Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:18, 5 January 2023

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, especially 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 126 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 July 10 to 16, 2022 Section sizes Section size for Donald Trump (92 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,435 9,435 Early life and education 3,813 3,813 Business career 149 35,384 Real estate 4,555 15,956 Manhattan and Chicago developments 6,170 6,170 Atlantic City casinos 3,610 3,610 Clubs 1,621 1,621 Licensing the Trump name 1,364 1,364 Side ventures 7,220 7,220 Foundation 5,025 5,025 Legal affairs and bankruptcies 2,315 2,315 Wealth 3,355 3,355 Media career 3,445 5,107 The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice 1,662 1,662 Early political aspirations 4,444 4,444 2016 presidential election 18,734 18,734 First presidency (2017–2021) 1,538 175,177 First presidency early actions 1,834 1,834 Conflicts of interest 3,372 3,372 Domestic policy 20,094 20,094 Race relations 6,410 6,410 Pardons and commutations 2,574 2,574 Immigration 3,112 20,420 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 35,970 Trade 2,517 2,517 Russia 4,226 4,226 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 30,415 Initial response 7,145 7,145 White House Coronavirus Task Force 4,747 4,747 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 2,667 2,667 Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign 2,403 2,403 Investigations 1,079 26,089 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 12,835 12,835 First impeachment 10,197 10,197 Second impeachment 3,385 3,385 2020 presidential election 34 23,357 Loss to Biden 6,907 15,674 Rejection of results 8,767 8,767 January 6 Capitol attack 7,649 7,649 Between presidencies (2021–2025) 5,214 25,236 Legal issues 21 20,022 Classified documents 4,968 4,968 2020 election 5,411 5,411 2016 campaign fraud case 3,167 3,167 Civil lawsuits and judgments 6,455 6,455 2024 presidential election 17,782 17,782 Second presidency (2025–present) 1,819 7,655 Second presidency early actions 3,874 3,874 Foreign policy 21 1,962 Trade 673 673 Middle East 20 1,268 Israel 1,248 1,248 Political practice and rhetoric 7,985 51,835 Racial and gender views 9,362 9,362 Link to violence and hate crimes 9,369 9,369 Conspiracy theories 3,317 3,317 Truthfulness 10,483 10,483 Social media 5,810 5,810 Relationship with the press 5,509 5,509 Personal life 18 7,710 Family 1,323 1,323 Health 3,697 3,697 Religion 2,672 2,672 Assessments 18 6,969 Public image 4,516 4,516 Scholarly rankings 2,435 2,435 Notes 136 136 References 30 30 Works cited 18 12,050 Books 3,216 3,216 Journals 8,816 8,816 External links 5,713 5,713 Total 410,567 410,567 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.

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.

• 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 preclude bringing up for discussion whether to include media coverage relating to Trump's mental health and fitness. 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" 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)

RFC: terminating the Constitution

Should this content be included?

During his 2016 campaign, legal scholars across the political spectrum said Trump's rhetoric showed contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law. After his many failed attempts to overturn the 2020 election he had lost, in December 2022 Trump called for "the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution" so he could be reinstated as president.

sources: soibangla (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

No, simply because it's too soon. Right now it seems important, but I imagine it will be forgotten before Christmas. We don't need to document everything dangerous this guy says, and especially not so soon after he has said it. This page would literally explode under the pressure. Cessaune (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Leaning No It is significant that the candidate of the party that claims it is strictly Constitutionalist wants to shred the Constitution for personal gain, but I'm always hesitant to add much to this very large article. Would Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign suffice? Zaathras (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but with adjustments (see #Discussion). TheFeds 00:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Poor RfC, please amend - discussion in the section immediately above shows support for a few options, including directly quoting Trump. The text proposed in this RfC from soibangla - thanks for this first draft - doesn't include a direct quote. Instead we get a lot of editorial comment. Let's reformat this RfC by adding a few more options. And please note where this text is supposed to go, otherwise we're all wasting our time. -Darouet (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Obvious Include It should go without saying that a former president making calls to rescind the Constitution should be included. Really nothing more should need to be said here. This is clearly notable, relevant, reliably sourced, and of encylopedic interest. Add it to the lede. There-being (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Improper RfC. Soibangla, me, (two proponents?) surely you know better than to start an RfC a day after the discussion had begun, while editors were weighing in, e.g., (here and here). Please withdraw it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. We can fit this in.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, as this very much is about him, and how he thinks. This is either utter BS and not meant, or is meant, either way it is a window into how he thinks. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• No he has made numerous absurd comments about his false stance that the election was stolen from him and there is no reason to include this specifically, especially considering how recent it is. Also, that is an extremely misleading quote considering he said that "a massive fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination..." he never stated that the Constitution should be terminated, but that he believed the Constitution was allowed to be terminated by what he considers the "massive fraud" which he believes stole the election from him. Bill Williams 13:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
  1. "If there was massive fraud, the constitution should be terminated."
  2. "There was massive fraud."
  3. Therefore? -- The constitution should be terminated.

  SPECIFICO talk 13:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

And, there was no "massive fraud". No fraud at all. (Well, calling it a fraud is a fraud.) He is always saying there is massive fraud, even in elections before they have taken place. The difference here is calling for "the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution". That gives this WP:WEIGHT. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

"Termination of all rules, regulations, and articles" — does that include the traffic code? Mr. Law and Order calling for anarchy — every news outlet reported it, and two days later its gone from the news because it's completely bonkers, and it's just another one in a long line of idiocies he's uttered. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• No - I am uncomfortable about directly linking people's opinions on his 2016 comments with his 2022 comments. It feels a bit like "you said we were crying wolf, but look at what he's said now!"--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Poor RfC, please amend - I don't have an objection to having the quote in the article, but this RfC doesn't say where this quote would be included. It seems like this should have been worked out in the previous discussion before doing a RfC. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• No There's a difference between stating what he did, and characterizing what he did. This goes too far into the latter. It's perfectly fine for Op/Ed columns and political opinion makers to do so; but we serve a different purpose at Misplaced Pages, and this seems to be a violation of WP:TONE for the type of writing we do. --Jayron32 15:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  No. Agree that "There's a difference between stating what he did, and characterizing what he did". Lukewarmbeer (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• No While I heavily appreciate the reliance on scholars, my comment above was supportive of including scholarly views about his actions related to the rule of law while President; not about his campaign rhetoric. The latter would be due if he'd never been elected, but we're past that. Current and future scholarship about Trump's negative impacts on the rule of law (or anything else) are far more noteworthy than tweets, since they impact real people (and American history). As is, I support neither the first part (about legal scholars), nor the second part (about his termination call), nor the juxtaposition of the two, which is reasonable but seems like WP:OR.

I'd also strongly caution against supporting RFCs that propose long passages of content; if this passes, and anyone wants to modify it a year from now, they may need to start a new RFC, and for that, they'd need to show that circumstances changed since the current RFC. Let's avoid "locking in" large portions of content with RFCs when informal discussions are more than appropriate.

For similar reasons, I also suggest we avoid RFCs that aren't over verbatim long passages of text, but still propose including very recent news (like: Should this article mention Trump's call for terminating the constitution?). We should avoid "locking-in" things that may fail the WP:10YT, due to the inherent difficulty in overturning previous RFCs. RFCs are better reserved to what goes in the lead, or to agree on specific wording when there's already consensus to include. DFlhb (talk)

• No per tone and OR/ SYNTH issues as previously discussed. Also wanted to echo that this is a poor and improper RfC. I'd support inclusion but the wording is atrocious Anon0098 (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• No - If we added every quote from Trump? the page would be ten times longer then it currently is. GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• No - This is a pretty straightforward example of WP:NOTNEWS. We can't mention every contentious, controversial quote that Trump says. This brings back of memories of when we decided to not include Trump saying Putin was smart back during the start Russia invasion of Ukraine on NOTNEWS grounds. Furthermore, the linking of Trump's comments from 2016 with his comments in 2022 is problematic with WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH; it's not Misplaced Pages's place to make such connections. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 16:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• No. Each individual fact in this text may be appropriate somewhere in the article if they prove sufficiently relevant, but combining them in this fashion gets into OR territory. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• No Certainly not in the form proposed here, which as noted above is combining different things in OR fashion. And no, even without the OR, because Trump tweets all kinds of outrageous stuff; even something this outrageous is routine for him. (Maybe they'll bring it up at his trial for obstruction or sedition.) Anyhow, 2 days later he denied that he ever said it: "The Fake News is actually trying to convince the American People that I said I wanted to ‘terminate’ the Constitution. This is simply more DISINFORMATION & LIES." -- MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• No Trump says stupid things every day which often dominate the 24 hour news cycle, especially when he was president. Whether or not his latest comments will be remembered only time will tell. I notice that U.S. mainstream media reported this as Trump wanting to abolish the constitution, when in fact he merely asked to ignore it in a specific case. TFD (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  Once it's ignored, what would be the benefit of going back through the portal? At least that was how sources and a significant minority of dissenting Republican Senators and Governors reacted to the remark. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  A significant number of leading Republicans have distanced themselves from many comments Trump has made. TFD (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  Source for that? RS reporting and broadcast interviews with senior R's show more criticism of this recent bit than, e.g. the tiki march in Charleston or the various 2016 post-nomination dust-ups. It appears to be on a par with "why wouldn't I believe Putin over US intelligence?" or the intitial but quickly reversed Republican condemnation of the 1/6 faux pas. It's certainly more than various of the Covid or race-related flaps that came and went. SPECIFICO talk 23:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No. More information is needed to identify who the "legal scholars across the political spectrum" are. This topic needs to appear extremely factual, using very specific names and information to ensure credibility. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Obvious include but no in the current SYNTHy editorializing format. Nix the idea that "we hear" "from everyone" "GREAT PEOPLE" "on BOTH sides" were haranguing him in 2016. IF that were kept, it needs to address that the never-Trumpers were a media-hyped but utterly impotent group of pundits who were completely ignored by the electorate and eventually ignored by almost all elected Republican officials. There wasn't an actual broad consensus on this—howevermuch there should've been—and it's cherrypicking FRINGE to pretend otherwise. The actual quote, yes, of course. This is unquestionably going to be the go-to historians will use as shorthand for all the other insanity, pending an actual coup attempt. (呸呸呸) — LlywelynII 10:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• No, not of singular importance to be noted on the page.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot) he has made numerous absurd comments about …  errr well, pretty much everything, but particularly about the 'stolen' election and he never stated that the Constitution should be terminated, but that he believed the Constitution was allowed to be terminated. Unfortunately we would only be 'playing his game' by getting 'hot under the collar' about every incendiary remark. Perhaps rephrased it belongs on a more specific page, (Truth Social? ) but is simply another dose of - the daily - fireworks relative to this biog. AKA the remark fails WP:WEIGHT.Pincrete (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
• No. For a couple reasons, but first this is too recent and I would like to see if it has a lasting impact first. At the time I do not think this quote is anymore notable than many Trump quotes. I would also like to see where this would be added on the article. Grahaml35 (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• What section of the article would this be included? It's not clear from the RfC. Nemov (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Consider stating instead of After his many failed attempts to overturn the 2020 election he had lost, in December 2022 Trump called for "the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution" so he could be reinstated as president., Asserting that an election fraud of large magnitude had taken place, Trump opined that this circumstance "'allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution'", and advocated that the 2020 election be overturned. I would source it to at least , which implies the need for quotation in quotation. (It is a controversial statement that must be clearly seen as not a paraphrase, but per WP:SELFSOURCE we would presumably avoid citing the social media post itself.) Importantly, this characterizes his ongoing motivations, using his particularly pithy December statement as a definitive example. (In contrast to just reporting on what he said in December as an item of its own.) The distinction between bluntly calling for the removal of the constitution (not what he said: he is obviously using "all" to mean "any", instead of to advocate for an utterly lawless society) and advocating a supralegal rationale for deleting inconvenient parts of the constitution (even if the rationale is self-serving and based on false beliefs) is important; retaining "allows" assists in this. TheFeds 00:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla: in light of the comments, would you consider adding an alternate wording that avoids the uncomfortable juxtaposition? SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that this was under discussion, so I added information, taken from the Truth Social page, about Trump's claims that alleged fraud allows for the termination of the Constitution. I think someone removed the since I don't see them now. I think we could include info, but we should (1) quote the full post and (2) word his claim as being that alleged fraud "allows" for rather than "calls" for the termination of the Constituion. Most likely, they mean the same thing, and many sources interpret his post as "calling" for the Constitution's claim. However, Trump subsequently denied he called for the termination of the Constitution and shared a link to an article claiming that by "allows for," Trump meant that those engaging in voter fraud were effectively terminating the Constitution, not that Trump was calling for the Constitution's termination. Again, I'm not saying this is right, but since Misplaced Pages articles are suppposed to be neutral, "allows" for is the most objective term to use since that's what he said. —The Sackinator (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Less links is best The links do not need to appear immediately in the lead section. The lead should provide a relatively quick, concise summary without - as has been said - distracting the reader or leading them to click off into other pages before getting the full contextualized summary of what we have determined are the principal significant points. SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for individual link additions to lead

Hello,

Since we seem incapable of deciding this as a collective issue, I'm seeking individual consensus for adding each of the following links to the lead. The justification is the same in each case: these are specific, meaningful, and notable things that a typical reader may want to learn more about, not generic terms like "protectionist" or "nationalist".

• 2017–2019 special counsel investigation → 2017–2019 special counsel investigation
• Russia interfered in the 2016 election → Russia interfered in the 2016 election
• travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries → travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries
• policy of family separations → policy of family separations
• individual health insurance mandate → individual health insurance mandate
• Affordable Care Act → Affordable Care Act
• Trans-Pacific Partnership → Trans-Pacific Partnership
• Paris Agreement → Paris Agreement
• Iran nuclear deal → Iran nuclear deal
• 2024 presidential election → 2024 presidential election

Please discuss these individually, and not collectively, since consensus may be different from link to link. My position is that we are here to be helpful to readers, and these links are helpful. There are no Easter egg links here, nor would they lead to a sea of blue. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, I will speak collectively, and say I agree with all of the the removals. We do the reader a disservice by providing link after link after link, where they feel they have to endlessly branch off elsewhere to find what they're looking for. Let the the readers actually read and not click. Links, where appropriate, can be made in sub-sections. At the lead stands as of 6:55am California time, I like it. A few links to some prominent names and intuitions. ValarianB (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I find this line of reasoning completely bizarre. The lead right now is only useful if you already have some understanding of what all these unlinked terms mean. For example, the lead currently says "the Iran nuclear deal." This deal is not mentioned again until thousands of words later in the Iran subsection, where it is not referred to as the "Iran nuclear deal", but instead "the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action." How is a reader supposed to understand what "the Iran nuclear deal" is supposed to refer to in the lead unless they already know? Are we supposed to send them hunting through the 16,000-word text for references to Iran so they can deduce that the JCPOA is the same thing as "the Iran nuclear deal" previously mentioned? How is that helpful?

Variations on this logic apply to all of these terms. Take the Affordable Care Act; what if readers haven't heard of it? What if they know it as Obamacare? Keeping these terms unlinked means the text is only comprehensible to those who already know what these terms mean! We are not doing anyone a disservice by giving them the option to learn more about things they might not know about! That's what we're here for! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Leads seem to be written with linking to other pages in mind. Why? Because we're uncertain about the information contained in this article? Take this sentence, for example: In foreign policy, Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. We could say that "Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from international trade, climate, and disarmament agreements" or something along those lines (disarmament). That would or should induce the reader who wants to know more about Trump's trade etc. policies to look at the body / presidency / foreign policy. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

So we should add vagueness and reduce specificity in order to force readers to spend their time scrolling through a 16,000-word article hunting for information, rather than just linking to full articles with reasonably-sized leads that a reader can click on any time they wish? Leads are not written with linking to other pages in mind, but they are often the only part of an article a reader reads (per years of research by WMF). We owe it to readers to make the lead comprehensible on its own without needing the rest of the article for context. Many of the proposed links above are proper nouns that should be linked per the Manual of Style. By my reading of MOS:UL and MOS:OL, the lead is currently severely underlinked. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no vagueness, it is called "readability". Articles become unreadable when every other word takes you to a different topic. Introduce, then expand. This is very, very basic Freshman Composition. ValarianB (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact is that these words do describe different topics, and they only "take" the reader there if the reader chooses to be taken there by clicking on a link. It's also unhelpful hyperbole to say that I'm proposing "every other word" be linked. This is not a Freshman Composition which we expect to be read all the way through, in order, like a well-crafted op-ed. It's an online encyclopedia article. Almost every other high-profile article (such as those on the 44 other US presidents, most directly comparable) has many more links in the lead than this one; this is well-established precedent and while local consensus here may override it, I'm baffled by the hostility to less than a dozen simple links to specific, non-fungible things. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The average reader (and the average editor) does not want to hunt through this massive article to find a tiny paragraph of text about the individual insurance mandate, for example. They just want to know what it is. There is nothing wrong with gonig to a new article. Why do we want to keep people here? How does it benefit them? If their journey takes them to a different Trump page, then it takes them there. All the Trump articles are good enough that we should be encouraging people to seek out the spinoffs that go into more detail, rather than hunting down that same link in the body, an unnecessary step that wastes time.

The article does not become unreadable with a lot of blue in the lead, and what is being proposed here is much more reasonable than what you seem to be saying. I'm inclined to believe, based on experience, that the average reader does not care how many links are in the article. However, editors of this page, arbitrarily IMO, despise blue in the lead. As an example, the article January 6 United States Capitol attack has tons of links. Adding these links wouldn't even come close to the number of links and citations in the lead on that page. Either links to separate articles or section links in the lead solve this problem, but something should be implemented. No more searching through a long article to realize that the thing you were looking for is only covered in minimal detail, or, better yet, scrolling down and ending up clicking on the same link that you would have if it were in the lead. Cessaune (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The extreme link removal was a worthwhile experiment, but IMO a failed one. The whole point of a Wiki is to allow articles to be linked, and build on each other. I get that editors here want users to read the full article, but we can't decide how people use Misplaced Pages, and most people just spend a few minutes here before bouncing. Links help them rapidly get to whatever's relevant to them, which IMO increases the chance they'll spend more time here. DFlhb (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It makes zero sense to me to avoid links in the lead. Readers can choose to follow the links or not, no one is forcing anyone to click anything. This is a really bizarre choice inconsistent with the entire rest of the site, links should be added. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding a subsection for discussion and a few more Wikilinks currently linked in the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Heading to consensus

• So far I'm seeing 4 editors in favor of restoring the links, and 3 editors against. It would be helpful if more folks weighed in who watch this talk page! —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  This discussion is heading towards an RfC. Cessaune (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  Add me to the list of those in favor of restoring the links to his policies and significant views in the lede. I see no example in my decade of Misplaced Pages experience where all wikilinks were removed from a US president's lede because the thinking was that it's better to scroll through thousands of words to get to more information. It goes against what I thought Misplaced Pages did, which is make things easy to navigate and learn about. A 5+ paragraph summary with no links to more information seems ridiculous and brand new to me. Most people, in my view, don't sort through 50 sections of an article to find each piece of information in the lede they want to learn more about. -Teammm 14:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  Well, that makes it 6 editors in favor of links (see IP below), and 3 against. If the trend continues in this way, I'm going to re-establish the links tomorrow, since clear consensus seems to be forming. 14:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC) —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you count me as one of the against editors? GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I was counting people who had commented in this discussion, so no: Space4Time, ValarianB, and Khajidha were the 3 I was counting. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm against adding links, so that makes it four. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you counting the IP address with a total of three edits, two on this Talk page, one on Obama’s, made within 6 minutes of each other? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? Cessaune (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Ganesha811, I just made a comment regarding one of the links, trying to get back to your original request, "Please discuss these individually, and not collectively, since consensus may be different from link to link." Bob K31416 (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose As it stands as of this timestamp, looks fine. Don't clutter it with a million links. Zaathras (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  Opposition is fine, but I wish people wouldn't use hyperbole. I'm proposing just 10 specific links. It's hardly a large number in the context of *any* Misplaced Pages article over 1000 words, let alone this one. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly my thoughts. Cessaune (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• 2017–2019 special counsel investigation → 2017–2019 special counsel investigation

Suggest changing,

"The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to favor the election of Trump."

to

"The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to favor the election of Trump."

and it wouldn't change the number of wikilinks. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Russia interfered in the 2016 election → Russia interfered in the 2016 election

The above two bullet points propose two Wikilinks (bolded) for one sentence: The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to favor the election of Trump. We should consider changing the sentence to "Several investigations" or simply "Investigations" established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to favor the election of Trump. The hamstrung Mueller special counsel investigation seemed much more important in 2019 than now. There were also the FBI investigation FBI Crossfire Hurricane investigation that was terminated with the false announcement that Mueller would continue it; the joint conclusion of CIA, FBI, and DNI that Russia interfered; and the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the interference. The last one’s not mentioned in the body - does anyone remember whether it was discussed and not added or removed for some reason? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation) did not establish that Russia interfered, was a flawed investigation, and later resulted in one of its FBI lawyers being convicted of making false statements during the investigation.

2. I would agree with not having the wikilink Russia interfered in the 2016 election but instead have the wikilink 2017–2019 special counsel investigation as I suggested above in the previous bullet point. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you miss the memo on the Durham investigation having been a $6.5 million bust, not including the money Durham spent from 2019 to September 2020? You’re repeating debunked Trumpian and Republican claims. The one problem the IG report found was then-FBI attorney Clinesmith’s good-faith but "inappropriate shortcut", the altered email, to obtain FISA warrants against one individual, Carter Page, the FBI had been investigating since 2013. Page had hyped his largely nonexistent Russian connections and was hired and fired by the Trump campaign as an advisor in 2016. Mueller was allowed to continue the Crossfire investigations against Manafort, Flynn, Stone, Papadopoulus, van Der Zwaan, etc., which resulted in convictions. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Bob K31416, you wrote "Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation) did not establish that Russia interfered,.." Is a word missing there? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Valjean, I don't see what you mean. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Currently, that is a very false statement. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you may have interpreted the statement to mean something that I hadn't intended. Crossfire Hurricane did not establish whether Russia interfered or did not interfere, if that clarifies it for you. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Bob K31416, I'm not sure that helps at all. Are you implying there was no interference? The Mueller report described the findings of the CH investigation, and it found a lot of interference by Russia and knowledge of it by Trump and his campaign. This is from the lead of Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation)

"The FBI's work was taken over on May 17, 2017, by the Special Counsel investigation of 2017–2019, which eventually resulted in the Mueller Report. Mueller concluded that Russian interference occurred in a "sweeping and systematic fashion" and that there were substantial links with the Trump campaign, but the evidence available to investigators did not establish that the Trump campaign had "conspired or coordinated" with the Russian government."

We have quite a few articles that go into much detail about the various ways the Russians interfered, as well as how Trump and his people reacted to the interference. They welcomed it, facilitated, aided and abetted, cooperated with, secretly met with Russian intelligence agents, lied about, and denied there was any interference. Then, as the evidence became stronger, they denied knowledge of it; then said it was not performed to help Trump win; then that it wasn't the Russians (even dangling the offer of a pardon to Assange if he denied it was the Russians, so he placed the blame on the innocent Seth Rich); then that the Trump campaign did not collude with the Russians; then that Trump wasn't involved; then Giuliani's "loose lips" partially let the cat out of the bag: "I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign" "Giuliani added that Trump himself has never said there was no collusion at all, just that he did not assist with Russian efforts to interfere with the election." That too was a lie. The story kept changing.

Trump had already been planning his candidacy with the Russians since November 2013 at the Miss Universe contest in Moscow, and already in January 2014 they publicly promised to help him. Of course, he denied that possibility. Another lie. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Re "Are you implying there was no interference?" — No. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries → travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries
• policy of family separations → policy of family separations
• individual health insurance mandate → individual health insurance mandate

• This is the first link in a sentence with two of them. It links to a subsection of a page that contains the history of failed pre-ACA efforts to institute a mandate plus info on a few individual state mandates and some odd info on purpose ("free-rider problems" and "death spirals"). I, for one, am not looking for any of that when I read the lead of Trump's bio. The subsection doesn’t mention the ACA except in one aside ("as they are under the Affordable Care Act.") and in the subsection about Massachusetts. I don't think we need this link in the article at all, and definitely not in the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Agree on opposing this link per your reasoning; support all the others. DFlhb (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a fair argument and I wouldn't mind not implementing this link to maintain consensus if the others find adequate support. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• Affordable Care Act → Affordable Care Act
• Trans-Pacific Partnership → Trans-Pacific Partnership
• Paris Agreement → Paris Agreement
• Iran nuclear deal → Iran nuclear deal
• 2024 presidential election → 2024 presidential election
• Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017
• 2016 presidential election
• 2020 presidential election

Obama example

To avoid disrupting Misplaced Pages itself to make a point, I've created a sandbox article (link here) that shows what a similar culling of links from the Barack Obama lead would look like. Take a look and read it from the perspective of someone who, for instance, may be a non-American child learning about Obama for the first time. Is the lack of links helpful? If the editors here feel the less-linked equivalent on Donald Trump is genuinely better than the more-linked version, then so be it, but I still struggle greatly to understand your perspective. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe there should NEVER be links in the lead. That's what the body is for.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, that goes against long-standing consensus, and is unrealistic. Cessaune (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Links in the lede

Most paragraphs on the policy changes put in place by US presidents have lots of hyperlinks to other Misplaced Pages articles on those specific legislation.

However, this paragraph ("Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, diverted military funding towards building a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border, and implemented a policy of family separations for apprehended migrants. He rolled back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations in an aggressive attempt to weaken environmental protections. Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. He appointed 54 federal appellate judges and three United States Supreme Court justices. In foreign policy, Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un three times, but made no progress on denuclearization. He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging, and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the need for testing.") has almost no links whatsoever. This should be changed, I think? 2405:201:E00B:6E35:A429:8F69:3C87:EAE (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree! Please feel free to join in the discussion above if you would like to say more on the subject. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't add any links, we've got the Trump administration page to handle those events. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, at the time of writing this, the lead has a less-than-average amount of links and citations, and, if this change is implemented, it will still have a less-than-average amount of links and citations, when compared to the pages of other US presidents, at the very least.

Yet: User:ValarianB: We do the reader a disservice by providing link after link after link, where they feel they have to endlessly branch off elsewhere to find what they're looking for. Let the the readers actually read and not click. What? No one, let me repeat this, no one reads Misplaced Pages. (Okay, I do, but I'm an outlier, as are a lot of Misplaced Pages editors, likely.) They scan an article to find the infomation they want and dip. As such, we should be branching readers off to more detailed article elsewhere. If someone comes here and something catches their eye and they leave, what is wrong with that? Explain to me what a reader gains from staying on this page, or loses from leaving it?

User:Space4Time3Continuum2x: Leads seem to be written with linking to other pages in mind. Why? Because we're uncertain about the information contained in this article? No, because we are certain that the information contained in other articles is more detailed and will provide the reader with a better understanding of the topic. Simple.

Then there are a scattering of statements such as Articles become unreadable when every other word takes you to a different topic or Don't clutter it with a million links and the like. Okayyy... but what does that have to do with this article? If the claim is being made that these ten or so additions will turn the lead into a blue soup, I respectfully disagree. Nearly every single major Trump page has more links in the lead than this one. To say that these links will add "clutter" is a matter of personal preference and does not fit the de facto standard set by the more than two decades of editing preceding this simple change. (Really, we need to make MOS:CONTEXTLINK and MOS:LEADCITE more specific, it's killing me how much they suggest without actually stating anything.)

This is the second-biggest Trump page (after Presidency of Donald Trump) and in the top-100 biggest pages by filesize. Adding ten links to this massive article is no going to add much in the way of blue, but it is going to add a lot in terms of navigability. It also complies with the way other articles are written. The current way the lead is written complies with guidelines (in the fact that the guidelines do not address a standard amount of links and only suggest what should be linked), but does not match other articles. The local consensus here is that links in the lead should be used sparingly, which is fine. I just disagree. And, in my opinion, though de facto standard and local consensus are normally on an even playing field, de facto standard is strong enough to overpower local consensus in a style sense, as we all want Misplaced Pages to look the same stylistically (in most cases).

Give me a single reason why a reader will benefit from the current state of the lead as opposed to the proposed one. Give me a single reason why a reader will not benefit from the proposed state of the lead as opposed to the current one. No more 'it's cluttered' or 'they can read down and find it'. Actually explain why the current version is better than the proposed one. That's all I ask. Cessaune (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

They scan an article to find the infomation they want and dip. Someone's tracking my eye movements while I allegedly scan and dip? what does that have to do with this article? Everything since this is the article we're discussing. This article has 3,743 watchers plus at least one watcher (me) who's not signed up to watch. Ten people contributed to this discussion, so the vast majority appears not to care one way or another. The regular editors of this page have managed to handle the occasional complaint of "not supported by ..." (they have tapered off considerably) by pointing out the supporting material and cites in the body. Have you read every article you want to wikilink from the lead to make sure it supports what we're saying in the lead? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

They scan an article to find the infomation they want and dip is based on my super informal survey of friends who all agreed that there is no way the would actually fully read an article this long, which makes sense. Before I was an editor, the only long article I had ever read completely through was the Orgasm article (I would recommend it, it's actually pretty interesting) and my main use for Misplaced Pages was either to easily find reliable cites or to play the Misplaced Pages game. I thought the idea that no one (referring to the vast majority) actually reads Misplaced Pages was common sense. I would bet a lot of money that the vast majority of people who read this article at all are not going to read the whole article, or half, or a fourth. That's a reasonable assumption. This is one of the biggest articles on the English Misplaced Pages, after all.

What does that have to do with this article?—I was suggesting that it's unreasonable to think that ten cites will make the lead cluttered or be too many when compared to the de facto standard present on most pages this long. And I struggle to understand that perspective. From a purely style standpoint, the lead as it is right now is fine, but this isn't a purely style question. In fact, it shouldn't be a style question at all, as there are zero policies or guidelines governing the number of links in a lead. It should be a question of which provides the biggest benefit to the readers. No one except us editors care if every third word was blue. People just want information.

Please answer my question above. I want to understand the logic. Cessaune (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 response (lede)

I think, to add some balance, maybe the sentence on his response to COVID-19 in the lede should include a mention of Operation Warp Speed, which by most accounts was successful? 2405:201:E00B:6E35:A429:8F69:3C87:EAE (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

A singular part of his Covid response was successful, but, taken as a whole, it was generally considered unsuccessful/not as successful as it could have been. I don't think we need to add more to the lead to address this. Cessaune (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Lede: electoral fraud allegations

While in of itself it would mean roughly the same, I feel that using wording such as "Trump made unsubstantiated allegations of widespread electoral fraud" would come over as more neutral and nuanced than "Trump falsely claimed widespread electoral fraud". Synotia (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

They have been determined to be false and that's how reliable sources state it. So, that's how we state it. MOS:DOUBT O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

"Unsubstantiated" means "without proof", "false" means "proven to be contrary to fact". All evidence shows NO widespread fraud, so "unsubstantiated" is itself a false statement. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer "Trump made false claims of widespread electoral fraud". Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Links in the lede

@Space4Time3Continuum2x : I see that this edit of mine might have its detractors. It came from a good intention, I wanted to make it easier for a reader to directly read more about a topic without having to look for it in the article... Synotia (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I always assume good faith , I just happen to disagree that readers coming to Donald Trump's biography want to be taken to other articles to read more about, e.g., the more than 100 environmental policies and regulations he/his administration rolled back — a very long and very detailed article about the Trump administration. If someone is looking for info on "Trump" and "environment", a simple Google search for those two words produces the WP article as the top result. Also, this particular wikilink is a MOS:EGG that appears to lead to an explanation of "roll back". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, why not remove all blue links in the lede then? Synotia (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Synotia, please add your thoughts to the section above, "Seeking consensus for individual link additions to lead." I am trying to get more links restored as well and would appreciate your comments. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Tax returns released

This relates to the §Financial disclosures (and possibly §Wealth) sections. Feel free to add more reputable WP:RS to this list, so we can discuss proposed changes as the dust settles over the coming weeks. DFlhb (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Tankersley, Jim; Craig, Susanne; Buettner, Russ (2022-12-30). "Key Takeaways From Trump's Tax Returns". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-12-30.
• "What do Trump's tax returns show?". BBC News. 2022-12-30. Retrieved 2022-12-30.
• "Big Write-Offs, Tax-Cut Perks: Key Takeaways From Trump's Tax Returns". Bloomberg News. 2022-12-30. Retrieved 2022-12-30.
• Vazquez, David Goldman,Jeremy Herb,Jeanne Sahadi,Maegan (2022-12-30). "Key takeaways from six years of Donald Trump's federal tax returns | CNN Politics". CNN Politics. Retrieved 2022-12-30.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Neutrality 30 December 2022

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

You are begging for money and in you repeated requests for money you stated Misplaced Pages is a neutral information site. Please read your page on Donald Trump and then tell me you are a neutral information site. 47.180.169.216 (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You might try expressing your thought at User talk:Jimbo Wales instead of here. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

None of us like the "begging for money" run by the Wikimedia Foundation, and none of us see a penny of it. Best, DFlhb (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not claim to be a "neutral information site." That's a misunderstanding of the NPOV policy. It is a site that neutrally documents the sum total of human knowledge, and much, if not most, of that knowledge includes bias and is not neutral, therefore it is editors, not sources or content, that must remain neutral as they document all of that. So as you read, if you find bias, that bias should be the bias in the source, not bias introduced by an editor. Check the references for that content. If the source does not say what our content says, then complain (in a civil manner) at the talk page so it can be fixed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Could we at least get an example? Neutrality is a fair enough concern to have for any Misplaced Pages article, particularly on contentious subjects. Misplaced Pages should remain as neutral and objective as possible, which includes not adopting bias that may exist within reliable sources. Unfortunately, many complaints about bias and neutrality seem more politically motivated, such as this one. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Documenting bias is not the same as "adopting bias." Refusing to document the bias is itself an editorial interference, IOW a biased decision that takes sides against the source. We don't do that. And yes, the initial complaint by the OP does seem to be the typical "politically motivated" objection we see all the time, the type of objection made by people who misunderstand our NPOV policy. NPOV expressly does NOT require that sources or content be neutral, but it does require that editors edit neutrally. An article on any controversial topic should not be neutered of opinions and biases. The biases and opinions of the sources should be evident. Editors should keep their own opinions out of the article. They should not neuter sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

That would depend what you mean by documenting bias. What I mean is that the tone of Misplaced Pages articles should not necessarily have the same tone as the sources we rely on. I am affirming that we should rely on sources which may have their own biases. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

not adopting bias that may exist within reliable sources 123, please read WP:NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

IP47.180.169.216, if you find any content that seems to include editorial bias from editors here, please let us know. Please provide examples. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

In the subsection Presidency (2017–2021) > COVID-19 pandemic > Initial response there is,

"Trump continued to claim that a vaccine was less than a year away, although HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials had repeatedly told him that vaccine development would take 12–18 months."

This implies that Trump was making a false claim, when in fact he was right. See for example. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Not a fan of this sentence. Would be better to have a few sentences on him not caring to understand nuances, somewhere in a leadership section (which is the real point of including this sentence), while focusing more on events and less on words in the presidency section. DFlhb (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Bob, 12-18 months was a forecast made by actual scientific experts at the time, while Trump's "less than a year" was evidenced-free braggadocio. Being right by happenstance does not gainsay the initially-valid opinions of those who actually knew what they were talking about. Zaathras (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the wording is terrible. Trump continued to claim that a vaccine was less than a year away, although HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials had repeatedly told him that vaccine development would take 12–18 months. Trump claimed, yet the CDC and HHS knew based on the wording? How could they have known how long it would take to develop the vaccine? Obviously, it was an educated guess, but a guess nonetheless. The wording treats it like Trump was guessing while the CDC and HHS were stating the facts, which isn't true, as they were both guessing. Cessaune (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

That ignores what Zaathras explained immediately above. SPECIFICO talk 00:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

How? What Zaathras said is true, and what I said is true. Zaathras uses the word "forecast", which implies that they didn't actually know how long it was going to take, and their "opinion" was that they did not believe that vaccine development in less than a year was possible. The statement Vaccine development would take 12–18 months implies that they knew that it would take a year or more. They didn't know that, and they could not have known that. Yes, they are the experts, yes, Trump went against the experts. That doesn't change the fact that they didn't and couldn't know how long it would take, and the implication that the experts knew the facts is incorrect. In reality, Trump was just being confident and the experts were just being realistic in their estimates, a common theme between politicians and experts. Delete the whole sentence. Cessaune (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, there is no mention in this article of the Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed, which expedited vaccine development. And looking at Misplaced Pages's article on Operation Warp Speed, there is no mention in the lead over there of Trump or his White House despite sources in the lead over there with the titles, "Trump Administration Announces Framework and Leadership for 'Operation Warp Speed'", "Trump's 'Operation Warp Speed' aims to rush coronavirus vaccine", "Unveiling 'Warp Speed,' the White House's America-first push for a coronavirus vaccine". Bob K31416 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Bob, OWS was largely ineffective, and actually hindered Pfizer's early production goals. Zaathras (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

How about we simply do away with Trump's claims of when a vaccine would be produced, at least for this article? It might be relevant in the articles specifically about Trump and the response to the pandemic. Whether one sees it as an example of a visionary or a blusterer (for lack of a better word), it is hardly relevant enough to be considered an important aspect of his entire life. If it is being included to help indicate the latter (the bluster element), we have more than enough of that in the remainder of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

An attempt was made to include the Abraham Accords, which went nowhere. AFAIK, the US didn't get into any 'new' wars while he was president, so perhaps that can be mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The Abraham Accords were largely symbolic and meaningless. It gets a footnote in his Presidency... article, which is sufficient. Zaathras (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@47:180:169.216:, if there's something you want added to this page, then propose what that something is. Whether it gets added or not, depends on how many editors you can get to support your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• If you think that Donald Trump’s biography is not neutral, then please point out which parts are biased and cite the sources that support your view. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I went to reexamine the sentence under discussion (see my message of 02:53, 31 December) and the source does not appear to say that Trump claimed a vaccine was less than a year away. This is looking like a mess. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

On that basis, I would support any editor boldly removing the claim from the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Right. But the bigger question should be whether this is due. Who cares if he made a correct prediction, which experts were seemingly wrong on? Predicting when a product will go-to-market is not some kind of scientific calculation, where expertise would matter. On the contrary. Him making a guess, and an expert making another guess, is utterly non-noteworthy.

We're only bringing up this trivia in order to depict him as having little respect for expertise. So why not bother to find a proper source for that, and then say it explicitly? Why hint at things?

There's way too many instances of us mentioning massively undue things for the sole purpose of hinting at due things we should be stating outright. Would save us a fair bit of word count. DFlhb (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The first step would rightly be to remove this sentence from the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

No. Not without doing as DF says. SPECIFICO talk 03:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems you're misrepresenting what DFlhb is saying. They are saying that the sentence should not be in the article because it is not due, and I agree with them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind if we wait for better material to be proposed before removing; though I don't see it as a necesssity, since it makes editing the page a bit too formal a process for my tastes. Regardless, it's unlikely you'll get consensus without proposing a replacement. DFlhb (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The sentence itself never had a consensus for its inclusion, so we can remove it without consensus. This shouldn't be something that rises to the level of requiring a discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

That comes with the territory of editing a page that's both controversial, and very highly discussed. When editors dispute potential changes, affirmative consensus is required. There's good and bad aspects to that, but it's defensible. DFlhb (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Remove the sentence. GoodDay (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Trump and his administration's efforts to expedite a vaccine, here's an article from CNN, Trump scores a long-awaited coronavirus win with vaccines on the way. Bob K31416 (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

2 years old. Find something newer that has analysed Trump's "victory" after the passage of some time. Zaathras (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The same article says that some of the scientific work that led up to the development of the vaccines had been going on for 15 years. Also, the vaccine first out of the gate, BioNTech/Pfizer, was developed without Operation Warp Speed funds, and other countries weren't all that thrilled that the Trump administration bought up the entire initial vaccine production at the asking price. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

In addition to not being neutral by leaving out positive aspects of Trump's presidency like the covid vaccine expediting, the article goes into excessive detail on negative aspects. As an example of the latter, an editor recently tried to reduce some of the excessive detail with this edit and was reverted . Bob K31416 (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Today's Wordle solution is *****. As a result of the investigations into Russian election interference, the president's friends and close and not-so-close associates were convicted of felonies, and then he pardoned every single one of them (except for Cohen who cooperated with the investigators). Any other presidents proudly looking back on that kind of legacy? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

There is some excessive detail on the criminal investigations in this article, such as going into detail on who of his advisers and campaign staff were convicted of crimes, and the lengths of their sentences. This is an article about Donald Trump, not anybody else, and the criminal records of those associated persons should be found in other articles. On this article, it should be enough to say that several of his associates have been investigated and convicted of such crimes, and detail what Trump himself did or influenced in doing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The IP is actually correct, article has become very biased

Despite the poor tone of the IP, there is some substance in their observation that the article is biased indeed. Much as I personally think Trump should be in prison and despise the man, some editorial choices here are rather surprising and, well, biased. The Abraham Accords are never even mentioned. A US President helping to establish peace deals between Israel and several Arab states is highly important, yet not even included here while many marginal aspects get plenty of space. Sorry to say, but the impression is that several users have come to believe that including anything positive about Trump is to endorse him. Trump is a horrible man who was a horrible President and occasionally did a few good things as well. Jeppiz (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that the Abraham Accords are important enough to be included here, except maybe a brief mention, as the agreements made are quite inconsequential. One of the main problems with this article is that it overly and unnecessarily details negative events and characteristics of the subject's presidency and political career. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times. Trump had little to do with these dubious "accords", which sources say were largely Netanyahu's media announcement of arrangements de facto in place for some time. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: in order to get something (I assume you're hinting) positive added to this BLP? You have to get a consensus from editors first. An RFC (which brings in outside editors), is likely the best route to take. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

That is absolutely incorrect. Issues are resolved by discussion. But repetitive discussions for no new reason are pointless. SPECIFICO talk 03:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

What? No. Discuss first, always. There are enough editors watching this page that can weigh in if they want. You start an RfC after discussion has taken place. Cessaune (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Any editor who wants to begin an RFC, to include or exclude anything on this BLP (if they think it necessary), are free to do so. We few who frequent this BLP (and talkpage), can't stop them. GoodDay (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You are technically correct, however WP:RFCBEFORE suggests discussion first. ...likely the best route to take goes against this. Cessaune (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

If any editor sees this BLP as being biased (i.e non-NPoV), then it'll be up to them 'how' they handle it. GoodDay (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but you suggested that, against information widely agreed upon not just in a de facto sense but fully codified, that starting an RfC is likely the best route to take. Why? Cessaune (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It's the best route to take, for more input. GoodDay (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

But why is "more input" needed? The talk page is consistently being edited. What's wrong with the current input? Cessaune (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

A question for those who feel this page is biased, to answer. GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course anyone can start an RfC. Read WP:RFCBEFORE. We shouldnt waste editor time, resources. More input comes after initial input, such as discussion. RFCBEFORE is very clear: If you don't have to start an RfC, don't. What is the benefit of starting an RfC if a) there are capable editors always watching this page, b) there has no attempt to discuss with said capable editors, c) editor resources will be wasted in dealing with an RfC, d) RfCs on this page are almost always a mess of uninformed editors who vote based on political ideology and not RS, e) RfCs on this page tend to end in status quo ante bellum? Cessaune (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be a massive overreaction to a fairly benign comment from GoodDay. I agree it may have been better written, but there's no real issue here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox spacing

Currently, the infobox in the article includes no spacing whatsoever. I have been reverted in the past for adding spacing, so I am bringing it to the talk page. I understand concerns that any spacing artificially inflates the article byte count, but I don't see any other reason for not including spacing, especially since the infoboxes on every single other president's articles include it, and it is much more visually appealing when editing. Politicsfan4 (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

For clarity, you appear to be referring to vertical alignment of the template parameter values in the infobox coding, not spacing in the infobox rendering (which isn't possible to my knowledge). Here are the diffs of your attempt (or one of them) and its revert, which occurred in early August: I like neatness and I find the alignment aesthetically appealing; on the other hand, I don't see any real ease-of-use improvement for editors. I don't put much stock in your argument about a need for consistency in coding between presidential articles. It doesn't even make a difference in what readers see, and I think a lot of those consistency arguments are overblown. I also don't think the 0.1% increase in article file size is enough to worry about, especially considering that editors aren't too concerned about the article being already about 30% larger than it should be. I could go either way. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Why? Why would you do this? If anything, I find the version with the spaces to be LESS visually appealing as it introduces confusion as to whether the data goes in the empty space before or after the equal sign. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Khajidha: You're gonna have to make yourself more clear. It's pretty obvious when there is spacing that the data goes after the equal sign, because there is spacing. I don't see how anyone could possibly be confused by that. Also, spaces make the infobox more uniform, as every parameter is the same "length" in code, at least up till the equal sign, although this isn't a big deal for me personally. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Information goes after the label. If you put all that space in the label before the equal sign, it looks like it has ended, and then it starts back up again with the equal sign. Having the equal sign immediately after the label is much clearer, because the apparent end of the label is the actual end of the label. To me, the varying length of the spaces looks more "ragged" than the varying length of the unspaced version. As for the question of consistency, I feel no need to make this box look hideous just to match other hideous layouts. If you want consistency, go take the spaces out of the others. It will be a great improvement. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 05:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

BTW, as a clarification note: the article used to have spacing consistent with other presidential infoboxes. It was removed with this edit in January 2022 in an attempt to reduce the article size, although it only ended up cutting 382 bytes off, with no visual difference obviously. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a remarkably silly hill to die on. As long as what is presented to the reader is proper and accurate, what is under the hood is irrelevant. Zaathras (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zaathras: I'm not really dying on this hill. It's no big deal either way for me if the spacing is there or not; I'm simply explaining an option to restore previous spacing or keep it the same. I would quickly do it on my own in an edit but I have been reverted before for doing so, therefore, I'm bringing it to the talk page. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Then, honestly, don't even think about it, this just isn't a thing to give a second thought to. And this applies to whoever reverted it, too. Zaathras (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

"Whoever" — that's you, me, and Muboshgu. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Derp, guess I forgot about that. Well form this point forward, I'm going to leave it alone one way or the other. Zaathras (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2023

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

Please change the following, such that new sources 5 and 6 are added:

Detetrident (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Thank you for finding sources to replace the cn tags. Unfortunately, I don't think the Politico piece verifies "Trump dismantled many federal regulations on health", as it mostly covers plans and initiatives to do so. Hopefully there's another source out there that follows through on what actually occurred. The Brandeis source for labor regulations is unreliable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I added these cites for health, labor, and environment. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

References

1. Baker, Cayli (December 15, 2020). "The Trump administration's major environmental deregulations". Brookings Institution. Retrieved January 29, 2022.
2. Grunwald, Michael (April 10, 2017). "Trump's Secret Weapon Against Obama's Legacy". Politico Magazine. Retrieved January 29, 2022.
3. Lipton, Eric; Appelbaum, Binyamin (March 5, 2017). "Leashes Come Off Wall Street, Gun Sellers, Polluters and More". The New York Times. Retrieved January 29, 2022.
4. "Trump-Era Trend: Industries Protest. Regulations Rolled Back. A Dozen Examples". The New York Times. March 5, 2017. Retrieved January 29, 2022 – via DocumentCloud.
5. Cancryn, Adam. "How the Trump administration is reshaping health care — without Congress". Politico. Retrieved 2 January 2023.
6. Weil, David. "How has the Trump administration changed labor protections?". BrandeisNOW. Brandeis University. Retrieved 2 January 2023.
7. Baker, Cayli (December 15, 2020). "The Trump administration's major environmental deregulations". Brookings Institution. Retrieved January 29, 2022.
8. Grunwald, Michael (April 10, 2017). "Trump's Secret Weapon Against Obama's Legacy". Politico Magazine. Retrieved January 29, 2022.
9. Lipton, Eric; Appelbaum, Binyamin (March 5, 2017). "Leashes Come Off Wall Street, Gun Sellers, Polluters and More". The New York Times. Retrieved January 29, 2022.
10. "Trump-Era Trend: Industries Protest. Regulations Rolled Back. A Dozen Examples". The New York Times. March 5, 2017. Retrieved January 29, 2022 – via DocumentCloud.
11. Thompson, Frank W. (October 9, 2020). "Six ways Trump has sabotaged the Affordable Care Act". Brookings. Retrieved January 3, 2022.
12. ^ Arnsdorf, Isaac; DePillis, Lydia; Lind, Dara; Song, Lisa; Syed, Moiz; Osei, Zipporah (November 25, 2020). "Tracking the Trump Administration's "Midnight Regulations"". ProPublica. Retrieved January 3, 2022.
13. Poydock, Margaret (September 17, 2020). "President Trump has attacked workers' safety, wages, and rights since Day One". Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved January 3, 2022.

To a degree unprecedented in American politics

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

The decision to keep this statement in the lead section (regardless of whether the statement is true, or even provable) is biased:

Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics

I know this topic will be closed with no action, but I'd like to offer a caution to the editors in power - the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to document human knowledge, not to convince people what to think. The line between those two is thinner than most people realize.

Before you close this topic, think about the reasons that statement (even if it is true) was deemed significant enough to be included in the lead section. Then try to play your own devil's advocate. 2600:1700:7F:9250:ADF:8F55:4CF5:679C (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This is "human knowledge". It's significant because, while all presidents lie, none ever have like this one did. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Get a consensus for what you propose. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Please identify the proposal you reference, GoodDay. SPECIFICO talk 23:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not proposing anything. My response is to the IP. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. You told IP to get consensus for their proposal. I see no proposal from the IP. If you also see no such proposal, it's hard to understand your request that they seek consensus for that which is not stated. What proposal were you telling them to get consensus for? SPECIFICO talk 02:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

He wants to remove a sentence from the article. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, but the IP just registered disapproval and did not to propose an edit. I think this can be closed. SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as the IP hasn't pursued removing the sentence, they've complained about. I reckon we might as well shut down (i.e. hat) his complaint. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

what he did

Donald Trump has been sent to jail for robbing, murder, stealing, and rape. 23.244.15.42 (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2023 (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
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics