Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:50, 29 June 2022

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.

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.

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: Trump–Ukraine scandal Second impeachment of Donald Trump ... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

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

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government 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). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Mid‑importance 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. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City High‑importance 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism High‑importance 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American / Political parties High‑importance 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). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government Top‑importance 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. 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 United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Television Mid‑importance 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.

Other talk page banners

Template:Vital article 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, and 2021. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 125 times. The weeks in which this happened: June 14 to 20, 2015 June 28 to July 4, 2015 July 19 to 25, 2015 July 26 to August 1, 2015 August 2 to 8, 2015 August 9 to 15, 2015 August 16 to 22, 2015 August 23 to 29, 2015 August 30 to September 5, 2015 September 6 to 12, 2015 September 13 to 19, 2015 September 20 to 26, 2015 September 27 to October 3, 2015 December 6 to 12, 2015 December 13 to 19, 2015 January 3 to 9, 2016 January 10 to 16, 2016 January 17 to 23, 2016 January 24 to 30, 2016 January 31 to February 6, 2016 February 7 to 13, 2016 February 14 to 20, 2016 February 21 to 27, 2016 February 28 to March 5, 2016 March 6 to 12, 2016 March 13 to 19, 2016 March 20 to 26, 2016 March 27 to April 2, 2016 April 3 to 9, 2016 April 10 to 16, 2016 April 17 to 23, 2016 April 24 to 30, 2016 May 1 to 7, 2016 May 8 to 14, 2016 May 15 to 21, 2016 May 22 to 28, 2016 May 29 to June 4, 2016 June 5 to 11, 2016 June 12 to 18, 2016 July 3 to 9, 2016 July 10 to 16, 2016 July 17 to 23, 2016 July 24 to 30, 2016 July 31 to August 6, 2016 August 21 to 27, 2016 August 28 to September 3, 2016 September 4 to 10, 2016 September 11 to 17, 2016 September 18 to 24, 2016 September 25 to October 1, 2016 October 2 to 8, 2016 October 9 to 15, 2016 October 16 to 22, 2016 October 23 to 29, 2016 October 30 to November 5, 2016 November 6 to 12, 2016 November 13 to 19, 2016 November 20 to 26, 2016 November 27 to December 3, 2016 December 4 to 10, 2016 December 11 to 17, 2016 December 18 to 24, 2016 January 1 to 7, 2017 January 8 to 14, 2017 January 15 to 21, 2017 January 22 to 28, 2017 January 29 to February 4, 2017 February 5 to 11, 2017 February 12 to 18, 2017 February 19 to 25, 2017 February 26 to March 4, 2017 March 5 to 11, 2017 March 12 to 18, 2017 March 19 to 25, 2017 March 26 to April 1, 2017 April 2 to 8, 2017 April 23 to 29, 2017 May 14 to 20, 2017 May 21 to 27, 2017 May 28 to June 3, 2017 June 11 to 17, 2017 June 25 to July 1, 2017 October 8 to 14, 2017 October 22 to 28, 2017 November 26 to December 2, 2017 January 14 to 20, 2018 June 10 to 16, 2018 September 30 to October 6, 2018 October 28 to November 3, 2018 November 4 to 10, 2018 November 11 to 17, 2018 November 18 to 24, 2018 November 25 to December 1, 2018 December 9 to 15, 2018 September 22 to 28, 2019 December 15 to 21, 2019 January 5 to 11, 2020 February 23 to 29, 2020 March 1 to 7, 2020 April 12 to 18, 2020 May 31 to June 6, 2020 June 7 to 13, 2020 June 14 to 20, 2020 June 21 to 27, 2020 June 28 to July 4, 2020 August 9 to 15, 2020 August 16 to 22, 2020 August 23 to 29, 2020 September 27 to October 3, 2020 October 4 to 10, 2020 October 11 to 17, 2020 October 18 to 24, 2020 October 25 to 31, 2020 November 1 to 7, 2020 November 8 to 14, 2020 November 15 to 21, 2020 November 22 to 28, 2020 November 29 to December 5, 2020 December 6 to 12, 2020 December 13 to 19, 2020 January 3 to 9, 2021 January 10 to 16, 2021 January 17 to 23, 2021 January 24 to 30, 2021 January 31 to February 6, 2021 Section sizes Section size for Donald Trump (88 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,298 9,298 Early life and education 3,619 3,619 Personal life 19 5,044 Family 1,340 1,340 Health 3,685 3,685 Business career 149 35,734 Real estate 4,555 15,954 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 3,640 3,640 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) 633 177,243 Early actions 2,743 2,743 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 15,167 15,167 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 404,903 404,903 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. Alex Pasternack (7 March 2020). "How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company. Retrieved 9 March 2020. Mike hunt (21 May 2020). "Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News. Retrieved 22 May 2020. Dan Evon (11 November 2020). "Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump's Misplaced Pages Page?". Snopes. Retrieved 19 November 2020.

• v
• e

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead paragraphs

In my opinion, the format of the lede of the page at the time of this writing does not comply with MOS:LEAD which states, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate"; the page has six paragraphs. I tried to fix it , but User:Space4Time3Continuum2x reverted, with the explanation that my edit was "Not an improvement. The first few sentences should establish the subject’s notability. In Trump’s case there’s only one sentence doing that, needs to be separate from summary of education and career. His stand-alone, the two impeachments, need to stay in a separate paragraph." I will quote MOS:BEGIN, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic".

Per Space4Time3Continuum2x's own opinion, "the first few sentences should establish the subject’s notability. In Trump’s case there’s only one sentence doing that". If there is only one sentence doing that, then even by their standard, we don't have it as a well-composed paragraph in the lede, in contradiction of what MOS:LEAD indicates that there should be. According to MOS:PARA, "single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text". Although in the page certainly the single-sentence paragraphs are minimized, there is still the issue that they can inhibit the flow of the text and, although it can denote emphasis, in writing generally paragraphs should consist of more than a single short sentence or be several lines long. I checked other president's pages (Lincoln, Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan, and Obama) at the time they were granted at least good article status, and none of them have more than four paragraphs in the lede, although Obama's has a short first paragraph.

My suggestion is to analyze whether it's the best practice to leave the first paragraph as a single-sentence or short paragraph and to copyedit and reform the lede in such a way as to at least comply with having four paragraphs per the standard of MOS:LEAD and don't break with the rest of presidential pages format of the lede.Thinker78 (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Most mobile readers... that is 70% of our viewership... will only scroll down one time...thus reading only one sentence because of the current layout with a one sentence paragraph and giant infobox data. Our mobile readers will simply move on to another website to obtain information and if they are American it will most likely be youtube, facebook or amazon that are full of junk info. Looking to retain readers fix the layout...its why we have an MoS. A one sentence paragraph is a journalistic style that is not really encyclopedic. Moxy- 21:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thinker78, MOS:LEADLENGTH says that "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs" and also that "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article." Of the presidents you mentioned, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Roosevelt also have more than four paragraphs, and in FDR’s case two of those paragraphs ought to be split up into two each. (Then again, four terms, New Deal, World War II compared to Trump’s meager resume.)

Your edit summary said that you used Bill Clinton’s article as the model for merging the first and second paragraph. Clinton’s first paragraph does have four sentences but then, aside from two terms as president, he was also governor of Arkansas (two terms, non-consecutive) and husband of NY senator, secretary of state, and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. (IMO attorney general of Arkansas is not leadworthy, by comparison). Carter: governor of Georgia, Nobel Peace Prize for post-presidential humanitarian work. Obama: U.S. senator, first African-American president. Reagan: governor of California, fairly well-known Hollywood actor. FDR: elected president four times, New Deal, World War II. I’ll just quote Lincoln's entire first paragraph: Abraham Lincoln (/ˈlɪŋkən/ LINK-ən; February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) was an American lawyer and statesman who served as the 16th president of the United States from 1861 until his assassination in 1865. Lincoln led the nation through the American Civil War and succeeded in preserving the Union, abolishing slavery, bolstering the federal government, and modernizing the U.S. economy. If we wanted to add something to Trump’s first paragraph, I would support adding the two impeachments, the incitement to insurrection, the false statements, the racist and misogynistic comments and actions, not the bachelor’s degree or working for his father.

Moxy, do you have sources for your statements of what Most mobile readers, 70 percent of our viewership do? Viewership, as in Nielsen ratings? Quoting from the most recent source (2019) mentioned on the linked Wikimedia draft page: How good is this data?

It has some limitations:

1. Missing older browsers (Android browser,chrome < 39, Safari, iOS < 11.3.
   
2. Respects “Do Not Track”
   
3. Anomalous large amount of missing data on mobile
   
4. Doesn’t perfectly capture “reading.” Only measures that the page is visible. (That doesn't capture "reading" at all, just "viewing".)
   

We collected sampled 0.1% of page views from 2017-11-20 through 2018-10-25

Just looking at the Current consensus should give you an idea how many times the lead has been discussed, and you'll find numerous other discussions in the currently 145 archives. IMO, the current version of the lead does its job serv as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents per MOS lead section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, thanks for your reply. You stated, "MOS:LEADLENGTH says that "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs" and also that "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article."" I understand it is not an absolute rule but your quote about the length doesn't appear to be relevant because Donald Trump is a long article that warrants four paragraphs. Besides, it has more than four. You also state, "Of the presidents you mentioned, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Roosevelt also have more than four paragraphs". True, but I stated in my original post, "at the time they were granted at least good article status". You apparently read those pages in the current form, not the version at the time they were granted good article status. I included the links to the versions I checked. Regarding this proposal and its applicability to Donald Trump, "and in FDR’s case two of those paragraphs ought to be split up into two each", according to MOS:LEAD there should be no more than four paragraphs and well-composed on top of that. Therefore instead of making more than four paragraphs in the lead and splitting them because they contain too different info, maybe four well-composed paragraphs should be included with info that warrants staying in the same paragraph. After all, the pages are long enough to get proper material for the lead. Finally, I know it's not an absolute rule or policy, but generally it is a good idea to follow the guidelines to keep some order and proper format in the pages. Thinker78 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The lead is fine as-is, without your changes. Also, it is rather difficult to take any suggestions you have made seriously, given your "BUT BIAS!" attacks on other editors here and especially here. Zaathras (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Zaathras, you stated, "The lead is fine as-is, without your changes." That's not how consensus is discussed. You need to state what guidelines and policies you base your opinion that is fine as it is. Arbitrarily saying it is fine just because you disagree with my criticism in other threads is inappropriate. Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, "the arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." Besides, in this thread I'm discussing layout, form, not content, so it is completely irrelevant the other discussions you point out.Thinker78 (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no need for editors to continually defend the longstanding status quo every time an editor dissents. The onus is entirely on you to make simple clear compelling suggestions, one by one, and try to convince editors to accept them as new consensus. If you fail, the established text will remain and editors are under no obligation to respond to anything you offer here, most of all if it is assigning them unnecessary homework. SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Certainly, there is no need for editors to continually defend the longstanding status quo, because they can contribute Misplaced Pages when they want, they are not under contractual obligations nor are they employees. If you think the page needs to stay static without giving explanations, that's your opinion, but neither you nor any given group of editors WP:OWN this page. I understand there is a consensus about the content of the lead, but not the form. I checked the enumerated consensus items before my edits. I presented my opinion for analysis of other editors. I have to add that many pages have not been compliant with policies or guidelines for years until someone noticed and made the relevant edit to fix the situation. So a status quo doesn't necessarily mean a page should stay that way.Thinker78 (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78:, you are owed nothing. If I have a preference for the current paragraph layout, that preference is not reliant on an intricate explanation. As for the other discussions, I linked them to give examples of your bad-faith behavior on this talk page. Zaathras (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Zaathras, it is not helpful to attack my integrity, specially throwing false accusations about my editing. The discussions I had that you pointed out were within my privileges as editor to discuss issues in the talk page. I like neutrality in articles and I simply expressed my opinion about problems this page may have and Misplaced Pages as a whole has. "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." Per WP:FOC, "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor." The reason why I replied to what you stated is because you publicly accused me falsely of bad-faith behavior. Now, I request that if you have any accusations against me and if you want to continue said topic, bring it to my talk page and I would follow the proper process. In this thread focus on the discussion about paragraphs in the lead of the Donald Trump page. Thanks.Thinker78 (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC):

In the Donald Trump page as in any other page all it takes is for a large enough group of biased, like-minded editors to take ownership, quashing any edits that don't reflect their bias. Your words, my friend, and a shining example of a bad-faith personal attack against other editors. Comments like that can lead to you being removed from this topic area, so, tread carefully, and cease the slurs. Now. Zaathras (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

"Like-minded editors taking ownership and quashing edits not reflecting their bias" — that's hardly WP:AGF, even if you don't mention anyone by name. On this page, everything, including the formatting and the punctuation, has been discussed extensively. The page has a number of editors who have been editing this and related articles for years and act as WP:SHEPHERDs, not WP:OWNERs. Reliably sourced improvements are always welcome, insistence on someone's POV that's not based on new RS not so much. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:TPG the sole purpose of this talk page is discussing article improvements

Personally, I'm sick of the bickering and wish all editors here would re-read WP:Focus on content.........NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC) :Thanks for tagging my talk page, and I did not bicker. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC) Now you will be accused of calling them a sheep. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC) Sheep baaad. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC) Personally, I'm sick of the bickering, well, personally I'm sick of being gaslit by an editor in one thread, and they come participate in another thread like nothing ever happened. Zaathras (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC) We should be alright as long as the sheep haven't changed their secret password. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC) Could be a sockpuppet SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Should do what is best to retain readers. Making our readers scroll 4 times before there is any real info is a deterrent to read on . More data Moxy- 15:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Your cited data is 5 years old. also, what % of visitors are android users? ValarianB (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

70 percent use non desktop versions ...this can be seen on any page by the "Pageviews Analysis" Misplaced Pages:Pageview statistics ..Moxy- 19:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't get what page 14 of a 2014 quarterly mobile review has to do with the lead or this entire article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

OK in mobile view (all explained in the link) after the first paragraph we see the info box then the second paragraph...so in this case we see one sentance then a huge i mean huge infobox. So most will only scroll one time......meaning they will never read more than the one sentence lead paragraph. Moxy- 19:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

As a desktop fullscreen PC guy...... THANK YOU for this important education. When my brain is working better, if no one else has already dealt with this, I'll start thinking about it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Unless there is a project-wide movement to shape editing to accommodate non-PC users, IMO all of this largely irrelevant. It does no good to customize this one page to fit a presumptive attentiveness issue of Android users. I'd point out that, per Help:Mobile access, the Misplaced Pages does not seem too eager to address mobile users. All they get is a redirect to a slightly browser-friendlier m.wikipedia.org, the actual wikipedia apps are all but abandoned. Zaathras (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I know little about Adaptive web design but one thing I'm certain about is folks are foolishly myopic if they ignore it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems that you are missing the point. I am not against making Misplaced Pages articles more accessible on modern non-desktop computer interfaces. But a single discussion at Talk:Donald Trump on tweaking the lede of Donald Trump is a sub-optimal way to tackle what is a broad and project-wide concern. Zaathras (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Our developers do think of this its why the infobox appears after the first paragraph despite it being coded before the paragraph. Its to allow us to hook our readers if you will. A one sentence paragraph is wasting the point of why we have the box after the first paragraph. On a side note a one sentence paragraph is something used in journalistic circles not encyclopedic content. Thus its assumed by our developers a paragraph will contain more than one sentence. Moxy- 02:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Where did you get the information on WP developers' assumptions? infobox appears after the first paragraph despite it being coded before the paragraph - as a non-coder I’m asking myself why/how it appears after the first paragraph if that isn't specified in the code (if/then or whatever)? Our first sentence does exactly what MOS Biographies' first sentence says it should do, i.e., "neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable". (Does Misplaced Pages even need to "hook readers", at 5 billion visitors per month?) I can think of a few things I would add to the first paragraph but I'm pretty sure that there'd be very emphatic objections. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

After the problem of FA reviews moving the box down one paragraph we asked the developers to do this automatically. The article should try and look academic not journalistic in appearance read me. Best to look credible off the bat. Moxy- 20:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds arbitration (closed Aug 2013)

Opinion pieces are not reliable for straightforward facts

Per WP:RSOPINION, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. ... A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion." I edited this article to bring it in line with this guideline (removing two citations to opinion pieces and using inline attribution for another), but was reverted by User:SPECIFICO, who also reintroduced a misquotation. I would appreciate input from others about this issue. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to correct the misquote. You're also free to find other sources you think are more solid for the facts. SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Well done. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Condense foreign policy line in intro

The lead is very long, and "America First" only appears once in the body of the article (see MOS:LEADREL). Since we describe his foreign policy in detail already, and that's all the term refers to, I think we should merge that line with the following sentence:

In foreign policy, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Iran nuclear deal, and initiated a trade war with China.

─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Also that kind of jargon is too likely to be misinterpreted or two prone to multiple diverse meanings for it to be informative in an encyclopedia. Sources I've seen just say that Trump liked the sound of "america first" which, like MAGA, is vague and likely to reinforce many voters' preconceived views. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems ok. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Political legacies

Unite The Right comments

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I changed that paragraph based on the more balanced perspective from the Unite the Right rally page itself, which calls it a white supremacist rally rather than a far-right rally and notes defenses of Trumps remarks. Per WP:RSP, RCP has no consensus on reliability, but is still to avoid. However, the USA Today source I added summarizes the defence of the remarks as "However, some people say they believe Trump also condemned white supremacists and neo-Nazis as part of his "very fine people" statement." This should be included in the paragraph. In addition, the addition I made to the article saying "Trump also condemned both neo-Nazis and white nationalists in response to the rally." is backed up by Politico, which is reliable. I suggest changing the paragraph to the following: "Trump's comments on the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were criticized by some as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters. Others interpreted his "fine people" remark as explicitly denouncing white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Trump also condemned both neo-Nazis and white nationalists in response to the rally." As for the quote, it should be expanded because not mentioning what he said after the main comment would be quoting out of context when the CNN source provided shows the full quote. The last thing we want to engage in is quotemining. X-Editor (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The point of having sub-articles on related topics is to keep the information there, and not bloat this giant article any more than it already is. Also Trump's "both sidesing" the affair does not belong here. Zaathras (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zaathras: I agree that sub-articles exist for a reason, but my proposed change would only add slightly more content and is far more neutral. The current paragraph leaves out crucial context, such as not mentioning that Trump condemned white nationalists and neo-Nazis. You also didn't address my comment regarding the quotemine of Trump. X-Editor (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I think X-Editor makes a good point. This article is to big but I think this is important enough to include both for the more balanced perspective. I also agree that this way is far more neutral. MaximusEditor (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• We’re not bound by the content of other WP articles. BTW, Unite the Right Rally goes on to say that "far-right groups participated," and then lists them by name.

You added POV in the name of balance. You used a partisan commentator (Cortes—more on him below) as a source for part of the first sentence you added (WP:RS), and interpreted a primary source (a transcript of Trump’s comments) for the second sentence (WP:OR—Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself). Our current text says (I bolded the text changed or added in your version):

Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters.

That’s neutral, short, and to the point. Your version:

Trump's comments on the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were criticized by some as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters. Others characterized the interpretation of the latter comment as a hoax, because Trump's "fine people" statement explicitly denounced white nationalists. Trump also condemned both neo-Nazis and white nationalists in response to the rally.

"Others", per your only source, is Wall Street trader, Trump campaign operative, and Fox commentator Steve Cortes commenting on RealClear Politics—are you seriously arguing that he is a reliable source? Well, here’s a comment published on The Bulwark (website), not really a left-leaning outlet, on Steve Cortes’s "Charlottesville hoax" conspiracy theory. He tried to repurpose the name of the conspiracy theory "Charottesville Hoax" (a claim that Heather Heyer’s murder was a hoax) to an alleged hoax perpetrated by media outlets falsely quoting/reporting on Trump’s comments. No, the media didn’t do either, and both Trump’s statements and the media reports have been fact checked over and over again.

because Trump's "fine people" statement explicitly denounced white nationalists. USA Today says that's partly false "because he did not say directly, 'There were very fine people on both sides, & I'm not talking about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists because they should be condemned totally.' The two statements were separate, the second part coming later, after further questioning from reporters." In other words, journalists eventually managed to drag a denouncement out of Trump but that didn't prevent him from reverting to "fine people on both sides". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: You're actually right about the USA Today article not saying it is an interpretation. As for the FactCheck.org link, it does say that some people disagree with the interpretation, but links to an article titled "Pence joins in the effort to rewrite Trump's Charlottesville history" as evidence, so clearly whitewashing. However, Trump did still later condemn white supremacists and Neo-nazis in a later statement. So i would propose adding the sentence "However, Trump later stated that "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally–but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists"." after the initial paragraph that is already there for context and balance. You're also right about the RCP article represents a clear COI and it's disappointing that his interpretation was displayed uncritically in the UTR rally article for quite some time. X-Editor (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: However, you haven't addressed my concerns of this article quotemining Trump by not mentioning that he said "And some, I assume, are good people." after he said "They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists." You might say that was to give plausible deniability, but this interpretation doesn't matter if it hasn't been documented in reliable sources. X-Editor (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It has been documented as such, as have many of his clarifications, jokes, and slips of the tongue. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This article does not document the other quote where he condemns them, which is why I want to add the quote to the paragraph in the article about his response to the rally. X-Editor (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I briefly wondered whether "quotemining" was referring to the Mexican rapists sentence but since that had nothing with the Unite the Right rally I didn't address it. I'm not strongly opposed to adding the sentence to the quote, I just don't see what it would add. The three bald statements (all Mexicans, no assuming) followed by a weak, "well, maybe some are not" — he's not walking anything back. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It would add context, because if people only see the first part of the quote, they might interpret that as him saying that all of them are doing that, when the second part shows that is not the case. I actually agree with SPECIFICO below that it might be better to write a summary of how mainstream reporting interprets his provocations instead of just showing specific comments from him, but for now, the context should be added. X-Editor (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Space4Time on our current language. For the last line: While there's certainly room for expansion like adding his later comments in ideal circumstances, we have to be careful on this enormous page. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Adding that quote wouldn't be much more content and would add context and neutrality. X-Editor (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@X-Editor: a better approach might be to write a few sentences on the overwhelming mainstream reporting and analysis of Trump's use of various weak prevarications and deflections to chum up his base and right-wing media supporters. Then we would be giving an encyclopedic overview without having to go into the details of what he said or to omit all or part of what he said each and every time. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC) @X-Editor:20:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

That actually sounds a lot better, but for now, the context should be added per my explanation above. X-Editor (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO:@GordonGlottal:@Space4Time3Continuum2x:@Zaathras:@MaximusEditor: Just so everyone is clear, my proposed change is now adding this sentence to the UTR rally paragraph: "However, Trump later stated that "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally–but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists"." and to add Trump saying "And some, I assume, are good people." next to the other part of the quote that says "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists." to the article. X-Editor (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This really adds nothing of value to the article. The former president has offered these mealy-mouthed half-retraction half-excusemaking at several junctures, from Charlottesville to J6. Zaathras (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Context is nothing of value? X-Editor (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Zaathras has put it in a nutshell. Dog bites man. Trump denies XYZ -- not only do mainstream sources take this deflection as nonsense, they don't even bother mentioning it in subsequent discussions of his statement. Yes, there are the contemporaneous accounts of all kinds of presidential pronouncements, but the media and tertiary sources did not take that seriously. Fog is not context that clarifies. SPECIFICO talk 22:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough and thanks for providing a better explanation. The paragraph is meant to summarize the most notable aspects of his response anyways and there is more context in the article about the UTR itself. X-Editor (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The second one doesn't bother me, but nor do I really think it's necessary. For the first: fundamentally, the point of this section is to summarize the racial views of Donald Trump. At the top we say that he denies being a racist etc. Below we give various examples of incidents that have been taken to be a better reflection of his genuine views. The fact that he later reverted to his more PC, controlled statements or muddied the waters isn't really that relevant. The reader knows that he denies it and that claims otherwise are an attempt to read between the lines of his public persona. Anyone interested in more can look at the full page. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You mentioned the idea of writing "a few sentences on the overwhelming mainstream reporting and analysis of Trump's use of various weak prevarications and deflections to chum up his base and right-wing media supporters ... without having to go into the details of what he said or to omit all or part of what he said each and every time." Do you have any suggestions on what that might look like and what sources we could use? That sounds much more encyclopedic than just cherrypicking several things he has said. X-Editor (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Merica, Dan (August 26, 2017). "Trump: 'Both sides' to blame for Charlottesville". CNN. Retrieved January 13, 2018.
2. Johnson, Jenna; Wagner, John (August 12, 2017). "Trump condemns Charlottesville violence but doesn't single out white nationalists". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 22, 2021.
3. Kessler, Glenn (May 8, 2020). "The 'very fine people' at Charlottesville: Who were they?". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 23, 2021.
4. Holan, Angie Dobric (April 26, 2019). "In Context: Donald Trump's 'very fine people on both sides' remarks (transcript)". PolitiFact. Retrieved October 22, 2021.
5. Dunn, Adrienne (October 17, 2020). "Fact check: Meme on Trump 'very fine people' quote contains inaccuracies". USA Today. Retrieved 2020-10-20.
6. Farley, Robert (February 11, 2020). "Trump has condemned white supremacists". FactCheck.org. Retrieved 2020-10-22.
7. Politico Staff (August 15, 2017). "Full text: Trump's comments on white supremacists, 'alt-left' in Charlottesville". Politico. I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists
8. Cortes, Steve (March 21, 2019). "Trump Didn't Call Neo-Nazis 'Fine People.' Here's Proof". RealClearPolitics. Retrieved 2021-02-15.
9. Dunn, Adrienne (October 17, 2020). "Fact check: Meme on Trump 'very fine people' quote contains inaccuracies". USA Today. Retrieved 2020-10-20.
10. Farley, Robert (February 11, 2020). "Trump has condemned white supremacists". FactCheck.org. Retrieved 2020-10-22.
11. {{cite news |author=Politico Staff |date=August 15, 2017 |title=Full text: Trump's comments on white supremacists, 'alt-left' in Charlottesville |work=Politico |url=https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/full-text-trump-comments-white-supremacists-alt-left-transcript-241662 |quote="I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists"
12. ^ "Read the complete transcript of President Trump's remarks at Trump Tower on Charlottesville". Los Angeles Times. August 15, 2017. Retrieved December 28, 2021.

Article by Politico and best and worst Presidents

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

Not sure this should be included as a fact. It may be a fact that they conducted a survey, but it is way to subject to political bias. 152.86.89.11 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Bringing this BLP to NPoV is a frustrating process, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Except we do not include it as a fact (unless the OP is saying that the poll did not come to that conclusion). 16:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Too Biased Against Trump

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

I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but even I can see the bias against him in this article. If you are going to take the time to write an article about him, please do it without bias. 172.74.203.83 (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

What are some suggestions you have that would make the article less biased? The content in this page is often debated, so we're open to suggestions. X-Editor (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• B-Class New York City articles
• High-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• B-Class American politics articles
• Top-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• B-Class political party articles
• High-importance political party articles
• Political parties task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• B-Class American television articles
• Mid-importance American television articles
• American television task force articles
• B-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Top-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• B-Class United States Presidents articles
• Top-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• B-Class United States Government articles
• High-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class television articles
• Mid-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press