality Trump bios rather than punditry to determine NPOV, but I disagree that "Haberman mentions hundreds of events, incidents, and initiatives related to Trump that are not NPOV DUE for this article page" -- in fact, I think that's exactly backwards. What's DUE (or what's an ] that should be included) is determined by what's in the sources. If it's in the sources, it should be included in the Misplaced Pages article. All Trump biographies include hundreds of events, etc., and those should all be included in Misplaced Pages's Trump biography, because it's a summary of the other Trump biographies. Any event, fact, etc. that is in multiple (or most) Trump biographies should be in the Misplaced Pages biography. With a relatively recent fact -- like 2020's Abraham Accords -- we don't really have a lot of recent Trump biographies to look at... but in this case, 1 out of 1 Trump biography includes it, so we should include it. If it was 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 4, I'd say the same (and same for any other fact that was in 2/3 or 3/4 of Trump bios... same for any other bio, or any other article on Misplaced Pages). ] (]) 19:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::But to winnow the hundreds of mentions times dozens of high-quality books and articles, i.e. many thousands of bits - hundreds of which may arguably be NOTABLE for their own WP articles - we need substantial emphasis in numerous such high quality mainstream sources. That's not been offered here. Instead we have lots of !votes by (frankly, sorry) less widely-read editors who do not demonstrate that such a test has been met. I'd be in favor of more general coverage of Trump's highly effective promotion and his staging of numerous spectacles and illusions, of which this was one instance.]] 19:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::::Personally I don't think NPOV says the standard is substantial emphasis but rather proportionality. I wouldn't suggest we have an entire section for the Accords, as that would not be in proportion to the RSes. But the proportion of RSes (post-2020 Trump bios) that include the Accords is 100% (albeit that's a small sample size, 1 out of 1). That source spends a paragraph on it; in my view, that's a very minimal amount, and suggests this Misplaced Pages article should include it, but in a minimal way, i.e., one sentence or less. In my view it could be just "Trump's foreign policy initiatives included X, Y, Z, and the Abraham Accords" -- just a few words. But more than zero. ] (]) 19:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::Well, it certainly looks as though we’re heading toward proclaiming that the WH/Trump's hosting normalized the foreign relations of Israel with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Sigh. ]] 19:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::::::There's nothing stopping you from gathering scholarly articles about the Accords from Google Scholar and demonstrating that "normalizing the foreign relations of Israel with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain" is not an accurate summary of the scholarship, if that's the case. For my part, I'd support inclusion of it merely in a list of foreign policy initiatives, or any sentence that accurately summarizes the cited RSes (which should be scholarship, of which there is plenty). ] (]) 20:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::1 out of 1 is, respectfully, useless. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 03:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::::::I think we're up to 3 out of 3 now, with two more sources mentioned by other editors below. ] (]) 05:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::It wasn't an American initiative. The Emiratis proposed it, using Jared as the messenger to Netanyahu.]] 04:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:I'd upgrade my vote to a "strong support" based on the additional sources put forward since my initial vote. I still think the most weight should be given to sources that are biographies of Trump (not about his presidency) written after 2020 (when the Abraham Accords happened). However, there are very few such books--maybe just one, Haberman's, which spends a paragraph on it. Since then, the following additional sources have been mentioned in this discussion:
	*:#, a book about his presidency, spends most of a chapter on it (starting on p. 504)
	*:# , a book about the last year of his presidency, spends about 2 pages on it (pp. 269-271) (and calls it "a rare foreign-policy achievement")
	*:# did a retrospective, calling it "arguably one of the Trump administration’s few foreign-policy achievements"
	*:# mentions Trump's foreign policy on Israel ("Trump’s policy on Israel, meanwhile, amounted to ..."), and it lists the following things: support for Bibi, recognizing Jerusalem, closing the Palestinian consulate, and the Abraham Accords. ] only mentions two of those things.
	*:Seems clear that the post-2020 sources consider the Abraham Accords a significant aspect of his presidency, specifically his foreign policy, specifically his Israel foreign policy. It's an ] that should be included in the Israel section of his bio (and the "lasting test" of consensus 37 is demonstrated by the fact sources are still writing about it years later). ] (]) 19:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::"Bibi" refers to Netanyahu. See my to Malerisch on consensus 37. ]] 10:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' More than enough about them at ], not needed here, especially as Morocco wasn't really much of an accord and Sudan turned out to be a damp squib. ] (]) 17:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:Your approach is at odds with the current consensus (see item #37 above) regarding presidential material on this article - ''"Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to <u>summary-level</u> about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life <u>and/or long-term presidential legacy</u>."'' Just because it is covered in another article does not mean any mention is "not needed" here. ] (]) 18:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per Levivich. In addition to ''Confidence Man'', '']'' (2022) by ] and ] contains a detailed discussion of the Abraham Accords in (pages 505 to 524), so it's hard to believe that this is so insignificant an aspect of Trump's presidency that it shouldn't be mentioned. Yes, ''The Divider'' is a book about Trump during his presidency rather than his entire life, but articles about US presidents should absolutely cover the major events of their presidency (about half of ''Confidence Man'' is devoted to Trump's presidency), and these books show that the Abraham Accords meet that bar. ] (]) 23:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:The Baker/Glasser book you cited does not take 20 pages on the Abraham Accords. Have you seen the book or just the linked googlized preview? And the discussion that does appear in that book is mocking the signing as a hamfistedly staged political event by Trump trailing in the election polls. Context matters, NPOV etc.]] 15:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::I have access to the entire book. At the very least, pages 505 to 507 and 519 to 524 are directly about the Abraham Accords, and many of the pages between those two sections are about related information (Kushner and Israel). I think that's enough coverage for at least a sentence about the Accords to be ], especially since I'm not aware of any other comparable RSes (besides ''Confidence Man'') whose scope covers at least the entire Trump presidency. To be fair, Baker and Glasser seem to have a mixed appraisal of the Accords—they call it both {{tq\|a genuine breakthrough in the region}} and {{tq\|far less significant than the peace agreement Trump had promised to forge between Israel and the Palestinians}}. And I think their view of the Accords is less relevant for ] than how much coverage it gets.
	*::I get the argument about Trump's lack of personal involvement—as the book notes (and as Space4Time3Continuum2x quoted below), Trump was {{tq\|no more involved in this foreign policy achievement than he had been in his big domestic policy initiative, the first-year tax cuts}}. However, the ] not only gets a whole paragraph in this article but is also mentioned in the lead, so it's odd for the Abraham Accords to go unmentioned. ] (]) 18:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::{{tq\|the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act not only gets a whole paragraph in this article}} - the paragraph (four sentences, plus the first one in the next paragraph about the tax cut’s effect on the national debt) <u>is</u> the summary-level text on a policy that had a huge impact domestically. "Summary-level" does not mean we have to restrict mention to one sentence for the purpose of providing a Wikilink to another page. Summary-level on the Accords, IMO, needs to state what they are, what Trump falsely claimed they were, and what their actual impact was. That’s at least three sentences and should include at least one post-October 7 cite. The arguments for inclusion in previous discussions started and ended with ]. ]] 10:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' inclusion. Saw this due to AN and the strange earlier closure. The argument that the Abraham Accords were a lot of hot air is a non-starter - so what? Even if we accept they were indeed a nothingburger, for the sake of argument, plenty of things that are irrelevant distractions can be worthy enough to include if they're discussed enough. See Ford's ] buttons for a particularly egregious example — which is indeed covered in the ] article. ] (]) 23:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:I'm in agreement with this point. The fact that something failed/had little impact (which in this case hasn't even been adequately demonstrated) is irrelevant. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 23:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Even a stopped clock is right twice a day and these were significant foreign policy accomplishments. They should be mentioned in the article. Not persuaded that they belong in the lead. -] (]) 16:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' It should be mentioned in the article because he was president at the time. Whether or not you support Trump, this an important event that occurred during his presidencey that should be included in the interest of accuracy. ] (]) 16:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:By that standard, we would also mention the solar eclipse and dozens of other ceremonies and events.]] 18:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::I think it's clear from CC58's remarks, he meant that it was a component of his presidency. An eclipse was not and is awfully pedantic. ] (]) 16:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::I guess you haven't seen all the RS reporting on the eclipse.]] 17:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' inclusion per the above, Levivich and others + my remarks at ]. The Accords were a ] component of his presidency initiated at his direction. ]ing from some needs to cease. ] (]) 16:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose'''; the standard for inclusion in the personal biography of a president is extremely high and this just doesn't make it; there's insufficient coverage from neutral high-quality ]es supporting the idea that this is significant to Trump's ''personal'' biography. This is the sort of blow-by-blow nitty-gritty detail that belongs on the dedicated page for his presidency, not here. I want to particularly emphasize how paltry and unconvincing the list of sources presented by The Gnome above is; first they link ] parties touting their own action, then a truly massive number of think-tanks, where only the most ] ones actually use language describing it as significant, and finally, tepidly, a mere three (!) news sources; and again, the only one of those to actually describe it in particularly significant terms is the ] Jerusalem Post. The New York Times source is useless because the only part Gnome could find that (even then, tepidly) made the accords sound significant was the word "major" in the headline, which is unusable per ]; and the best they could find from the Washington Post doesn't say anything about significance at all. Now, are biased sources sometimes usable? Sure. But for ] weight in particular, it is extremely important to not rely heavily on sources biased in a single direction in order to try and argue for inclusion. The fact that someone who seems to have been making their best honest effort to find sources that could be used to support inclusion could only come up with that paltry and unconvincing list and had to rely so heavily on ] sources to pad it out it serves as the best argument available that the sourcing that would support the necessary level of importance to include this in Trump's personal bio simply doesn't exist. --] (]) 09:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''': Per ] and ]. ] The action is supposed to lead to significant collaborative, ] economic, ] and environmental ] impact. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)</small>
	*'''Support'''. First of all, it's legit. Lots of things happen that the president did not personally work on. Presidents are busy. They get credit and discredit for things that happen on their watch. Dumb, but true, let's not make an exception here. Second, everybody here hates Donald Trump so let's bend over backwards to be fair. We all have biases that we may not even be aware of. Check your personal ideologies at the door. I note that '''''] is apparently not even mentioned on this page'''''. Good grief. Warp Speed was real successful, got a vaccine earlier than expected, saved many lives, and it was on his watch. Not only that, but I believe he even had something to do with with it. He put pressure on the FDA to speed it thru I suppose. He did sign the order to sell only in America first. Yeah I know about drinking the bleach and the cruise ship denial and how he later turned anti-mask and I think anti-vax and all the other stuff. Hitler built good roads, should we not mention that just because he's Hitler? Warp Speed not being in here makes me suspicious that the article is biased anyway. Which I would not be surprised but I wouuld be dissapointed. (Also FWIW IIRC thes accords were the reason Hamas attacked Israel, to mess them up, probably. So, super important in history). ] (]) 05:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

			:*'''Weak Oppose''', Agree with same sentiment as @] 's comment above. Seems like redundancy when we have a link that lets readers click on it if they don't understand a concept or definition. This also sets bad precedence to have to define every single political descriptor.
	====Discussion====
	~~It seems to me that as we have not had an RFC on this there is no harm in having one.~~ ] (]) 16:02, 2 ~~December~~ ~~2023~~ (UTC)		:] (]) 16:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Totally agree. ] (]) 16:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
	:Agreed. I really don't understand the strong opposition to starting one. ] (]) 04:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
	::The objections were stated quite clearly above, so whether you understand is not really the issue here.]] 16:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
	::I opposed starting it when there were like eight editors involved and only two of them (one, the OP, had not respoonded to pings and seems to have abandoned the discussion) supported addition. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 14:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::As I pointed out, there had been many discussions prior to this one in the last 1.5 years. All considered, this issue attracted 25 editors (14 supporting and 11 opposing), though not in a centralized discussion. An RFC seemed a good way to get everyone in one place and hash out consensus. ] (]) 14:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::I consider each discussion on its own merits. It's fine if you want to look at the whole history, and you may be on to something there, but, at least on this specific talkpage, no one has ever done that as long as I've been here. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 15:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	Courtesy pinging other users who've voiced an opinion on this in one of the 5 recent(ish) talk page threads. Feel free to disregard: @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] ] (]) 05:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
	:being pinged to Talk:Donald Trump is no courtesy ;-) ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 05:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
	::I just spit out my coffee, Andre. ~ ]] 15:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
	::"Civilized life cannot be sustained without hypocrisy." Ian Buruma, of Merriam-Webster. ]] 16:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
	'''Example of what's being ignored''' In ascribing ] to article content, we need to examine sourcing and substance of any supporting references. is a case in point. The claim of Trump's involvement, published in RS, turns out to be one of Trump's own coterie making that claim. What '''support''' !voters should be doing is to back up their view with independent third-party assessments that Trump personally facilitated any of these arrangements. While it's verified that he staged this White House event -- even though US was not a signatory to anything and the photo shows him standing empty-handed among the signatories -- the issue for this biography page is whether mentioning this inconsequential command performance in DC gives UNDUE weight and the misimpression that the accords themselves were due to Trump.And here is another RS, . ]] 16:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
	:Here are the undeniable facts, as supported by sources, facts which '''oppose''' !voters should dispute with contrary sources: The Abraham Accords themselves, dated during Trump's presidency, ''were'' significant; the United States, during Trump's presidency, were involved in "weeks of <u>intensive mediation</U> to broker the final deal," per the exact words of the participating Israeli side (see ) ; and they ''were'' signed during Trump's presidency. ] when it comes to have the Accords in this article, in a section about US foreign policy regarding Israel. -] (]) 20:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
	::That is just repetition of various prior comments that do not ''address the central point'' made by numerous opponents of this gratuitous addition to the article: You have not provided affirmative sourcing that demonstrates the weight of mainstream views that Donald Trump personally did anything other than stage a media event and use his position as POTUS to insinuate his family and its interests into the signing of these largely ceremonial condifications of the previously-developed thaw in relations. In other words, quite contrary to your claim, you have failed to establish any case for ].]] 20:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::Specifico, you are imposing your own standards. Nothing in our guidelines requires what you are demanding ("''independent third-party assessments that Trump personally facilitated any of these arrangements''") in order to mention it in a biography. As numerous people have pointed out, your standards are nonstandard for many heads of state including US Presidents. While I get that's what you ''want'', it is not ''required''. ] (]) 19:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::The top of the executive chain in a presidential republic is ultimately responsible for everything that happens, good or bad, during his watch. (I already made a reference to ] but I guess it went unnoticed.) You invoke a non-existent argument. Even if president Reagan was minimally involved, or even not involved at all, with the formulation of the Star Wars plan, we'd still credit him for it in his biography. (Or debit him, ].) There is absolutely no need to demonstrate that "Donald Trump ''personally'' did anything". My emphasis. A cursory glance at presidents' bios here in Misplaced Pages shows that they correctly filled with info on events that the prez did little if anything "personally" about or for them. Which is why I commented that this whole teapot storm is about Trump, rather than the Abraham Accords. -] (])
	No matter what the result of this RFC. We'll have that result, to use to shut down any further discussion on the matter, in the new year & beyond. ] (]) 17:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
	Some have brought up that adding the Accords, will go against attempts to shortened the BLP. If ya'll want to shorten this BLP? then remove the bits about Trump's 2024 campaign Fascism/Vermin content. ] (]) 17:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	:There may well be a valid discussion to be had about what to remove to make this article more manageable. That is not however a good argument to add something., ] (]) 17:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	::I hope then, that the too long/too short argument will be discontinued in this RFC. ] (]) 18:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::Why? If someone thinks the article is already too long adding something makes that worse, thus is a valid argument for exclusion. ] (]) 18:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::Because, it would also be a valid argument, for the preceding discussion. ] (]) 18:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	::], and ] of my personal assessment of his performance, Donald Trump may possibly pass into History as the worst person to ever have served as U.S. president. I think the article may actually be short of what such a unique distinction merits. -] (]) 12:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::What does this have to do with anything? ] </nowiki></span>''']] 16:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::TDS? ] (]) 19:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	'''Procedural oppose''': I will try to address issues that I have noticed. The RFC is long so somewhat complicated to glean. Adding anything to the article, without addressing the elephant in the "article", means there really shouldn't have been a RFC at this time.
	:*1)- Article needs reducing or splitting. It seems there are 17,466 words of readable prose. At 15,000 an article ]
	:*2)- The article has, including the short opening lead paragraph, '''seven''' paragraphs. Someone stated if the article is expanded then the lead would too. That is not actually true but even when the article was stretched to 16,000 words there should have been talks concerning size. I saw where this was mentioned but apparently ignored. However, the last paragraph in the ] states: {{tq\|As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead.}} Certainly there really should not be any more "expansion" considering the current size.
	:*3)-The prominence and importance of the ] is overshadowed somewhat by the Biden administration's use of "Normalization agreements", however, the aftermath of the Accords created several first in history so "should be in the article. Although important, I do not think the Accords are a "defining legacy" that should be in the opening paragraph of the BLP and certainly not before size is addressed. -- ] (]) 23:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::I'm confused by your comment here... the RFC is about adding the proposed sentence to the ''Israel subsection'' of the foreign policy subsection, not the lead. If you think it should be in the article, that would be a "support." Also, you should move your message to the 'Survey' section above - this section isn't for bolded !votes, just discussion. ] (]) 02:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::I've removed their initial bullet as this section is not a bulleted list. Per ] I think any editor could move that to the Survey section, but per your comments it doesn't appear ready for prime time. And I think the ship has sailed for procedural opposes; the amount of participation to date constitutes acceptance of the RfC's existence. I think I've seen an RfC shut down once or twice in my 10 years here, despite many attempts to shut one down. {{smaller\|There, that's three "I thinks" in four sentences, demonstrating my humility. :D}} ―] ] 06:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::@] would you mind clarifying your comment above? ] (]) 21:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::@ PhotogenicScientist: Sorry but I have been sick. There were comments above, that include from the beginning opening statement in the "RfC for inclusion of Abraham Accords in article" section, {{tq\|A mention in the article body would be a prerequisite for inclusion in the lead.}}, so is why I mentioned it. I can only surmise either you missed this, or I missed where is was deemed not to be
	::::::"a prerequisite for inclusion in the lead."
	:::::: I actually find that inclusion, normally, should be allowed. However, there are issues that should have been resolved before the article was assessed B-class, and certainly before discussions and an RFC on adding yet more content.
	:::::: On 6 December 2023 ] mentioned size. It was shot down by ] because it seems size <strike>is only important</strike> in not important in a section that has the intent of adding yet more content.
	:::::: I placed this in this section for a particular reason. I would support "EXCEPT" not in the present shape of the article.
	:::::: I have no horse in the race and was {{summoned by bot}}. If my comments are not important then ignore them. -- ] (]) 18:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::The only way in which the lead was mentioned was in reference to the way this whole Talk page thread was opened; the OP mentioned we should put a mention in the lead. The discussion evolved quite a ways since then. The RFC proposal, word for word, is: "Should the <u>Israel subsection of the foreign policy subsection</u> be updated to include the bolded sentence below?" This RFC is not about adding anything to the lead.
	:::::::The concern about this article's size is a valid one, but imo carries less weight than appropriately describing an article subject, to which end I think a short sentence about these Accords would help. ] (]) 22:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
	FWIW, if the Accords had happened during the Biden Administration? I would've supported their addition at ]'s page. ] (]) 09:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
	'''Report:'''
	:Nepotism. Reminds one of JFK's appointment of RFK as attorney general. ] (]) 16:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
	::What is the similarity. I see no RS that describe Jared as qualified for the role. Did you read the linked article? Are you unaware of RS accounts of RFK's qualifications and activities as Attorney General?]] 16:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

			== Cuts to the Wealth section ==
	====Discussion (continued)====

			I'd like to propose a radical cut to the section. What we have hops all over chronologically. It's sort of a mass of cited information but somehow fails to ever deliver a bottom line. Misplaced Pages has an entire article on the subject of Trump's wealth, so here's an alternate plan: cover that he was a child millionaire, mention his alter ego ], and then summarize his wealth.
	Shouldn't this RfC be reopened IAW ]? The only people aware of the closing having been vacated are the editors involved in the , which wasn't mentioned on this Talk page until it had ended. And I only noticed {{u\|Sandstein}}'s edit because I went through the edit history looking for the reason the blue RfC was gone. ]] 10:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
			{{tqb\|Trump has often said he began his career with "a small loan of a million dollars" from his father and that he had to pay it back with interest.<ref>{{cite news \|last=Stump \|first=Scott \|date=October 26, 2015 \|title=Donald Trump: My dad gave me 'a small loan' of $1 million to get started \|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/26/donald-trump-my-dad-gave-me-a-small-loan-of-1-million-to-get-started.html \|access-date=November 13, 2016 \|publisher=]}}</ref> He was a millionaire by age eight, borrowed at least $60 million from his father, largely failed to repay those loans, and received another $413 million (2018 dollars adjusted for inflation) from his father's company.<ref>{{cite news \|last1=Barstow \|first1=David \|author-link1=David Barstow \|last2=Craig \|first2=Susanne \|author-link2=Susanne Craig \|last3=Buettner \|first3=Russ \|date=October 2, 2018 \|title=11 Takeaways From The Times's Investigation into Trump's Wealth \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-wealth-fred-trump.html \|access-date=October 3, 2018 \|work=]}}</ref><ref name="Tax_Schemes">{{cite news \|last1=Barstow \|first1=David \|author-link1=David Barstow \|last2=Craig \|first2=Susanne \|author-link2=Susanne Craig \|last3=Buettner \|first3=Russ \|date=October 2, 2018 \|title=Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html \|access-date=October 2, 2018 \|work=]}}</ref>
	:No objections. ] (]) 15:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
	::I have extended it two weeks. ] (]) 16:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

			Trying to get a higher ranking on the ] list of wealthy Americans, Trump called journalist Jonathan Greenberg in 1984, pretending to be a Trump Organization official named "]".<ref>{{cite news \|last=Greenberg \|first=Jonathan \|date=April 20, 2018 \|title=Trump lied to me about his wealth to get onto the Forbes 400. Here are the tapes. \|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trump-lied-to-me-about-his-wealth-to-get-onto-the-forbes-400-here-are-the-tapes/2018/04/20/ac762b08-4287-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html \|access-date=September 29, 2021 \|newspaper=]}}</ref>
	*'''Comment'''. Maggie Haberman's mention of the Abraham Accords in her book "Confidence Man" was above, as a reason for supporting inclusion. For everybody who was also denied access to the preview by Google Books, here are the 3.5 sentences mentioning the Accords (it's not an entire paragraph): ''Kushner was also forging ahead with an ambitious plan to normalize relations between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain, known as the "Abraham Accords". Efforts to move forward with a broader peace deal had not succeeded, so Kushner pushed on other fronts. Advocates eventually viewed the Accords as a significant achievement, bringing change to the Middle East and refocusing alliances against the threat presented by Iran. (Kushner was aided on the effort by some of O'Brien's National Security Council Staff;'' coz Kushner was otherwise engaged, trying to get a security clearance. ]] 21:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Haberman cites this for "to normalize relations". ]] 13:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:Thanks for that. The book discusses Chief of Staff Kelly's efforts to corral Kushner's impotent efforts in the Mideast upon reviewing intelligence reports from multiple countries about how easily Kushner could be manipulated to their will. The Emirates' initiative to formalize their relationship with Israel is portrayed as having fallen into Jared's lap. There's no narrative of Trump's actions except to have the benefit of his ceremonial insinuation of himself to claim an achievement for his administration.
	*:Another high quality source is the Leonnig/Rucker book ''I alone can fix it'' (p.269 ff) which is dripping with disdain for the staging of the signing at the White House with Netanyahu, desperately trying to avoid Israeli prosecution for corruption, found the perfect partner in the presidential candidate Trump, who assembled an impressive horde for the show and deployed horns and cymbals. Trump announced that the Accords had laid the new foundations of Mideast peace, while a "witness" line was added to the official document to permit Trump to pitch himself as a signatory.
	*:See also, RE: Kushner positioning himself as Mideast peacemaker-w/o-security clearance . ]] 23:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
	::{{ping\|Space4Time3Continuum2x\|SPECIFICO}} Your comments are misplaced in this section. Suggest moving them for the sake of organization, and you have my permission to remove this comment. ―] ] 00:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::I defer to you or SpaceX to move both.]] 00:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::I would happily refactor, but I'm not going to guess which of four subsections was the intended context, or whether Space4T intended to reply to someone. ―] ] 01:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Yeah, I misplaced my comments. They were intended for the ] section (keeping in mind {{u\|goodDay}}'s "do not bludgeon or rebut in the 'survey' section") but, after reading and the latest !votes, I'm going to move everything into a comment in the ] section. ]] 11:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Moved from ] section. ]] 11:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	:Adding some excerpts from Baker/Glasser's The Divider, above. The chapter is about Kushner's white-winged warrior exploits (he’s everywhere, he’s everywhere). Pg. 505: ''It is not the landmark agreement ending generations of conflict over the West Bank that he and Trump had promised, but in an unspeakably grim year of disease and domestic unrest it was by far the most tangible good news for the administration before the election. Trailing Joe Biden in the polls, the president wanted a splashy signing ceremony that September on the South Lawn, mimicking historic peace accords of the past to present himself as a transformational figure and maybe even revive his quixotic quest for a Nobel Peace Prize.'' (Only to be initially rebuffed by the First Lady’s office who didn’t want the newly re-sodded lawn trampled again so soon after it had been ruined by the GOP national convention.) Pg. 507: ''A the same time, the diplomatic normalizations were far less significant than the peace agreement Trump had promised to forge between Israel and the Palestinians, who were not invited and mentioned only in passing at the ceremony. For all his boasting, Trump made no more progress on that than any of his recent predecessors, and the Israeli-Palestinian rapprochement that he once boasted would not be "not as difficult as people have thought" turned out to be every bit as difficult as people thought. In fact, Trump arguably set the process back by giving away multiple bargaining chips to Israel without getting anything in return.'' Pg. 523: ''Unlike presidents who had been intensively hands-on during Middle East negotiations, Trump had left the details to Kushner and his team, no more involved in this foreign policy achievement than he had been in his big domestic policy initiative, the first-year tax cuts. But he was happy to swoop in now to take credit. Soon he would be touting it on the campaign trail as his shot at a Nobel Peace Prize.''
	:It's easy for people to waltz in here, cite a book or two or nothing, and accuse other editors of bias. Trump is not a president like others before him. Yes, the "Abraham Accords" were mentioned in RS but how are we going to boil down even the short excerpts I cited and Specifico's paraphrase of Leonig/Rucker to summary-level per consensus #37? The proposed text, {{tq\|In 2020, the White House hosted the signing of the Abraham Accords, normalizing the foreign relations of Israel with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain}} (still think this RfC was a good idea, {{u\|Onetwothreeip}}?), doesn't do it. ]] 11:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	::Is anything in that quotation not true? (And, to make it duly personalized, the text should be modified to: "In 2020 at the White House, Trump hosted....") The event did happen under the aegis of the Trump presidency, did it not? The Accords did normalize relations between those specific countries, did they not? RSes reported these facts, did they not? People who want more context can follow the links and get it. We can't provide reams of context in this article section, because it's summary only, as has been explained ad nauseam. It's only editors who are bringing their political views to bear on Misplaced Pages who think this text should be excluded. Editors should leave their political analysis at the door before entering this site and endeavor to report facts straightforwardly without a heavy overlay of personal political bias, like: "sad feckless abuse of Trump's office"; "a document that contrived an unnecessary bonus signature"; "political promotion and ego gratification of the Trump orbit"; "Trump is not a president like others before him" (justifying special unbalanced politicized treatment by Misplaced Pages?); "photo shows him standing empty-handed among the signatories" (this is a new incisive method of research to determine what text to add or withhold?) ] (]) 12:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::Re Trump not being a president like others before him (no idea whom else you're quoting) is referring to the length and complexity of his bio and our size constraints. ]] 12:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::Ok, thanks for that clarification. The irony, if it's not already crushingly obvious, is that we do have a whole constellation of articles about Trump, covering every aspect of his life, and yet, a few editors think it's wrong or impossible to include a single sentence about a prominent reliably-sourced event in the precisely appropriate location in one of those articles. It's true that any given article should not be excessive in size; it's also true that this encyclopedia is not paper. ] (]) 13:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	::What you think you're disproving, you're actually proving further. Disengaging with this RfC may be advisable. ] (]) 13:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::I'm not trying to disprove anything <small>(venting, maybe)</small>. I provided quotes from cited sources that not every reader may have access to. ]] 13:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::Further to SpaceX, if we decide to include the RfC text, we will also, per NPOV, need to contextualize it with ~5 times as much additional text about the political setting, the RS portrayals of the ceremonial contrivance, the pre-existing and post-accords mideast, etc.]] 16:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::For this article, I feel like that'd be way too much detail to include - we'd start running afoul of ] and ], wouldn't we? All that stuff can be found at the ] article, which is wikilinked in the proposal. ] (]) 16:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::::That's like, "] sank the ] at ] and later surrendered, ending ]. See links for detail. ]] 17:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::::NPOV says that we page editors must present the significant facts as represented by the weight of RS discussion of them. We can't just leave a link to point to another page. First, as happens to be the case with this content, the main AA page is in poor shape. Second, what's DUE for the primary topic page does not tell us what's DUE for a page that links in that direction. Context and framing matter. We are responsible for NPOV presentation to our readers. We don't get away with punting to another page.]] 18:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::Well, perhaps when this RFC ends, should it end in the affirmative to include ''any'' mention of the Abraham accords, we can move on to improving how exactly that gets implemented in the article. ] (]) 22:16, 29 January 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. ]] 18:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::I see. And are you stipulating, or can you demonstrate, that the policy applies to ''every'' last topic mentioned in an article, as opposed to applying to the main subject of the article? Every event, action, speech, decision, etc that an article mentions must have its relevant context thoroughly explicated in the article? Very practical. Let's look at the application of your interpretation. In the Israel subsection of this article, the text states that "Under Trump, the U.S. recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel". That bare bones text omits all the context about widespread opposition to that action, and omits all the context surrounding the intractable problem of the "final status for Jerusalem". You arbitrarily apply your interpretation of policy to a single matter, the Accords, as a convenient method of excluding what some, though not all, liberal pundits describe as a rare positive event in the Trump presidency. But even one such event is clearly one too many according to the editing pattern of a few contributors, some of whom in discussions like this, overtly and self-righteously express their profound political antipathy toward Trump, showing their profoundly compromised ability to apply a neutral point of view while editing articles like this one. ] (]) 21:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::It should, in theory, apply to everything. The fact that it doesn't means that it needs to be fixed. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 21:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	Flagging this as dubious. See by the editor ("bruh"). ]] 13:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

			Trump's net worth has been reported over a wide range: from a low of minus $900 million<ref>{{cite book\|last=O'Brien\|first=Timothy L.\|publisher=]\|date=2005\|title=TrumpNation: The Art of Being The Donald\|isbn=978-0-446-57854-7\|p=79}}</ref> in 1990, to a high of $10 billion in 2015.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Johnston\|first=David Cay\|date=2021\|title=The Big Cheat: How Donald Trump Fleeced America And Enriched Himself And His Family\|publisher=]\|isbn=978-1-9821-7804-8\|p=20}}</ref> In 2024 dollars according to ''Forbes'', Trump's wealth in 2024 was made up of approximately $1.1 billion in real estate, about $1 billion in golf clubs and resorts, and $3.5 billion in stock in ]—today his primary asset.<ref name=Forbes>{{cite news\|title=Here’s How Much Donald Trump Is Worth\|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/article/the-definitive-networth-of-donaldtrump/\|date=November 4, 2024\|access-date=December 15, 2024\|work=]\|first=Dan\|last=Alexander\|orig-date=September 27, 2024}}</ref> As of December 2024, ''Forbes'' listed Trump's net worth at $6.3 billion.<ref>{{cite news\|title=Profile: Donald Trump\|date=December 16, 2024\|access-date=December 16, 2024\|url=https://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/\|work=]}}</ref>
	:The fuck? How is this democratic at all? ] (]) 13:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
			}}
	::Misplaced Pages is not a pure democracy, and RFC discussions are ] ] (]) 14:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	~~:They've been blocked.~~ ] </nowiki></span>''']] 14:42, 29 ~~January~~ 2024 (UTC)		-] (]) 20:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' as nominator. -] (]) 20:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Cite 3 is broken for me, I would also like non-breaking-news stories as references for some facts to better establish sustained significance. I also don't like how "His net worth fluctuates up and down" is referenced. The change is much more structured and serves as a good, more concise stopgap. Other issues can can be worked out in general page edits. ] (]) 20:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Fixed cite 3. Wrote out the up and down. Thanks. -] (]) 23:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Also a note that using ] is inappropriate here per the template's documentation. ] (]) 22:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Removed them. ], ], and ] don't use them and they're all GAs. -] (]) 23:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Support - very helpful in streamlining the narrative. ] (]) 01:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Looks good to me. ] (]) 15:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support''', this article's coverage of Trump's wealth, as well as the topic of his non-business and non-governmental personal scandals, is one which has far too often detoured into the way of trivia. ] (]) 05:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{od}}Done. {{u\|Rollinginhisgrave}}, upgraded three sources to books, one from 2024. If you or anybody see any mistakes please fix as you said in general page edits. Thanks. -] (]) 20:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. The section went from alleged "trivia":
			{{cot\|Wealth - pre-December 18 cut}}
			] in 1985, with U.S. president ] and First Lady ]\|alt=Ivana Trump and King Fahd shake hands, with Ronald Reagan standing next to them smiling. All are in black formal attire.]]
			In 1982, Trump made the initial '']'' list of wealthy people for holding a share of his family's estimated $200 million net worth (equivalent to ${{Inflation\|US\|200\|1982}} million in {{Inflation/year\|US}}).{{Inflation/fn\|US}} His losses in the 1980s dropped him from the list between 1990 and 1995.<ref>{{cite news \|last=O'Brien \|first=Timothy L. \|author-link=Timothy L. O'Brien \|date=October 23, 2005 \|title=What's He Really Worth? \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/business/yourmoney/whats-he-really-worth.html \|access-date=February 25, 2016 \|work=]}}</ref> After filing the mandatory financial disclosure report with the ] in July 2015, he announced a net worth of about $10 billion. Records released by the FEC showed at least $1.4 billion in assets and $265 million in liabilities.<ref name="disclosure">{{cite news \|last1=Diamond \|first1=Jeremy \|last2=Frates \|first2=Chris \|date=July 22, 2015 \|title=Donald Trump's 92-page financial disclosure released \|url=https://cnn.com/2015/07/22/politics/donald-trump-personal-financial-disclosure/ \|access-date=September 14, 2022 \|work=]}}</ref> ''Forbes'' estimated his net worth dropped by $1.4 billion between 2015 and 2018.<ref>{{cite news \|last=Walsh \|first=John \|date=October 3, 2018 \|title=Trump has fallen 138 spots on Forbes' wealthiest-Americans list, his net worth down over $1 billion, since he announced his presidential bid in 2015 \|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-forbes-wealthiest-people-in-the-us-list-2018-10 \|access-date=October 12, 2021 \|work=]}}</ref> In their 2024 billionaires ranking, his net worth was estimated to be $2.3 billion (1,438th in the world).<!-- Update preceding values annually per ], item 5. Otherwise, DO NOT CHANGE without prior consensus. --><ref>{{cite news \|year=2024 \|title=Profile Donald Trump \|url=https://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/?list=billionaires \|access-date=March 28, 2024 \|work=]}}</ref>

			In 2018, journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported that Trump had called him in 1984 pretending to be a fictional Trump Organization official named "]". Greenberg said that, to get a higher ranking on the ] list of wealthy Americans, Trump, speaking as "Barron", falsely asserted that Donald Trump owned more than 90 percent of his father's business. Greenberg also wrote that ''Forbes'' had vastly overestimated Trump's wealth and wrongly included him on the 1982, 1983, and 1984 rankings.<ref>{{cite news \|last=Greenberg \|first=Jonathan \|date=April 20, 2018 \|title=Trump lied to me about his wealth to get onto the Forbes 400. Here are the tapes. \|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trump-lied-to-me-about-his-wealth-to-get-onto-the-forbes-400-here-are-the-tapes/2018/04/20/ac762b08-4287-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html \|access-date=September 29, 2021 \|newspaper=]}}</ref>
	*'''Comment'''—to clarify, what I see as a major issue with the proposed wording is that it fails to demonstrate the Accords' connection to Trump, instead lumping Trump together with his administration. {{tq\|In 2020, the White House hosted the signing of the ], normalizing the foreign relations of Israel with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.}} Doesn't even mention him. 'White House' in this sense refers to the ], I presume, which is why I think this sentence fits better at that article. As long as the proposed wording is unable to demonstrate why the Accords are notable ''in a Donald J. Trump context'' and not just a Trump admin context (in this case, the wording fails to mention Trump and how he was related to the event), I will oppose it. And if other POTUS articles include every little detail about a respective POTUS' presidency, it is no excuse for us to do so here. A president's bio should be limited to things that they were personally instrumental in orchestrating, and going into detail about things that don't fall under that category is why so many POTUS bios are way too massive. We have ''Presidency of XXXX'' articles for a reason. Let's stop cluttering their bios with tedious amounts of info. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 23:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:{{tq\|And if other POTUS articles include every little detail about a respective POTUS' presidency, it is no excuse for us to do so here.}} Spot on. From my UP:
	:"In Misplaced Pages editing, the existence of bad stuff does not justify or excuse the addition or retention of other bad stuff of the same kind. Not all consistency is good consistency. {{nowrap\|{{small\|—January 2018.}}}}"
	:"Widespread good things should persist because they are good, not because they are widespread. "This is how it's normally done" is a terrible argument for anything, allowing widespread bad things to persist. Instead of making that argument, explain why it's better than the alternatives. Change is not a bad thing, and resistance to change impedes progress. {{nowrap\|{{small\|—May 2019.}}}}"
	*:Most cross-article consistency arguments are weak ones, and this one is no different. It's extremely unlikely many readers even notice such cross-article inconsistencies, let alone are ill-served by them. We're here to serve readers, not ourselves. ―] ] 00:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:I would like a Support !vote to adress the points I have made. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 15:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::You say that as if these points haven't been brought up in this discussion already... Just because the Accords are discussed in <u>more</u> detail at our articles for ], or ], or ], that doesn't necessarily preclude <u>any information whatsoever</u> being included in this article. On the contrary, we have consensus item #37, which says ''"Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to <u>summary-level</u> about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy."'' We're <u>supposed</u> to cover these things on a short, summary level here. ] (]) 16:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::Why are you repeatedly neglecting to acknowledge the ending sentence of the consensus item? ] </nowiki></span>''']] 17:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::::The resolution was proposed to <u>limit</u> content related to Trump's presidency. If you're implying it's not applicable here... do you want us to say <u>more</u> about the Abraham Accords here? ] (]) 21:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::1) You never really addressed my comment above in your prior comment. That's not really the point I made.
	*:::::2) The resolution only exists as a way to weed out the simple, unnecessary stuff. It's specifically not meant to be invoked in situations such as this. See the comment by Mandruss that was linked by Space4T below. It doesn't mean that things ''shouldn't'' be limited to summary level if the are borderline or debatable. It's just something to invoke when someone adds or attempts to add something that's clearly only marginaly relevant to Trump's life/presidency. Consensus item #37 is irrelevant here. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 22:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::::::{{tq\|Consensus item #37 is irrelevant here}} Considering we're dealing with "content related to Trump's presidency", I very much disagree that the consensus item is not relevant.
	*::::::And before I even invoked it, I said {{tq\|Just because the Accords are discussed in <u>more</u> detail at ... that doesn't necessarily preclude <u>any information whatsoever</u>}} from being included here. Seems like a valid stance to me. ] (]) 22:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::::Well, you're missing the point of consensus item #37 then. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 23:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::::Can you actually address my above points? You've address a lot of things related to my points but not the specific points. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 14:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::PS, Regardless of why that point 37 is not being fully observed, it's not helpful merely to ''assume'' (as your ])that this event is going to have some lasting impact except as one among dozens of orchestrated charades. Some, like the Church Photo Op are clearly significant, per RS. But many others have already faded and this is one of them. All participants here should take a close look at the cited in the lead of the Abraham Accords article. And aside from its portrayal of this as a political/media stunt by Trump and Netanyahu, it pointedly indicates the vague and uninstrumental wording of the document that was so grandly heralded and signed at the White House. Per that reporting, both UAE and Israel soon affirmed that they were not bound by the actions listed in the AA.]] 17:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::::Seeing as you've decided that I'm conducting ] to assert that the Accords are even somewhat notable to Trump's legacy, completely ignoring my comments earlier which cited , in addition to the other numerous RS that have been cited in this discussion, I'm going to have to say my ] for you has just about run dry. ] (]) 21:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::I've explained above why those sources fail our standard for NPOV weight. So you are left offering us a single cherrypicked source vs. at least 4 books that at least 4 editors have cited that have covered the question extensively to show that AA was just one of Trump's characteristic publicity stunts.]] 23:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::About consensus #37. The editor who ] that led to #37, {{u\|Mandruss}}, referred the participants to their comments in the preceding ] subsection as they comprised their arguments:
	:::::{{tq2\|I think we should be able to reach a consensus endorsing a "resolution" that content related to his presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. That would clearly exclude "Trump also praised Poland under the EU-skeptic, anti-immigrant Law and Justice party (PiS) as a defender of Western civilization." Merely removing that and everything like it, and pointing to the consensus whenever somebody attempts to add something new like it, would in my opinion solve the size issues for the remainder of his presidency. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution would not apply, but I don't think there would be any editors claiming that the example given is likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. And nobody would call it summary-level in any case.}}
	::::So, is the hosting ceremony the equivalent of praising Poland or does it have a lasting impact on Trump's life and/or long-term presidential legacy? ]] 18:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I and many other editors above, citing plenty of RS, have made the case that the Accords are relevant to Trump's legacy. You and many other editors - citing many fewer sources, I might add - have asserted they are not relevant to his legacy. Is it, or is it not? That seems to be up to consensus, isn't it? After all, Misplaced Pages is not a ] - how could we say definitively right now that something is or isn't notable to his legacy? ] (]) ] (]) 21:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::::That last sentence argues against your position. In this particular article, the default in a CRYSTALBALL situation should be omit. Inclusion should wait until the legacy impact is shown. I see you asserting that it ''has been'' shown, but that was weakened by your last sentence. ―] ] 22:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::Well, CRYSTALBALL may not be a <u>perfect</u> fit here... but to quote, it says {{tq\|It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the <u>prospects for success</u> of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, <u>if discussion is properly referenced</u>. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories <u>stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field</u> may be included}}. By one reading of CRYSTALBALL, consensus item #37 should be completely invalidated, since we are not to decide for ourselves if material that may be included here is "likely to be" relevant to a lasting historical legacy. By another reading, if there are enough sources discussing potential future outcomes, these can be cited to include the relevant material. ] (]) 22:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::I just wonder when this will be considered played out as regards the few most active participants. We could continue this until Northern Hemisphere summer without getting much further, and without affecting the final consensus assessment. I suggest the few back away and hope for other participation. If we don't get it, I think the main reason for re-opening was re-closure, despite Sandstein's comment. In any case, I don't think Sandstein's {{tq\|Please continue discussing.}} meant "Please continue discussing among the same few editors until they're all too tired to type." ―] ] 23:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Kind of the nature of the beast — why would sources mention events they deem irrelevant/unimportant for Trump's legacy? ]] 11:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
	*::{{re\|Cessaune}} you said "{{tq\| As long as the proposed wording is unable to demonstrate why the Accords are notable in a ''Donald J. Trump context'' and not just a Trump admin context (in this case, the wording fails to mention Trump and how he was related to the event), I will oppose it.}}"
	*::I trust that you have done due diligence in this discussion. You have seen the supports side arguments and all the sources provided, as well as the arguments from the oppose side and their sources. So I will ask: ''Do you think there is a specific wording where you would support inclusion?'' Because if you think they should be included with a ''but'', then just say so. If you support inclusion on some capacity, say what about the verbage should change in your opinion. Because, this RfC at its heart is a question of whether or not the Accords should be included at all, rather than a bicker over specific wording. It would be a damn shame for the wrong decision to be made in a time consuming discussion such as this over a mere "it wasn't worded correctly" objection.
	*::Remember, specific wording is pretty malleable, but whatever result happens here over the ''core question'', is essentially written in stone. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::{{u\|Iamreallygoodatcheckers}}, nothing is written in stone, as proven by numerous superseded and several omitted and obsoleted consensus items. ]] 16:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

			Trump has often said he began his career with "a small loan of a million dollars" from his father and that he had to pay it back with interest.<ref>{{cite news \|last=Stump \|first=Scott \|date=October 26, 2015 \|title=Donald Trump: My dad gave me 'a small loan' of $1 million to get started \|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/26/donald-trump-my-dad-gave-me-a-small-loan-of-1-million-to-get-started.html \|access-date=November 13, 2016 \|work=]}}</ref> He was a millionaire by age eight, borrowed at least $60 million from his father, largely failed to repay those loans, and received another $413 million (2018 dollars adjusted for inflation) from his father's company.<ref>{{cite news \|last1=Barstow \|first1=David \|author-link1=David Barstow \|last2=Craig \|first2=Susanne \|author-link2=Susanne Craig \|last3=Buettner \|first3=Russ \|date=October 2, 2018 \|title=11 Takeaways From The Times's Investigation into Trump's Wealth \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-wealth-fred-trump.html \|access-date=October 3, 2018 \|work=]}}</ref><ref name="Tax_Schemes" /> In 2018, he and his family were reported to have committed tax fraud, and the ] started an investigation.<ref name="Tax_Schemes" /> His investments underperformed the stock and New York property markets.<ref>{{cite news \|date=February 20, 2016 \|title=From the Tower to the White House \|url=https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21693230-enigma-presidential-candidates-business-affairs-tower-white \|access-date=February 29, 2016 \|newspaper=] \|quote=Mr Trump's performance has been mediocre compared with the stockmarket and property in New York.}}</ref><ref>{{cite news \|last=Swanson \|first=Ana \|date=February 29, 2016 \|title=The myth and the reality of Donald Trump's business empire \|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/29/the-myth-and-the-reality-of-donald-trumps-business-empire/ \|access-date=September 29, 2021 \|newspaper=]}}</ref> ''Forbes'' estimated in October 2018 that his net worth declined from $4.5 billion in 2015 to $3.1 billion in 2017 and his product-licensing income from $23 million to $3 million.<ref>{{cite news \|last1=Alexander \|first1=Dan \|last2=Peterson-Whithorn \|first2=Chase \|date=October 2, 2018 \|title=How Trump Is Trying—And Failing—To Get Rich Off His Presidency \|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2018/10/02/how-trump-is-tryingand-failingto-get-rich-off-his-presidency/ \|access-date=September 29, 2021 \|work=]}}</ref>
	{{cot\|{{smaller\|Perennial debate about "proper" use of Survey and Discussion sections. Can continue within the collapse. ―] ] 20:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)}}}}

	*::Can you please move this section from the survey into discussion? You can strike my comment, but this RFC is already cluttered and this is just muddying the waters even more in the survey section. ] (]) 17:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
			] from 1985 to 1994 show net losses totaling $1.17 billion. The losses were higher than those of almost every other American taxpayer. The losses in 1990 and 1991, more than $250 million each year, were more than double those of the nearest taxpayers. In 1995, his reported losses were $915.7 million<ref name="Buettner-190508" /> (equivalent to ${{Inflation\|US\|.9157\|1995\|r=2}} billion in {{Inflation/year\|US}}).{{Inflation/fn\|US}} In March 1987, Trump halved his net worth in a sworn statement to $1.5 billion {{USDCY\|1500000000\|2016}},{{Inflation/fn\|US}} but accountants reported his net worth at less than zero{{sfn\|Johnston\|2016\|p=89}} or minus $295 million {{USDCY\|295000000\|1987}}.{{Inflation/fn\|US}}
	*:::Agree. It's been moved by three different editors (inc me) and Cessaune moved it back each time. ] (]) 17:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

	*::::How come everyone wants to move my comment, but not the other comments placed in the survey section? Makes no sense to me. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 17:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
			In 2020, ''The New York Times'' obtained Trump's tax information extending over two decades. Its reporters found that he reported losses of hundreds of millions of dollars. Since 2010 he had also failed to pay back $287 million in loans. During the 15 years prior to 2020, using ] for business losses, he paid no income taxes in 10 of those years and $750 each in 2016 and 2017. He balanced his businesses' losses by selling and borrowing against assets, including a $100 million ] and the liquidation of over $200 million in stocks and bonds. He personally guaranteed $421 million in debt, most of which is due by 2024.<ref>{{cite news \|last1=Buettner \|first1=Russ \|last2=Craig \|first2=Susanne \|author-link2=Susanne Craig \|last3=McIntire \|first3=Mike \|date=September 27, 2020 \|title=Long-concealed Records Show Trump's Chronic Losses And Years Of Tax Avoidance \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html \|access-date=September 28, 2020 \|work=]}}</ref>
	*:::::There are no other bolded '''comment'''s in this section. You still have a chance to move this to the discussion section and avoid being sanctioned for edit warring. ] (]) 17:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

	*::::::In the original survey section there are at least three. I'm lumping both sections together because they are basically the same thing. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 17:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
			{{as of\|2021\|10\|lc=n}}, Trump had over $1.3 billion in debts, much of which was secured by his assets.<ref>{{cite news \|last=Alexander \|first=Dan \|date=October 7, 2021 \|title=Trump's Debt Now Totals An Estimated $1.3 Billion \|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/10/07/trumps-debt-now-totals-an-estimated-13-billion/?sh=67fa55564575 \|access-date=December 21, 2023 \|work=]}}</ref> In 2020, he owed $640 million to banks and trust organizations, including ], ], and ], and approximately $450 million to unknown creditors. The value of his assets exceeds his debt.<ref>{{cite news \|last=Alexander \|first=Dan \|date=October 16, 2020 \|title=Donald Trump Has at Least $1 Billion in Debt, More Than Twice The Amount He Suggested \|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2020/10/16/donald-trump-has-at-least-1-billion-in-debt-more-than-twice-the-amount-he-suggested/ \|access-date=October 17, 2020 \|work=]}}</ref>
	*:::::For one, your comment and S4T3C2X's comments are newer, at a time when there's renewed interest in this thread, since the overturn of the previous close. Older Comments in the survey section have sat for a while, and refactoring serves less purpose for those at this point, imo. But I wouldn't be opposed to those moving, either. ] (]) 17:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::::::Well, what is this newfound zeal when it comes to my edit? ] </nowiki></span>''']] 17:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::::I... feel I just told you why? It's a newer comment, at a time of new interest in the thread? ] (]) 17:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::::::::Or "This RFC is a bit of a mess, some poor sod will have to read it (again) and close it (again) lets not make their job any harder". ] (]) 17:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::::::Both of you were present at the beginning of the discussion, before the RfC. When other editors put comments in the survey section, neither of you attempted to refactor their comments. ]: you have been especially involved in this discussion, and no doubt were aware of the comments beings placed in the survey section before. Yet, there was no attempt to remove the text.
	*:::::::::{{tq\|It's a newer comment, at a time of new interest in the thread}}—it is, and I don't get why this matters. The other comments were new at some point, and were allowed to exist back then.
	*:::::::::'''Why?''' ''What is the difference'' between my comment and Gnome's comments? ''Why'' is my edit being flagged, while other editor's edits weren't? I can't understand the logic.
	*:::::::::I think it is unfair that !voters have been impacted by the comments of others that were placed in the survey section (which is vastly more visible than buried somewhere in the discussion), yet ''my'' comment is being targeted so heavily.
	*:::::::::Should comments in the survey section exist? Maybe, maybe not. It is obvious to me that this is a relatively common occurence. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 18:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::::::::::To answer to your specific charge: The earlier discussion was incredibly messy. From the very start, we got comments from people who called it improper, and an abuse of protocol; there was much bickering and a fair bit of bludgeoning; and Gnome was not the only person to put a bolded Comment in the survey section - Onetwothreeip did as well, and I believe I remember SPECIFICO having done so, before refactoring their comments into their oppose. To use a metaphor, when the house is burning down, it's not wise to be straightening up the picture frames on the wall. At that time, I was primarily letting the discussion play out.
	*::::::::::As for now, the thread is in a better place. And like Slatersteven said, some poor sod is going to have to come along and read all of this. In their interest, it's best to keep the Survey section tidy and readable - a good way to do that is by having only !votes and perhaps a bit of clarifying back-n-forth, rather than including long discussions about sourcing or other Comments. ] (]) 18:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::::::::I will accept the outcome. It is clear that I am not going to convince people of my point. But I hope that you understand that this is incredibly unfair—the idea that other editors can get away with something that isn't even generally frowned upon, as least as far as I'm aware. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 18:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::::::::::The difference between then and now is the overturned close that happened in between. That means the first round was messed up. So we're going to have a less-messed-up second round (with new participants and more orderly discussion). What needs to happen in this second round is for the folks in the first round to step back and allow new editors to examine the issue. (Which doesn't mean that everyone in the first round has to be completely silent, but they should be very circumspect as to whether they're saying anything ''new'' or repeating what they already said before.) The key trick is to not be the most disruptive editor during round 2. If Round 2 doesn't go better than Round 1, Round 3 will involve kicking people out, and that's why you don't want to be the most disruptive editor. Go with the flow... ] (]) 18:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::At this point in the numerous discussion threads, WTH does it matter where anything is located? It takes me minutes to find my own frigging comments. I think it's just plain rude to move another editor's comment(s) without their consent just because a few other editors think they are better placed elsewhere. ]] 18:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::::That dead horse is very dead, but the beating continues. ] (]) 18:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::::] talk pages is common practice, and doesn't have to be done with others' consent - I made a bold change that I felt improved the flow of the discussion, and the readability for the future closer. But by all means, feel free to dispute this by reverting my change - it is your contribution after all. ] (]) 19:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::Shouldn't you refactor in the "Survey (continued)" section then? As for moving my comments adding the excerpts of sources cited by !votes, repeating my earlier comment: {{tq\|WTH does it matter where anything is located}} at this point. Cessaune objected to the refactoring of their comment, to no avail, and, yeah, it looks as though some comments are more equal than others. ]] 10:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::: Er... that's not a '''Comment''', bolded and created on its own line in the survey section; that's a reply to a !vote. Of which there has been plenty in this discussion, and all RFCs - though I imagine you've been around long enough to have seen this. You really think people shouldn't be allowed to reply to !votes in RFCs? Not even once? Because if you do, hypocritical of you.
	*::::::Cessaune did object, and was overruled by more editors than myself. But, you have the ability to object after being refactored - it says so right in ]. If you did so, I would not reinstate my refactoring - I was only trying to boldly improve the thread. ] (]) 14:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::::{{tq\|hypocritical of}} me — nope, only if I had refactored other editors' comments or replies (not much of a distinction, IMO). I only moved aka "refactored" my own comment with the replies of two editors who had given me their express permission to do so — see the thread for the particulars. Anyway, prior to this I had neither heard of nor ever noticed refactoring. I think I'll continue to live by the WP rule I learned early on and keep my mitts off other editors' edits. ]] 16:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::The reason this debate is "perennial" is that nobody has ever come up with a very good way to handle replies to !votes (and replies to the replies). Anything other than including them inline takes them out of context, and I've seen at least two experiments that didn't work very well for that reason. I personally don't have a problem with including them inline; for someone uninterested in the replies, it only costs them some scrolling. Each !vote is clearly marked by a bullet. Then the Discussion section would be only for comments that are not replies to !votes (or replies to the replies). ―] ] 20:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::::Yes. That's why we use threaded indents. What shouldn't happen is griping about it with time that could be used actually surveying RS sources.]] 21:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::I also have little problem with bulleted and bolded '''Comment'''s in a Survey section. It's a fairly common practice, and, again, these are easily bypassed with some scrolling. But it raises the question of what the Discussion section is for, and "higher visibility" is a poor reason to '''Comment''' in a Survey section. It's not unlike using a lot of bolding to give one's comment greater prominence, which is discouraged by guidelines. ―] ] 21:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	{{cob}}		{{cob}}
	*'''Comment''' ] (]) 17:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:<small> {{yo\|Selfstudier}} wanna see one that really didn't age well: a month before 10/7, the Federalist proclaimed, "Trump ushered in a new era of peace and collaboration in the Middle East without a single bullet fired" He's been trying to get a Nobel for years ("for a lot of things"), because . ] (]) 00:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)</small>

			:to actual trivia in the form of a 1984 Trump call to journalist Greenberg — without the context (falsely asserting that he owned his father's real estate empire, Forbes having vastly overestimated his wealth and wrongly included him on their 1982–1984 rankings) that's all it is: an anecdote about Trump pretending to be someone else:
	*'''Comment'''. Excerpt from today's , headline "Behind Biden's Middle East crises is ": ''Taking a wrecking ball to diplomacy with Tehran, Trump broke the nuclear deal forged between Iran and world powers, restored a slate of sanctions on the Islamic Republic and assassinated influential Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Qasem Soleimani in a 2020 drone strike. Trump’s policy on Israel, meanwhile, amounted to a tight bear hug of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the boosting of the agenda of the Israeli right. He was punitive to the Palestinians — markedly shifting U.S. policy against them by formally recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, shuttering a U.S. consulate intended for Palestinians, and brokering “peace” deals between Israel and a clutch of Arab monarchies that further sidelined Palestinian political aspirations.''
	:Foreign Policy, September 3, 2022: '', the accords are losing luster because inside Israel, they are overshadowed by the intensification of conflict with the Palestinians. At the time, then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lauded the accords as a breakthrough because they divorced normalization with Arab states from any Israeli peace with the Palestinians. What looked like a breakthrough then now looks like the biggest drawback of the accords.''
	:PolitiFact, December 5, 2023: he made peace in the Middle East with Abraham Accords. That’s False.'' ]] 15:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

			{{cot\|post-cut}}
	I would (again) point out that it should not be in the lede if it is not in the body. As well as the lede is a summery of important parts of THIS ARTICLE, is this an important part of this article? ] (]) 12:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
			Trump has often said he began his career with "a small loan of a million dollars" from his father and that he had to pay it back with interest.<ref>{{cite news \|last=Stump \|first=Scott \|date=October 26, 2015 \|title=Donald Trump: My dad gave me 'a small loan' of $1 million to get started \|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/26/donald-trump-my-dad-gave-me-a-small-loan-of-1-million-to-get-started.html \|access-date=November 13, 2016 \|publisher=]}}</ref> In 2024 dollars, Trump was a millionaire by age eight.{{efn\|To pass on his wealth, Fred Trump gave each of his children $6,000 every year, the maximum allowed without incurring a gift tax. To avoid taxes, after making them landlords of two of his housing developments, he paid them each $13,928 rent every year. Three years old when this began, Donald Trump was a millionaire in 2024 dollars by age eight.{{sfn\|Buettner\|Craig\|2024\|pp=30–31}}}} He borrowed at least $60 million from his father, largely failed to repay those loans, and received another $413 million (2018 dollars adjusted for inflation) from his father's company.<ref>{{cite news \|last1=Barstow \|first1=David \|author-link1=David Barstow \|last2=Craig \|first2=Susanne \|author-link2=Susanne Craig \|last3=Buettner \|first3=Russ \|date=October 2, 2018 \|title=11 Takeaways From The Times's Investigation into Trump's Wealth \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-wealth-fred-trump.html \|access-date=October 3, 2018 \|work=]}}</ref><ref name="Tax_Schemes">{{cite news \|last1=Barstow \|first1=David \|author-link1=David Barstow \|last2=Craig \|first2=Susanne \|author-link2=Susanne Craig \|last3=Buettner \|first3=Russ \|date=October 2, 2018 \|title=Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html \|access-date=October 2, 2018 \|work=]}}</ref>

			Trying to get a higher ranking on the ] list of wealthy Americans, Trump called journalist Jonathan Greenberg in 1984, pretending to be a Trump Organization official named "]".<ref>{{cite news \|last=Greenberg \|first=Jonathan \|date=April 20, 2018 \|title=Trump lied to me about his wealth to get onto the Forbes 400. Here are the tapes. \|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trump-lied-to-me-about-his-wealth-to-get-onto-the-forbes-400-here-are-the-tapes/2018/04/20/ac762b08-4287-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html \|access-date=September 29, 2021 \|newspaper=]}}</ref>
	*'''Comment'''. Opposers say the qualification for text in the "Presidency" section of the article is that it has to be about "the man, not his presidency", or that "there's insufficient coverage from neutral high-quality WP:RSes supporting the idea that this is significant to Trump's personal biography". Trump himself personalized the issue by claiming he was bringing peace to the Mid East. Opposers dismiss that personalized statement, but apparently believe Trump quitting the Iran nuclear deal does qualify as significant to his "personal biography". Explain the difference between these events. Why is one significant to his personal bio, but the other is not? What sources support that analysis? Some opposers have shown sources that disparage the Accords or evaluate them as not achieving their goals. The opposers who think negative response or analysis of this particular Trump policy--the Accords--is a reason to exclude any mention of it should explain why abandonment of the Iran nuclear deal, which garnered far more negative reviews than the Accords, does deserve the place it occupies in the "Presidency" section. I'll help clarify. They both deserve a place in the article not because they were uniformly positive, but because they were significant actions approved by Trump, as shown by huge amounts of persistent coverage in reliable sources. The "Presidency" section in this article is very large. It's not credible that all the text in it is about "the man, not his presidency", the oxymoronic standard that opposers would impose for inclusion of text in the Presidency section.

			Trump self-reported his net worth over a wide range: from a low of minus $900 million in 1990,{{efn\|Trump acknowledged a negative net worth in 1990 of minus $900 million in his book '']''.<ref>{{cite news\|title=Donald Trump revealed $900 million business loss in '97 book\|url=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/3/trump-revealed-900-million-business-loss-97-book/\|last=Boyer\|first=Dave\|date=October 3, 2016\|access-date=December 18, 2024\|work=]}}</ref> ] explains in his book '']'' that ''Forbes'' dropped Trump from its list of wealthiest Americans from 1990–1995. Not until 1997 did ''Forbes'' acknowledge Trump's 1990 negative net worth of minus $900 million.{{sfn\|O'Brien\|2005\|p=150–151}}}} to a high of $10 billion in 2015.{{sfn\|Johnston\|2021\|p=20}} In 2024 dollars according to ''Forbes'', Trump's wealth in 2024 was made up of approximately $1.1 billion in real estate, about $1 billion in golf clubs and resorts, and $3.5 billion in stock in ]—today his primary asset.<ref name=Forbes>{{cite news\|title=Here's How Much Donald Trump Is Worth\|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/article/the-definitive-networth-of-donaldtrump/\|date=November 4, 2024\|access-date=December 15, 2024\|work=]\|first=Dan\|last=Alexander\|orig-date=September 27, 2024}}</ref> As of December 2024, ''Forbes'' listed Trump's net worth at $6.3 billion.<ref>{{cite news\|title=Profile: Donald Trump\|date=December 16, 2024\|access-date=December 16, 2024\|url=https://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/\|work=]}}</ref>
	:One other reason opposers would exclude the sentence is their heads I win, tails you lose rationale, which says the sentence needs added context, but that's not allowed, because it would bloat the article. Take note, therefore, that Trump's abandonment of the Iran nuclear deal is stated in one sentence, and a second sentence is included for context. Trump's order to kill Soleimani is stated in one sentence, followed by ''three'' sentences for context, and another sentence about downing of the Ukraine airliner, an event completely unrelated to Trump's "personal biography". There is one reason, and one reason only, for opposition to a single sentence about the Accords. That reason is stonewall resistance to including anything in this article that might look like something positive from the Trump administration. That stonewall resistance is draped in some glib policy justifications, but the motivation is unquestionably political bias, as seen in some discussion comments, which amounts to a repudiation of everything Misplaced Pages stands for. It is a certainty that if this same agreement and ceremony occurred under an Obama or Biden administration, none of the opposing editors would object to inclusion of the sentence in either of those biographical articles. ] (]) 13:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
			{{cob}}
	::Trump doesn't get to define what's relevant to his personal biography. RSs do.
			:The FEC info, the NYT report on the hundreds of millions of losses — that's not trivial, goes directly to his self-professed business acumen. Some of the data needs updating, e.g. {{tq\|He personally guaranteed $421 million in debt, most of which is due by 2024}}, not replacing with e.g. Trump's self-reported worth of $10 billion in 2015; Johnston, the cited source, says that Trump's 2017 presidential disclosure statement showed $1.4 billion. I tagged the sentence with {{lopsided}}. ]] 19:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Iran nuclear deal: Trump ran on the idea that he would renegotiate the deal, but failed to do so . That's already more Trump involvement than the Accords can claim. He made public statements on the matter as well , including the final withdrawal . Considering that the ] is at least as notable as the Accords, the comparison here doesn't make any sense. Trump was specifically involved in the withdrawal, and it was ''his decision'' to leave.
			::Your edit reintroduced trivia and editorialising. The current wording (that the loans were not 'wholly' repaid) is more concise than the slanted 'failed to repay'. ] (]) 01:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::The sentence needs context ''and'' we should avoid bloat, given how massive this article is. That being said, adding context will always override any bloat issues. If the sentence goes through there will inevitably be another discussion about wording and context.
			:::The text didn't say "failed to repay", it said "largely failed to repay those loans". : {{tq\|In fact, The Times found, Fred Trump lent his son at least $60.7 million, or $140 million in today’s dollars. Much of it was never repaid, records show.}} "Not wholly repaid" claims that he repaid most of it. I don't want to get into an edit war and have tagged the sentence with {{failed verification}}. Please, self-revert. BTW, it's that {{tq\|goes against clear TP consensus}} you claim to have reverted to. Never mind what I think of that consensus, and you went against it (see ]). ]] 14:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::{{tq\|It's not credible that all the text in it is about "the man, not his presidency"}}—you're probably right. However, most of what's in there is either inextricably tied to his legacy (], for example), something that he was personally involved in (]) or is something that is notable in a global context (] in general). Everything else should probably be removed. The Ukraine airliner is an example of what I've been saying for a long time: the fact that the article currently isn't perfect is no reason for us to make it less perfect.
			::::I believe the New York Times found that Fred Trump gave Donald half a billion plus more. -] (]) 14:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::You make a lot of very harsh, very generic statements. I'd like you to specifically accuse people of what you describe as {{tq\|stonewall resistance}} on the grounds of {{tq\| political bias}}, with quotes and reasoning. It's very easy to claim that side B (in this case, "opposers"), is being/doing XYZ thing, so if you truly mean what you are saying, please indicate who specifically you are talking about. I think that's more than reasonable. I have made my opinion very clear from the outset, and I would like for it to not be summed up as some sort of underlying TDS-type bias hidden behind a policy wall of shoddy manufacturing. It's lazy and, frankly, ''rude'' to call an entire side biased, and it is ''especially'' arrogant to treat your statements as if they are facts, without providing even a single quote. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 14:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
			:::::The whitewashed "much of it was never repaid" to "not wholly paid" also removed the half billion. I , citing the sources, but , claiming that my edit "goes against clear TP consensus" (see also . I've since moved Trump's early childhood income into the "Early life" section, moving the note about the trust into the body. ]] 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::{{ping\|DonFB}}, Cessaune has already reminded you to focus on the content issue rather than attributing your concerns to foul play by your colleagues here. Please take heed. It will make your participation more effective.
			:::::As for that "TP consensus": 48 hours, five editors to remove a long section of the article, including the New York Times report on decades of Trump's finances - that's not "streamlining the narrative", as one of the supporters said, and "looks good to me" isn't much of a comment, IMNSHO. ]] 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::It's not "heads I win tails you lose" from the ''oppose'' editors. That's a bad way to frame it, because when the content is improved we all benefit, knowing that it better informs our readers. But to continue with that inappropriate analogy, it is more like those who ''support'' saying "heads I lose, tails you win". NPOV determines that, not a zero sum content battle.
			::::::I like your edit to move 8-year-old millionaire up. Well done. I suspect we disagree on Trump's net worth because I wrote the ''range'' and you're thinking over ''time''. There's no need to "update" the high end unless Trump someday claims more. Well he did but I lost the reference. "During the 2016 campaign, Trump’s boasts about his net worth would fluctuate daily, from 8.7 billion one day to 10 billion another, and even at one point 11 billion dollars." <ref>{{cite journal\|last=Olthof\|first=Jelte\|title=Will the Real Trump Please Stand Up? Donald Trump’s Elusive Persona\|journal=Profiles in Power\|publisher=Brill\|date=2020\|doi=10.1163/9789004422643_013\|url=https://research.rug.nl/files/1065432667/9789004422643-BP000012.pdf}}</ref> -] (]) 15:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::The distinction between AA and Trump's ditching the Nuclear Agreement is that the latter has been enormously consequential, according to RS. In contrast, the best published sources cited on this page - several books and AP accounts - tell us that Trump's appropriation, branding, and messaging at and about his staging of AA amounted to nothing at all, while the multidimensional realities of regional relations have continued to unfold unaffected by what those sources describe as the political circus stunt of Trump's AA ceremony.]] 16:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
			:::Hi, {{u\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}}. Every sentence we write and keep has context. In a word or two, why would we increase the word count to include more information about the Greenberg incident? Mr. Greenberg is a primary source. The books I have barely mention him if at all. -] (]) 14:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Do you recognize these quotes?
			:::Agree, as the person who made that initial edit. ''']]''' 18:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::"It's all political puffery and campaign drivel by Trump and his flaks"
			{{od}}], what we have now is unacceptable. We shouldn't make unilateral deletions without showing some effort to make improvements. Fred Trump gave Donald a half billion dollars. . Mr. Greenberg is a good example of Trump's use of pseudonyms; instead of trying to improve the sourcing. Maybe we've lost touch with reality here: losing almost a billion dollars, and admitting it is extraordinary for any person. I'm sorry but you may be reverted unless you make this better soon. -] (]) 13:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::"a document that contrived an unnecessary bonus signature line for Trump to deploy his Sharpie"
	:::"one among dozens of orchestrated charades"
	:::"the photo shows him standing empty-handed among the signatories"
	:::"one of Trump's characteristic publicity stunts"
	:::"this inconsequential command performance in DC"
	:::"political promotion and ego gratification of the Trump orbit, extensively and near-exclusively quoted in the bulk of RS praise, as if that sad feckless abuse of Trump's office should be elevated by this encyclopedia"
	:::"political circus stunt of Trump's AA ceremony"
	:::And this oldie but goodie:
	:::"every time the Republicans try to bring their zombie conspiracy theories back from the grave"
	:::Legitimate policy argumentation? Or chronic personal snark betraying clear political bias and not-so-hidden motivation to exclude abundantly and reliably sourced relevant content...in repudiation of the fundamental Misplaced Pages value of neutrality. ] (]) 17:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
	::::Those are all backed up by the sources I cite in presenting content suggestions and analysis. Please review the references and mainstream reporting on the related events. The white house press corps and subsequent biographers have not treated the AA ceremony kindly.]] 04:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
	:::::The first one is: {{tqq\|Did you actually read that Politico piece? It's all political puffery and campaign drivel by Trump and his flaks.}} What source backs that up? What source calls "all political puffery and campaign drivel by Trump and his flaks"? ] (]) 04:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
	::::::We don"t need a second source in order to characterize a the quality of a reference. That politico piece is conveying and attributing Trump administration narratives.]] 05:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::If you ask me, and you didn't but I'm going to tell you anyway: '']'' is ]; '']'', ]'s book, and are all ]; but these are all ] and all ] links so almost every editor has access to some of the best sources available about the Abraham Accords: . ] (]) 06:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::Preaching to the choir. Why was the above list of quotes (I assume that’s what they are) even dredged up here? Re {{tq\|Did you actually read that Politico piece?}}: that’s one quote I can place because I was briefly involved in the discussion. Missing context - the comment was made way back at the beginning of December, in response to an editor who this about the Politico article: {{tq\|Here’s Politico calling the ceremony hosted by Trump "historic"}}. Politico also says this: <small>The Trump administration has pursued a Middle East policy favoring Israel and aimed largely at coercing the Palestinians to participate in peace talks — including by cutting off their U.S. aid, among other measures. But even if Trump hopes the accords become yet another pressure point for the Palestinians to agree to a peace deal with Israel, officials within the UAE and Bahrain do not necessarily share this view. For the Emiratis and the Bahrainis, the normalization agreements with Israel are more important for the united front they present against Iran, as well their potential economic and diplomatic benefits.</small> ]] 10:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' — adding a ] article published on October 9, 2023, two days after the Hamas atrocities. Excerpt: ''Finally, in U.S. President Donald Trump and his ambitious son-in-law, Jared Kushner, Netanyahu found his dream partnership. Trump gave Netanyahu virtual carte blanche to move further into the West Bank and ensure Oslo’s destruction. Then, one by one, Trump began to unilaterally withdraw rights and recognitions from the Palestinians that both sides used to consider “final status” issues to be negotiated under Oslo. At Kushner’s urging, Trump announced that he was moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and ended the formal U.S. relationship with the Palestinian Liberation Organization by closing its office in Washington. The administration also denied a right of return for Palestinians to Israel and pulled funding to support Palestinian refugees—all without offering any real solution regarding the future of the Palestinian people.'' ]] 16:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
	*:The most important part of the article is this:
	*:"A status quo built on repression, which is what the Abraham Accords and the so-called Israel-Saudi ‘normalization’ deal are really about", quoting an advisor to Bernie Sanders. All the more reason to include a sentence about the Accords, given that reports exist both praising and condemning them, demonstrating their significance. To clarify my position: I do not oppose including one or more contextualizing sentences; earlier I lampooned the fact that such sentences already exist, while some opposers say we shouldn't add context to the Accords because of article bloat. That damage is already done, and one or two more sentences won't break anything. However, the following suggestion does not add an extra contextualizing sentence, but does add some text to the first sentence as follows:
	*:"Trump supported many of the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, <u>including initiatives that worked against the interests of the Palestinian people</u> ." Retain existing sentence on Jerusalem/Golan. The final (third) sentence would be the one shown in RFC, though I would modify it to include Trump's name: "In 2020 at the White House, Trump hosted the signing of the ] <u>that were mediated by U.S. officials and normalized diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain."</u> ] (]) 18:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

			:], regarding my first edit, that was a revert which sought primarily to remove editorialising. Saying he 'failed' to repay the loan(s) imo implies that Fred was Donald's regular creditor, and not the reality that these loans were likely never intended to be repaid. Readers who do not understand how the tax code works (let's face it, almost all of them) probably wouldn't intuit this.
	'''PLEASE''' put your 'support/oppose/neutral' postings, in the subsection "Survey (continued)". ] (]) 16:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
			<br>
	<!--Don't post ANYTHING beyond this notice, in this subsection. So notice will be seen by newbies.-->
			:I think the 'half-billion' amount should be included, but it should be stated that much of that was put on Donald's balance sheet for tax purposes, as the NYT reports. I also agree with MB2437's comment below that converting it to 2018 dollars seems alarmist. I'll refrain from unilaterally adding anything on that, however, respecting the ongoing efforts to trim this page.
			<br>
			:Regarding my second edit, again, I have no in-principle opposition to the allegation that Trump used a pseudonym for the impugned purpose. However, despite the particular sensitivities on this page, this is still Misplaced Pages, and I am well within my rights to remove poorly sourced claims in a BLP on sight. You are more than welcome to add it back in, with appropriate sourcing. ] (]) 22:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			::Greenberg (and Fred Trump's half billion) has been in this article for at least a couple years (I stopped looking in 2022). -] (]) 13:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	====A reminder====
	Let's all be mindful of ], during this RFC's process. ] (]) 22:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	:I don't know about BLUDGEON, but we can avoid circular discussion and the misconception that such debates can be "won". There comes a point where one's arguments have been fully articulated and further debate wastes everybody's time and talk page space, as well as making a closer's job a lot harder. And it's exceedingly rare to see someone's mind changed by this, for various reasons. Whether we're at that point I wouldn't presume to say. ―] ] 01:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	:I agree, ], which is why I, for one, have already absconded. -] (]) 13:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	:Now about bludgeoning? ] (]) 18:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	::That'll do ;) ] (]) 19:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	:Yawns looks at phone W<sup>200</sup>
	:Anyhow Can i get a recap of whats happened ]] 16:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
	::Some folks support the proposal at the top of this RfC and some others oppose it. And a few from both sides are ]. -] (]) 19:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

	~~Hopefully,~~ ~~this~~ ~~will~~ ~~put~~ to an ~~end~~, ~~calls~~ ~~for~~ the ~~Accords~~ ~~inclusion~~. ] (]) 02:22, 17 ~~January~~ 2024 (UTC)		::This disruptive whitewashing should have been sanctioned when it happened, on ] grounds and violation of the BRD restriction on this article. Pity it slipped in on the holidays. ] (]) 16:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Then either take it to ANI, or pipe down. Throwing out accusations that you're not going to follow up on is disruptive. ] (]) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::It would just be marked as "stale" as that is how ANI (dys)functions, so, wrongdoing will be called out as it is seen. ] (]) 00:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

	~~:Sadly~~ no. ~~See~~ ]. ] (]) 02:44, 17 ~~January~~ 2024 (UTC)		I have reversed the edits in question. When one does not repay a loan, it is a failure. This is basic English and common sense. Only a PR hire would try to spin a failure to fully repay a debt as "well he partially repaid." ] (]) 13:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{ping\|Zaathras}} {{u\|Riposte97}} had the earlier whitewashed version {{tq\|which he did not wholly repay}} with {{tq\|which he only partially repaid}} — IMO another whitewash (with ] "only"). You the first whitewashed version. Was that your intention? The original version said {{tq\|largely failed to repay those loans}} which IMO reflects the source's {{tq\|Much of it was never repaid}}. ]] 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The initial edit wasn't about whitewashing, it was that the value given was inflated. We should have an exact figure, not one given "in 2018 dollars" to exaggerate the claim four-fold. {{tq\|Largely failed}} is also blatant editorialising, where {{tq\|did not wholly repay}} is a much more neutral tone. ''']]''' 18:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|Did not wholly repay}} fails verification, and {{tq\|partially repaid}} is too vague since anything between 0.001 and 99.999 percent is a partial repayment. {{tq\|largely failed to repay}} was the longstanding content, and so far, six editors have supported retaining this language. Doesn't look as though the consensus will change, so I'll revert to it. Whether to state the figure in 1954 or 2018 dollars is a separate discussion. One dollar in 1954 was worth ; the 2018 figure isn't an exaggeration, it's an explanation. ]] 17:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::It is an exaggeration when placed alongside true values; there should be numerical consistency across this prose, not some values inflated and others not, especially when the inflated values cover a long period of time. {{tq\|Did not wholly repay}} does not fail verification, it tells the reader just as much as {{tq\|largely failed to repay}} does without clear negative undertones. Branding the removal of such language as {{tq\|whitewashing}} sets dangerous precedent. ''']]''' 17:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{tq\|Did not wholly repay}} says he repaid most of it while the source says that {{tq\|much of it}} wasn't repaid. , noun: a great quantity, amount, extent, or degree. ]] 18:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::No specifics… ''']]''' 21:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Space, I don't think 'not wholly' implies most, but I also tried to address this with alternative wording which you still didn't like. 'Failed' is clearly NPOV in this context, as it implies either malice or an attempt. If we can find a way to remove that, we'll be in a better position.
			:::::::<br>
			:::::::The fact that something is longstanding is not really relevant, although you bring it up any time anyone wants to make even the most minor edit to this page. I'd also note I don't see this six-editor consensus you're referring to. ] (]) 22:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::If the source verifies a majority then we can say that, without using "failing" or "largely", which is obviously editorialising. ''']]''' 23:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::{{tq\|If the source verifies a majority}}: does that mean that you didn't read the source? ]] 16:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::I'm not challenging the sourced content, I'm challenging its interpretation. We should not be inflating specific dollar figures to exaggerate certain claims—it reads as a lopsided analysis when some integers are of disparate value—nor should we be using negative language to argue its nature to the reader. {{tq\|which he predominantly did not repay}} seems a sensible rephrasing of the latter point. ''']]''' 01:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::{{tq\|Clearly}}, {{tq\|obviously}} — nah, it's neither clear nor obvious to me. I understand "failed to do s.th." in this context as "didn't do it", i.e., neutral wording. And, after wasting an hour of my life that I'll never get back, I tracked down that changed the original wording {{tq\|Trump was lent at least $60 million from his father which was largely not repaid}} to {{tq\|Trump borrowed at least $60 million from his father, and '''largely failed''' to reimburse him}} (boldface added by me), made by an editor who, if I remember correctly, was above suspicion of anti-Trump sentiments. {{tq\|Six editors}}: The five editors who agreed to trim most of the section while keeping that particular sentence and me. I oppose the trim but obviously not to the parts that weren't trimmed. ]] 16:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::The reverts were done in the context of broader edits. To claim that as consensus for this specific wording is a little misleading. Anyway, this isn't about anyone's 'anti-Trump sentiments', it's just about us identifying wording which could be read as biased by some readers.
			:::::::::<br>
			:::::::::Can you just agree to 'mostly did not repay' or similar? ] (]) 00:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::I've changed "failed to repay" to "did not repay". (Just curious: why do you add additional white space between paragraphs by adding colons and "br"? ]] 15:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::(It renders better on the mobile app.) ] (]) 10:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{sources-talk}}

			== The Apprentice ==
	How is this still open? ] (]) 15:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

			I'm making a couple minor but bold changes to the TOC outline. This article doesn't have a TOC item for ''The Apprentice'', which was a milestone in Trump's life. ''The Apprentice'' led Trump to licensing deals worldwide. Any help is welcomed especially to keep the chrono order. For example, I fudged the SAG-AFTRA para out of order to keep it.
	:As mentioned above, the close was overturned and this RFC reopened for more comment. ] (]) 15:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

			{{cot\|title=Before}}
	:See . ]] 15:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
			1 Early life and education
			2 Personal life
			2.1 Family
			2.2 Health
			3 Business career
			3.1 Real estate
			3.1.1 Manhattan and Chicago developments
			3.1.2 Atlantic City casinos
			3.1.3 Clubs
			3.2 Side ventures
			3.2.1 Trump University
			3.3 Foundation
			3.4 Legal affairs and bankruptcies
			3.5 Wealth
			4 Media career
			5 Early political aspirations (1987–2014)
			{{cob}}
			{{cot\|title=After}}
			1 Early life and education
			2 Personal life
			2.1 Family
			2.2 Health
			3 Business career
			3.1 Real estate
			3.1.1 Manhattan and Chicago developments
			3.1.2 Atlantic City casinos
			3.1.3 Clubs
			3.2 Side ventures
			3.3 Foundation
			3.4 Trump University
			3.5 Legal affairs and bankruptcies
			3.6 Wealth
			4 Media career
			5 The Apprentice
			6 Licensing the Trump name
			7 Early political aspirations (1987–2014)
			{{cob}}
			-] (]) 18:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{u\|Nikkimaria}}, a barnstar is on its way for . Thank you!
			:Is there a way to keep some of this? {{tq\|Biographer ] writes that he was an athletic teenager who dreamed of a Hollywood career.}} In 1969 Trump followed his heart, walked into the Palace Theater, and asked to become a producer, invested in one show and lost his money. I have more reading to do but I think Haberman repeats ] that Trump always wanted to be a Hollywood star. I think it's important to our narrative to keep the progression from youth -> TV -> a political stage. -] (]) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

	~~Let~~'s be ~~mindful~~ of ~~bludgeoning~~ & ~~not~~ ~~rebuttal~~ ~~entries~~ in ~~the~~ ~~survey~~ ~~section,~~ ~~now~~ ~~that~~ ~~the~~ ~~RFC~~ ~~has~~ ~~been~~ ~~re-opened~~. ] (]) 18:37, 28 ~~January~~ 2024 (UTC)		::I'd suggest waiting until we can frame that progression more holistically, since as presented it was disconnected from his eventual media career. (Plus I don't think athleticism is a necessary part of that progression). ] (]) 14:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Thank you for the correction. Trump was a remarkably good first baseman but we don't have to cite the one sentence that combines sports and Hollywood. So I agree to skip over sports.
			:::My mistake, it was ], Barrett's research assistant. Everybody I've read so far includes Trump's interest in Hollywood:
			:::* {{tq\|Before heading off to college he was fairly certain that he wanted a career in show business, not real estate. He said he planned to attend the University of Southern California to study filmmaking and had already produced a Broadway show called ''Paris is Out''.{{sfn\|O'Brien\|2015\|p=53}}}}
			:::* {{tq\|Even after joining the family firm, Donald could not shake his youthful interest in show business and the faster track to fame that offered.{{sfn\|Haberman\|2022\|p=39}}}}
			:::* {{tq\|In college he had contemplated a movie career and took half a step in that direction {{sfn\|Buettner\|Craig\|2024\|p=108}}}}
			:::* {{tq\|For a time, he flirted with signing up for film school at the University of Southern California—reflecting his lifelong love of movies—but he enrolled instead at Fordham University because he wanted to be closer to home.{{sfn\|Kranish\|Fisher\|2017\|p=45}}}}
			:::* {{tq\|The full extent of Donald Trump's college-years rebellion involved fantasizing about a career in the theater or film.{{sfn\|D'Antonio\|2015\|p=48}}}}

	I ~~would~~ ~~remind~~ ~~users~~ ~~this~~ is ~~about~~ ~~him,~~ ~~the~~ ~~man,~~ ~~not~~ ~~his~~ ~~presidency,~~ ~~that~~ is ]. So ~~what~~ ~~should~~ be ~~here~~ is ~~what~~ is ~~notable~~ ~~about~~ ~~him~~, ~~not~~ that ~~something~~ ~~notable~~ ~~happens~~ to ~~him~~. ] (]) 16:44, 29 ~~January~~ 2024 (UTC)		So where does it belong? I see no reason to use four words to say USC. How about this? {{tq\|Trump considered film school and a show business career, but in 1964, he enrolled at Fordham University.}} Also I should add that he was a producer at ''The Apprentice''. -] (]) 20:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

			:How about {{tq\|Trump considered film school but instead in 1964 enrolled at Fordham University.}}? ] (]) 00:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	:The subsection of the article into which the proposed sentence would be placed is part of a main section called "Presidency (2017–2021)". That main section contains 48--count 'em--48 subsections and sub-subsections. Would you have people believe that all the text in all those subsections is about the man, but not the presidency? The distinction a few editors are trying to make between the person and the presidency in that main section is a fiction that merely serves to paper over politically inspired exclusion of valid content. Let's look at your working definition: "what should be here is what is notable about him". Just letting my eye fall on a random part of the "Presidency" section, how does the first sentence of sub-subsection "Economy" (5.3.1) fulfill that definition? It says: "Trump took office at the height of the longest economic expansion in American history, which began in June 2009 and continued until February 2020, when the COVID-19 recession began." Is that a sentence that says something "notable about him, not that he has something notable happen to him"? More to the point, the idea that the Accords happened to him--that he, as president, had no role in the process whatsoever--is a false predicate. Feel free to peruse the other 47 sub-subsections to see how valid the concept is of confining text in the "Presidency" section of the article only to information that is "notable" about Trump. ] (]) 17:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
			::I'd prefer to better follow the sources. How about {{tq\|Trump considered a show business career but instead in 1964 enrolled at Fordham University.}}?
	::The fact that the article currently isn't perfect is no reason for us to make it less perfect. While this edit isn't necessarily a bad one, this kind of justification is flawed. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 17:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
			::(Also correction, I haven't ''read'' all these books; I make use of indices.) -] (]) 14:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|he was a producer}}: if you look at the credits of TV shows, you'll often see the stars of the show also listed as executive producers. It could just mean that they're the big names necessary to get financing for the show; they might also get input on scripts and story lines. Initially, ] planned to have a different business tycoon headlining the show each season but found few people interested in the job, and after the success of the first season he and NBC settled on Trump.
			::::Yet you lead with "From 2004 to 2015, Trump was co-producer and host..." (most important position in the section). I don't understand your edits. You removed the person who created ''The Apprentice'', and the person who created the catchphrase. This must be corrected. -] (]) 18:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|contemplated/flirted with a movie career}}: who hasn't dreamed of Hollywood? It isn't noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia. He didn't attend film school or take acting lessons. So he lost $70,000 in 1973 to get his name on the playbill of a broadway play that flopped. That's chump change compared to the $1.17 billion in business losses he reported to the IRS between 1984 and 1995. ]] 17:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Seems to be moot now, although I'd support removing the Broadway flop. -] (]) 18:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{od}}Sources to explain the importance of giving the origin of "You're fired." Trump didn't make this up by himself, although he tried and failed to trademark it.
			* NY Post:
			* WNYC:
			* Business Insider: made note that Trump borrowed his trademark phrase for his NBC show, "The Apprentice," from Steinbrenner, who first popularized "you're fired" in his years-long, love-hate relationship with manager Billy Martin, whom Steinbrenner hired and fired a total of five times.]
			-] (]) 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The NY Post is not a reliable source (also doesn't mention an origin for the catchphrase). Haberman cites her source for "homage to Steinbrenner" on pg. 528. It's . Smith mentions this featuring Steinbrenner and Yankees on and off-again manager Billy Martin. It’s one sentence in a long article, and it merely says that Steinbrenner "first popularized" the phrase. Smith's 2017 BI article quotes former Yankees employee Ray Negron saying that Trump "borrowed that from the great George Steinbrenner, and people forget that" (another opinion), and in his 2019 NBC article Smith doesn't make this claim. Vince McMahon had been "you're fired" as his catchphrase since 1998, and Trump was a regular at WWE events, so that’s also a possible source. Third possibility: He remembered the phrase from the many movies in which it was used in more or less violent scenes: , , , , , of movies going back to 1933. The only thing we know for sure is that Trump used it and in 2004. ]] 19:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{tq\|co-producer}}: I hadn't noticed that mistake. AFAIK, he was credited as executive producer - credit and pay without actual duties. They also had to edit out raw footage of Trump making sexist and racist or just plain dumb remarks. I'll get back to this later or tomorrow. ]] 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I don't wish to engage in an edit war but it is disrespectful to omit the man who created ''The Apprentice''. Instead in this article we piled all the glory on Mr. Trump.
			::We've erased the connection to Trump's political aspirations (which are in the very next section).
			::Haberman wrote that Trump knew Steinbrenner since the 1980s. Are we splitting hairs to hide the issues? If you don't like Mr. Smith's choice of words, choose another per ]. One trademark lawyer says "You're fired" . This point I'll concede because you keep arguing.
			::I defer to your years of editing this article. But I ask that you please listen to new information. Buettner & Craig, Kranish & Fisher (and Haberman and O'Brien) are the best sources we have so far, aren't they? -] (]) 15:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Well, if you don't wish to engage in an edit war. IMO, we had a neutrally written paragraph on the ''Apprentice'', explaining what it was and what it did for his image. It was rewritten quite a few times in the six years I've been involved in editing this article, by different editors. That the show was somebody else's brainchild is a detail that belongs in the shows article, and that it ran for 14 seasons is confusing without the explanation that two "seasons" per year were broadcast from 2004 to 2006. I haven't gotten around to looking up previous discussions and the editing history. ]] 19:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Misplaced Pages says {{tq\|The Celebrity Apprentice is linked in seasons to its precursor TV show, The Apprentice, which consists of seasons 1–6 and season 10. The Celebrity Apprentice consists of seasons 7–9 and 11–15.}} Perhaps those are the kinds of details this article can skip. {{u\|Nikkimaria}}, would you possibly have time to copyedit the ] paragraph? -] (]) 20:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Do we really need to explain that Trump didn't invent the extremely common phrase "you're fired"? Is anybody actually dumb enough to need that pointed out to them? And, if they are, how did they manage to get to this website?--] (]) (]) 22:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Guessing most Wikipedians are too young to understand the cultural reference. -] (]) 02:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Here's a start at compromise.
			:::::{{tqb\|Producer ] made Trump a TV star{{sfn\|Buettner\|Craig\|2024\|p=7\|loc="Mark Burnett, the television producer who made Trump a star, did not just hand him a fortune."}} when he created '']'', which Trump co-produced and hosted from 2004 to 2015 (including variant '']''). On the shows, he was a superrich chief executive who eliminated contestants with the ] "you're fired". ''The New York Times'' called his portrayal "highly flattering, highly fictionalized". The shows remade Trump's image for millions of viewers nationwide.<ref>{{cite news\|last1=Grynbaum\|first1=Michael M.\|last2=Parker\|first2=Ashley\|author-link2=Ashley Parker\|date=July 16, 2016\|title=Donald Trump the Political Showman, Born on 'The Apprentice'\|work=]\|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/17/business/media/donald-trump-apprentice.html\|access-date=July 8, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine \|last=Nussbaum \|first=Emily \|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/07/31/the-tv-that-created-donald-trump \|title=The TV That Created Donald Trump \|magazine=] \|date=July 24, 2017 \|access-date=October 18, 2023}}</ref> With the related licensing agreements, they earned him more than $400 million.<ref>{{cite news\|last=Poniewozik \|first=James \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/28/arts/television/trump-taxes-apprentice.html \|title=Donald Trump Was the Real Winner of 'The Apprentice' \|work=] \|date=September 28, 2020 \|access-date=October 18, 2023}}</ref>}}
			::::{{u\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}}, OK to edit the above in place if you want to. -] (]) 02:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{talk-reflist}}

			== Edit War ==
	'''PLEASE''' put your support/oppose/neutral posts in the "Survey (continued)" subsection. ] (]) 16:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
			<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message\|}}<!-- ] 15:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1736133600}}<!-- END PIN -->
	{{archive bottom}}
			I think there is an edit war going on here. Following the ], Trump left office. Till he won, the title was clear, post-presidency. After he won, an edit war started.
			For some weird reason, these are the choices at hand:
			--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
			1. Interpresidency
			2. First post-presidency
			3. post-presidency (current)
			--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
			At first, people used choice number 3. Then the edit war started after the election, and people cannot decide between these choices. We need better security for this article, Extended confirmed is clearly not doing it here. Just please decide. ] (]) 19:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The situation is neither uncommon nor illegitimate when there is no clear talk page consensus. See ] for another example. It has nothing to do with the level of protection. Regardless, the next level after ECP is full protection, which is not going to happen. ―] ] 19:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Well, you see, Edit protection is next, ensuring only experienced people can do it. Look, i'm just saying we have to be really careful around this particular article mainly from the controversies. I have asked an experienced person to assess the situation. ] (]) 18:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:On January 20, 2025, the title of the section should be changed to "Post-presidency (2021–2025)". If there is a "second post-presidency (2029–)", we can change that to "First post-presidency (2021–2025)". I googled "Inter-presidency" and got a bunch of hits for Inter Milan President Beppe Marotta. ]] 17:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::"Dormancy (2021–2025)". Or remission. ;) ―] ] 17:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::He was not dormant, rather pretty active. False claims rised before he finally conceded. Not to be rude, but this title wouldn't be the best. I'll admit, we do need a clear consensus. ] (]) 18:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::We thought it was the end of the movie but it was just an intermission. ]] 21:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Correct, although after "the end of the movie" he was still active. And "Dormancy" was suggested in ] not ]. Dormancy is described as a non-active state, although his activity between 2021 and now is active. ] (]) 23:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I support option 1 as the most accurate of the three. ] (]) 17:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The word isn't in any dictionary. ]] 18:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			Why not use the model of the Cleavland article? ] (]) 19:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			: That's pretty much what I'm proposing, except for the "election of 18xx" part (we have the campaign/election sections instead) and not knowing how long Trump's second presidency and post-presidency will last. ]] 22:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Legally it has to end in 2028. ] (]) 22:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::January 20, 2029. He's 78 — we'll see what happens. ]] 22:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Problem, it uses First post-presidency. It is already inaccurate but I will not discuss unrelated articles. ] (]) 23:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::"§7 First presidency (2017–2021)" could change to "§7 Presidency (2017–2021)"? He only served one term. -] (]) 23:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::This is concerning the following section. And I'm not sure if I should say this but I don't think we should start this on the Grover Cleveland talk page. ] (]) 23:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::And I was referring to the Cleveland article when I said First post-presidency. Sorry for not pointing it out. ] (]) 23:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			'''Between presidential terms (2021–2025)'''. Cheers, ] (]) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:You know, that sounds like a good idea.
			:Any objections? ] (]) 17:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Works for me. ] (]) 17:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Solution in search of a problem, but meh as long as you wait until after the inauguration — just in case lightning strikes or an Acme anvil falls. ]] 18:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can make the change after the inauguration on 1-20-2025. Regards, ] (]) 22:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Well, sounds good to me.
			:::Ok, what should the next steps be?
			:::Also, just curious, who pinned this? ] (]) 15:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{tq\|who pinned this?}} ―] ] 16:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Huh — looks as though BoB K tried to (because I said "meh"??) and then you did? Can't figure out what happened. My suggestion: unpin. ]] 19:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I care about ''how'' it's pinned. Apathetic on ''whether'' it should be pinned. ―] ] 20:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::As I mentioned in my edit summary, "added template to prevent archiving of this thread until a week after inauguration". I did that because this discussion was about taking an action after the inauguration. Mandruss changed the time from a week after the inauguration to 10 years and made an announcement in a box at the top of the section. Whatever you want to do is fine with me. Regards, ] (]) 15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Well it seems all set. ] (]) 02:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			==Bulking down the article: Currently over 400Kb in system size==
	==== Discussion of second closure <span class="anchor" id="Closing of RfC on Abraham Accords"></span> ====

			This article page is so large it's daunting and it's continuing to grow. On inauguration day later in January the article is likely to quickly grow by at least another 50Kb in system size once the new section for the next 4 years of presidency is added with the already written Misplaced Pages pages for the New Cabinet nominations, etc. The article should go through a significant bulking down process before the next presidential term is added later next month in January. Adding this discussion here on Talk page for thoughts from editors about which sections in this article to split or fork, which to shorten, which to abridge when sibling Misplaced Pages articles are already written for many of the topics in the different subsections of this article. This Trump biography article would seem better if it could be made shorter than 400Kb in the current system size. ] (]) 23:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	Seems we need clarification. I assume that this paragraph means exactly what it says (bolding added by me): {{tq\|The community's decision is to support the principle of mentioning the Abraham Accords, not to endorse the specific wording given in the RfC question. '''That wording can still be edited in the normal way.'''}} I.e., edits do NOT have to garner strong consensus on the Talk page, as . I don't know what to make of "very carefully reasoned"; the criteria should be NPOV and supported by the majority of RS. ]] 17:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
			:Why ? Not enough server space ? ] (]) 17:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Many reasons, a few being technical, most being readability concerns. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 19:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Agree with {{u\|Cessaune}}. The article is currently taking about 55-65 minutes to read from top to bottom, which seems much longer than Misplaced Pages size guidelines. The technical size issue is that the article is now at about 410Kb, and on Jan 20 on inauguration day the section for the ] of 120Kb is going to be added to this article all at once. That is a total of 410Kb + 120Kb = 530Kb. At over 500Kb in size following inauguration day, that size for the article seems excessive and daunting. Are there any thoughts from editors about bulking down this article before the second inauguration on Jan 20 to make the article more readable for Misplaced Pages readers? ] (]) 15:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I agree. I think excessive detail occurs when the information is new and seems important at the time, but not after a few years. ] (]) 15:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			== "]" listed at ] ==
	:], at least to me, it's obvious that the discussion switched from ''do I support this specific wording'' to ''do I support a mention of the Abraham Accords in the article?'' pretty early on. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 17:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
			]
	::You're not wrong - the discussion took on a much broader scope over time. Though, 2 points to keep in mind:
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 30#Religious views of Donald Trump}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 23:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	::#The RFC question literally asked ''"Should the Israel subsection of the foreign policy subsection be updated to include the bolded sentence below?"'' - this is the explicit proposal which started garnering Supports
			:This material was deleted after last edited by Mandruss in Nov. 2024: '''<<nowiki>>
	::#No alternative wording was sufficiently discussed in the course of the discussion; in the absence of such an alternative, why would we not use the wording originally proposed?
			'''Trump went to Sunday school as a child and was ] in 1959 at the ], Queens.<ref name="BarronNYT"/><ref name="inactive"/> In the 1970s, his parents joined the ], part of the ].<ref name="BarronNYT"/><ref name="WaPo.March.18.17"/> In 2015, he said he was a ] and attended Marble Collegiate Church; the church said he was not an active member.<ref name="inactive"/> In 2019, he appointed his personal pastor, televangelist ], to the White House ].<ref>{{cite news\|work=]\|date=October 31, 2019\|first1=Jeremy W.\|last1=Peters\|author-link1=Jeremy W. Peters\|first2=Maggie\|last2=Haberman\|author-link2=Maggie Haberman\|title=Paula White, Trump's Personal Pastor, Joins the White House\|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/us/politics/paula-white-trump.html\|access-date=September 29, 2021}}</ref> In 2020, he said he identified as a ].<ref>{{cite news\|title=Exclusive: Trump, confirmed a Presbyterian, now identifies as 'non-denominational Christian'\|url=https://religionnews.com/2020/10/23/exclusive-trump-confirmed-a-presbyterian-now-identifies-as-non-denominational-christian/\|work=]\|date=October 23, 2020\|access-date=September 29, 2021\|first1=Jack\|last1=Jenkins\|first2=Maina\|last2=Mwaura}}</ref>'''<</nowiki>>''' ] (]) 23:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	::It seems wrong to me to try and read into the Support votes and deduce for ourselves that they didn't all support the wording as proposed.
	::Now, I personally think it would be wrong to codify that wording <u>in stone</u> - I generally believe that everything in any article is subject to improvement at any time. But this article is a special case. Especially so soon after a long and chaotic RFC, I think it would be detrimental to this article for us to immediately try workshopping some new wording.
	::But, its as Levivich said - unless someone has a change in mind to propose, this discussion seems purely academic. ] (]) 19:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
	:::@] I just saw the discussion at your . Would you mind commenting here why you think the wording proposed in the RFC <u>doesn't</u> have community consensus? ] (]) 19:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
	::::Yes, I'd mind. Direct questions about the close to my talk page please.—] <small>]/]</small> 19:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
	:This is pretty academic unless someone has a change they want to make to the wording? ] (]) 17:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
	::And if we do change something about the wording, it might be to summarize this aspect:
	::*'''' (2022): {{tqq\|Advocates eventually viewed the accords as a significant achievement...}}
	::*'''' (2022): {{tqq\|The accords were, in fact, a genuine breakthrough in the region.}}
	::*'''' (2021): {{tqq\|On September 15, Trump notched a rare foreign-policy achievement...}}
	::*'''' (2020, the source currently cited in the article): {{tqq\|But many analysts of the region, while affording Mr. Trump credit for helping to broker the agreement — work spearheaded by his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner — called the talk of peace overblown.}}
	::*'''' (2022): {{tqq\|arguably one of the Trump administration’s few foreign-policy achievements}}
	::I'm not sure what other sources say. Generally I'd put a lot more stock in newer sources than older ones. ] (]) 18:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
	:{{tq\|In 2020, the White House hosted the signing of the ], normalizing the foreign relations of Israel with the ] and ].<sup></sup>}}
	:] --> ]. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 17:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
	::Have you compared which sources use "normalizing" and which use "formalizing"? I just took a quick look at (the source currently used in the article, which btw isn't the best source because it's now outdated), , , , and . AFAICS, they all say "normalizing" and none say "formalizing." That's probably because "normalizing" is what it's called in foreign relations when two countries establish formal diplomatic relations. ] (]) 18:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
	:::I don't mind switching to a better source; I just picked a contemporary news article since it seems like most of the Presidency section cites that kind of source. ] (]) 19:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
	::::Which source(s) do you think would be better? I think I'd support swapping the NYT cite with the 2022 Foreign Policy article linked above. ] (]) 19:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Sure—that source, or the books you mentioned above, all work for me. ] (]) 19:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
	:::TBH I just thought it made more sense. I didn't actually read the sources. If they all say normalizing then let's say normalizing. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 22:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
	::I discovered today that I have been editing an . The first closing was contested before AN. Now the same editor appears to be contesting a part of the closing they don't agree with. So, before getting accused of dumping more appalling heaps, let's get the parsing of the above-quoted sentence out of the way. ]] 19:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
	:::You didn't appreciate the Grinch reference? ] (]) 19:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
	::::According to the stats, I authored 19.5% of the characters in the article. Oddly, being told that I'm a major contributor to an appalling dump heap does not fill my heart with joy. Anyhoo, we now have consensus #65: {{tq\|Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings.}} ]] 13:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

			== "]" listed at ] ==
	== Neutrality concern over ranking ==
			]
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 30#Early life and career of Donald Trump}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 23:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			== "]" listed at ] ==
			]
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 30#Individual 1}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 23:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Concerns over "worst president" scholarly ranking in lead ==
	In the opening, there is discussion of how scholars rank Trump poorly as a president. Considering there’s a very good possibility he could become president again this November, should we remove this section until perhaps after the election if he loses? My main concern is that this disturbs the neutrality of the article and the fact that he’s a candidate right now, which would almost make that part of the article seem like an anti-endorsement. ] (]) 14:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	:no, this has been discussed in the past. it is well sourced and we do not take into consideration current political activities. ] (]) 15:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	:And you could make the same argument about every Trump-negative thing in the article. No, we're not going to remove any of that because he's running in 2024. That's not what "neutrality" means at Misplaced Pages. ―] ] 19:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	:If elected, he'd only become president on 20 January 2025. ] (]) 23:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	:As he is a candidate for high office, the general public is best served by leaving well sourced material about experts' opinions on him and his presidency in the article. If the vast majority of experts consider him to have been a poor president, that is something important for the public to know when making their decisions as to whom to vote for. ] (]) (]) 20:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
	:"My main concern is that this disturbs the neutrality of the article" Your idea of neutrality is hiding inconvenient truths? In the ], the cited historians have ranked him as having the 45th position in the background rankings (indicating his family, education, and experience), the 43rd in the imagination rankings, 45th in the integrity rankings, 45th in in the intelligence rankings, 44th in the rankings for the ability to compromise, 44th in the rankings for executive ability, 43rd in the rankings for leadership ability, 43rd in the rankings for communication ability (his skills in speaking and writing), 43rd in the rankings for overall ability, 42nd in the rankings of the presidents' relationship with Congress, 43rd in the rankings of his court appointments, 41st in the rankings of a president's handling of the U.S. economy, 45th in the rankings of executive appointments, 43rd in the rankings of a president's domestic accomplishments, 45th in the rankings of a president's foreign policy accomplishments, and 43rd in the rankings for a president's ability to avoid crucial mistakes. The 45th position is reserved for the worst president in the cited poll. Trump is ranked below ] in several of these rankings. ] (]) 23:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
	:Neutrality means reporting RS without expressing an opinion on them or choosing some over others according to any editor biases. Neutrality does not mean writing an article that fails to report significant criticism (or praise). Rankings of presidents by presidential historians are significant, so it's NPOV to include them, whatever their general conclusion. If there is a lot of controversy in the rankings or significant criticism, then report that as well. But Misplaced Pages can't just get rid of it, because that would be the opposite of NPOV. ] (]) 15:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

			I am concerned with the mention of scholars ranking him as "one of the worst presidents in American history" due to the fact that it may be premature and interfere with the neutrality of the article. Mentioning the rating in the body is appropriate, however, mentioning it in the lead when the legacy of Trump’s tenure in office is already so contentious, along with the fact that his first term has only recently ended, does not seem appropriate. Additionally, the article goes on to mention immediately after his election loss, several extremely controversial viewpoints, and court cases he has or continues to face. The latter mentions are good, but noting his poor scholarly rating immediately prior gives the article a sense of authority on the public’s view of Trump’s presidency, when really it is ambiguous, and overshadows the other mentions with a negative connotation. Other articles on presidents do not seem to have this messaging, so I support its removal from the lead. If there is a consensus I have missed regarding this, please let me know, thanks. ] (]) 06:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	== "...which many of them then attacked,..." ==
			:Neutrality is not achieved by hiding negatives. Other articles on presidents often considered to be at or near the bottom (A. Johnson, Buchanan. Harding, Pierce, Tyler, and W. Harrison) mention their rankings.--] (]) (]) 16:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:see every talk page thread about this for every reason why. ] (]) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{cot\|{{small\|1=]. ―] ] 18:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}}}}
			::For those of us who study history and understand that history actually does repeat itself it is obvious what his role in US history is...although I`m sure many more want to be dictators are coming our way he is the ] of our time and it is obvious that it will get much worse...and his supporters will get exactly what they "voted" for. Leave it in...greater minds than mine put it in there for a reason ] (]) 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Our personal viewpoints are irrelevant in Misplaced Pages editing, and have no place in a content discussion. Please make an attempt to learn the applicable policy and conform to it. ―] ] 18:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::"he is the ] of our time" Are you referring to the assassination of Caligula, his wife ], and his daughter ] by members of the ]? We shall see whether the ] will perform its own assassinations of American political leaders and their families. ] (]) 18:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::See above, and you don't have inexperience as an excuse. Collapsing per NOTFORUM. ―] ] 18:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{cob}}
			:{{tq\|Other articles on presidents do not seem to have this messaging}} - yes, they do. The leads of the ones ranked at the top (Washington, FDR, Lincoln) and Trump's fellow bottom dwellers Andrew Johnson, Buchanan, and Pierce all mention the ranking. And the leads of presidents not at the top or bottom mention, e.g., "lower half" (George W. Bush) or "upper tier" (Obama). ]] 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Proposes to supersede ] item 54. ―] ] 18:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks! Missed that ] (]) 19:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			== "]" listed at ] ==
			]
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#GEOTUS}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 21:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			== "]" listed at ] ==
			]
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Inter-presidency of Donald Trump}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

			== "]" listed at ] ==
	If you have 500,000 items and you detach 5,000 of them, is that "many" or is that "some"? ] (]) 16:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
			]
	:What do RS say? ] (]) 16:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#FirstName LastInitial redirects for presidents}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:From the lead of ]:{{tq2\|More than 2,000 rioters entered the building,<ref>{{cite news \|last=Lucas \|first=Ryan \|date=January 6, 2022 \|title=Where the Jan. 6 insurrection investigation stands, one year later \|language=en \|work=] \|url=https://www.npr.org/2022/01/06/1070736018/jan-6-anniversary-investigation-cases-defendants-justice \|url-status=live \|access-date=January 7, 2022 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220106101200/https://www.npr.org/2022/01/06/1070736018/jan-6-anniversary-investigation-cases-defendants-justice \|archive-date=January 6, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news \|last1=Bennet \|first1=Dalton \|last2=Brown \|first2=Emma \|last3=Cahlan \|first3=Sarah \|last4=Sohuyn Lee \|first4=Joyce \|last5=Kelly \|first5=Meg \|last6=Samuels \|first6=Elyse \|last7=Swaine \|first7=Jon \|newspaper=] \|title=41 minutes of fear: A video timeline from inside the Capitol siege \|date=January 16, 2021 \|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/16/video-timeline-capitol-siege/ \|access-date=January 20, 2021 \|archive-date=May 4, 2021 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210504025143/https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/16/video-timeline-capitol-siege/ \|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="BarrettEtAl">{{cite news \|last1=Barrett \|first1=Ted \|last2=Raju \|first2=Manu \|last3=Nickeas \|first3=Peter \|date=January 6, 2021 \|title=Pro-Trump mob storms US Capitol as armed standoff takes place outside House chamber \|work=] \|url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/us-capitol-lockdown/index.html \|url-status=live \|access-date=January 6, 2021 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210106211203/https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/us-capitol-lockdown/index.html \|archive-date=January 6, 2021}}</ref> many of whom vandalized and looted parts of the building,<ref>"Vandalized":
	* {{cite news \|last=Jackman \|first=Tom \|date=January 7, 2021 \|title=FBI appeals for information from public on Capitol rioters \|newspaper=] \|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/06/dc-protests-trump-rally-live-updates/ \|url-access=limited \|access-date=June 11, 2022 \|issn=0190-8286 \|oclc=2269358 \|archive-date=January 6, 2021 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210106194011/https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/06/dc-protests-trump-rally-live-updates/ \|url-status=live}}
	* {{cite news \|last=Pallini \|first=Thomas \|date=January 7, 2021 \|title=Photos show the aftermath of an unprecedented and destructive siege on the US Capitol that left 4 rioters dead \|work=] \|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-show-the-aftermath-of-a-siege-on-capitol-building-2021-1 \|ref=none \|access-date=January 9, 2021 \|archive-date=January 17, 2021 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210117160424/https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-show-the-aftermath-of-a-siege-on-capitol-building-2021-1 \|url-status=live}} "Looted":
	* {{cite news \|last1=Daly \|first1=Matthew \|last2=Balsamo \|first2=Michael \|date=January 8, 2021 \|title=Deadly siege focuses attention on Capitol Police \|work=] \|url=https://apnews.com/article/capitol-police-death-brian-sicknick-46933a828d7b12de7e3d5620a8a04583 \|access-date=January 9, 2021 \|ref=none \|archive-date=January 8, 2021 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210108232040/https://apnews.com/article/capitol-police-death-brian-sicknick-46933a828d7b12de7e3d5620a8a04583 \|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>Multiple sources:
	* {{cite news \|last=Landale \|first=James \|date=January 7, 2021 \|title=Capitol siege: Trump's words 'directly led' to violence, Patel says \|work=] \|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-55571482 \|url-status=live \|access-date=January 7, 2021 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210108020736/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-55571482 \|archive-date=January 8, 2021 \|ref=none}}
	* {{cite news \|last1=Dozier \|first1=Kimberly \|first2=Vera \|last2=Bergengruen \|date=January 6, 2021 \|title=Incited by the President, Trump Supporters Violently Storm the Capitol \|url=https://time.com/5926883/trump-supporters-storm-capitol/ \|magazine=] \|access-date=January 7, 2021 \|archive-date=January 8, 2021 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210108020624/https://time.com/5926883/trump-supporters-storm-capitol/ \|url-status=live \|ref=none}}</ref> including the offices of then House speaker ] and other members of Congress.<ref>Multiple sources:
	* {{cite news \|last=Betz \|first=Bradford \|date=January 17, 2021 \|title=New video shows MAGA mob rifling through paperwork in Senate chamber as they hunt down Nancy Pelosi\|url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/maga-mob-seen-rifling-through-paperwork-in-senate-chamber-as-they-hunt-down-nancy-pelosi-in-new-video\|access-date=January 18, 2021\|website=]\|archive-date=January 17, 2021\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210117235422/https://www.foxnews.com/politics/maga-mob-seen-rifling-through-paperwork-in-senate-chamber-as-they-hunt-down-nancy-pelosi-in-new-video\|url-status=live}}
	* {{cite news \|last=Rosenberg \|first=Matthew \|date=January 7, 2021 \|title=He looted Speaker Pelosi's office, and then bragged about it. \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/richard-barnett-pelosi.html \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210107041436/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/richard-barnett-pelosi.html \|archive-date=January 7, 2021 \|url-access=limited \|website=]}}
	* {{cite news \|last=Conradis\|first=Brandon\|date=January 6, 2021\|title=Pelosi's office vandalized after pro-Trump rioters storm Capitol\|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/house/532969-pelosis-office-vandalized-after-pro-trump-rioters-storm-capitol\|access-date=January 10, 2021\|website=]\|ref=none\|archive-date=January 14, 2021\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210114214737/https://thehill.com/homenews/house/532969-pelosis-office-vandalized-after-pro-trump-rioters-storm-capitol\|url-status=live}}
	* {{cite news \|last=Swaine \|first=Jon \|title=Man who posed at Pelosi desk said in Facebook post that he is prepared for violent death \|newspaper=] \|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/man-who-posed-at-pelosi-desk-said-in-facebook-post-that-he-is-prepared-for-violent-death/2021/01/07/cf5b0714-509a-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html \|date=January 7, 2021 \|access-date=January 9, 2021 \|ref=none \|archive-date=January 8, 2021 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210108020638/https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/man-who-posed-at-pelosi-desk-said-in-facebook-post-that-he-is-prepared-for-violent-death/2021/01/07/cf5b0714-509a-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html \|url-status=live}}
	* {{#invoke:cite web\|\|last=Rambaran\|first=Vandana\|title=Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley says laptop stolen from office during Capitol riots\|url=https://www.foxnews.com/us/oregon-jeff-merkley-laptop-stolen-capitol-riots\|date=January 8, 2021\|access-date=January 11, 2021\|work=]\|ref=none\|archive-date=February 16, 2021\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210216132035/https://www.foxnews.com/us/oregon-jeff-merkley-laptop-stolen-capitol-riots\|url-status=live}}
	* {{cite news \|url=https://www.ourquadcities.com/news/national-news/capitol-mob-built-gallows-and-chanted-hang-mike-pence/ \|first=Jill \|last=Colvin \|agency=] \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210110060916/https://www.ourquadcities.com/news/national-news/capitol-mob-built-gallows-and-chanted-hang-mike-pence/ \|archive-date=January 10, 2021 \|title=Capitol mob built gallows and chanted 'Hang Mike Pence' \|date=January 9, 2021 \|ref=none}}
	* {{#invoke:cite web\|\|url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-capitol-rioters-chanted-hang-mike-pence-video-footage/\|date=January 10, 2021\|access-date=February 18, 2021\|title=US Capitol rioters chanted 'Hang Mike Pence' – video footage\|website=The Times of Israel\|ref=none\|archive-date=January 12, 2021\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210112012130/https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-capitol-rioters-chanted-hang-mike-pence-video-footage\|url-status=live}}
	* {{cite news \|title=US Capitol riot mob wanted to kill Mike Pence, run Pelosi over with a car \|first=Alex \|last=Turner-Cohen \|url=https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/us-capitol-riot-mob-wanted-to-kill-mike-pence-run-pelosi-over-with-a-car/news-story/ab3277f484a9d04c162dc1c985aa4edc \|date=January 11, 2021 \|access-date=January 11, 2021 \|work=News.com.au \|ref=none \|archive-date=January 15, 2021 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210115172714/https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/us-capitol-riot-mob-wanted-to-kill-mike-pence-run-pelosi-over-with-a-car/news-story/ab3277f484a9d04c162dc1c985aa4edc \|url-status=live}}</ref>}}Considering that "entered the building" was illegal and required crossing police barricades, I think all 2,000 can fairly be said to have "attacked" – regardless of whether they committed any violent acts outside or inside. The force was constituted in their overwhelming numbers. If only 100 committed violent acts, few of them could have done it without the presence of the other 1,900, who served to keep law enforcement largely at bay. So the 1,900 were complicit in the violent acts simply by being there.{{pb}}And 2,000 is "many" any way you cut it. This was a far higher proportion than the one percent in your analogy; there weren't anywhere close to 200,000 protesters at the Capitol.
	{{sources-talk}}
	:―] ] 00:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
	::I seem to recall RS put it in the thousands (now not even tens of thousands. ] (]) 12:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::I think this is tricky. "Many" could mean a large proportion of the crowd, or it could mean a large group, regardless of what fraction it was of the crowd. Maybe we could reword to avoid the ambiguity.--] (]) 00:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::Reword how? "...which many of them then attacked, if you include all those who entered the building and consider 2,000 to be 'many.'" I don't think so. The says nothing about proportion, and we needn't cater to readers having a poor command of the English language; particularly when there is no reasonable way to do that. But I could be swayed by a reasonable specific proposal. ―] ] 01:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::How about "thousands" or "about 2,000 of them"? More specific, and verifiable per reliable sources. ] (]) 01:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::::That doesn't really address an ambiguity objection, since it doesn't define "attacked". Remember, we're talking about the lead, and the lead can rarely fully cover all the nuance. Readers have to drill deeper if they want the full story. Put differently, readers who stop at the lead will be frequently ill-served no matter what editors do, here or anywhere else. ―] ] 01:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
	:Is 500,000 the crowd size Trump currently claims? Rally organizers had that they anticipated 30,000 attendees, the Associated Press as "at least 10,000. By 1:15 p.m., the procession was on the move." The crowd at the Capitol was "several thousand". An estimated the Capitol, have been charged, 750 gave been convicted so far. Many attended the rally, many marched to the Capitol, many entered the Capitol, many have been charged, many have been convicted. : a large number of persons or things. ]] 10:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
	::I think "many" is ambiguous and does have a sense of proportion. If you say many people are X, and in fact it's 2000 out of the population of Earth, that is a misuse of the term "many".--] (]) 04:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::When someone refuses to defer to the dictionary on matters of vocabulary, that's when I stop responding. It's not unlike going to trial with two different versions of the law: there is little basis for debate. And a comparison to the population of Earth is hardly apt or helpful. After I pointed out that the OP's one percent is far too small, your analogy is now 0.000025%. I call that a big step backward. ―] ] 00:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

	== ~~Russian~~ ~~interference~~ in the ~~2016~~ ~~and~~ ~~2020~~ ~~election~~ ==		== Are you kidding with the bias in the introduction? ==

			The intro should highlight that he was re-elected by the American people in reaction to the progressive agenda pushed by the current administration, high inflationary periods between 2020-2024, and a desire for better economic performance. This victory was unprecedented given the amount of lawsuits against Trump and the extreme anti-Trump sentiment in the media. ] (]) 05:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	The lead says, <b>"A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election to favor Trump's campaign."</b> This is a peculiar sentence because ] has happened a lot since the country was founded, including some foreign interference <i>against</i> Trump in 2020, so if this material about 2016 remains in our lead then it should be modified to say <i>why</i> it's significant enough for the lead. Most reliable sources say that it's unknown whether the Russian interference affected the close election outcome. Most reliable sources also say that the investigation(s) failed to establish Trump-Russia collusion. Of course, there was a ton of publicity about this matter during Trump's term of office, but most of that publicity was inspired by the idea that maybe he or his campaign had been complicit with Russia, or maybe Russia had changed our election outcome, but ultimately those things could not be established, so the result was kind of a nothingburger as far as Trump himself was concerned. I suggest either removing it from the lead, or instead clarifying, for example like this: <b>"Russia and other ] of 2016 and 2020 for and against Trump, but investigations failed to establish that Trump conspired with any of it, or that it affected any election outcome."</b> According to ], "during a news spike...there is mass interest to create and update articles on a current event, regardless of whether it may be historically significant later on." It's pretty obvious that the historical significance of this particular material would now be vastly greater if collusion by Trump had been established, or if it had been established that the election result was affected, but those things have not been established. Readers who just look at our lead will suspect that they have indeed been established, for otherwise the matter would scarcely be worth putting in the lead (keep in mind that ]). ] (]) 08:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
	:None of that invalidates the brief factual statement from the article that's bolded at the top of the paragraph.]] 13:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
	:I've no objections to any of your proposals. ] (]) 14:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
	:Before we discuss mentioning the alleged 2020 election interference in the lead, we need to discuss whether and, if so, how to add it to the body - reverted . The difference between the two cycles of election interference: the one in 2016 was successful and thoroughly investigated by Mueller and the U.S. Senate after the fact, the one in 2020 wasn’t. The cited sources are from 2019. Also, what are the sources for {{tq\|both for and against Trump}}? ]] 16:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
	:I can agree that the Russian interference in our elections isn't significant enough to Trump himself to be in his lead, though it would likely belong in the lead of his presidency article. – ] (]) 16:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
	::As the predicate to much of Trump's victim narrative and slogans Russia Russia Russis No Collusion etc. I think the brief lead bit does relate to him personally. He didn't seem happy with the disclosures.]] 16:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::Russian interference definitely relates to Trump, but this article is already realllly long and will get longer with 2024 election and criminal trial results that will need to be in the lead. – ] (]) 16:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::We'll cross those bridges when we get to them. {{tq\|He didn't seem happy with the disclosures}}: not happy at all, on a personal level — see "Russia hoax" at ], ], and every campaign speech and most other speeches he has given since 2019. ]] 16:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::Mubs. that's a reasonable point, but there's an increasingly significant problem with it. Longtime editors on this page and STEWARDs such as SpaceX and yourself have tried to forcus on trump, cut NOTNEWS, resist being snookered by Trump's best-ever self promotion, etc. But time and again, less experienced editors (all good) come here and insist on this or that being added because..."obvious". Even on the current talk page, such discussions are evident. Because WP pages publish dynamically, it's not possible to address due weight and personal significance with a lexicographic ranking. Maybe we need to state a guiding prinicple to codify why newsworthy but not DUE content is regularly rejected by well-informed editors here?]] 16:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Indeed, RECENTISM bias affects us all, some more than others. With time, we can apply the ] to help us decide what items we added in the past that can be cut. And we must remind all editors to keep the long-term encyclopedic view at hand. And that can involve cutting Russia/2016, especially since it's debatable exactly how much that helped him. Comey's late October announcement may have had a bigger impact, for instance. – ] (]) 19:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
	:The lead says, "A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election to favor Trump's campaign." Established should be changed to "concluded" in line with how reliable sources reported the conclusions of the Muller report.
	:Also the article uses a lot of innuendo to imply that Trump was more favorable to Russia than Obama or Biden. Instead it should directly address the question. Despite DNC talking points, most expert opinion is that Trump was at least if not more hostile in his actions toward Russia than Obama or Biden. ] (]) 17:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
	::''his'' actions, or his State Department's actions? ] (]) 17:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
	::First bit, good. Second bit, no sources for that.]] 18:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
	::{{tq\|most expert opinion is}} a bold statement requiring some RS. ]] 21:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::See the article by Jeremy Shapiro in the European CFR: "In its details, policy has broadly reflected the bipartisan consensus in Washington that Russia is a malign actor and a national security threat to the United States. Obama-era economic sanctions against Russia have remained in place and become even tougher. The administration has increased military assistance to Eastern Europe and sent arms to Ukraine. The most recent US National Security Strategy, released in 2017, identified Russia as a strategic competitor and a revisionist power that threatens the integrity of Western democracy."
	:::Of course Trump, like other presidents, followed State Department policy. But as president it is his choice whether or not to follow it. I realize that Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman devote their broadcasts to connecting Trump and Russia but it's a rhetorical device with no basis in fact. It's the DNC equivalent of tying Biden to cultural Marxism. ] (]) 20:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::TFD, your cable TV habits are beside . And it's known to virtually every RS and to the likes of John Bolton and ninety-nine neocons that the 2017 Trump still had the likes of Tillerson, Gary Cohn, and other sorts who thought they could continue in the mould of Bush, Bush, Cheney, and Cheney.]] 22:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Reliable sources say that Trump was as tough on if not tougher on Russia than Obama and Biden. His wording however was less belligerent and more like that of George W. Bush and Secretary Clinton.
	:::::While I appreciate that the party line is that Trump is a Putin puppet, that type of rhetoric belongs in our social media comments not in an article that is supposed to reflect mainstream assessments.
	:::::Speaking of Bolton, in the Trump-Russia article we use Trump's hiring of him as proof Trump was pro-Russia and now we use his firing as proof Trump is pro-Russia. Since we know Trump is pro-Russia, everything he does must fit into our conception. ] (]) 22:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::Shapiro is one expert, and he says in the next paragraph that {{tq\|But all of this has been undermined by the president himself. Trump has treated Putin and Russia with rare politesse, even deference. Unlike virtually every other world leader, Trump has refrained from criticising Putin personally and sided with him over the US intelligence community’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 US election.}} Bolton - which Trump-Russia article are you referring to? ]] 11:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::: " Unlike virtually every other world leader, Trump has refrained from criticising Putin personally and sided with him over the US intelligence community’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 US election " for obvious reasons ] (]) 23:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

			:Misplaced Pages articles are written based off of what reliable sources say, not based on your ] on why he was elected or how "unprecedented" it is. ] (]) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Consensus 37 ==
			::The article doesn't seem to give any reason for Trump's victory. I did a quick google search "" and the first thing I found was . In this source there was Anthony Salvanto, CBS News' executive director of elections and surveys, who said that there were three main factors behind voters' support of Trump: the role of the economy, a steady MAGA base, and out-of-touch democrats. ] (]) 21:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::That seems like it would fit better in the article on the election than in the article on Trump. ] (]) 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Why is that? This is information that is directly related to his career in politics. ] (]) 23:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Happy to provide sources of you can confirm that you will make the changes. Not sure who the gatekeeper is for what the world views on Misplaced Pages, but I hope is is not just one person. ] (]) 23:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Not how things work here. You suggest a change or addition, which is supported by citation to a source. Discussion will then begin from there on whether or not to include it. ] (]) 00:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::There isn't exactly a "gatekeeper for worldviews" on this site, you need sources for statements you want to induct into the article and like what other people said, no original research. ] (]) 03:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:That kind of introduction is more fitting for Conservapedia, not Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{Ping\|NesserWiki}} ] is extremely ironic, it's not to be taken seriously. On the contrary, what the OP wrote started a discussion that perhaps could be useful (although I don't think it will be useful). ] (]) 01:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Unjustified removal of Operation Warp Speed? ==
	To save you some scrolling, 37 is: {{tq2\|Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (])}}

			{{u\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} decided to mention of Operation Warp Speed from the page and said that the "last discussion" was "inconclusive". I'm a little confused here, given the ] they cited includes a number of editors agreeing that inclusion of OWS was warranted, but not much discussion about it at all.
	That made sense in June 2019 when we were in the middle of Trump's presidency. It doesn't make sense now, years later, because now we have sources about his presidency (and sources about his life that include his presidency). As such, whether something about his presidency is included or not should be based on traditional ] and ] analysis -- in proportion to its coverage in RS -- and ''not'' based on editors' assessments of whether it is {{tqq\|likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy}}. A ]-type analysis makes sense for ''current events'', when we don't have the benefit of retrospective RS for a DUE/ASPECT analysis. But now that years have passed and there are RS about the whole presidency, we should just look at RS to tell us what's "lasting", i.e. what's a significant aspect or perspective due for inclusion in the article.

			The discussion also seems irrelevant given multiple reliable sources are saying OWS was a trump accomplishment. If it's in an RS and ], I don't think it's sound to wipe stuff because of some vague mentions on an archived talk page?
	I suggest changing #37 to be about current events rather than about his presidency: {{tq2\|Content related to current events about Trump should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply.}} ] (]) 00:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	:No particular opinion, except that I'd support removal of the last sentence. As I've said previously, it bears no strong connection to the underlying discussion. I made the comment in the discussion and there was no objection to it, so I included it in #37 because "it seemed reasonable at the time". There was no real consensus for it, exactly. And it has created more problem than it was worth, as we've seen in the Abraham Accords saga. ―] ] 00:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	::The last sentence doesn't make sense.--] (]) 02:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	:I disagree. We will always have to evaluate the sources for lasting impact and/or long-term presidential legacy. His bio is what it is, long and complex. While Trump is running for another term does not seem like the time to change that consensus. Most current events fall under ], anyway, something we’ve been adhering to very strictly on this page, out of sheer necessity. With exceptions, such as the deluge of lawsuits - unique and likely to remain unique. I support removal of the second sentence for the reasons stated by Mandruss. ]] 11:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC) BTW, the scholarship you mentioned was published in 2021 or 2020, and one paper in 2022. " has strengthened her acceptance in the region and reaches beyond security issues" seems a tad dated after October 7, 2023. ]] 13:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	:{{u\|PhotogenicScientist}}: you said in that "we are not to decide for ourselves" etc. Editors decide what to put in any given article, hopefully based on the best available and accessible reliable sources and leaving their biases at the door. Which we all have, acknowledged or not (and accuse each other of having - see Survey (continued), above). ]] 12:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	:After re-reading the discussion that spawned this consensus item, I agree 100% with your proposed change, Levivich. Most editors in that discussion seemed concerned primarily with ], and there doesn't seem to be a reason anymore to limit it to the presidency, especially now that we're 4 years on from that.
	:I also strongly disagree with the removal of the last sentence. When this consensus item was born, many editors expressed reservations how this could end up being applied. {{u\|Onetwothreeip}} summed it up pretty well early on: ''"I think we can exercise judgement here and let editors remove what they see fit to remove along these lines, and restore it if there is disagreement."'' If we're writing this practice into stone as a "consensus item", I think we need to leave the door open for these concerns. ] (]) 14:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	::{{tq\|writing this practice into stone}} See superseded #4, #7, #11, #15, #16, #17, #18, #21, #23, #24, #35, #36, and #45. Twenty percent of consensus items to date have been superseded. If that's stone, it's ''very'' low on the Mohs scale. I have previously made this point directly to you, and I really hate having to repeat myself to the same editor. Your persistent hyperbole is counterproductive and I'd ask that you temper it. <del>(Hyperbolic speech is a sign of hyperbolic thinking, which is irrational by definition.)</del> ―] ] 23:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC) {{smaller\|(Belated strike after UTP contact) 23:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)}}
	:::Calling another editor "irrational" probably isn't going to get you very far with them...
	:::And if you make unconvincing arguments the first time, you may find yourself repeating yourself quite a bit. Any written consensus item becomes part of '''Da Rulez''' at this article - it can be superseded, yes, but only with a new Talk page thread generating a new consensus, likely at great difficulty. It's a bit like an Indefinite ban - sure, it's not an <u>infinite</u> ban, but it's a ban that lasts until someone bothers to change something. And it's a ban that can absolutely be enforced like a stone tablet over your head in the meantime. So, while you've decided to try and pry at my stone metaphor, you've yet to convince me that writing a consensus item that disregards the concerns of quite a few editors, including the past discussion and this one - that it can be enforced in a heavy-handed way unless qualified - is the thing to do. ] (]) 14:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
	:I agree with the change, although I also question whether the final sentenc should be retained. In many cases, it's hard to know if something will have lasting signficance. I would say that unless something has obvious lasting significance, for example if Trump drops out of the race, that it should be left out until its lasting significance is established. ] (]) 15:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	::I'm confused. So we would be required to wait to establish lasting significance? How long? ] </nowiki></span>''']] 18:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	:Let the (ongoing) RFC run its course. Then worry about ''this'' issue. ] (]) 16:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	::Second the motion. ]] 18:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::I third the motion. ] (]) 20:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

			E.g. according to Vox: : {{tq\|"One of the biggest accomplishments of the Trump administration — and yes, there were accomplishments — was Operation Warp Speed, the public-private effort to rapidly develop Covid vaccines"}}
	===Process issue===
	]I agree that it's appropriate for the consensus list to be under continuous review and improvement. But I do not think it's wise to consider amendments during an ongoing discussion of specific content to which such changes would apply. Even when the specific content issue has given rise to the review and need for clarification. What's going to become of this tortured RfC in the event of a revision? I suggest ditching the RfC, burying it and proceeding with the discussion of 37.]] 16:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

			Per : {{tq\|"Operation Warp Speed, a Trump administration initiative to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines as fast as possible, should be lauded as a successful endeavour in what has otherwise been a poor effort to deal with the coronavirus, experts say"}}
	:Let's finish the RfC before we implement any changes. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 18:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	::In that case, do you propose we revise the outcome based on whatever is done with ]?]] 18:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::No. We finish the RfC and ''then'' we deal with this. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 18:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	Abraham Accords RFC by my count: 21 !Support, 12 !Oppose. Loser would love to cancel the game. ] (]) 18:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

			says OWS was a Trump accomplishment, while also being clear that Trump was an anti-science president who sometimes hindered the pandemic response.
	:]... ] (]) 20:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	::I have no concern about which way this poll is closed but, as I have previously stated, any inclusion in this page will need context and historical significance as conveyed by contemporaneous and subesquent RS narrative and analysis. That's the reason for 37 in the first place. We recognized that NPOV can't be done Rodney Dangerfield style with a series of one-liners.]] 21:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	::<small>I would consider upgrading Dangerfield to ], whose page links to better examples.]] 21:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)</small>
	*Agree with a pause on discussion of Consensus item 37 until ''after'' the RfC is closed. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

			It probably deserves a brief mention in the lead as I put .
	=== Revised 37 ===
	Current Consensus #37: {{tq2\|Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (])}}

			It would be great if other users could please weigh in.
	Proposed: {{tq2\|Content related to current events about Trump should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term legacy.}}

			] (]) 23:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	Changes "Trump's presidency" to "current events about Trump" and strikes the last sentence. I think this covers the issues raised in the above discussion? ] (]) 16:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

			:It's probably worth a brief mention in the article body – like a sentence. A fuller treatment of the topic belongs in ], ], and obviously ]. – ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Why leave out the last sentence? ] (]) 19:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
			::{{tq\|"A brief mention – like a sentence"}}? If numerous reliable sources are calling this a major achievement with substantial discussion, a paragraph is more realistic. There are 12 entire paragraphs about COVID, some of it rather trivial in nature – but a single sentence for a multi-billion dollar policy implemented by a US president that has been praised by experts and sources? ] (]) 04:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	::For no reason other than (unless I'm misreading) it was like 3-1 in favor of removing that sentence in the discussion above. Which of course doesn't mean it's consensus or anything, I just thought that without-the-last-sentence was the version that had the most support in the prior discussion. For my part I'd support the change with or without the last sentence. I do think the last sentence is unhelpfully-vague as written (what constitutes "borderline" and "debatable" are, um, debatable) and I'd prefer something more objective or otherwise easier to apply (if we have a "last sentence"). But again, I'd support with or without the last sentence, because the first sentence is more important IMO. ] (]) 19:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
			:CNN seems to have agreed with you. "President Donald Trump finally has something legitimate to take credit for in his coronavirus response: A vaccine that appears poised to reach Americans in record time." ] (]) 01:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks, that's a good source to use. ] (]) 04:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::That CNN source, , and , don't support the laudatory text you proposed ({{tq\|The program has been characterized as one of Trump's most significant accomplishments by medical experts for enabling the development of effective vaccines in record time}}). They mention the 15 years of research and development of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine technology before the pandemic hit, Trump's interference and politicizing of the process, and his promise of many more doses by the end of 2020 than the goals set by the contracts with the vaccine manufacturers. ]] 20:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I would support a brief, neutrally worded one-sentence mention of Operation Warp Speed. Further detail should be reserved for the respective pages covering that topic. ] (]) 04:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			'''Reincluded:''' I have the paragraph and small mention in lead. I also took a look at the Obama article, which includes mention of the ACA as his "most significant accomplishment" per the ], so I think if the reliable sources describe this as Trumps, that deserved a mention in body. ] (]) 04:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	== De facto leader of Republican Party? (No RS to assert this) ==

			:This is more than a mention in the body - it should be shortened. If there is a concern that some of the other COVID-related content is trivial, then condensing that would be a better approach. ] (]) 05:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=y}}
			::Two sentences is hardly "more than a mention". The reliable sources describe this as a major achievement of his presidency and a major component of his COVID-19 response. Misplaced Pages reflects the RS. It seems some of the editors chiming in think "consensus" depends on opinion and a vote count. That is false. ] (]) 20:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|That is false.}} Is that a "My arguments are stronger, so I win" argument? ―] ] 21:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::No, consensus building is important. But it is also important that Misplaced Pages editors arguments are based in policy/guidelines/reasoning. Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect ], and I haven't heard a good argument as to why restriction to a single sentence is appropriate, given the way OWS has been extensively covered in the reliable sources. ] (]) 21:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I'm just being practical, as that's how I roll. Based on my 11 years around here, a large part of it at this article, I'd generously estimate that one in four editors participating at this article actually meets that standard of collaborativeness (my mind doesn't change easily, so I wouldn't count myself as one of them). We can agree on ideals, but we still have to resolve issues. ―] ] 21:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:You didn't just reinsert the paragraph after six hours (see "Warning: active arbitration remedies" banner at the top of this talk page), you also added a clause to the lead. I've reverted. The discussion so far supports a brief, e.g., one-sentence mention in the body. Developing an effective vaccine was only part of it; research and development was well under way in several countries by the time of Trump's announcement. <s>Producing and delivering the</s> The production and delivery of a the Trump administration announced on May 15, 2020, was an unrealistic goal and . (Cue .) ]] 12:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::A full delete of the section seems to be more than what Nikkimaria asked for above, maybe to shorten that material which was just deleted by some percentage might be better than the full delete. ] (]) 15:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{u\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}}, I find this reasoning to restrict it to ''one sentence'' unjustified. Misplaced Pages reflects reliable sources. Consensus is made based upon validity of the argument per editing guidelines, and not because one editor ''thinks'' that this should be restricted to one sentence. Overriding and disputing the reliable sources seems like a major overstep. This is covered in the RS as a major component to the pandemic response, and a major achievement of his presidency.

			::And to clarify, I did not “reinsert the paragraph”, I wrote a new one. Second, the part in the lead was in my original . The lead summarizes his response to COVID, and this was a major component of that response.

			::Can you actually cite me reasoning/guidelines/policy that would favour your interpretation of restricting coverage to a single sentence, given that multiple ] explicitly refer to this as his chief achievement?
			::] (]) 20:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I stand corrected. I hadn't noticed the text in the lead the first time around. Mention in the lead hasn't received any support in this discussion, and the rewritten text is no improvement on the first iteration. It's actually worse. The first sentence is based on a primary source (OWS); second sentence see . ]] 20:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|reasoning/guidelines/policy ... single sentence}} — not a question of guidelines or policy, it's where the consensus seems to be headed. Several editors in this discussion said they prefer a brief, short, or one-sentence mention, also neutral. ]] 21:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Regarding your comment above. Just because mRNA technology predates Trump isn't a reason for editors to make their ''own conclusions'' that OWS wasn't really an achievement at all. OWS may well have been imperfect, but multiple ] ''still'' describe it as his chief achievement. E.g. Vox quite recently .
			::::It would be appropriate to add a sentence to the end of the two sentence paragraph that I added, clarifying any of the critique of Trump regarding OWS, provided they are in ].
			::::In addition to the Vox source, the source did support: {{tq\|"Health experts broadly agree that the Trump administration’s national vaccine strategy was a success. The Trump administration was willing to invest in new vaccine technologies, foot the bill for large, expensive clinical studies and simultaneously pay for manufacturing vaccine candidates before it was clear they would prove effective and safe"}} ] (]) 21:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::You`re cherry picking a random quote ] (]) 21:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I highlighted '''multiple''' ] above which are clear that OWS was perhaps his sole accomplishment as president. I'm not going to argue with people who don't understand how Misplaced Pages works. Questioning multiple reliable sources is not appropriate. It's verifiable (]) and in multiple reliable sources. ] (]) 21:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::A handful of random quotes taken out of context ] (]) 21:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Do you have any countervailing evidence, then? I haven't chimed in here because I wanted to see how this developed, but it seems Zenomonoz is arguing for RS and policy…the assertion that this should be arbitrarily restricted to one sentence (and the unhelpful removal in the meantime) doesn't improve the article.
			:::::::::<br>
			:::::::::How do biographical sources treat OWS? ] (]) 22:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::That would require an effort on my part..I agree..I believe the reference should be expanded upon regarding trump dragging his feet every moment of the pandemic and is now taking credit for ending it..as did reagan taking credit for the wall coming down ] (]) 00:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::That's good. We should get into the nuances. ] (]) 00:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::{{tq\|"I believe the reference should be expanded upon regarding trump dragging his feet every moment of the pandemic"}}, if you actually read the COVID-19 section you would know there is already extensive coverage of trump "dragging his feet". It's frustrating that users are chiming in to say we must restrict mention of a major program he implemented during the pandemic to a single sentence, despite its heavy coverage in multiple reliable sources. No reasoning provided. Quoting multiple RS sources is the opposite of "cherrypicking", by the way. ] (]) 05:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I would also like to offer my agreement with @Zenomonoz that the listed references indicate notability of the bill itself and is representative of the most notable policy associated with his Presidency. It warrants some mention of inclusion as the references provided do appear to all validate its importance both nationally and with respect to his presidency. ] (]) 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Considering that the major source of the vaccine was Pfizer, which was never a part of Warp Speed, and an immigrant who got the Nobel Prize for ages of research behind the vaccine; but had to leave the country for lack of funds -- a very brief mention somewhere may be OK. But that's all. More than that is an insult to those that spent decades in vaccine efforts -- and Trump's new Health Czar is anti-vaccine. ] (]) 01:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{tq\|"More than that is an insult to those that spent decades in vaccine efforts -- and Trump's new Health Czar is anti-vaccine"}} – your reasoning does not seem relevant. Misplaced Pages reflects ], it isn't up to users to be making editorial decisions because they think it's an "insult" to people who worked on vaccines, or because of details surrounding the Pfizer vaccine. OWS funded numerous other vaccines, and scientific experts agree it was largely a success per the ]. A later pending appointment of RFK has zero bearing on OWS and what the sources said about OWS. ] (]) 06:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The precise quotation from Pfizer is now added to the ] article. ] (]) 01:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks. An accurate documentation: ] (]) 02:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I rewrote one of the added sentences over there per the given source , "Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order 'played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process' and one expert disagreed." As it originally was added with "Experts disagreed", seemed to express more disagreement than the source presented and that there was a larger sample. Thanks. ] (]) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I just your rewrite for failing verification. CNN wrote: {{tq\|Three experts told CNN that this purchase promise '''may have played''' an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process.}} Your text: {{tq\|Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order "played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process"}}. I bolded the important words missing from your quote. The CNN article also mentions other uncertainties, such as Pfizer and BioNTech's purchase agreements with other countries. ]] 15:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Here again is my edit , which didn't change the quote that was there. I think what I had should be restored with the extra part "may have”, all of which is supported by the given source. In other words I think it should be like this, "Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order 'may have played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process' and one expert disagreed." Cheers, ] (]) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::CNN asked four experts — selected on what basis out of how many? The purchase was contingent on the vaccine's FDA approval, so it was Pfizer/BioNTech taking the risk of paying for development, clinical trials, building the production facilities — seems they were fairly certain that they would succeed. ]] 16:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Space, we are not going to start questioning the reliability of sources like CNN, nor committing OR. I agree with Bob's proposal, and will insert the amended quote tomorrow. ] (]) 23:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Yes. A small paragraph about OWS is justified to go back in. It's covered extensively in reliable sources. Space (but mostly other users) have been questioning reliable sources ] and carrying out ] in the comments here. I received stern warnings for that when I was new to Misplaced Pages. This his all boils down to "what do the reliable sources say?". If there's extensive coverage in RS, it can be included. If users want to include RS mention of any criticism of Trump and OWS, that can be included too. Per the sources, OWS is a major part of the Trump admin COVID response. What do the reliable sources say? ] (]) 06:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::I agree. I would also suggest that editors look at the rather large section and note what is currently there without OWS. Thanks. ] (]) 10:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			Within the context of how trump and his cronies handled the pandemic ] (]) 21:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			== New official portrait <span class="anchor" id="When Trump's new potrait is taken during his second term, should that replace the photo of his last Presidential potrait?"></span> ==
			{{small\|Original heading: "When Trump's new potrait is taken during his second term, should that replace the photo of his last Presidential potrait?" ―] ] 12:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}

			I don't believe there is a standard for this exact situation yet on here, given that Trump is only the second person to serve two non-consecutive terms as POTUS. Although, newer potraits tend be used over older ones on pages for other politicians. Overall, I'm curious as to what you all think should happen. ] (]) 12:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:For infoboxes for politicians, Misplaced Pages uses the most recent official portrait. ―] ] 13:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:There is a precedent with Barack Obama. We use the most recent, second White House portrait which is closer to how he currently looks (salt-and-pepper rather than his earlier black hair). https://petapixel.com/2013/01/18/a-closer-look-at-obamas-new-official-presidential-portrait/ ] (]) 08:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 05 January 2025 ==
			{{Edit extended-protected\|answered=yes}}

	<!--Don't remove anything above this line.-->		<!--Don't remove anything above this line.-->

	Trump is a candidate in the 2024 Republican presidential primaries.

			* '''What I think should be changed (format using {{tl\|textdiff}})''':{{TextDiff\|Post-presidency (2021-present)\|Time between the presidencies (2021-present)}}
	[remove the part about Trump being the defacto leader of the republican party. There is no RS voted for this statement. The leader of the Republican Party is not a position other than the RNC chair (which is not Trump).
			* '''Why it should be changed''':In 2024, an edit war was started on this article. I started a talk discussion which solved the problem and we solved it by using this name.
			* '''References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button)''': (] - (redacted in favor of a simple wikilink. ] (]) 03:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC))

			] (]) 02:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Not sure how to format it other than what I did above, but there's no need to make this use reference tags like it is an article citation. ] (]) 03:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Also, no. "Time between the presidencies" is clunky and wordy, and no one suggested that as a possibility in the line section above. This is not a proper use of an edit request. ] (]) 03:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Making this article fully protected ==

			when he is instated, there will be a wave of people (i think) that will try to edit it, and even bots. i find it necessary to make it fully protected (gold lock) ] (]) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Pages are not protected preemptively... - ] (]) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It's called ] ] (]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::i know, but i think there will be a large vandalism wave, maybe one we cant actually control. over the next 4 years we will definitely see vandalism, which will be extremely annoying and tedious to defend against. ] (]) 21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::is there anything that actually is fully protected? ] (]) 21:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Not in this life...I would prefer to see the page taken down completely for 24 hours than it freezing due to edit conflict but that`s censorship as well ] (]) 22:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The article survived the election with the current protection. It will likewise survive the inauguration. In the absolute worst case, we could always restore a days-old revision. ―] ] 00:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Donald trump is now president. ==

			Change from President-elect to President. ] (]) 18:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			:@] you have to wait 14 more days... ] ] 18:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:has he been inaugurated? ] (]) 18:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:No, he is not. His term will start at noon on the 20th. Just like Biden's started at noon on 20 January 2021. Just like Trump's previous term started at noon on 20 January 2017. --] (]) (]) 19:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Reduce number of citations ==

			This article, without a doubt, should be reduced its citations. 800+ is too much. There are a very few sentences without 2 or more citations. We don't need thousands of citations to prove something. What we need is a reliable source, that we can absolutely rely on, and I can say we can rely on each citation in this article. Where Trump starts his new presidential term, there would of course be a new section for that term, and there for sure be more than 200 citations at the end of that term, and later his post-presidency. This article is already long enough, which I for sure couldn't read within 5 hours. Too much citations. Plus, Trump is one of the most influential people in the U.S. and the world, which makes no doubt that there won't be any misinformation or what did not happen in this article, I mean we don't need 800+ citations, if not fixed the problem, by October 2025, 900 citations in this article. ] (]) 19:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			:I do agree that we should delete excess citations, such as where two or three citations are used at the end of a sentence where one will do. – ] (]) 20:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{tq\| This article is already long enough, which I for sure couldn't read within 5 hours. Too much citations.}} What does number of citations have to do with article length? Would you read every citation?{{pb}}While obvious OVERCITE should be avoided, I have no problem with the current number of citations and I think the hard PEIS limit should be the primary limiter. (See ].) ―] ] 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The article size is daunting also, its over 400Kb in size. If the article were reduced in size, then the number of cites could be significantly reduced as well. ] (]) 01:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Indictment Dismissal ==
	] (]) 06:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
	:Well we have this (see below) but I agree its not enough for the lede. ] (]) 11:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
	<!--Don't remove anything below this line-->
	{{reftalk}}
	]

			The last sentence in the lead currently says: "He faced more felony indictments related to his interference in the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents, which were dismissed after his victory in the 2024 election." However, the classified documents case was dismissed by Aileen Cannon before the Nov election because she ruled Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed. See AP article source: https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-documents-smith-c66d5ffb7ba86c1b991f95e89bdeba0c. So, this sentence should be revised. Apparently, Jack Smith dropped his appeal of this ruling, but that does not change the fact that this case was dismissed last summer. ] (]) 02:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	:{{not done}} The lead summarizes the most important points of the body, in this case part of ] where you can also find the RS supporting the statement:
	::{{tq2\|Unlike other former presidents, Trump continued to dominate his party; he has been compared to a modern-day ]. He continued fundraising, raising more than twice as much as the Republican Party itself, hinted at a third candidacy, and profited from fundraisers many Republican candidates held at Mar-a-Lago. Much of his focus was on the people in charge of elections and how elections are run. In the ] he endorsed over 200 candidates for various offices, most of whom supported his false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him.<ref name="nyt1">{{cite web\|last=Goldmacher\|first=Shane\|title=Mar-a-Lago Machine: Trump as a Modern-Day Party Boss\|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/17/us/politics/trump-mar-a-lago.html\|access-date=July 31, 2022\|work=]\|date=April 17, 2022}}</ref><ref name="nyt2">{{cite web\|last=Paybarah\|first=Azi\|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/02/us/politics/trump-endorsements-midterm-primary-election.html\|title=Where Trump's Endorsement Record Stands Halfway through Primary Season\|work=]\|date=August 2, 2022\|access-date=August 3, 2022}}</ref><ref name="lat">{{cite web\|last1=Castleman\|first1=Terry\|last2=Mason\|first2=Melanie\|url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-05-03/trump-endorsements-2022-election\|title=Tracking Trump's endorsement record in the 2022 primary elections\|work=]\|date=August 5, 2022\|access-date=August 6, 2022}}</ref> A majority of candidates endorsed by him won in Republican primary elections.<ref name="nyt2"/>}} ]] 13:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC
	:::Then lets change it to "continued to dominate". ] (]) 13:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
	::::Go for it. I'm not particularly invested in the wording. Brand-new , Feb 11, 2024: {{tq\|A flurry of drama over the past week on and off Capitol Hill has made it clear that Republicans currently have just one dominant leader: Donald Trump.}} Julia Azari, professor of political science at Marquette University, : {{tq\| it now seems that Trump is not so much a party leader, but a movement figure. This might seem like the kind of distinction that only academics care about. But it’s key to understanding the current state of American politics, and the dilemmas now facing GOP leaders as the MAGA movement threatens to completely overtake the Republican Party itself.}} ]] 13:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
	{{reftalk}}

Latest revision as of 02:45, 7 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186Auto-archiving period: 7 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements.

Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Misplaced Pages articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used.

Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

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

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Want to add new information about Donald Trump?
Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:

... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: This page is biased towards/against Trump because it mentions/doesn't mention x. Why won't you fix it? A1: Having a neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to all viewpoints. Rather, it refers to Misplaced Pages's effort to discuss topics and viewpoints in a roughly equal proportion to the degree that they are discussed in reliable sources, which in political articles is mostly mainstream media, although academic works are also sometimes used. For further information, please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Q2: A recent request for comment had X votes for support and Y votes for oppose. Why was it closed as no consensus when one position had more support than the other? A2: Misplaced Pages is built on consensus, which means that editors and contributors here debate the merits of adding, subtracting, or rearranging the information. Consensus is not a vote, rather it is a discussion among community members over how best to interpret and apply information within the bounds of our policy and guideline infrastructure. Often, but not always, the community finds itself unable to obtain consensus for changes or inclusions to the article. In other cases, the community may decide that consensus exists to add or modify material based on the strength of the arguments made by members citing relevant policy and guideline related material here. This can create confusion for new comers or those unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's consensus building processes, especial since consensus can change. While all are welcome to participate in consensus building, keep in mind that the best positions for or against including material are based on policy and guideline pages, so it may be in your best interest to read up on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines before diving into the debates.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This

level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Conservatism High‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City High‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American / Political parties High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance).

Television: American Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American television task force.

United States: Television / Presidential elections / Government Top‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

United States Presidents: Donald Trump Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.

University of Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2010s Top‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Page history

Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 2, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
February 12, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 17, 2016	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 25, 2017	Good article nominee	Not listed
December 2, 2018	Good article nominee	Not listed
July 15, 2019	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 31, 2019	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 29, 2020	Peer review	Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages". New York Post.
Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page". The Verge.
Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times.
Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com.
Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post.
Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages". The Washington Post.
Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News.
Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge.
Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Misplaced Pages". The Daily Dot.
Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge.
Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Misplaced Pages vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today.
Griffin, Andrew (23 November 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Misplaced Pages edit". The Independent.
Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek.
Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Misplaced Pages war has kicked off again". The Inquirer.
Brandom, Russell (December 3, 2018). "Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge.
Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone". Slate.
Pasternack, Alex (March 7, 2020). "How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company.
Flood, Brian (May 21, 2020). "Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News.
Evon, Dan (November 19, 2020). "Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump's Misplaced Pages Page?". Snopes.
Williams, Zoe (October 23, 2023). "Why is Elon Musk attacking Misplaced Pages? Because its very existence offends him". The Guardian.
Hays, Gabriel (May 31, 2024). "CNN host suggests Trump conviction not mentioned prominently enough on former president's Misplaced Pages page". Fox News.
Harrison, Stephen (June 4, 2024). "The Most Heated Debate on Trump's Felony Conviction Is Happening on ... Misplaced Pages?". Slate.
Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv (October 17, 2024). "Go ahead and use Misplaced Pages for research". The Boston Globe.

This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 233 million views since December 2007.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 137 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Skip to table of contents

Other talk page banners

Section sizes

Section size for Donald Trump (88 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	9,362	9,362
Early life and education	3,497	3,497
Personal life	19	5,044
Family	1,340	1,340
Health	3,685	3,685
Business career	149	35,772
Real estate	4,597	15,996
Manhattan and Chicago developments	6,168	6,168
Atlantic City casinos	3,610	3,610
Clubs	1,621	1,621
Licensing the Trump name	1,364	1,364
Side ventures	7,287	7,287
Foundation	5,025	5,025
Legal affairs and bankruptcies	2,315	2,315
Wealth	3,636	3,636
Media career	3,452	5,107
The Apprentice and the Celebrity Apprentice	1,655	1,655
Early political aspirations	4,690	4,690
2016 presidential election	18,430	18,430
First presidency (2017–2021)	139	177,231
Early actions	3,225	3,225
Conflicts of interest	3,367	3,367
Domestic policy	21,318	21,318
Race relations	6,232	6,232
Pardons and commutations	2,574	2,574
Immigration	3,086	20,394
Travel ban	4,347	4,347
Family separation at the border	6,269	6,269
Mexico–United States border wall and government shutdown	6,692	6,692
Foreign policy	2,859	35,965
Trade	2,517	2,517
Russia	4,221	4,221
East Asia	21	10,653
China, Hong Kong, Taiwan	4,914	4,914
North Korea	5,718	5,718
Middle East	23	15,715
Afghanistan	3,042	3,042
Israel	2,637	2,637
Saudi Arabia	2,229	2,229
Syria	3,797	3,797
Iran	3,987	3,987
Personnel	8,705	8,705
Judiciary	4,174	4,174
COVID-19 pandemic	291	31,456
Initial response	7,681	7,681
White House Coronavirus Task Force	5,253	5,253
World Health Organization	2,673	2,673
Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures	7,799	7,799
Political pressure on health agencies	2,690	2,690
Outbreak at the White House	2,666	2,666
Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign	2,403	2,403
Investigations	1,079	26,084
Financial	3,111	3,111
Russian election interference	6,491	6,491
FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations	2,573	2,573
Mueller investigation	12,830	12,830
First impeachment	10,200	10,200
Second impeachment	3,398	3,398
2020 presidential election	34	24,158
Loss to Biden	6,902	15,669
Rejection of results	8,767	8,767
January 6 Capitol attack	8,455	8,455
First post-presidency (2021–2025)	5,018	34,695
Business activities	2,382	2,382
Investigations, criminal indictments and convictions, civil lawsuits	630	27,295
FBI investigations	5,703	5,703
Criminal referral by the House January 6 Committee	693	693
State criminal indictments	2,969	2,969
Federal criminal indictments	5,378	5,378
Criminal conviction in the 2016 campaign fraud case	6,135	6,135
Civil judgments	5,787	5,787
2024 presidential election	15,072	15,072
Political practice and rhetoric	8,048	47,246
Racial and gender views	9,377	9,377
Link to hate crimes	4,730	4,730
Conspiracy theories	3,318	3,318
Truthfulness	10,483	10,483
Social media	5,810	5,810
Relationship with the press	5,480	5,480
Assessments	18	6,969
Public image	4,525	4,525
Scholarly	2,426	2,426
Notes	136	136
References	30	30
Works cited	18	11,906
Books	3,256	3,256
Journals	8,632	8,632
External links	5,431	5,431
Total	404,776	404,776

Current consensus

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
] item
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

07. Superseded by #35 Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019) 08. Superseded by unlisted consensus Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)

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

10. Canceled Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024) 11. Superseded by #17 The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017) 16. Superseded by lead rewrite Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017) 17. Superseded by #50 Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021) 18. Superseded by #63 The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020) 19. Obsolete Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017) 20. Superseded by unlisted consensus Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies ~~have~~ sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018, superseded December 2024) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.) 21. Superseded by #39 Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

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

23. Superseded by #52 The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018). 24. Superseded by #30 Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49 Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019) 36. Superseded by #39 Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48 There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Racially charged

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

it needs removing for sure. it's against WP:Biographies_of_living_persons on multiple counts, but specially "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" ~ Smellymoo 18:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It's sourced in Donald Trump#Views. A citation should be added to the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not oppose the lead's inclusion of the fact that many characterize Trump as racist. I am only supporting the removal of the term "racially charged", which I feel is redundant. — Goszei (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggest you look up the meaning of "racially charged". Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
This comment is going over my head. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Tracking lead size

Word counts by paragraph and total.

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

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

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

26 Nov 2024 — 406 = 56 + 70 + 138 + 142 03 Dec 2024 — 418 = 53 + 64 + 158 + 143

10 Dec 2024 — 413 = 54 + 62 + 153 + 144

17 Dec 2024 — 422 = 58 + 57 + 141 + 166

24 Dec 2024 — 437 = 58 + 57 + 156 + 166

31 Dec 2024 — 465 = 87 + 60 + 154 + 164

Tracking article size

Readable prose size in words – Wiki markup size in bytes – Approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the PEIS limit.

05 Nov 2024 — 15,818 – 421,592 – 103

12 Nov 2024 — 15,883 – 427,790 – 046

19 Nov 2024 — 15,708 – 430,095 – 012

26 Nov 2024 — 15,376 – 414,196 – 067 03 Dec 2024 — 15,479 – 415,176 – 064

10 Dec 2024 — 15,279 – 404,464 – 122

17 Dec 2024 — 15,294 – 405,370 – 080

24 Dec 2024 — 14,863 – 402,971 – 190

31 Dec 2024 — 14,989 – 409,188 – 180

Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

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

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

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

Just to start off: support as proposer, per comments above. — The Anome (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Anome, I suggest you notify the talk page of the article from which your proposed content originated. That page is 6 years old, so the editors there are likely knowledgeable. SPECIFICO talk 20:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Best 'not' to hand out such a notification at another talkpage, Anome. Less that be construed as canvassing for support. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
No, it is media speculation, not a clinical diagnosis, and this is a BLP. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
yes it is time, esp after the 39 minute dance this week the topic has received quite a bit of coverage. whether it is a 'diagnosis' or not is not an issue, a encyclopedia is not drawing a medically-based conclusion it is just reflecting the preponderance of the sources. ValarianB (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
No. You are attempting to create a false narrative. 74.105.29.105 (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

No or at best, very limited yes. I know we don't cite other wiki pages. But just for comparison, the Joe Biden main page only gives it about a vague sentence or two, and that's for a figure who's cognitive decline has been much more prominent and widely discussed by RS. Also, that section is titled much more neutrally simply as "Age and health." So overall, this is a "no" unless significantly scaled back. Just10A (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
No It looks like they are not sincere age and health concerns but political attacks with no consensus of medical professionals. In the last stages of an election campaign, I think it's just part of an expected full court press. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
That's a straw man. The topic is concerns, which have been found NOTABLE on the abundantly sourced wiki page from which the recent content and deletion originated. If it were a medical diagnosis, the lead of this page would simply state "Donald Trump is the demented former POTUS and the demented candidate for 2024." But it isn't a diagnosis and nobody's suggested it is. There should not be a formal poll of any sort here. It's already under discussion and @GoodDay: has provided no policy or content-based rationale not to include this summary of a relevant article, similar to many others on this page. Lacking any such rationale, the removal appears meddlesome and destructive. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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

SPECIFICO was topic banned from Donald Trump a couple of months ago and their above comment was given as the last example of why. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

No - as he hasn't been diagnosed with having any such medical issues. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
No - We are not going to use non-MEDRS soucres to speculated on someone's mental or physical health. We wouldn't do it with Joe or anyone else. It's also laughable un-encyclopedic. Also it should probably be an RFC to overturn two RFCs and a bunch of previous discussions that all found the same thing. PackMecEng (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Kinda seems like we did do that with Joe . DN (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Ugh, well we shouldn't. PackMecEng (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't see a way to "unring" that bell. DN (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Not to point fingers or drag this out even further (see below), but ~~this~~ (correction, see comment by Just10A above) seems to be where comparisons to the Biden article actually started. Cheers. DN (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes See Joe Biden#2024 presidential campaign. "After the debate raised questions about his health and age, Biden faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Democrats and the editorial boards of several major news outlets". I understand BLP's require extra care, but "concern" doesn't seem to be weasely enough, as long as it's attributed in a verifiable context outside of VOICE. If the same rules that apply to Biden also apply to Trump, "Refuses to release medical records" with "attributed concerns" is where the bar currently sits. See "More than 230 doctors and health care providers, most of whom are backing Vice President Kamala Harris, call on Trump to release medical records" ABC NYT, Independent, CBS. Also see Age and health concerns about Donald Trump Cheers. DN (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
And Biden did step down, is there any indication of similar pressure on Trump from within the GOP? Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
It's not a qualifier as far as I know. Was the "raised questions about Biden's health" only allowed to be added AFTER he stepped down? Cheers. DN (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Well I recall making the same arguments there as here, and it all changed when it actually had an impact on the election. Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Let's look at the tape. Looks like concerns about Biden's health were added on the 4th of July "After the debate raised questions about his health, Biden faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Democrats and the editorial boards of several major news outlets" and Biden didn't resign until July 21st. Did I miss something? DN (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
NO, but I did, as I had opposed that in the past, and did not see the addition. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I can see wanting to err on the side of caution, but the cat is out of the bag and fairness is the name of the game, and other such idioms... DN (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
So we could say then "After a series of rallies raised questions about his health, Trump faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Republicana and the editorial boards of several major news outlets", would this be supported by RS? Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
AFAIK There is no policy stipulating the statements must be similar. Only that it must be based on what the sources say. DN (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
1.) Do not substantively edit your comments after editors have already replied to them without indicating it. That is against guidelines.

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

I agree that policy doesn't mandate they match, but you gotta pick a side. You can't argue "Policy says they don't need to be similar" and then simultaneously say "They gotta similar or else it's unfair." Just10A (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
@Just10A If I acted improperly I apologize, as it wasn't my intent to mislead anyone, hence the clarification. I wasn't aware adding afaik is considered a substantive change.

I believe my yes vote implies that I have picked a side. TMK I'm allowed to make observations and express views on the appearance of possible inconsistencies in the application of policy in good faith. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
No problem. I was referring to you adding the ABC source in your earlier comment though just to be clear. I agree that adding AFAIK is more minor. Just10A (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh, then I was way off on what I thought you were referring to. I was about to start adding TMK and AFAIK to all of my sentences. I meant to add the ABC source in my original edit, but I goofed. Truly sorry if that screwed something up, I've had similar experiences so I empathize. DN (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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

True, but it also means they are not the same situation, which was my point, that they are not analogous. Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'd like to see someone confirm what sort of secondary coverage is here, but WP:MEDRS is irrelevant here because biographical information is not biomedical information: we should almost never include things like how a disease works or how it is diagnosed (except insofar to mention the subject isn't, when that's the case) on a biographical article in the first place. That is not to say we should not ask for the absolute best quality sources, but MEDRS is an inappropriate guideline here. Also, discussion on this topic will also need to consider how and where primary sources are used on the subarticle. Due weight concerns don't go away simply because the content happens to be on another article, and not mentioning something we have an entire subarticle on even once in the main article is close to essentially forcing the subarticle to be a POV fork, an outcome I'd expect neither those supporting nor opposing inclusion should want. Alpha3031 (t • c) 22:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

"Harris releases a health report, shifting the focus to Trump's age and health concerns". The Economic Times. 2024-10-12. ISSN 0013-0389. Retrieved 2024-10-17.
News, A. B. C. "Trump would be the oldest person to become president. He's not sharing health details". ABC News. Retrieved 2024-10-17. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

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

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

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

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

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

Yes for basically the reason Andol gave. There's a long article on these concerns, so we clearly have ample sourcing for them, so it's weird we're not mentioning them much here. Loki (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Support. The decline may not have been as obvious as Biden's because it started from a much lower baseline, but it was noticeable and noticed. Just this week, there was the 39-minute musical interlude at the Oaks, PA, town hall; the non-responsive rambling during the Bloomberg interview; on Friday, a 10-year old asked Trump on as increasingly unfiltered and undisciplined". Quoting the AP headline: Trump kicks off a Pennsylvania rally by talking about Arnold Palmer’s genitalia. NPR called it "an unusually energetic rally for the former president, who has looked and sounded tired of late while doing multiple events and interviews a day across multiple swing states".Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Gold, Michael (October 19, 2024). "At a Pennsylvania Rally, Trump Descends to New Levels of Vulgarity". The New York Times. Retrieved October 20, 2024.
Bender, Michael C. (October 20, 2024). "Four of Trump's Most Meandering Remarks This Week". The New York Times. Retrieved October 20, 2024.

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

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

Sources

Wolff, J.D. (October 17, 2024). "Busted! Former Republican Candidates Posed As Constituents at Trump's PA Town Hall". MeidasTouch. Retrieved October 17, 2024.
"2022 Pennsylvania State House - District 154 Election Results". South Bend Tribune. January 26, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2024.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No - If it was to be included, it would have to be introduced as mere speculation because of MEDRS, but I do not believe there has been any particulary significant RS reporting of speculation about cognitive decline as there was about Biden nor any substantive reason (like a drop out over it) to include it. Trump's speculated cognitive decline has only been popping in the news for the past couple months because he's now the old guy on the ticket, and Dems naturally want to capitalize on that. Not WP:DUE at this time. R. G. Checkers 14:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- @R. G. Checkers: And yet we have all the cites from mainstream media WP:RS cited above. Mysteriously, this sort of reporting is regarded as WP:NPOV when it comes to Biden, yet not for Trump. As Elon Musk would say, "Interesting." Is there any point at which you might regarded the public debate about Trump's mental competence noteworthy enough to mention here, or are you just waiting for the election to be over? — The Anome (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  Yes, and it won’t be because he danced at a rally. It would be if there was sustained coverage over months long periods with concerns of cognitive decline or if he literally had drop out of the race because of it. But do I think that 3 weeks before an election with politics flaring and a sudden emphasis on his alleged mental decline is a good reason for inclusion? I answer no. R. G. Checkers 19:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  In other words, WP:DUE but not before the election? I didn't know WP had to adhere to DOJ guidelines. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 20:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  Is there some policy I'm not aware of that gives a waiting period, especially if your name isn't Joe Biden? DN (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  That's not exactly what Mr. Checkers said. I agree that we should ensure the content is WP:DUE by waiting to see if it's a blip, or something carried through by the sources for more than a few days. Space4Time3Continuum2x, you are usually a stalwart adherent of both established consensus and conservative application of policy - what gives? Riposte97 (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  Last week happened. (I'm still trying to unimagine the unbelievable Arnold Palmer in the shower — a few extra nipples, a rudimentary third leg, a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back? Although that one is on Roger Stone, I believe, another Trump friend.) This isn't new. NYT in 2018: "Trump's self-absorption, impulsiveness, lack of empathy, obsessive focus on slights, tenuous grasp of facts and penchant for sometimes far-fetched conspiracy theories have generated endless op-ed columns, magazine articles, books, professional panel discussions and cable television speculation." Now we have a flood of reporting on what was obvious for months for everyone who watched Trump rallys on C-SPAN. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  Your personal analysis or perceived opinion on what's "obvious" about political candidates is irrelevant to the discussion at issue. You're getting seriously close to WP:NOTFORUM. Quit rambling and stick to neutral discussion about the topic at hand to improve the encyclopedia. Just10A (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  WP:NOPA. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  Asking you to stop violating policy is not a personal attack. Just10A (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  
  This has been reported on maybe as far back as 2017.
  
  2017
  
  2017
  
  2017
  
  2017
  
  2017
  
  Jan 2024
  
  No one seems to be suggesting this goes into the lead sentence, and as far as policy goes, eerily similar material to Age and health concerns about Donald Trump made it into the the Biden article as far back as July 4th, and it's STILL there. DN (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  As is frequently pointed out to new users of this page, the fact that some other page on Misplaced Pages has a different consensus has no bearing on this one. That is usually understood when we are resisting putting something positive in, but seems all to quickly jettisoned when convenient. Regarding the Oaks Town Hall which precipitated this thread, neutral RS seem to offer an explanation that is inconsistent with the line pushed by more partisan sources that Trump had some kind of mental episode. See for example: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-town-hall-derailed-after-medical-emergencies-crowd/story?id=114796716. I remain unconvinced that the content should be added. Riposte97 (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  "neutral RS seem to offer an explanation that is inconsistent with the line pushed by more partisan sources"
  
  These threads get so long it's hard to keep track. Please link or cite examples of partisan and neutral sources to which you're referring if you get the chance, it would be very helpful. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  
  Judging by the headlines, we shouldn't use the 2017 sources per the Goldwater rule (psychiatrists/psychologists diagnosing people they haven't seen as patients). Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  Also, I may a bit confused as to where this thread begins and ends. I may be unintentionally conflating the Oaks town hall and the Proposal: Age and health concerns...Cheers. DN (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
The 39 minute weird man-dancing (partly to YMCA, a song about gay hookups of all things) may actually be the worst example of his cognitive decline as he was quiet instead of rambling nonsense. Indeed, it could be an example of something not at all recent. It certainly doesn't belong in this article. Perhaps elsewhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Not sure if you've seen the unbiased raw video of the Oaks, PA event. On the webpage of C-SPAN's presentation of the full video , to the right there is a list of the points of interest in the video: Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) Remarks, Fmr. President Trump Remarks, Affordable Homeownership, Family Request Congressional Hearing, Cost of Living, Immigration, Russia-Ukraine War, Immigration & Deportation, Medical Emergency. Notably missing from C-SPAN's list is "weird man-dancing". Bob K31416 (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
What's your point? The C-SPAN video shows the entire event. The music starts at 45:00 and continues until the end. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
For context, note that the first medical emergency began at 39:00, 6 minutes before your start time. Viewing the video starting at 39:00 will give a better idea of what's going on. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
I've seen the video and I don't see your point either. Trump just said that he is ahead in every one of the 50 states in the polls. Every state. His goofy, silent dancing was far more rational. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please do not refer to me as "Mx." or "Mr." as that appears to be your intent. They/them is accurate. DN (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

(Given that "x" is nowhere near "r" on a keyboard, I'm guessing "Mx." was not a typo but an attempt to be gender neutral. It can be read as a convenient shorthand for "Mr., Ms., or M-other, as you please". It's the best attempt available, since "They/them Nipples" would be nonsensical. Maybe we don't need to go any further down this rabbit hole, at least not on this page.) ―Mandruss ☎ 06:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I simply asked for them not to call me that, I did not get upset or make a personal attack, I just made a simple request. I'm aware of what Mx. means and I simply do not wish be referred to in that manner. I do not care why you think it's any of your business or why you feel the need to intervene here, and that is a rabbit hole that certainly does not belong here. DN (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I read "Mr." as that appears to be your intent to mean you thought they meant (intended) "Mr.". Sorry if I misread easily-misread writing. I do not care why you think it's any of your business or why you feel the need to intervene here - Now you're gettin' me riled. Look, you comment on this page, regardless of the topic, and you open yourself up to replies from anybody. There are no "private" conversations here or almost anywhere else at Misplaced Pages. You want a "private" conversation, use email. That's how it works, like it or not. End. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You're the one that brought it up here, and I have since moved it to a personal talk page, where it belongs. DN (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Question Riposte97 See edit - There has been no further discussion here for the last few days. What is still being discussed? BTW, "age and health concerns for Joe Biden" was added back into his BLP in the lead, and I see no further arguments over MEDRS. DN (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the Biden page, take it to the Biden page. There is currently no consensus to add the disputed material to this page. Riposte97 (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I never had a problem with the Biden BLP, but I asked you what is left to discuss here. DN (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll ask again. What is left to discuss? DN (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you that there isn't a ton left to discuss. But the discussion did not end with your proposed addition achieving consensus. As already outlined in this thread: (1) wikipedia is not a source, what occurs on a totally different page has no bearing on this one; and (2) Even if it did, the situations are clearly distinguishable. It's included on Biden's page as relevant primarily because it's the reason Biden dropped out of the race. The same is not true for Trump. Thus, since the situations are distinguishable and consensus has not adopted it, it's unlikely to be added. Just10A (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, it wasn't my proposal, and the primary argument against the addition seemed to be that it violated MEDRS, not because this BLP needed to be like the Biden BLP. The Biden BLP was only used as an example of how the MEDRS argument didn't seem to hold water. DN (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Anyway, that content was added BEFORE Biden dropped out.

So, there goes that excuse. DN (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
I thought we weren't using edits from one BLP as an example to justify similar edits to the other? We aren't. That's why I explicitly began the point with "Even if it did". We don't use another page as a source, but even if we did, the situations are clearly distinguishable for the reasons already outlined throughout the post. The addition doesn't have consensus, so it's not going to be added at this time. Just10A (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for the Oaks Town Hall to be used as evidence for concerns about age and health, especially in VOICE. Far from it. I simply disagree that there is any clear violation of MEDRS to include something like (below)
Trump, if he served his full second term, would become the oldest President of the United States ever. Since his emergence as a politician, Trump has provided less information about his health than is normal for presidential candidates WaPo

Cheers. DN (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, that's not really what this thread entitled 'Oaks Town Hall' is about. Perhaps start a new one with your suggested text. Riposte97 (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Why start yet another thread? Seems like an additional time sink. DN (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Support - sorry, I missed this on the talk page. Now extensive and increasing sourcing on the topic. Blythwood (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Seems like the Harris campaign and news media have moved from age and health concerns to fascism. Do you have any new links that came out this week for age and health concerns? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Seems there was a YouGov poll and pieces in Time magazine and the New Yorker, recently...

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new poll from YouGov found that 44 percent said Trump, at age 78, is too old to lead the executive branch. That figure is up from 35 percent who said the same in a similar February survey." The Independent 10-27-24
Cheers. DN (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Respectfully, there is no way this is going to get consensus here. If you feel really strongly, maybe start an RfC. That would probably be the most appropriate way to displace the existing RfCs. Riposte97 (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
I was replying to Bob K3416's recent request..."Do you have any new links that came out this week for age and health concerns?"

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

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

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

Cheers. DN (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your response with the links.

Regarding the rest of your message, the logic isn't clear. Various messages here are evidence that it is still being discussed and the point that you are trying to make with your sentence, "What is the means..." is unclear. For one thing, note that you are comparing an edit summary on the article page with a message on this talk page. Seems like apples and oranges. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Darknipples has now edited their comment, although the argument isn't any more compelling imo. Riposte97 (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Granted, I wouldn't completely disagree with Riposte97's removal of some of the context, but the rest seems like it could be DUE. (below)
Trump, if he served his full second term, would become the oldest President of the United States ever. Since his emergence as a politician, Trump has provided less information about his health than is normal for presidential candidates.

A partial revert leaving this portion would seem fine. DN (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
The second sentence wasn't in the given source. The insinuation of being in poor health since becoming a politician is contradicted by the fact that he served 4 years as president without any apparent chronic health problem or physical weakness, and he is currently vigorously campaigning for president. Be careful of age discrimination where healthy people are presumed weak and unhealthy because they are old. If you were elderly, healthy and strong, I don't think you would like people insinuating that you were unhealthy and weak because you were chronologically old. Be well. Bob K31416 (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
"The second sentence wasn't in the given source."

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

As far as "insinuating he is in poor health", that is not what the proposal is about. The proposal was for reports regarding public concern for his age and health, that does not involve speculation or "insinuate" anything specific as to violate MEDRS.
"The age of presidential candidates has been a key issue for voters this year. A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll, conducted before last week’s Republican convention, found that 60 percent of Americans said Trump is too old for another term as president, including 82 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of independents and 29 percent of Republicans."

DN (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
His age is already in the article. Riposte97 (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Water is wet. DN (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes. There is overwhelming and WP:SUSTAINED coverage of it at this point; the fact that it is speculative (which some people object to above) doesn't matter, since we do cover speculation when it has sufficient coverage and is clearly relevant to the subject. As WP:BLP says, If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it, emphasis mine. For recent coverage, which someone requested above, see eg. ; for older coverage, there's a massive number of sources on Age and health concerns about Donald Trump. --Aquillion (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
the article have all the negatives about Trump or they have been put under a bad light. For eg: he met north korean president but without decreasing the nuclear prospect. It doesn't consider that Trump's predecessors or successors hasn't visited him and downright refused to that idea. And north korea did decreased thier frequency in building nuclear weapon. These article seems to be put forward by a Trump hater, and doesn't even mention all the good things he has done, like low inflation, boosting economy etc. 2409:40D0:1007:DCA2:E484:1679:D4AE:2CC2 (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes. See Public image of Donald Trump#Temperament. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I think it's time to close this discussion. Bob K31416 (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
What rationale? Stale? Consensus? We need a rationale or we just let things fall off the page naturally. Of course we've just added another 14 days by merely saying this. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
There is at least consensus to change Consensus item #39 (last modified July 2021) to allow discussion regarding Trump's mental health or fitness for office even without diagnosis. Biden's cognitive health has been in his article since 9/2023: Special:Diff/1175184377 Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

I was confusing "close with consensus assessment" with "close to get stuff off the page per consensus 13". Sorry Bob. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
No, go on about Trump not living up to his promises to release his health info, but jeez, just don't add speculation. Let's do a litmus test: if I speculated about @User:Example having Obsessive-compulsive disorder on Misplaced Pages, my ass would get a harsh warning, if not a block, so apply that thinking to Trumpty-Dumpty. It's a person, yes, and it's bad to speculate like that about any person. I wonder what Trump thinks about all this Misplaced Pages obsession about him... Barnt Toust 14:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Kranish, Michael (July 22, 2024). "Trump's age and health under renewed scrutiny after Biden's exit". The Washington Post. Retrieved 13 October 2024.
"Americans are increasingly concerned about Donald Trump's age and fitness for office". today.yougov.com. Retrieved 2024-10-31.
Schneid, Rebecca (27 October 2024). "The Controversy Over Trump's Medical Records, Explained". TIME. Retrieved 2024-10-31.
Timotija, Filip (26 October 2024). "Many Americans worried about Trump's age, but less than Biden: Survey". Retrieved 2024-10-31.
"A growing number of Americans are concerned with Trump's age". The Independent. 27 October 2024. Retrieved 2024-10-31.
"Trump would be the oldest person to become president. He's not sharing health details". AP News. 16 October 2024. Retrieved 2024-10-31.
"Trump acts erratically. Is this age-related decline?". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 2024-10-31.
Lynn, Joanne (30 October 2024). "I'm a geriatric physician. Here's what I think is going on with Trump's executive function". Retrieved 2024-10-31.

RfC on describing Trumpism in lead

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

Biographies
Politics, government, and law

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The current lead contains a simple mention of Trumpism. Should a brief description be added to this mention? A proposed wording for the added text, which is also up for debate here: characterized by right-wing populism, "America First" nationalism, and economic protectionism. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Addendum: A shorter version of the proposed addition could look like led to Trumpism, a right-wing populist movement. — Goszei (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussion at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 185#Proposal to add brief description of Trumpism in lead. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. The statement "Trump created Trumpism" without further description is meaningless. If there is any single piece of information which a reader should take away from the lead, it is that Trump is America's leading proponent of right-wing populism, and the person who has done to most to reshape the Republican Party along these lines. It was argued by some in the previous discussion that details should be saved for the Trumpism article, but I believe that these words briefly and simply introduce what much of the rest of the lead and article are seeking to explain. Just as FDR's lead describes in broad terms what "New Deal"ism is and Reagan's describes what "Reaganomics" is, so too should Trump's lead briefly describe Trumpism. This is especially relevant after the recent election, as Trump and Trumpism's importance in U.S. political history only continues to grow. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Suppport: we need to know what Trumpism is about.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as I believe it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article. The article is not about Trumpism - which is linked in the text for the purpose of providing a shortcut should people wish to know more about what constitutes such, without contributing further to the word count. Artem... 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment Further explanation of Trumpism seems relative in the lead, or at least, it likely will be within the next four years. DN (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose a, this article is already too long, and 2, it might need a lot more explanation then we can give it in the lead, what is Trumpism? Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Support but it should be limited to one sentence after a more detailed yet brief description is provided in the body. I agree that anyone with a political movement named after them should have some more description about it other than "they created it". I don't have exact wording but something along the lines of its impact on the Republican Party or American politics would be warranted as per Goszei. Any statement would need to be sourced in the body first, however, to avoid OR. Agreeing on a description in the political practice and rhetoric section would be helpful first before adding it to the lead. BootsED (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Support since Trumpism is mentioned, then it should be explained what it is. A single sentence in the lede, and a brief elaboration somewhere else in the article. The wording in the lede could be as proposed above, or something a bit different. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as misplaced for the lead, and per Artem. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose too wordy in an already bloated article. Artem is indeed correct. Nemov (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose because “Trumpism” in the lead should be replaced with “MAGA”, which is a much more widely discussed and widespread thing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Artem P75, Slatersteven, Nikkimaria, and Nemov: To those opposing the proposed text based on concerns about length, would you support a shorter addition such as led to Trumpism, a right-wing populist movement.? — Goszei (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose We don't have room for this, and this isn't the Trumpism article, it is the Trump article. Also, this would need to be added to the body first, since the lead follows the body. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Anythingyouwant. I've never heard of Trumpism before. Neither has Britannica, which instead has an article for MAGA movement. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
What the Britannica article describes is exactly what our article at Trumpism describes. The term MAGA movement should probably be added to that article's lead as a synonym. — Goszei (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
It's a redirect. The BBC said, But is there such a thing as Trumpism? Well that might be stretching it. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This article doesn't mention MAGA. Maybe somebody wanted to make something of Trumpism? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose mainly as it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article per Artem, also because Trumpism isn't a "a thought-through philosophy, a carefully mapped world view" inextricably linked to the man in the way that Marxism or Leninism are. Trumpism is more of a term descibing a series of populist instincts which are not very often used to characterise reactions/policies etc. When/if Trumpism itself becomes more elaborated, and the term more used, WEIGHT might then dictate a brief definition. At present it would be at least unnecessary and potentially confusing.Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Support Very much WP:Due to summarise the key tenets of his political ideology, much more so than discussing specific policies as in the status quo. I’m very confused about the opposes, however the leads of Margaret Thatcher and Juan Peron only mention their ideologies rather than describe them

Kowal2701 (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose, while it's only a few extra words it's still more to an already-too-big article, and the link to the Trumpism article is there for a reason. — Czello 10:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak Oppose, Agree with same sentiment as @Czello 's comment above. Seems like redundancy when we have a link that lets readers click on it if they don't understand a concept or definition. This also sets bad precedence to have to define every single political descriptor.

MaximusEditor (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Cuts to the Wealth section

I'd like to propose a radical cut to the Wealth section. What we have hops all over chronologically. It's sort of a mass of cited information but somehow fails to ever deliver a bottom line. Misplaced Pages has an entire article on the subject of Trump's wealth, so here's an alternate plan: cover that he was a child millionaire, mention his alter ego John Barron, and then summarize his wealth.

Trump has often said he began his career with "a small loan of a million dollars" from his father and that he had to pay it back with interest. He was a millionaire by age eight, borrowed at least $60 million from his father, largely failed to repay those loans, and received another $413 million (2018 dollars adjusted for inflation) from his father's company.
Trying to get a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans, Trump called journalist Jonathan Greenberg in 1984, pretending to be a Trump Organization official named "John Barron".
Trump's net worth has been reported over a wide range: from a low of minus $900 million in 1990, to a high of $10 billion in 2015. In 2024 dollars according to Forbes, Trump's wealth in 2024 was made up of approximately $1.1 billion in real estate, about $1 billion in golf clubs and resorts, and $3.5 billion in stock in Trump Media & Technology Group—today his primary asset. As of December 2024, Forbes listed Trump's net worth at $6.3 billion.

-SusanLesch (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Support as nominator. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Support Cite 3 is broken for me, I would also like non-breaking-news stories as references for some facts to better establish sustained significance. I also don't like how "His net worth fluctuates up and down" is referenced. The change is much more structured and serves as a good, more concise stopgap. Other issues can can be worked out in general page edits. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Fixed cite 3. Wrote out the up and down. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Also a note that using template:inflation is inappropriate here per the template's documentation. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Removed them. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk don't use them and they're all GAs. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Support - very helpful in streamlining the narrative. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Support Looks good to me. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Support, this article's coverage of Trump's wealth, as well as the topic of his non-business and non-governmental personal scandals, is one which has far too often detoured into the way of trivia. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. Rollinginhisgrave, upgraded three sources to books, one from 2024. If you or anybody see any mistakes please fix as you said in general page edits. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The section went from alleged "trivia":

Wealth - pre-December 18 cut

In 1982, Trump made the initial Forbes list of wealthy people for holding a share of his family's estimated $200 million net worth (equivalent to $631 million in 2023). His losses in the 1980s dropped him from the list between 1990 and 1995. After filing the mandatory financial disclosure report with the FEC in July 2015, he announced a net worth of about $10 billion. Records released by the FEC showed at least $1.4 billion in assets and $265 million in liabilities. Forbes estimated his net worth dropped by $1.4 billion between 2015 and 2018. In their 2024 billionaires ranking, his net worth was estimated to be $2.3 billion (1,438th in the world).

In 2018, journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported that Trump had called him in 1984 pretending to be a fictional Trump Organization official named "John Barron". Greenberg said that, to get a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans, Trump, speaking as "Barron", falsely asserted that Donald Trump owned more than 90 percent of his father's business. Greenberg also wrote that Forbes had vastly overestimated Trump's wealth and wrongly included him on the 1982, 1983, and 1984 rankings.

Trump has often said he began his career with "a small loan of a million dollars" from his father and that he had to pay it back with interest. He was a millionaire by age eight, borrowed at least $60 million from his father, largely failed to repay those loans, and received another $413 million (2018 dollars adjusted for inflation) from his father's company. In 2018, he and his family were reported to have committed tax fraud, and the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance started an investigation. His investments underperformed the stock and New York property markets. Forbes estimated in October 2018 that his net worth declined from $4.5 billion in 2015 to $3.1 billion in 2017 and his product-licensing income from $23 million to $3 million.

Trump's tax returns from 1985 to 1994 show net losses totaling $1.17 billion. The losses were higher than those of almost every other American taxpayer. The losses in 1990 and 1991, more than $250 million each year, were more than double those of the nearest taxpayers. In 1995, his reported losses were $915.7 million (equivalent to $1.83 billion in 2023). In March 1987, Trump halved his net worth in a sworn statement to $1.5 billion ($1.9 billion in 2023), but accountants reported his net worth at less than zero or minus $295 million ($791 million in 2023).

In 2020, The New York Times obtained Trump's tax information extending over two decades. Its reporters found that he reported losses of hundreds of millions of dollars. Since 2010 he had also failed to pay back $287 million in loans. During the 15 years prior to 2020, using tax credits for business losses, he paid no income taxes in 10 of those years and $750 each in 2016 and 2017. He balanced his businesses' losses by selling and borrowing against assets, including a $100 million mortgage on Trump Tower (refinanced in 2022) and the liquidation of over $200 million in stocks and bonds. He personally guaranteed $421 million in debt, most of which is due by 2024.

As of October 2021, Trump had over $1.3 billion in debts, much of which was secured by his assets. In 2020, he owed $640 million to banks and trust organizations, including Bank of China, Deutsche Bank, and UBS, and approximately $450 million to unknown creditors. The value of his assets exceeds his debt.

to actual trivia in the form of a 1984 Trump call to journalist Greenberg — without the context (falsely asserting that he owned his father's real estate empire, Forbes having vastly overestimated his wealth and wrongly included him on their 1982–1984 rankings) that's all it is: an anecdote about Trump pretending to be someone else:

post-cut

Trump has often said he began his career with "a small loan of a million dollars" from his father and that he had to pay it back with interest. In 2024 dollars, Trump was a millionaire by age eight. He borrowed at least $60 million from his father, largely failed to repay those loans, and received another $413 million (2018 dollars adjusted for inflation) from his father's company.

Trying to get a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans, Trump called journalist Jonathan Greenberg in 1984, pretending to be a Trump Organization official named "John Barron".

Trump self-reported his net worth over a wide range: from a low of minus $900 million in 1990, to a high of $10 billion in 2015. In 2024 dollars according to Forbes, Trump's wealth in 2024 was made up of approximately $1.1 billion in real estate, about $1 billion in golf clubs and resorts, and $3.5 billion in stock in Trump Media & Technology Group—today his primary asset. As of December 2024, Forbes listed Trump's net worth at $6.3 billion.

The FEC info, the NYT report on the hundreds of millions of losses — that's not trivial, goes directly to his self-professed business acumen. Some of the data needs updating, e.g. He personally guaranteed $421 million in debt, most of which is due by 2024, not replacing with e.g. Trump's self-reported worth of $10 billion in 2015; Johnston, the cited source, says that Trump's 2017 presidential disclosure statement showed $1.4 billion. I tagged the sentence with . Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Your edit reintroduced trivia and editorialising. The current wording (that the loans were not 'wholly' repaid) is more concise than the slanted 'failed to repay'. Riposte97 (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The text didn't say "failed to repay", it said "largely failed to repay those loans". The cited source says: In fact, The Times found, Fred Trump lent his son at least $60.7 million, or $140 million in today’s dollars. Much of it was never repaid, records show. "Not wholly repaid" claims that he repaid most of it. I don't want to get into an edit war and have tagged the sentence with . Please, self-revert. BTW, it's your edit that goes against clear TP consensus you claim to have reverted to. Never mind what I think of that consensus, another editor and you went against it (see WP:EW). Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe the New York Times found that Fred Trump gave Donald half a billion plus more. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The same edit that whitewashed "much of it was never repaid" to "not wholly paid" also removed the half billion. I reverted, citing the sources, but was reverted, claiming that my edit "goes against clear TP consensus" (see also above. I've since moved Trump's early childhood income into the "Early life" section, moving the note about the trust into the body. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

As for that "TP consensus": 48 hours, five editors to remove a long section of the article, including the New York Times report on decades of Trump's finances - that's not "streamlining the narrative", as one of the supporters said, and "looks good to me" isn't much of a comment, IMNSHO. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I like your edit to move 8-year-old millionaire up. Well done. I suspect we disagree on Trump's net worth because I wrote the range and you're thinking over time. There's no need to "update" the high end unless Trump someday claims more. Well he did but I lost the reference. "During the 2016 campaign, Trump’s boasts about his net worth would fluctuate daily, from 8.7 billion one day to 10 billion another, and even at one point 11 billion dollars." -SusanLesch (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Space4Time3Continuum2x. Every sentence we write and keep has context. In a word or two, why would we increase the word count to include more information about the Greenberg incident? Mr. Greenberg is a primary source. The books I have barely mention him if at all. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree, as the person who made that initial edit. MB 2437 18:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Riposte97, what we have now is unacceptable. We shouldn't make unilateral deletions without showing some effort to make improvements. Fred Trump gave Donald a half billion dollars. You took that out. Mr. Greenberg is a good example of Trump's use of pseudonyms; you took that out instead of trying to improve the sourcing. Maybe we've lost touch with reality here: losing almost a billion dollars, and admitting it is extraordinary for any person. You decided the footnote was pointless. I'm sorry but you may be reverted unless you make this better soon. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

User:SusanLesch, regarding my first edit, that was a revert which sought primarily to remove editorialising. Saying he 'failed' to repay the loan(s) imo implies that Fred was Donald's regular creditor, and not the reality that these loans were likely never intended to be repaid. Readers who do not understand how the tax code works (let's face it, almost all of them) probably wouldn't intuit this.

I think the 'half-billion' amount should be included, but it should be stated that much of that was put on Donald's balance sheet for tax purposes, as the NYT reports. I also agree with MB2437's comment below that converting it to 2018 dollars seems alarmist. I'll refrain from unilaterally adding anything on that, however, respecting the ongoing efforts to trim this page.

Regarding my second edit, again, I have no in-principle opposition to the allegation that Trump used a pseudonym for the impugned purpose. However, despite the particular sensitivities on this page, this is still Misplaced Pages, and I am well within my rights to remove poorly sourced claims in a BLP on sight. You are more than welcome to add it back in, with appropriate sourcing. Riposte97 (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Greenberg (and Fred Trump's half billion) has been in this article for at least a couple years (I stopped looking in 2022). -SusanLesch (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

This disruptive whitewashing should have been sanctioned when it happened, on WP:CRYBLP grounds and violation of the BRD restriction on this article. Pity it slipped in on the holidays. Zaathras (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Then either take it to ANI, or pipe down. Throwing out accusations that you're not going to follow up on is disruptive. Riposte97 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It would just be marked as "stale" as that is how ANI (dys)functions, so, wrongdoing will be called out as it is seen. Zaathras (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I have reversed the edits in question. When one does not repay a loan, it is a failure. This is basic English and common sense. Only a PR hire would try to spin a failure to fully repay a debt as "well he partially repaid." Zaathras (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: Riposte97 had replaced the earlier whitewashed version which he did not wholly repay with which he only partially repaid — IMO another whitewash (with WP:EDITORIAL "only"). You reinserted the first whitewashed version. Was that your intention? The original version said largely failed to repay those loans which IMO reflects the source's Much of it was never repaid. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The initial edit wasn't about whitewashing, it was that the value given was inflated. We should have an exact figure, not one given "in 2018 dollars" to exaggerate the claim four-fold. Largely failed is also blatant editorialising, where did not wholly repay is a much more neutral tone. MB 2437 18:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Did not wholly repay fails verification, and partially repaid is too vague since anything between 0.001 and 99.999 percent is a partial repayment. largely failed to repay was the longstanding content, and so far, six editors have supported retaining this language. Doesn't look as though the consensus will change, so I'll revert to it. Whether to state the figure in 1954 or 2018 dollars is a separate discussion. One dollar in 1954 was worth $9.16 in 2018; the 2018 figure isn't an exaggeration, it's an explanation. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

It is an exaggeration when placed alongside true values; there should be numerical consistency across this prose, not some values inflated and others not, especially when the inflated values cover a long period of time. Did not wholly repay does not fail verification, it tells the reader just as much as largely failed to repay does without clear negative undertones. Branding the removal of such language as whitewashing sets dangerous precedent. MB 2437 17:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Did not wholly repay says he repaid most of it while the source says that much of it wasn't repaid. Much, noun: a great quantity, amount, extent, or degree. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

No specifics… MB 2437 21:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Space, I don't think 'not wholly' implies most, but I also tried to address this with alternative wording which you still didn't like. 'Failed' is clearly NPOV in this context, as it implies either malice or an attempt. If we can find a way to remove that, we'll be in a better position.

The fact that something is longstanding is not really relevant, although you bring it up any time anyone wants to make even the most minor edit to this page. I'd also note I don't see this six-editor consensus you're referring to. Riposte97 (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

If the source verifies a majority then we can say that, without using "failing" or "largely", which is obviously editorialising. MB 2437 23:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

If the source verifies a majority: does that mean that you didn't read the source? Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the sourced content, I'm challenging its interpretation. We should not be inflating specific dollar figures to exaggerate certain claims—it reads as a lopsided analysis when some integers are of disparate value—nor should we be using negative language to argue its nature to the reader. which he predominantly did not repay seems a sensible rephrasing of the latter point. MB 2437 01:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Clearly, obviously — nah, it's neither clear nor obvious to me. I understand "failed to do s.th." in this context as "didn't do it", i.e., neutral wording. And, after wasting an hour of my life that I'll never get back, I tracked down the edit that changed the original wording Trump was lent at least $60 million from his father which was largely not repaid to Trump borrowed at least $60 million from his father, and largely failed to reimburse him (boldface added by me), made by an editor who, if I remember correctly, was above suspicion of anti-Trump sentiments. Six editors: The five editors who agreed to trim most of the section while keeping that particular sentence and me. I oppose the trim but obviously not to the parts that weren't trimmed. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The reverts were done in the context of broader edits. To claim that as consensus for this specific wording is a little misleading. Anyway, this isn't about anyone's 'anti-Trump sentiments', it's just about us identifying wording which could be read as biased by some readers.

Can you just agree to 'mostly did not repay' or similar? Riposte97 (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I've changed "failed to repay" to "did not repay". (Just curious: why do you add additional white space between paragraphs by adding colons and "br"? Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

(It renders better on the mobile app.) Riposte97 (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources

Stump, Scott (October 26, 2015). "Donald Trump: My dad gave me 'a small loan' of $1 million to get started". CNBC. Retrieved November 13, 2016.
Barstow, David; Craig, Susanne; Buettner, Russ (October 2, 2018). "11 Takeaways From The Times's Investigation into Trump's Wealth". The New York Times. Retrieved October 3, 2018.
^ Barstow, David; Craig, Susanne; Buettner, Russ (October 2, 2018). "Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father". The New York Times. Retrieved October 2, 2018.
Greenberg, Jonathan (April 20, 2018). "Trump lied to me about his wealth to get onto the Forbes 400. Here are the tapes". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 29, 2021.
O'Brien, Timothy L. (2005). TrumpNation: The Art of Being The Donald. Warner Books. p. 79. ISBN 978-0-446-57854-7.
Johnston, David Cay (2021). The Big Cheat: How Donald Trump Fleeced America And Enriched Himself And His Family. Simon & Schuster. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-9821-7804-8.
^ Alexander, Dan (November 4, 2024) . "Here's How Much Donald Trump Is Worth". Forbes. Retrieved December 15, 2024. Cite error: The named reference "Forbes" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
"Profile: Donald Trump". Forbes. December 16, 2024. Retrieved December 16, 2024.
^ 1634–1699: McCusker, J. J. (1997). How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States: Addenda et Corrigenda (PDF). American Antiquarian Society. 1700–1799: McCusker, J. J. (1992). How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States (PDF). American Antiquarian Society. 1800–present: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–". Retrieved February 29, 2024.
O'Brien, Timothy L. (October 23, 2005). "What's He Really Worth?". The New York Times. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
Diamond, Jeremy; Frates, Chris (July 22, 2015). "Donald Trump's 92-page financial disclosure released". CNN. Retrieved September 14, 2022.
Walsh, John (October 3, 2018). "Trump has fallen 138 spots on Forbes' wealthiest-Americans list, his net worth down over $1 billion, since he announced his presidential bid in 2015". Business Insider. Retrieved October 12, 2021.
"Profile Donald Trump". Forbes. 2024. Retrieved March 28, 2024.
Greenberg, Jonathan (April 20, 2018). "Trump lied to me about his wealth to get onto the Forbes 400. Here are the tapes". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 29, 2021.
Stump, Scott (October 26, 2015). "Donald Trump: My dad gave me 'a small loan' of $1 million to get started". CNBC. Retrieved November 13, 2016.
Barstow, David; Craig, Susanne; Buettner, Russ (October 2, 2018). "11 Takeaways From The Times's Investigation into Trump's Wealth". The New York Times. Retrieved October 3, 2018.
"From the Tower to the White House". The Economist. February 20, 2016. Retrieved February 29, 2016. Mr Trump's performance has been mediocre compared with the stockmarket and property in New York.
Swanson, Ana (February 29, 2016). "The myth and the reality of Donald Trump's business empire". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 29, 2021.
Alexander, Dan; Peterson-Whithorn, Chase (October 2, 2018). "How Trump Is Trying—And Failing—To Get Rich Off His Presidency". Forbes. Retrieved September 29, 2021.
Cite error: The named reference Buettner-190508 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Johnston 2016, p. 89. sfn error: no target: CITEREFJohnston2016 (help)
Buettner, Russ; Craig, Susanne; McIntire, Mike (September 27, 2020). "Long-concealed Records Show Trump's Chronic Losses And Years Of Tax Avoidance". The New York Times. Retrieved September 28, 2020.
Alexander, Dan (October 7, 2021). "Trump's Debt Now Totals An Estimated $1.3 Billion". Forbes. Retrieved December 21, 2023.
Alexander, Dan (October 16, 2020). "Donald Trump Has at Least $1 Billion in Debt, More Than Twice The Amount He Suggested". Forbes. Retrieved October 17, 2020.
Stump, Scott (October 26, 2015). "Donald Trump: My dad gave me 'a small loan' of $1 million to get started". CNBC. Retrieved November 13, 2016.
Buettner & Craig 2024, pp. 30–31. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBuettnerCraig2024 (help)
Barstow, David; Craig, Susanne; Buettner, Russ (October 2, 2018). "11 Takeaways From The Times's Investigation into Trump's Wealth". The New York Times. Retrieved October 3, 2018.
Greenberg, Jonathan (April 20, 2018). "Trump lied to me about his wealth to get onto the Forbes 400. Here are the tapes". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 29, 2021.
Boyer, Dave (October 3, 2016). "Donald Trump revealed $900 million business loss in '97 book". The Washington Times. Retrieved December 18, 2024.
O'Brien 2005, p. 150–151. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFO'Brien2005 (help)
Johnston 2021, p. 20.
"Profile: Donald Trump". Forbes. December 16, 2024. Retrieved December 16, 2024.
Olthof, Jelte (2020). "Will the Real Trump Please Stand Up? Donald Trump's Elusive Persona" (PDF). Profiles in Power. Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004422643_013.

The Apprentice

I'm making a couple minor but bold changes to the TOC outline. This article doesn't have a TOC item for The Apprentice, which was a milestone in Trump's life. The Apprentice led Trump to licensing deals worldwide. Any help is welcomed especially to keep the chrono order. For example, I fudged the SAG-AFTRA para out of order to keep it.

Before

   1 Early life and education
   2 Personal life
       2.1 Family
       2.2 Health
   3 Business career
       3.1 Real estate
           3.1.1 Manhattan and Chicago developments
           3.1.2 Atlantic City casinos
           3.1.3 Clubs
       3.2 Side ventures
           3.2.1 Trump University
       3.3 Foundation
       3.4 Legal affairs and bankruptcies
       3.5 Wealth
   4 Media career
   5 Early political aspirations (1987–2014)

After

   1 Early life and education
   2 Personal life
       2.1 Family
       2.2 Health
   3 Business career
       3.1 Real estate
           3.1.1 Manhattan and Chicago developments
           3.1.2 Atlantic City casinos
           3.1.3 Clubs
       3.2 Side ventures
       3.3 Foundation
       3.4 Trump University
       3.5 Legal affairs and bankruptcies
       3.6 Wealth
   4 Media career
   5 The Apprentice
   6 Licensing the Trump name
   7 Early political aspirations (1987–2014)

-SusanLesch (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, a barnstar is on its way for this edit. Thank you!

Is there a way to keep some of this? Biographer Maggie Haberman writes that he was an athletic teenager who dreamed of a Hollywood career. In 1969 Trump followed his heart, walked into the Palace Theater, and asked to become a producer, invested in one show and lost his money. I have more reading to do but I think Haberman repeats Wayne Barrett that Trump always wanted to be a Hollywood star. I think it's important to our narrative to keep the progression from youth -> TV -> a political stage. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting until we can frame that progression more holistically, since as presented it was disconnected from his eventual media career. (Plus I don't think athleticism is a necessary part of that progression). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. Trump was a remarkably good first baseman but we don't have to cite the one sentence that combines sports and Hollywood. So I agree to skip over sports.

My mistake, it was Timothy L. O'Brien, Barrett's research assistant. Everybody I've read so far includes Trump's interest in Hollywood:

Before heading off to college he was fairly certain that he wanted a career in show business, not real estate. He said he planned to attend the University of Southern California to study filmmaking and had already produced a Broadway show called Paris is Out.
Even after joining the family firm, Donald could not shake his youthful interest in show business and the faster track to fame that offered.
In college he had contemplated a movie career and took half a step in that direction
For a time, he flirted with signing up for film school at the University of Southern California—reflecting his lifelong love of movies—but he enrolled instead at Fordham University because he wanted to be closer to home.
The full extent of Donald Trump's college-years rebellion involved fantasizing about a career in the theater or film.

So where does it belong? I see no reason to use four words to say USC. How about this? Trump considered film school and a show business career, but in 1964, he enrolled at Fordham University. Also I should add that he was a producer at The Apprentice. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

How about Trump considered film school but instead in 1964 enrolled at Fordham University.? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd prefer to better follow the sources. How about Trump considered a show business career but instead in 1964 enrolled at Fordham University.?

(Also correction, I haven't read all these books; I make use of indices.) -SusanLesch (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

he was a producer: if you look at the credits of TV shows, you'll often see the stars of the show also listed as executive producers. It could just mean that they're the big names necessary to get financing for the show; they might also get input on scripts and story lines. Initially, Burnett planned to have a different business tycoon headlining the show each season but found few people interested in the job, and after the success of the first season he and NBC settled on Trump.

Yet you lead with "From 2004 to 2015, Trump was co-producer and host..." (most important position in the section). I don't understand your edits. You removed the person who created The Apprentice, and the person who created the catchphrase. This must be corrected. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

contemplated/flirted with a movie career: who hasn't dreamed of Hollywood? It isn't noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia. He didn't attend film school or take acting lessons. So he lost $70,000 in 1973 to get his name on the playbill of a broadway play that flopped. That's chump change compared to the $1.17 billion in business losses he reported to the IRS between 1984 and 1995. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be moot now, although I'd support removing the Broadway flop. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources to explain the importance of giving the origin of "You're fired." Trump didn't make this up by himself, although he tried and failed to trademark it.

NY Post: national catch phrase
WNYC: Haberman: "Trump ends up emulating Steinbrenner when he does the, "You're fired," catchphrase on The Apprentice."
Business Insider: He

-SusanLesch (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The NY Post is not a reliable source (also doesn't mention an origin for the catchphrase). Haberman cites her source for "homage to Steinbrenner" on pg. 528. It's this 2019 NBC article by Allan Smith. Smith mentions this 1978 Miller Lite commercial featuring Steinbrenner and Yankees on and off-again manager Billy Martin. It’s one sentence in a long article, and it merely says that Steinbrenner "first popularized" the phrase. Smith's 2017 BI article quotes former Yankees employee Ray Negron saying that Trump "borrowed that from the great George Steinbrenner, and people forget that" (another opinion), and in his 2019 NBC article Smith doesn't make this claim. Vince McMahon had been bellowing, barking, grunting, and growling "you're fired" as his catchphrase since 1998, and Trump was a regular at WWE events, so that’s also a possible source. Third possibility: He remembered the phrase from the many movies in which it was used in more or less violent scenes: Raising Arizona/1987, Robocop/1987, Back to the Future 2/1989, Dave/1993, True Lies/1994, YouTube compilation of movies going back to 1933. The only thing we know for sure is that Trump used it and unsuccessfully tried to trademark it in 2004. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

co-producer: I hadn't noticed that mistake. AFAIK, he was credited as executive producer - credit and pay without actual duties. They also had to edit out raw footage of Trump making sexist and racist or just plain dumb remarks. I'll get back to this later or tomorrow. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't wish to engage in an edit war but it is disrespectful to omit the man who created The Apprentice. Instead in this article we piled all the glory on Mr. Trump.

We've erased the connection to Trump's political aspirations (which are in the very next section).

Haberman wrote that Trump knew Steinbrenner since the 1980s. Are we splitting hairs to hide the issues? If you don't like Mr. Smith's choice of words, choose another per WP:FIXFIRST. One trademark lawyer says "You're fired" has been around for centuries. This point I'll concede because you keep arguing.

I defer to your years of editing this article. But I ask that you please listen to new information. Buettner & Craig, Kranish & Fisher (and Haberman and O'Brien) are the best sources we have so far, aren't they? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, you're off to a bad start if you don't wish to engage in an edit war. IMO, we had a neutrally written paragraph on the Apprentice, explaining what it was and what it did for his image. It was rewritten quite a few times in the six years I've been involved in editing this article, by different editors. That the show was somebody else's brainchild is a detail that belongs in the shows article, and that it ran for 14 seasons is confusing without the explanation that two "seasons" per year were broadcast from 2004 to 2006. I haven't gotten around to looking up previous discussions and the editing history. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages says The Celebrity Apprentice is linked in seasons to its precursor TV show, The Apprentice, which consists of seasons 1–6 and season 10. The Celebrity Apprentice consists of seasons 7–9 and 11–15. Perhaps those are the kinds of details this article can skip. Nikkimaria, would you possibly have time to copyedit the Apprentice paragraph? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Do we really need to explain that Trump didn't invent the extremely common phrase "you're fired"? Is anybody actually dumb enough to need that pointed out to them? And, if they are, how did they manage to get to this website?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Guessing most Wikipedians are too young to understand the cultural reference. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's a start at compromise.

Producer Mark Burnett made Trump a TV star when he created The Apprentice, which Trump co-produced and hosted from 2004 to 2015 (including variant The Celebrity Apprentice). On the shows, he was a superrich chief executive who eliminated contestants with the catchphrase "you're fired". The New York Times called his portrayal "highly flattering, highly fictionalized". The shows remade Trump's image for millions of viewers nationwide. With the related licensing agreements, they earned him more than $400 million.

Space4Time3Continuum2x, OK to edit the above in place if you want to. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

References

O'Brien 2015, p. 53. sfn error: no target: CITEREFO'Brien2015 (help)
Haberman 2022, p. 39. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHaberman2022 (help)
Buettner & Craig 2024, p. 108. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBuettnerCraig2024 (help)
Kranish & Fisher 2017, p. 45. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKranishFisher2017 (help)
D'Antonio 2015, p. 48. sfn error: no target: CITEREFD'Antonio2015 (help)
Buettner & Craig 2024, p. 7, "Mark Burnett, the television producer who made Trump a star, did not just hand him a fortune.". sfn error: no target: CITEREFBuettnerCraig2024 (help)
Grynbaum, Michael M.; Parker, Ashley (July 16, 2016). "Donald Trump the Political Showman, Born on 'The Apprentice'". The New York Times. Retrieved July 8, 2018.
Nussbaum, Emily (July 24, 2017). "The TV That Created Donald Trump". The New Yorker. Retrieved October 18, 2023.
Poniewozik, James (September 28, 2020). "Donald Trump Was the Real Winner of 'The Apprentice'". The New York Times. Retrieved October 18, 2023.

Edit War

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

I think there is an edit war going on here. Following the Inauguration of Joe Biden, Trump left office. Till he won, the title was clear, post-presidency. After he won, an edit war started. For some weird reason, these are the choices at hand:

1. Interpresidency
2. First post-presidency
3. post-presidency (current)

At first, people used choice number 3. Then the edit war started after the election, and people cannot decide between these choices. We need better security for this article, Extended confirmed is clearly not doing it here. Just please decide. 2601:483:400:1CD0:7D95:FF0A:CEC6:A8AD (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The situation is neither uncommon nor illegitimate when there is no clear talk page consensus. See #Time Person of the Year in the body for another example. It has nothing to do with the level of protection. Regardless, the next level after ECP is full protection, which is not going to happen. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, you see, Edit protection is next, ensuring only experienced people can do it. Look, i'm just saying we have to be really careful around this particular article mainly from the controversies. I have asked an experienced person to assess the situation. 2601:483:400:1CD0:B614:68CF:9223:D88F (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

On January 20, 2025, the title of the section should be changed to "Post-presidency (2021–2025)". If there is a "second post-presidency (2029–)", we can change that to "First post-presidency (2021–2025)". I googled "Inter-presidency" and got a bunch of hits for Inter Milan President Beppe Marotta. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

"Dormancy (2021–2025)". Or remission. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 17:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

He was not dormant, rather pretty active. False claims rised before he finally conceded. Not to be rude, but this title wouldn't be the best. I'll admit, we do need a clear consensus. 2601:483:400:1CD0:B614:68CF:9223:D88F (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

We thought it was the end of the movie but it was just an intermission. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 21:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Correct, although after "the end of the movie" he was still active. And "Dormancy" was suggested in 2024 not 2021. Dormancy is described as a non-active state, although his activity between 2021 and now is active. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I support option 1 as the most accurate of the three. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The word isn't in any dictionary. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Why not use the model of the Cleavland article? Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I'm proposing, except for the "election of 18xx" part (we have the campaign/election sections instead) and not knowing how long Trump's second presidency and post-presidency will last. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 22:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Legally it has to end in 2028. Slatersteven (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

January 20, 2029. He's 78 — we'll see what happens. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 22:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Problem, it uses First post-presidency. It is already inaccurate but I will not discuss unrelated articles. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

"§7 First presidency (2017–2021)" could change to "§7 Presidency (2017–2021)"? He only served one term. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

This is concerning the following section. And I'm not sure if I should say this but I don't think we should start this on the Grover Cleveland talk page. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

And I was referring to the Cleveland article when I said First post-presidency. Sorry for not pointing it out. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Between presidential terms (2021–2025). Cheers, Bob K31416 (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You know, that sounds like a good idea.

Any objections? 2601:483:400:1CD0:382D:166E:CC23:2B80 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Solution in search of a problem, but meh as long as you wait until after the inauguration — just in case lightning strikes or an Acme anvil falls. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can make the change after the inauguration on 1-20-2025. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, sounds good to me.

Ok, what should the next steps be?

Also, just curious, who pinned this? 2601:483:400:1CD0:45C3:C5FA:5FD8:FA51 (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

who pinned this? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Huh — looks as though BoB K tried to (because I said "meh"??) and then you did? Can't figure out what happened. My suggestion: unpin. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I care about how it's pinned. Apathetic on whether it should be pinned. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit summary, "added template to prevent archiving of this thread until a week after inauguration". I did that because this discussion was about taking an action after the inauguration. Mandruss changed the time from a week after the inauguration to 10 years and made an announcement in a box at the top of the section. Whatever you want to do is fine with me. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Well it seems all set. 2601:483:400:1CD0:A1A4:FD62:9508:F4EB (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Bulking down the article: Currently over 400Kb in system size

This article page is so large it's daunting and it's continuing to grow. On inauguration day later in January the article is likely to quickly grow by at least another 50Kb in system size once the new section for the next 4 years of presidency is added with the already written Misplaced Pages pages for the New Cabinet nominations, etc. The article should go through a significant bulking down process before the next presidential term is added later next month in January. Adding this discussion here on Talk page for thoughts from editors about which sections in this article to split or fork, which to shorten, which to abridge when sibling Misplaced Pages articles are already written for many of the topics in the different subsections of this article. This Trump biography article would seem better if it could be made shorter than 400Kb in the current system size. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Why ? Not enough server space ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Many reasons, a few being technical, most being readability concerns. Cessaune 19:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Cessaune. The article is currently taking about 55-65 minutes to read from top to bottom, which seems much longer than Misplaced Pages size guidelines. The technical size issue is that the article is now at about 410Kb, and on Jan 20 on inauguration day the section for the Second presidency of Donald Trump of 120Kb is going to be added to this article all at once. That is a total of 410Kb + 120Kb = 530Kb. At over 500Kb in size following inauguration day, that size for the article seems excessive and daunting. Are there any thoughts from editors about bulking down this article before the second inauguration on Jan 20 to make the article more readable for Misplaced Pages readers? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I think excessive detail occurs when the information is new and seems important at the time, but not after a few years. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"Religious views of Donald Trump" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Religious views of Donald Trump 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 Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 30 § Religious views of Donald Trump until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This material was deleted after last edited by Mandruss in Nov. 2024: <> '''Trump went to Sunday school as a child and was ] in 1959 at the ], Queens.<ref name="BarronNYT"/><ref name="inactive"/> In the 1970s, his parents joined the ], part of the ].<ref name="BarronNYT"/><ref name="WaPo.March.18.17"/> In 2015, he said he was a ] and attended Marble Collegiate Church; the church said he was not an active member.<ref name="inactive"/> In 2019, he appointed his personal pastor, televangelist ], to the White House ].<ref>{{cite news|work=]|date=October 31, 2019|first1=Jeremy W.|last1=Peters|author-link1=Jeremy W. Peters|first2=Maggie|last2=Haberman|author-link2=Maggie Haberman|title=Paula White, Trump's Personal Pastor, Joins the White House|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/us/politics/paula-white-trump.html|access-date=September 29, 2021}}</ref> In 2020, he said he identified as a ].<ref>{{cite news|title=Exclusive: Trump, confirmed a Presbyterian, now identifies as 'non-denominational Christian'|url=https://religionnews.com/2020/10/23/exclusive-trump-confirmed-a-presbyterian-now-identifies-as-non-denominational-christian/|work=]|date=October 23, 2020|access-date=September 29, 2021|first1=Jack|last1=Jenkins|first2=Maina|last2=Mwaura}}</ref>'''<> ErnestKrause (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

"Early life and career of Donald Trump" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Early life and career of Donald Trump 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 Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 30 § Early life and career of Donald Trump until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

"Individual 1" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Individual 1 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 Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 30 § Individual 1 until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Concerns over "worst president" scholarly ranking in lead

I am concerned with the mention of scholars ranking him as "one of the worst presidents in American history" due to the fact that it may be premature and interfere with the neutrality of the article. Mentioning the rating in the body is appropriate, however, mentioning it in the lead when the legacy of Trump’s tenure in office is already so contentious, along with the fact that his first term has only recently ended, does not seem appropriate. Additionally, the article goes on to mention immediately after his election loss, several extremely controversial viewpoints, and court cases he has or continues to face. The latter mentions are good, but noting his poor scholarly rating immediately prior gives the article a sense of authority on the public’s view of Trump’s presidency, when really it is ambiguous, and overshadows the other mentions with a negative connotation. Other articles on presidents do not seem to have this messaging, so I support its removal from the lead. If there is a consensus I have missed regarding this, please let me know, thanks. Slothwizard (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality is not achieved by hiding negatives. Other articles on presidents often considered to be at or near the bottom (A. Johnson, Buchanan. Harding, Pierce, Tyler, and W. Harrison) mention their rankings.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

see every talk page thread about this for every reason why. Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

For those of us who study history and understand that history actually does repeat itself it is obvious what his role in US history is...although I`m sure many more want to be dictators are coming our way he is the Caligula of our time and it is obvious that it will get much worse...and his supporters will get exactly what they "voted" for. Leave it in...greater minds than mine put it in there for a reason Anonymous8206 (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Our personal viewpoints are irrelevant in Misplaced Pages editing, and have no place in a content discussion. Please make an attempt to learn the applicable policy and conform to it. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

"he is the Caligula of our time" Are you referring to the assassination of Caligula, his wife Milonia Caesonia, and his daughter Julia Drusilla by members of the Praetorian Guard? We shall see whether the United States Secret Service will perform its own assassinations of American political leaders and their families. Dimadick (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

See above, and you don't have inexperience as an excuse. Collapsing per NOTFORUM. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Other articles on presidents do not seem to have this messaging - yes, they do. The leads of the ones ranked at the top (Washington, FDR, Lincoln) and Trump's fellow bottom dwellers Andrew Johnson, Buchanan, and Pierce all mention the ranking. And the leads of presidents not at the top or bottom mention, e.g., "lower half" (George W. Bush) or "upper tier" (Obama). Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposes to supersede current consensus item 54. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Missed that Slothwizard (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

"GEOTUS" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect GEOTUS 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 Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 31 § GEOTUS until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

"Inter-presidency of Donald Trump" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Inter-presidency of Donald Trump 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 Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 31 § Inter-presidency of Donald Trump until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

"Donald T" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Donald T 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 Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 1 § FirstName LastInitial redirects for presidents until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you kidding with the bias in the introduction?

The intro should highlight that he was re-elected by the American people in reaction to the progressive agenda pushed by the current administration, high inflationary periods between 2020-2024, and a desire for better economic performance. This victory was unprecedented given the amount of lawsuits against Trump and the extreme anti-Trump sentiment in the media. 74.105.29.105 (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles are written based off of what reliable sources say, not based on your original research on why he was elected or how "unprecedented" it is. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to give any reason for Trump's victory. I did a quick google search "reason for Trump winning election" and the first thing I found was The factors that led to Donald Trump's victory. In this source there was Anthony Salvanto, CBS News' executive director of elections and surveys, who said that there were three main factors behind voters' support of Trump: the role of the economy, a steady MAGA base, and out-of-touch democrats. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

That seems like it would fit better in the article on the election than in the article on Trump. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is that? This is information that is directly related to his career in politics. 74.105.29.105 (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy to provide sources of you can confirm that you will make the changes. Not sure who the gatekeeper is for what the world views on Misplaced Pages, but I hope is is not just one person. 74.105.29.105 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Not how things work here. You suggest a change or addition, which is supported by citation to a source. Discussion will then begin from there on whether or not to include it. Zaathras (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

There isn't exactly a "gatekeeper for worldviews" on this site, you need sources for statements you want to induct into the article and like what other people said, no original research. 108.27.60.251 (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That kind of introduction is more fitting for Conservapedia, not Misplaced Pages. NesserWiki (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@NesserWiki: Conservapedia is extremely ironic, it's not to be taken seriously. On the contrary, what the OP wrote started a discussion that perhaps could be useful (although I don't think it will be useful). JacktheBrown (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of Operation Warp Speed?

Space4Time3Continuum2x decided to remove mention of Operation Warp Speed from the page and said that the "last discussion" was "inconclusive". I'm a little confused here, given the discussion they cited includes a number of editors agreeing that inclusion of OWS was warranted, but not much discussion about it at all.

The discussion also seems irrelevant given multiple reliable sources are saying OWS was a trump accomplishment. If it's in an RS and WP:VER, I don't think it's sound to wipe stuff because of some vague mentions on an archived talk page?

E.g. according to Vox: here: "One of the biggest accomplishments of the Trump administration — and yes, there were accomplishments — was Operation Warp Speed, the public-private effort to rapidly develop Covid vaccines"

Per CBC: "Operation Warp Speed, a Trump administration initiative to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines as fast as possible, should be lauded as a successful endeavour in what has otherwise been a poor effort to deal with the coronavirus, experts say"

Washington Post says OWS was a Trump accomplishment, while also being clear that Trump was an anti-science president who sometimes hindered the pandemic response.

It probably deserves a brief mention in the lead as I put here.

It would be great if other users could please weigh in.

Zenomonoz (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It's probably worth a brief mention in the article body – like a sentence. A fuller treatment of the topic belongs in First presidency of Donald Trump, U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and obviously Operation Warp Speed. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"A brief mention – like a sentence"? If numerous reliable sources are calling this a major achievement with substantial discussion, a paragraph is more realistic. There are 12 entire paragraphs about COVID, some of it rather trivial in nature – but a single sentence for a multi-billion dollar policy implemented by a US president that has been praised by experts and sources? Zenomonoz (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

CNN seems to have agreed with you. "President Donald Trump finally has something legitimate to take credit for in his coronavirus response: A vaccine that appears poised to reach Americans in record time." Bob K31416 (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good source to use. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That CNN source, NPR, and

I would support a brief, neutrally worded one-sentence mention of Operation Warp Speed. Further detail should be reserved for the respective pages covering that topic. BootsED (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Reincluded: I have reincluded the paragraph and small mention in lead. I also took a look at the Obama article, which includes mention of the ACA as his "most significant accomplishment" per the WP:RS, so I think if the reliable sources describe this as Trumps, that deserved a mention in body. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This is more than a mention in the body - it should be shortened. If there is a concern that some of the other COVID-related content is trivial, then condensing that would be a better approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Two sentences is hardly "more than a mention". The reliable sources describe this as a major achievement of his presidency and a major component of his COVID-19 response. Misplaced Pages reflects the RS. It seems some of the editors chiming in think "consensus" depends on opinion and a vote count. That is false. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That is false. Is that a "My arguments are stronger, so I win" argument? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

No, consensus building is important. But it is also important that Misplaced Pages editors arguments are based in policy/guidelines/reasoning. Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect WP:RS, and I haven't heard a good argument as to why restriction to a single sentence is appropriate, given the way OWS has been extensively covered in the reliable sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm just being practical, as that's how I roll. Based on my 11 years around here, a large part of it at this article, I'd generously estimate that one in four editors participating at this article actually meets that standard of collaborativeness (my mind doesn't change easily, so I wouldn't count myself as one of them). We can agree on ideals, but we still have to resolve issues. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You didn't just reinsert the paragraph after six hours (see "Warning: active arbitration remedies" banner at the top of this talk page), you also added a clause to the lead. I've reverted. The discussion so far supports a brief, e.g., one-sentence mention in the body. Developing an effective vaccine was only part of it; research and development was well under way in several countries by the time of Trump's announcement. ~~Producing and delivering the~~ The production and delivery of a "few hundred million doses of vaccine by the end of 2020" the Trump administration announced on May 15, 2020, was an unrealistic goal and a promise they didn't keep. (Cue Trump's vaccine conspiracy claims.) Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

A full delete of the section seems to be more than what Nikkimaria asked for above, maybe to shorten that material which was just deleted by some percentage might be better than the full delete. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, I find this reasoning to restrict it to one sentence unjustified. Misplaced Pages reflects reliable sources. Consensus is made based upon validity of the argument per editing guidelines, and not because one editor thinks that this should be restricted to one sentence. Overriding and disputing the reliable sources seems like a major overstep. This is covered in the RS as a major component to the pandemic response, and a major achievement of his presidency.

And to clarify, I did not “reinsert the paragraph”, I wrote a new one. Second, the part in the lead was in my original edit. The lead summarizes his response to COVID, and this was a major component of that response.

Can you actually cite me reasoning/guidelines/policy that would favour your interpretation of restricting coverage to a single sentence, given that multiple WP:RS explicitly refer to this as his chief achievement?

Zenomonoz (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I hadn't noticed the text in the lead the first time around. Mention in the lead hasn't received any support in this discussion, and the rewritten text is no improvement on the first iteration. It's actually worse. The first sentence is based on a primary source (OWS); second sentence see my comment above. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 20:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

reasoning/guidelines/policy ... single sentence — not a question of guidelines or policy, it's where the consensus seems to be headed. Several editors in this discussion said they prefer a brief, short, or one-sentence mention, also neutral. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 21:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your comment above. Just because mRNA technology predates Trump isn't a reason for editors to make their own conclusions that OWS wasn't really an achievement at all. OWS may well have been imperfect, but multiple WP:RS still describe it as his chief achievement. E.g. Vox quite recently .

It would be appropriate to add a sentence to the end of the two sentence paragraph that I added, clarifying any of the critique of Trump regarding OWS, provided they are in WP:RS.

In addition to the Vox source, the CNN source did support: "Health experts broadly agree that the Trump administration’s national vaccine strategy was a success. The Trump administration was willing to invest in new vaccine technologies, foot the bill for large, expensive clinical studies and simultaneously pay for manufacturing vaccine candidates before it was clear they would prove effective and safe" Zenomonoz (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You`re cherry picking a random quote Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I highlighted multiple WP:RS above which are clear that OWS was perhaps his sole accomplishment as president. I'm not going to argue with people who don't understand how Misplaced Pages works. Questioning multiple reliable sources is not appropriate. It's verifiable (WP:VER) and in multiple reliable sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

A handful of random quotes taken out of context Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any countervailing evidence, then? I haven't chimed in here because I wanted to see how this developed, but it seems Zenomonoz is arguing for RS and policy…the assertion that this should be arbitrarily restricted to one sentence (and the unhelpful removal in the meantime) doesn't improve the article.

How do biographical sources treat OWS? Riposte97 (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That would require an effort on my part..I agree..I believe the reference should be expanded upon regarding trump dragging his feet every moment of the pandemic and is now taking credit for ending it..as did reagan taking credit for the wall coming down Anonymous8206 (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That's good. We should get into the nuances. Riposte97 (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

"I believe the reference should be expanded upon regarding trump dragging his feet every moment of the pandemic", if you actually read the COVID-19 section you would know there is already extensive coverage of trump "dragging his feet". It's frustrating that users are chiming in to say we must restrict mention of a major program he implemented during the pandemic to a single sentence, despite its heavy coverage in multiple reliable sources. No reasoning provided. Quoting multiple RS sources is the opposite of "cherrypicking", by the way. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to offer my agreement with @Zenomonoz that the listed references indicate notability of the bill itself and is representative of the most notable policy associated with his Presidency. It warrants some mention of inclusion as the references provided do appear to all validate its importance both nationally and with respect to his presidency. LosPajaros (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Considering that the major source of the vaccine was Pfizer, which was never a part of Warp Speed, and an immigrant who got the Nobel Prize for ages of research behind the vaccine; but had to leave the country for lack of funds -- a very brief mention somewhere may be OK. But that's all. More than that is an insult to those that spent decades in vaccine efforts -- and Trump's new Health Czar is anti-vaccine. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
"More than that is an insult to those that spent decades in vaccine efforts -- and Trump's new Health Czar is anti-vaccine" – your reasoning does not seem relevant. Misplaced Pages reflects WP:RS, it isn't up to users to be making editorial decisions because they think it's an "insult" to people who worked on vaccines, or because of details surrounding the Pfizer vaccine. OWS funded numerous other vaccines, and scientific experts agree it was largely a success per the WP:RS. A later pending appointment of RFK has zero bearing on OWS and what the sources said about OWS. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The precise quotation from Pfizer is now added to the Operation Warp Speed article. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. An accurate documentation: O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I rewrote one of the added sentences over there per the given source , "Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order 'played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process' and one expert disagreed." As it originally was added with "Experts disagreed", seemed to express more disagreement than the source presented and that there was a larger sample. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I just reverted your rewrite for failing verification. CNN wrote: Three experts told CNN that this purchase promise may have played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process. Your text: Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order "played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process". I bolded the important words missing from your quote. The CNN article also mentions other uncertainties, such as Pfizer and BioNTech's purchase agreements with other countries. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Here again is my edit , which didn't change the quote that was there. I think what I had should be restored with the extra part "may have”, all of which is supported by the given source. In other words I think it should be like this, "Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order 'may have played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process' and one expert disagreed." Cheers, Bob K31416 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

CNN asked four experts — selected on what basis out of how many? The purchase was contingent on the vaccine's FDA approval, so it was Pfizer/BioNTech taking the risk of paying for development, clinical trials, building the production facilities — seems they were fairly certain that they would succeed. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Space, we are not going to start questioning the reliability of sources like CNN, nor committing OR. I agree with Bob's proposal, and will insert the amended quote tomorrow. Riposte97 (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. A small paragraph about OWS is justified to go back in. It's covered extensively in reliable sources. Space (but mostly other users) have been questioning reliable sources WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH and carrying out WP:OR in the comments here. I received stern warnings for that when I was new to Misplaced Pages. This his all boils down to "what do the reliable sources say?". If there's extensive coverage in RS, it can be included. If users want to include RS mention of any criticism of Trump and OWS, that can be included too. Per the sources, OWS is a major part of the Trump admin COVID response. What do the reliable sources say? Zenomonoz (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I would also suggest that editors look at the rather large section COVID-19 pandemic and note what is currently there without OWS. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Within the context of how trump and his cronies handled the pandemic Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

New official portrait

Original heading: "When Trump's new potrait is taken during his second term, should that replace the photo of his last Presidential potrait?" ―Mandruss ☎ 12:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a standard for this exact situation yet on here, given that Trump is only the second person to serve two non-consecutive terms as POTUS. Although, newer potraits tend be used over older ones on pages for other politicians. Overall, I'm curious as to what you all think should happen. NesserWiki (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

For infoboxes for politicians, Misplaced Pages uses the most recent official portrait. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a precedent with Barack Obama. We use the most recent, second White House portrait which is closer to how he currently looks (salt-and-pepper rather than his earlier black hair). https://petapixel.com/2013/01/18/a-closer-look-at-obamas-new-official-presidential-portrait/ GhulamIslam (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 05 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):
− ~~Post~~-~~presidency~~ (2021-present) + Time between the presidencies (2021-present)
Why it should be changed:In 2024, an edit war was started on this article. I started a talk discussion which solved the problem and we solved it by using this name.
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): (Talk:Donald_Trump#Edit_War - (redacted in favor of a simple wikilink. Zaathras (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC))

2601:483:400:1CD0:A1A4:FD62:9508:F4EB (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how to format it other than what I did above, but there's no need to make this use reference tags like it is an article citation. Zaathras (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, no. "Time between the presidencies" is clunky and wordy, and no one suggested that as a possibility in the line section above. This is not a proper use of an edit request. Zaathras (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Making this article fully protected

when he is instated, there will be a wave of people (i think) that will try to edit it, and even bots. i find it necessary to make it fully protected (gold lock) thekingpachy (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Pages are not protected preemptively... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It's called Freedom of speech Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

i know, but i think there will be a large vandalism wave, maybe one we cant actually control. over the next 4 years we will definitely see vandalism, which will be extremely annoying and tedious to defend against. thekingpachy (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

is there anything that actually is fully protected? thekingpachy (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Not in this life...I would prefer to see the page taken down completely for 24 hours than it freezing due to edit conflict but that`s censorship as well Anonymous8206 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The article survived the election with the current protection. It will likewise survive the inauguration. In the absolute worst case, we could always restore a days-old revision. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Donald trump is now president.

Change from President-elect to President. Kegsper (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kegsper you have to wait 14 more days... EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

has he been inaugurated? Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No, he is not. His term will start at noon on the 20th. Just like Biden's started at noon on 20 January 2021. Just like Trump's previous term started at noon on 20 January 2017. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Reduce number of citations

This article, without a doubt, should be reduced its citations. 800+ is too much. There are a very few sentences without 2 or more citations. We don't need thousands of citations to prove something. What we need is a reliable source, that we can absolutely rely on, and I can say we can rely on each citation in this article. Where Trump starts his new presidential term, there would of course be a new section for that term, and there for sure be more than 200 citations at the end of that term, and later his post-presidency. This article is already long enough, which I for sure couldn't read within 5 hours. Too much citations. Plus, Trump is one of the most influential people in the U.S. and the world, which makes no doubt that there won't be any misinformation or what did not happen in this article, I mean we don't need 800+ citations, if not fixed the problem, by October 2025, 900 citations in this article. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I do agree that we should delete excess citations, such as where two or three citations are used at the end of a sentence where one will do. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is already long enough, which I for sure couldn't read within 5 hours. Too much citations. What does number of citations have to do with article length? Would you read every citation?While obvious OVERCITE should be avoided, I have no problem with the current number of citations and I think the hard PEIS limit should be the primary limiter. (See #Tracking article size.) ―Mandruss ☎ 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The article size is daunting also, its over 400Kb in size. If the article were reduced in size, then the number of cites could be significantly reduced as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Indictment Dismissal

The last sentence in the lead currently says: "He faced more felony indictments related to his interference in the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents, which were dismissed after his victory in the 2024 election." However, the classified documents case was dismissed by Aileen Cannon before the Nov election because she ruled Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed. See AP article source: https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-documents-smith-c66d5ffb7ba86c1b991f95e89bdeba0c. So, this sentence should be revised. Apparently, Jack Smith dropped his appeal of this ruling, but that does not change the fact that this case was dismissed last summer. Pillsberrydoo7 (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Categories: