Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 122

Archive 115

←

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

Lead fails to summarise much

The lead here doesn't summarise the contents of the article, at all. It's woefully lacking, especially when compared to any other president's article (which are quite elaborate on primary aspects of their presidency). Just a few points off the top of my head:

• NAFTA being replaced with USMCA (example)
• Trump peace plan, if we're mentioning things like the US embassy in Jerusalem
• The Wall - a major campaign promise, and a point of contention across all years of the presidency, and something that resulted in a longest federal government shutdown in history (which itself should be in the lead, as well).
• Troop withdrawals (eg [1]), same reasons as above, though drew criticism.

The existence of Presidency of Donald Trump is a pretty poor argument for an insufficient lead. This article should still summarise its contents, and such an argument wouldn't even be consistent; This article, for some odd reason, chooses to mention things like recognising moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but omits any mention of the wall or the shutdown, which is just bizarre since the former is far more minute than the latter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Most of these items have been discussed before and the feeling was that they are not significant in the context of Trump's life. FWIW, I don't believe that Israel moving their capital belongs in the lead either. Trump's presidency bears little resemblance to any other president in that past 100 years (although there are similarities to Nixon). That's why the lead doesn't look the leads of any other president's articles. - MrX 🖋 20:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the reason that the lead looks difference is because of Trump outside of his presidency, which we can honestly say bears little resemblance to any president including Nixon. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I continue to support elimination of that level of detail about his presidency from the lead, replacing that with a higher-level treatment that would be less reactive to daily events. I would remove paragraph 4 and probably trim paragraph 5. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph 4 entirely would make the lead even worse than it is already if not accompanied with other changes, imo. I mean, an investigation with no net effect on him isn't really 'that significant' in the context of Trump's life, either, certainly not to the point where it deserves a full para. Neither is stating that he lost the popular vote, or that the third policy revision of his travel ban was upheld, or that he was happy to receive assistance from Russia since it'd be politically advantageous. Frankly, the first two paragraphs of the lead are the only good ones. The rest are an inconsistent mess. So long as we wish to include trivia, and I know any trimming of the third and fifth paragraphs isn't happening, we should at least be including relevant details on his presidency.

I do agree with MrX that Trump's presidency bears little resemblance to any other in the past 100 years, but we're already using effectively 3/4 paragraphs on info tangentially related to his presidency, yet only one of these paragraphs is actually about the actions of his presidency, and that single paragraph is a poor overview at best. Either those 3 paragraphs should be greatly refined, or we should follow the current layout style and at least make it decent. Even forgetting the consistency idea, I think ideas like the wall and longest federal shutdown in history, as a direct consequence of his policy, are pretty notable even just considering the context of his life. I don't really see a reason why at least one paragraph shouldn't expand on the main parts of his presidency. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there are major aspects of his presidency missing from the lead (including the USMCA). I also don't really understand the argument that mentions of Trump's presidency should be minimized in order to give greater weight to his pre-presidency life. Obviously Trump was a major figure in American pop culture before he ever entered politics, but the only thing he is really going to be remembered for in history is the fact that the was a US President. I don't think it matters who you are, once you become President of the United States, that fact is undoubtedly going to be the most notable and important aspect of your life for the rest of history and I think the lead should reflect that much as Wikipedia does for other Presidents. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with this for a few reasons. First, all reliable sources agree that USMCA is not much of an achievement in that it is fundamentally very similar to NAFTA. USMCA is to NAFTA what a Lincoln MKX is to a Ford Edge (different name, feels nicer to sit in, same chassis and engine). Second, while the presidency is certainly a prominent aspect of his life I would argue that that Trump Organization and the Trump brand are more biographically significant. Better to scale back other aspects of the lead to bring the presidency into greater prominence than overload an already overburdened lead. Finally, Trump is quite unlike any other president. His ascendency to the office is unique in the modern era, so it is proper that the lead of his article should differ from those of other presidents. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that paragraph 4 has problems, but I would not want to excise it. I think it suffers from WP:WEIGHTing issues - which actions he's taken seem to be relatively haphazard. Happy to discuss changing them. I believe paragraphs 4 and 5 could be squished together, probably? Hipocrite (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Noting that I'm still very much opposed to the Israel–United Arab Emirates peace deal being in the lead. - MrX 🖋 00:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The claim that — the only thing he is really going to be remembered for in history is the fact that the was a US President — has been made several times in several forms, but I would like to see someone provide evidence for this. Reagan is remembered for his entertainment career. Eisenhower is remembered for his military career. With regard to the way we treat other US Presidents, I think that editors are overstating the case. The lead in the George H. W. Bush article has an opening paragraph, then a paragraph about his pre-presidential life, then a paragraph about his presidency, and then a paragraph about his post-presidential activities. There is no reason for the presidency to overwhelm the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX I'm not that fussed about the Israel-UAE deal. Also noting, he probably didn't have too much of a part in it, so really I'd agree with you on that. I definitely am fussed about the rest of this lead, though, which is in quite a state, in particular the 4 points in my bullets. The "Trump Org" arguments don't hold either, again note we only have one paragraph about his pre-president life. The majority of his lead, paragraphs 3,4,5 are about his presidency, and 2 of those are negative. The one about what he actually did is... lacking. Clearly, reading the above discussion, I don't think editors here intended for it to be this way, but from my perspective that's the state it's in. I'd WP:SOFIXIT but any change I make will get reverted by someone, de-facto creating a sense of "all changes to the lead must be approved" despite this. That behaviour + the current consensus section here really is pretty unusual for Wikipedia and kinda goes against the idea of iterative improvement and open editing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader I get your point and I agree that the lead needs adjustment. I think you might be able make a case for adding USMCA to the lead, but it should be covered fairly extensively in the article first. I don't believe the wall should be included because it simply did not happen in the glorious way Trump promised it would during his campaign. Mexico didn't pay for it and its not a big beautiful wall that you can see from space. I think troop withdrawals are pretty routine, even if they are controversial. Paragraph 4 could be trimmed significantly (and I'm sure it will at some point). - MrX 🖋 15:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX, I'm not saying the wall needs to be added in a positive light. In fact, I think what came of the wall is quite relevant (ie that there's barely any wall today), but its prominence in the campaign alone is certainly notable, and his push for it, which caused the longest federal shutdown in history. Overall, imo it persists with time. I don't get why we're so picky about having a short lead, other presidents have indeed much longer leads. We're not short on space, we've got plenty of major things to discuss, and making para4 more relevant also helps with the appearance of weight issues - it's currently pretty arbitrary what is and isn't included. You and I know Trump's history, so you can't honestly tell me you look at this led and think, if you knew nothing about him, this is even close to summing him and his life up well? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I personally don't think that we should have artificial limits on lead length, but I lose that battle every time. I do think that if we can reduce the size of the lead, it makes it easier to get more important information added later. Here is one idea that trims some fluff and adds USMCA.

Shorter lead (thought starter)

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality. Trump was born and raised in Queens, and received a bachelor's degree in economics from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He became president of his father's real-estate business in 1971, renamed it The Trump Organization, and expanded its operations from Queens and Brooklyn into Manhattan. Trump later started various side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies. He produced and hosted The Apprentice, a reality television series, from 2003 to 2015. As of 2020, Forbes estimated his net worth to be $2.1 billion. Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. He entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and was elected in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, although he lost the popular vote. He became the oldest first-term U.S. president, and the first without prior military or government service. His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist. During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries. He enacted a tax-cut package for individuals and businesses, rescinding the individual health insurance mandate penalty. He appointed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Trump has pursued an America First agenda, withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He imposed import tariffs which triggered a trade war with China, replaced NAFTA with USMCA, recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and withdrew U.S. troops from northern Syria. Trump met thrice with North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un, but talks on denuclearization broke down in 2019. 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. The House of Representatives impeached him in December 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate acquitted him of both charges in February 2020. Details Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality. Trump was born and raised in Queens, a borough of New York City, attended Fordham University for two years and received a bachelor's degree in economics from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He became president of his father's real-estate business in 1971, renamed it The Trump Organization, and expanded its operations from Queens and Brooklyn into Manhattan. The company built or renovated skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses. Trump later started various side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. He bought the Miss Universe brand of beauty pageants in 1996, and sold it in 2015. Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies. He produced and hosted The Apprentice, a reality television series, from 2003 to 2015. As of 2020, Forbes estimated his net worth to be $2.1 billion. Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. He entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and was elected in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, although he lost the popular vote. He became the oldest first-term U.S. president, and the first without prior military or government service. His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist. During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. He enacted a tax-cut package for individuals and businesses, rescinding the individual health insurance mandate penalty. He appointed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In foreign policy, Trump has pursued an America First agenda, withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He imposed import tariffs which triggered a trade war with China, replaced NAFTA with USMCA, recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and withdrew U.S. troops from northern Syria. Trump met thrice with North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un, but talks on denuclearization broke down in 2019. 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. A special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller found that Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election under the belief that it would be politically advantageous, but did not find sufficient evidence to press charges of criminal conspiracy or coordination with Russia.[d] Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice, and his report neither indicted nor exonerated Trump on that offense. After Trump solicited the investigation by Ukraine of Joe Biden, who later became his Democratic opponent in the 2020 presidential election, The House of Representatives impeached him in December 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate acquitted him of both charges in February 2020.

FWIW - MrX 🖋 15:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX, I think that's a massive improvement over the current lead already. Whether there'll be wider consensus for it, who knows, but in my eyes that's a leap in the right direction. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

If I recall correctly I removed the sentence skyscrapers etc, and it was swiftly reverted. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

A suggestion for the section popular culture

Trump's career mechanisms have been compared to the 1957 film A Face in the Crowd starring Andy Griffith. 109.41.1.184 (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Might be better for Donald Trump in popular culture. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't really fit because the film is not about Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Although this sounds like an opportunistic reference at the time of Trump's inauguration, the cited source notes several respected news outlets who have compared Trump's political career to the Elia Kazan movie, so perhaps a brief mention is warranted. In my opinion, this would not fit in Donald Trump in popular culture because, as Jack Upland noted, the movie was not about Trump, only the contemporary comparisons should be mentioned. — JFG ^talk 14:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I would say it definitely should not be included here, in this overlong article. There have been many comments made about Trump and parallels drawn to real and fictional people. We can't include them all. And what the hell is going on with these changes of headings? It just makes everything more difficult.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Strategies for shortening the article

As noted, the article is too long. It seems to me the main issue is not to trim the text here and there, but to develop an alternate organization for the article. In the presidency section, for example, there is one paragraph associated with each "Main" article...that will never do! There are too many "Main" articles! So, one idea that I throw out there, not yet advocating for it, is to replace the presidency section with something like the lead from the presidency article (a huge lead...) and develop a table to summarize all the "Main"s. Given there already is a Main for the presidency, that section should really be just a summary of the main themes of the presidency. I'd be in favor of Trump's Covid-19 narrative having its own section, since that has been an important and primary Trump "thing". Bdushaw (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Based on past experience, I think a major obstacle is that editors see particular incidents as politically important, and see the removal or diminution of these incidents as censorship. For example, to many editors, Trump's non–involvement in the Vietnam War deserves its own section. Some editors insist on having a section about Trump's photo op outside St John's Church. Etc. Etc. I don't think these issues will be resolved until Trump leaves office. And even then it might be difficult.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I don't think it's the problem that Trump is still the president of the United States. It's just that Trump has lots of critics, and most Wikipedians don't like him. They want to put bad things about him into a single section. But, I just care about whether or not one topic is long enough to be put into its own Heading level 2 section. If it's simply too short, it should be put into a Heading level 3 section or even a Heading level 4. However, I don't see any information in the entire article about Trump's non-involvement in the Vietnam War, although I've heard of the following, and I am restating it: "Trump was conscripted to be a member of the army during the Vietnam War, and Trump went to a doctor to give him a fake sickness note." Note: Please DO NOT directly put my statement into the article. I cannot assure the accuracy of this statement, and if you would like to add related information about Trump's non-involvement in the Vietnam War, please find an accurate and reliable source for it. If you cannot find such a source, do not add the information into the article. Thank you. Friend505 11:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Friend505, thanks for the suggestion. Actually we do have a paragraph in the article about his draft situation during the Vietnam War: it's at Donald Trump#Military deferment. However, it doesn't say that he was "conscripted" because he wasn't, and it doesn't say that the medical excuse was "false" because that is just a suspicion - not something currently accepted by Reliable Sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that proves my point. I just gave an example and immediately that has developed into an argument of what should be put into the article. I don't think it's that "Wikipedians don't like him". Wikipedians don't like Charles Manson, but that doesn't mean we have an overly long article. The reason this article is too long and keeps getting longer is the insistence on putting every issue ("bad thing") into the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC::::We have been "discussing" this for a year. There is no will to shorten the article. While some talk of trimming, others add huge slabs of texts. I was accused of being hyperbolic back then. But was I???--Jack Upland (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You were correctly "accused" of using hyperbolic language, which is always an impediment to intelligent discussion and critical thinking. I hope you can count on me to call that out from time to time when I see it. The context there was your chainsaw approach to article size reduction. I agreed with others that it was counterproductive, and we explained why.

You were not "accused" of being hyperbolic with respect to article size. I agree with you that article size reduction is sorely needed and long overdue. The updated graph is here. It shows that:

• The article size has increased steadily since mid-2015. It has not shown any signs of leveling off, and in fact the growth since May 2020 has been the steepest since 2016.
• The only really significant reduction occurred between July 2019 and April 2020, and those gains have since been given back and more.
• We are on track to exceed half a million bytes before the election.

The article's readable prose size (RPS) exceeded 100 kB in March 2019. At that point, according to the rule-of-thumb guidance at WP:SIZERULE, the article "Almost certainly should [have been] divided". Nothing was done to arrest growth, and the RPS is now 122 kB and climbing.

It's quite clear that, unless a change is made in the article's approach to his presidency, it will continue to grow until he leaves office. If he's re-elected, the growth may slow a bit after he is no longer on the ballot in a future election. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC) Added bit about RPS. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be rude, but where was the "intelligent discussion and critical thinking"? Simple mathematics tells us that unless the "trimming" exceeds the amount of text added, the article will continue to grow in size. A small bit of trimming here and there at the whim of an editor was never going to deal with the problem. And guess what? It didn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

We are in total agreement on that point. For years I have vocally opposed the notion (while being wary of crossing the disruption line) that the usual surgical trimming could ever maintain an acceptable size at this article – contrary to the prevailing view that it can. The graph couldn't be clearer that I was right and those people were dead wrong, and yet they cling to their positions. At the same time, I would never try to make such a dramatic change by BOLD editing, rather I seek prior consensus on change to approach (#Current consensus #37 represents a failed attempt in that regard). My guess is that politics will always be more important than article size to a majority of this article's editors, so I am not optimistic. Which is not to say that I have completely given up. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

My hyperbola has been proved by your parabola.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

OK. I think there are three strategies:

1. Do nothing and let it rip.

2. The chainsaw approach, knowing there will be a backlash against this.

3. Try to build a co-operative approach, even though this has failed in the past and that many editors (I almost wrote idiots) don't think there's a problem.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I've proposed this before, but it has been ignored. I shall do it again anyway. This article should follow a strict version of summary style. Every single paragraph in this article (with the exception of the lead) should be adapted from the lead of a sub article. Many of these sub articles already exist, but some will need to be created. These would include, but not necessarily be limited to:

• Personal life of Donald Trump
  • Family of Donald Trump
• Business career of Donald Trump
  • The Trump Organization
• Media career of Donald Trump
• Political career of Donald Trump
  • Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign
  • Political positions of Donald Trump
• Presidency of Donald Trump
  • Domestic policy of Donald Trump
  • Immigration policy of Donald Trump
  • Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration (should really be "Foreign policy of Donald Trump")
  • COVID-19 (not sure about how to handle this)
• Impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump
  • Impeachment of Donald Trump
  • Impeachment trial of Donald Trump
• Public profile of Donald Trump

That would end up being an article body somewhere in the region of 22-25 paragraphs, a fraction of the current size. It's just absurd that we try to cram everything in to this one article. It's so unnecessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

For COVID-19, the appropriate article would be U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, or the section dealing with Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of that; however, that article is a more generic government response and this article should be concerned only with Trump's response. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a section dealing with Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• There are number of sections dealing with Trump's offensive comments and behaviour under "Public profile": False statements, Promotion of conspiracy theories, Racial views, Comments about women, Allegations of sexual misconduct, Allegations of inciting violence. Could some of these be amalgamated? There seems to be a degree of repetition here. There are many examples that could be given, but do we really need the examples in an article that is too long?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Scjessey: This outline looks like a reasonable approach, that may succeed in finally quenching the daily news feed approach that has plagued this article ever since Trump entered politics. I would suggest to show how it would look at Draft:Donald Trump, workshop the contents among "regulars", and then put this concrete proposal to a wider RfC. — JFG ^talk 10:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

??? Draft:Donald Trump is a redirect to Donald Trump that's under discussion for deletion. You voted to delete. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I voted to delete the redirect, and said that draft space could be used to workshop a shorter version of the main article. — JFG ^talk 14:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Scjessey's outline looks like a reasonable start and a concrete way to achieve a more sensible article. The Draft page has some technical problem with redirects just now. Clearly such a large change could not occur on the article itself, so the Draft plus RfC, once the new version is in reasonable shape, seems the way to go. Everything will be a lot easier after 3 November. (I am once again trying to step away from this article, just waiting (forever) for the pandemic lead sentence to drop.) Bdushaw (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Mandruss: What do you think about this approach? Is it something we can work on a section at time, do you think? I feel like the target article needs to be prepared before we excise the section involved and then replace it with a modified version of the target article's introduction. We'll also need to give some thought to how we handle citations, since the intros of the target articles are unlikely to have them. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Hmmm. JFG correctly speaks of the daily news feed approach that has plagued this article ever since Trump entered politics. If you can't get a clear buy-in that that approach is not appropriate at this article (the truth is that that approach should not be used at any main BLP), there's little point in doing anything else. But most editors don't know how to edit any other way, so that buy-in will always be very difficult. It's a sticky problem, and it's always important to keep in mind that some nuts can't be cracked. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Several of the sub articles are poorly researched and poorly written. How are we supposed to handle that? And may I remind you of the "Health of Donald Trump?" I don't remember the exact title of that short-lived article, and I can't be bothered to look it up. I'm pretty sure we still haven't gotten rid of all of the stuff that ended up merged into Donald Trump (Bornstein). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Space4Time3Continuum2x, Mandruss, JFG, Bdushaw, Jack Upland, Friend505, and MelanieN: I think the trick here is to test the theory on a relatively stable section. For example, Business career of Donald Trump is a fairly stable article that is a much-expanded version of the Donald Trump#Business career section. Best of all, it has a succinctly-written introduction of only two paragraphs that hits all the key highlights. Why don't we excise the content of the "Business career" section of this article and replace it with the introduction of the other article as a proof of concept? We can propose the change in an RfC and see what happens. If successful, we can try it with another section, although I suspect each new section will be more difficult. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The idea seems to me to be practical and perhaps not that difficult to try. Possibly problematic making major changes to the article in the middle of the election. But by the time the new section is drafted and an RfC is posted and completed it may almost be November. The RfC would have to convey the overall new strategy...Perhaps a preliminary RfC to get support for that strategy is in order (or is this Talk that already)? Or perhaps just a single RfC along the lines of (1) a new strategy is... (2) example is Draft/Business? I seem to be in favor of using tables to list all the associated "Main" articles; something to try? Regarding the concern above about the poor state of other articles, etc., its always seemed to me to be a mistake to worry about such things. Best to do the best you can with the article in front of you - changes to this article may motivate needed improvements in the other articles. It could be helpful to notify editors of the "Business" article of the plan, for better coordination. Bdushaw (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion on the succinctly-written introduction ... that hits all the key highlights. I took a quick look at the first paragraph of Early career. Sources for the first three sentences are Parade, The Art of Deal, and the National Enquirer. The Art of the Deal, pg. 46, is listed as the source for "Elizabeth Trump & Son." The name isn't mentioned there (or anywhere else in the book, AFAIK), and the company was called Trump Management at least as far back as 1960. Swifton Village - would take too long to parse that. The next two sentences cite a couple of NYT articles, but one of them deals with something unrelated to Trump's early career and the other one with his short-lived attempt to become a Broadway producer. Hitting the key highlights in the lead: Elizabeth Trump and Son again; the company wasn't renamed, they started to use an umbrella brand name for their registered companies (The Trump Organization Inc. wasn't registered until 1981); He rose to public prominence after concluding a number of successful real estate deals in Manhattan and New York City, in NY maybe and successful and deals needs to be qualified and his company now owns and develops lodging and golf courses around the world. they manage lodging, don't own most of it, they manage golf courses, own most but not all of them. 72 days to go until the election - let's wait it out. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC) BTW, what are you proposing to keep? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Having looked at the article in question, I have to agree with Space4Time - that's a fluff piece. We would have to write our own summary, drawing from this article and whatever is worthwhile from that article. Perhaps while attempting to more rigorously develop that article. Bdushaw (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. I must confess that when I glanced over Business career of Donald Trump I assumed it was accurate in the details. My bad. But that fact remains that for the next 70-odd days, this article is likely to be very unstable because of the current policy of cramming too much into it. It will feed the beast. I was hoping for some reform to get ahead of that. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO, the "main article" for the "Business career" section isn't the "Business career of Donald Trump" (created on November 11, 2016), it's "The Trump Organization" which was created in 2005 and is the better article. Trump's business career IS the Trump Organization, all 500 odd companies, including Trump Pageants Inc. and Trump Entrepreneur Initiative aka Trump University LLC. The lead is a tad longer, though:). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This is what I have been suggesting for years. People were always starting threads saying "remove most of the presidency stuff", and I strongly oppose going after the presidency as the section to trim. That is the MOST important material to have here. And I have suggested, every time. that the Business and/or Family sections be radically trimmed (not completely eliminated) because they contain way too much granular detail and they already have good articles. If someone is finally ready to take a hatchet to the Business section, I am all for it. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I just did a rough word count. Paragraphs from Early life to Media career: 4,582 (including Business career which has 2,655 words, including Foundation and Conflicts of interest is .). Political activities up to 2015: 650. Political career (without activities up to 2015) to Public profile: 16,542. Trump was 70 when he became president. By comparison, Obama's life prior to Presidential campaigns has 4,178 words for his first 46 years. Seems to me that Trump's life prior to the 2016 campaign has already been trimmed pretty radically. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Trump's pre-2015 life has been cut to the bone. Let's not forget that this is an article about Donald Trump. There is an article about the Presidency of Donald Trump. This is not it. I don't remember anyone suggesting we "remove most of the presidency stuff". I've heard so many people say we should remove anything else. Ronald Reagan's article includes his entertainment career, and this article should be about the whole of Trump's life. It shouldn't start at his 70th birthday!--Jack Upland (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Note b

Note b is incorrect. Not all states give their full electoral votes on a 'winner take all' basis. Maine and Nebraska give their two electoral votes representing the senate on a 'winner take 2' basis, then give their remaining electoral votes on a 'congressional district' basis. For example, in 2016 Maine gave its two at-large electoral votes and one of its congressional district electoral votes to Clinton, but the other electoral vote in one congressional district went to Trump. Can someone with edit privileges please correct this Note b. American In Brazil (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"all delegates from each state usually vote for the winner of the local state vote"

In my opinion the word "usually" covers any desire for laser-precise accuracy, and anyone wanting the rest of the story may click the provided wikilink. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I took a shot at it. Please revert with my blessing, or ask me to self-revert and I will. Hipocrite (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Instead of "aside from Maine and Nebraska which reward delegates proportionately" I think "aside from Maine and Nebraska which which reward delegates on a 'state-wide winner take two basis' and the remainder on a 'congressional district' basis" is more accurate, as it reflects the electoral law of those states and how the electoral vote is actually apportioned. American In Brazil (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted per BRD. The target audience for that footnote are readers who know nothing about the U.S. electoral system and are used to popular vote wins. The object is to get those readers past the basics of understanding, not to fully explain all the academic intricacies of the system (and the latter could impede the former). As I said above, the word "usually" should satisfy the most strident sticklers for accuracy; i.e. the current footnote does not tell 100% of the story but it is not incorrect as written. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Many English speaking countries (the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) have parliamentary systems where it is possible (and often the case) that the national popular vote for one party is greater than the winning party because of district elections. WP is an encyclopedia and therefore we should make every effort to be accurate. Fuzzy words like 'usually' do not do it. Please do not revert without consensus. After your revert, Note b remains inaccurate. American In Brazil (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Please do not revert without consensus. Sorry, that is not how it works. No one needs a consensus to do a BRD revert. Here are a few other recent examples: [2][3][4][5] ―Mandruss ☎ 03:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

on mobile apologize for misspellings whatnot - I bless your revert as specifically requested, given that you disagree with my bold edit. I understand your concern. Could we replace usually with most states? It would then not imply a time-series usually, and we could optionally get rid of the faithless electors bit? Hipocrite (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I could live with the following change. This (1) splits the first sentence, which is too long, (2) adds "in most states" and drops "usually", and (3) drops the faithless electors bit.

Current:

Presidential elections in the United States are decided by the Electoral College, in which each state names a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress, and all delegates from each state usually vote for the winner of the local state vote (except for faithless electors). Consequently, it is possible for the president-elect to have received fewer votes from the country's total population (the popular vote). This situation has occurred five times since 1824.

Proposed:

Presidential elections in the United States are decided by the Electoral College. Each state names a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress, and (in most states) all delegates vote for the winner of the local state vote. Consequently, it is possible for the president-elect to have received fewer votes from the country's total population (the popular vote). This situation has occurred five times since 1824.

―Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Improvement This improves the article. I support this change as better than the status quo. Hipocrite (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss - You are the one who asked for consensus in your edit comment on the revert. To leave out Maine's and Nebraska's systems of at-large vote for the state-wide two electoral votes and then by congressional district for the remainder of the electoral votes leaves Note b inaccurate. In fact, in the 2016 election, Clinton won the at-large vote in Maine and one congressional district while Trump won the other district. In Nebraska Trump won the at-large vote and all three congressional districts. I have reverted your revert to make Note b more accurate pending better wording by other editors. American In Brazil (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You are free to disagree on content. You are not free to violate standard process merely because someone has failed to see things your way on content. I have restored status quo ante pending consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but do you believe the above change, which removes the time-series implication of "usually," is, on net, an improvement? Let's find increment goods and do them, as opposed to fighting? Hipocrite (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss - First you say consensus is not required. Now you say it is required. Make up your mind. After your revert of my revert, Note b remains incorrect. As I stated above, I will go with Hypocrite's wording pending any improvement from other editors, including your own. At least Hypocrite's text is closer to the truth than your revert. As it now stands, Note b is simply wrong. American In Brazil (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:BRD, which explains the concept fully. Anyone can challenge a new edit without consensus, by reverting it; that's the "R" in BRD. As I showed above, this happens with some frequency. Once challenged, the edit cannot be reinstated without consensus.

The nutshell at WP:BRD reads: "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus." I reverted your reversion because it was improper, restoring the article to the state it was in before Hipocrite's edit (status quo ante), pending a consensus for a change. I hope this provides some clarity for you.

Note b is simply wrong. We understand that's your position. So far, you have no support for such a rigid position from other editors. Hipocrite has agreed to my compromise proposal[6] – three days after their edit[7] that you are willfully misrepresenting as their current position. If nothing changes by the time this thread is automatically archived by the bot, I will implement my compromise proposal above on the strength of that agreement. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, can we try for more light and less heat? @American In Brazil: have you reviewed the proposed change by @Mandruss: above? Do you agree it's an incremental improvement? If you do, we can probably make that change right now! If you don't, what compromise change do you believe everyone would think is an incremental improvement, noting that your concern is about factual accuracy, while Mandruss is concerned about the targeting of the footnote (for users who don't already know about the EC), and appears to have relented on "usually" vs "most states?" Hipocrite (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

To clarify and elaborate on your comments, the only true "full story" on this topic (from a Wikipedia standpoint) is the article United States Electoral College. Obviously, since the footnote cannot be 16,000 words long, it will have to tell something less than the full story. I and AiB draw that line in different places, which I recognize as a routine difference in editorial judgment, nothing to get upset about. For example, we have already dropped the "faithless electors" detail in my proposed change. AiB does not recognize that, and claims that there is only one "correct" place to draw the line and that's their place. That "my way or the highway" approach never flies, at least not at this article. As for your question to AiB, you already asked it above[8] and were ignored, strongly suggesting that AiB is not interested in talk about compromise. Once ignored, I wouldn't have asked again. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support the proposal by Mandruss. The intricacies and exceptions of the Electoral College are irrelevant to this article, and the reader can explore those at United States Electoral College if sufficiently motivated. The key point of this note is to explain the inconsistency between losing the popular vote and winning the presidency, which the proposed text does. I would also support the same text with the last sentence removed, as how often this occurs isn't really important either. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The reason Note b is wrong as now written is because it states that all states have a 'winner take all' system for electoral votes. That is incorrect. As I pointed out, Maine and Nebraska have a 'winner take the two at-large votes' and then the remainder are decided by congressional district. As I further pointed out, this actually happened in 2016 when Maine gave its two at-large votes and one district vote to Clinton and Trump won the other district vote. [In the case of Nebraska, Trump won the at-large vote and all three district votes.] Hipocrite's wording more closely approaches the truth of this situation in a concise manner for a footnote. Therefore, I would prefer his proposed wording and then other editors can 'tweak' it as necessary. As Wikipedians we must strive for the truth. American In Brazil (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The proposed language by Mandruss clearly states "and (in most states) all delegates vote for the winner of the local state vote." The "(in most states)" is sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I am referring to the current language of Note b. As presently written, it is wrong because it says all states. Language that says 'all but two states' or 'all states except Maine and Nebraska' or something similar would be correct. Also as I stated, Wikipedians should strive for the truth. By the way, this Note b is not political (after all, the subject is Donald Trump). It merely states the mechanism of the Electoral College. American In Brazil (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@American In Brazil: I must confess to being a bit confused. I have proposed a change that (as far as I can tell) would address your concerns, but you're still consuming discussion space talking about your concerns. Why not just get behind my proposal and call it a day? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support the improved language proposed by Mandruss. 48 of 50–"most" works for me. The note contains a link to the Electoral college article where readers who want to know more can read all about the congressional district method used by Maine since 1972 and by Nebraska since 1996. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I support any language that clearly sets forth that 'two states' or 'Maine and Nebraska' do not have a 'winner take all' system. Accuracy is paramount. Give it a go and other editors can tweak as necessary. American In Brazil (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you are confusing accuracy with precision. "Most states" is NOT an inaccurate way to convey 48 out of 50, it is merely less precise. As multiple editors have expressed, the level of precision you so adamantly require is neither required nor useful in this context. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I've made the edit[9] on the strength of agreement by Hipocrite, Scjessey, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and me, and I suggest we move on. ―MandrAlluss ☎ 00:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)T

The current language: "Each state names a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress..." is neither precise nor accurate. It needs to be qualified by 'Each state except two..." or "All states except Maine and Nebraska...". Without such language Note b continues to be incorrect. American In Brazil (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The language is inaccurate, but the change you propose is unnecessary. Another bit that bugs me is the last sentence, which I would either remove completely or change to prevent it getting easily dated by upcoming elections. Here's my alternative (changes in bold):

Presidential elections in the United States are decided by the Electoral College. Each state is allocated a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress, and (in most states) all delegates vote for the winner of the local state vote. Consequently, it is possible for the president-elect to have received fewer votes from the country's total population (the popular vote). This is the fifth such occasion.

That keeps the brevity without the need to get into the weeds. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why there is a controversy among Wikipedians about a footnote being concise and precise. I would support the language proposed by Scijessey if the parenthesis stated: "(in all but two states)". American In Brazil (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I support the amended text by Mandruss suggested at 21:42, 8 August 2020. To take into account the quest for precision by American In Brazil and Hipocrite, we could replace "(in most states)" by "(in all but two states)". Full disclosure: I wrote most of the original footnote, in order to clarify the significance of the electoral college vs popular vote dichotomy for non-US readers (and it probably helps many US readers too). — JFG ^talk 10:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

If you have to use a note, there's something wrong with the article. Either put it in the text, or leave it out.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2020

Add that he attended Fordham University in his alma mater section. Replace Wharton School with the University of Pennsylvania. SuperG0d420 (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

See #Current consensus item 18 and the discussions linked therein, including one still on this page. It's highly unlikely that yet another discussion would be well received at this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

BOLD COVID-19 in the Lead

I added some info on Trump's COVID-19 response in the lead and made the wording clearer, since I saw that it was already in the lead and needed some improvement. If it is opposed by most people, then revert it and I would be happy to discuss it. Bill Williams (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I see it was reverted, that's okay, I still think the current wording could be improved somewhat similar to what I put (albeit shorter). Bill Williams (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss: I made a new edit that was closer to the original wording and added less, is it okay now? Bill Williams (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The edit is overly bold - the top of this Talk page has an open discussion and an open RfC regarding the precise wording that needs to be respected. I share everyone's exasperation that these discussions are not yet closed, with a proper consensus stated, but I believe we should wait for proper closure of the issue, before launching into revisions to the proposed text. Bdushaw (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I have removed from the lead until there is consensus on the wording. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

And I've reverted that removal, restoring the original text that has sat there for a while. Clearly this is the most consequential crisis of his presidency, so not having it in the lead in the run up to an election would be a catastrophic blunder. The RfC is on improving the wording, not the existence of the wording. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Bdushaw, Scjessey; I agree, some wording should be included, but could someone please specifically critique and compliment my edits? I still think some of what I did was a positive change. Also, the open discussions at the top haven't had any progress since the COVID-19 pandemic was added to the lead, so I think it's time for some more discussion. Bill Williams (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

To speak metaphorically...you are a small asteroid entering a galactic war... You should perhaps start by reviewing the two sections at the top of this page regarding the possible lead texts. There are many factors and many views, all need to be balanced. This article is on standby presently insofar as the text in question goes - awaiting an Administrator to close a major discussion and an RfC. Bdushaw (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps more to the point, most of the text in the lead of this article is not open to casual edits, however much an "improvement" they may seem to be. All words and phrases require a consensus. Bdushaw (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I second Bdushaw's position that editors should wait until the RfC about COVID-19 content in the lead section is closed by an uninvolved editor. Repeated attempts by MrX to force their preferred content into the lead are disruptive and tendentious. — JFG ^talk 14:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Ouch. Let's not let perfection be the enemy of good, and more importantly, can we all assume good faith. As Awilley has confirmed a couple of times before, there is consensus for including something in the lead about Trump's pandemic response. Specific wording should be worked out through normal editing and it should reflect the relative strength of support in various discussions. Given that there is consensus, removing material from the lead rather than editing it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of several policies. - MrX 🖋 14:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@LilBillWilliams: Your edit would probably be an improvement, and you should suggest it in the relevant discussions above. — JFG ^talk 14:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I will suggest it later (after I wake up). I see what you all mean, so I will suggest edits in the ongoing discussions at the top of the page, thank you for your imput. Bill Williams (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@JFG: sorry, but I am having trouble navigating those large discussions, where specifically should I suggest it? Bill Williams (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

In the "take 69" discussion, you could comment in the #Finding common ground (Covid) section. More to the point, in the ensuing RfC, there is a section dedicated to #Additional proposals for new wording. — JFG ^talk 14:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Others may have an opinion, but ideally we should get some closure on the presently proposed text first; with that added to the lead, we can start a new (constructive?) process on revisions to it. It might be best to wait for the open discussions to be resolved first; the discussions above will then be "closed" at that point. (While I have nothing but respect and admiration for the Admins, I think it is bad news that this issue has been left to fester for so long.) Bdushaw (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

left to fester for so long. (In my opinion the bad news is editors' focus on the election and this article's potential effect on it. Without that, time is not a factor.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The RfC is closed now with the conclusion that a statement should be included in the lead, but the wording is not yet settled. I support including the present wording in the lead, which had broad, though not unanimous, support, and that it be used as a "first draft" of the statement that we can work from to evolve towards more settled text. I note again that a statement in the lead must reflect the text in the article. Many text suggestions have been made that do not accurately reflect the weighting of topics in the article. For example "blaming china" is just not that prominent in the article, so it should not be in the lead; if you really want "blaming china" (or whatever) then you should edit the article with supporting references to show that that is a prominent issue. I also urge a responsible party to include the appropriate hidden statements next to the lead sentence stating that changes should be agreed upon by consensus (or however it is stated). Bdushaw (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Keep what is currently in the lead and propose refinements here. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Concur. - MrX 🖋 20:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Per the RfC closure, I have updated #Current consensus to cancel #45, which stated "There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section." Re a hidden comment, we haven't used them unless we had a supporting consensus list item, and I'm not sure either is warranted at this juncture. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Slight change to punctuation

I'm not sure if Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus has any bearing on this (hence taking it to the talk page), but I would like to suggest a change to the punctuation used in the statement ""Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics.". Personally I think the use of a semi-colon makes more sense than a full stop as the sentences are so closely linked, which would read as follows: "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency; the statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics." What are people's thoughts on this? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I would support a semicolon. - MrX 🖋 01:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I would oppose a semicolon for two reasons:

• The resulting sentence would be too long. Semicolon does not have the same "reset" effect on reading comprehension as full stop and the following capital letter.
• I avoid semicolons wherever possible because (depending on font) they differ from commas by a single pixel that is indistinguishable from a speck of dust on the screen (if your vision/vision correction is good enough to see it). This was a different situation in the days of typewriters, when that distinguishing dot was far larger, the equivalent of probably about six or eight pixels on modern computer screens.

The subtle improvement in flow is not worth all that in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's best to avoid semicolons.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this. I would agree that a semicolon is appropriate, but I would also agree that separate sentences assist in reading comprehension. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Remove part of the introductory paragraph about his presidency.

I would like to request that an excerpt of the introductory paragraph about his presidency, specifically the excerpt describing his response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States be removed or changed, as it appears to be one-sided, heavily opinionated, and based off reports from media outlets that are critical of Trump rather than any known facts.

- Ardapel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardapel (talk • contribs) 01:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - The material has consensus. Please see previous discussions about this. Wikipedia uses "media outlets" whether they're critical or not. - MrX 🖋 11:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate references

If anyone wants to clean them up (I have done a little), this is a list of possible duplicate URL references in the article that might be mergeable (probably with some false positives):
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-ancestral-german-home-of-the-trumps
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/business/media/trump-sells-miss-universe-organization-to-wme-img-talent-agency.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/29/us/politics/fact-checking-president-trump-through-his-first-100-days.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/12/trump-shithole-comment-reaction-337926
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/05/01/president-trumps-first-100-days-the-fact-check-tally/
Pol098 (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf - not duplicate

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/12/trump-shithole-comment-reaction-337926 - one is part of a WP:CITEBUNDLE, can't be merged

Otherwise merged 2 refs for each case. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in how to find duplicate citations, I've just put instructions and comments in WP:DUPCITES and Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Any tools for finding duplicate citations?. Pol098 (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2020

The sentence, "Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic” should be removed. “Slowly” is a relative term and is used without proper context, rendering it an ambiguous sentence and, likely, misleading in this case. Ktg.jr.md (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the discussion on this talk page above. There is a broad consensus among editors for inclusion of the descriptor with backing from sources (to list a few). - hako9 (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

References

2020 nominee

Shouldn't the lede mention that he is the Republican nominee for the 2020 presidential election? Right now, it only tangentially mentions the election, and not even that he's an active candidate. ɱ (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

No responses yet on this highly-watched page, so I'll try it. ɱ (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, the first para is covered by #Current consensus #17, so a new consensus is required to change it. Eight hours without a response does not a new consensus make. I've reverted. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Still surprisingly quiet for one of the top-viewed and top-edited articles on Wikipedia. I can await more feedback, it seems like a clear important point that is being overlooked right now. ɱ (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the "2020 presidential campaign" section to reflect Trump's official nomination by the Republican convention. He's the current president; it was a given that his party would nominate him for a second term, and he ran unopposed. It's not lead-worthy. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Obama's lead mentioned his candidacy in 2012; I would say this is pretty normal and expected here. Considering the overwhelming press coverage for the 2020 election, I think it's very safe to say people are interested in this, and will be looking at this article to find out about the election, see about his official nomination, etc. ɱ (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you just argued against your own position. Since there is overwhelming press coverage for the 2020 election, few people who care about politics need to be told that Trump is the GOP candidate, and it is probably not lead-worthy, and certainly not first-paragraph-worthy. Regardless, this is the main account of Trump's entire life and should not be the main go-to for current events merely because it's the article many readers initially go to. The election article is prominently linked as a hatnote in the appropriate section. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a stupid argument. Notability doesn't work that way, we don't omit that he's the president because "everyone knows that". Mentioning a person running for reelection, especially for the presidency, is a crucial aspect of their life as we know it right now, obviously to be updated by its success or failure even if we do nothing today. ɱ (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Did anyone suggest omitting mentioning that Trump is the president? Must have missed that. Obama’s lead didn’t mention his nomination for the 2012 election, it said at the end of the fourth paragraph: In April 2011, he announced that he would be running for re-election in 2012. If you want to use that as a blueprint, then we’d have to say: Trump filed his official 2020 candidacy paperwork with the FEC on January 20, 2017, and held his first campaign rally in February of that year (the Florida rally on February 18 was paid for by his campaign). [10] Chronologically, this would belong at the beginning of the third paragraph, being the very first act during his presidency. I don't think it's lead-worthy; he made it clear to all the world from day one of his first term that he was running for a second term by campaigning. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I won't argue with the backwards logic y'all have here. ɱ (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes Ɱ, I believe his 2020 candidacy and/or nomination should be mentioned in the lead. I added it in July, but at some point it was removed. If we do put it in the lead, it should be very brief. - MrX 🖋 12:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

ETA: It should not be in the first paragraph. Third or forth would be more appropriate given the lead structure. - MrX 🖋 12:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not asking for much, I don't like that at this day and age here half a sentence is controversial and needs heavy analysis. This is the phrase added in, it barely does anything to the first paragraph, which is actually really poor as it is now - improperly too small for a standard paragraph, and incredibly dry, vague, and mundane. ɱ (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: This is the edit that removed the sentence, along with the mention of Covid-19. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe Mr Ernie can explain their objection to mentioning Trump's second term candidacy. - MrX 🖋 17:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems to have been inadvertent with the removal of the COVID stuff pending consensus on that. No real objection about the candidacy mention. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Any update on this, if people think it's fine to simply add he is "the Republican Party nominee for the 2020 presidential election"? Really should be common sense for a presidential nomination from either major party here, and evidently removed by mistake the last time. ɱ (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

No objection in the third or fourth paragraph. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Same. - MrX 🖋 10:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done – I have added the sentence: "Trump is seeking a second term in the 2020 presidential election as the Republican nominee." — JFG ^talk 21:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I support Trump. But please tell me why specifically the allegations were made to the President? SALivesMatter (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM and not the topic of this discussion. - MrX 🖋 14:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2020

Remove “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.” 50.24.110.37 (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GeraldWL 09:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Infobox caption once and for all

The attempts to add an infobox caption have increased in frequency of late, presumably because someone recently added captions to the BLPs of a number of other U.S. presidents (and others are apparently trying to enforce the non-existent guideline that U.S. presidents' BLPs should be consistent in such details). We can't sustain a caption-free image indefinitely with fuzzy rationales like this, in my opinion. I think we should establish a clearer consensus that would support a list item. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:CAPTIONOBVIOUS, or close enough to completely obvious. It's obvious that the photo was taken while he was president, which establishes the date within a range of 3–4 years, an insignificant time span in terms of his appearance. The fact that it's an official portrait is not insignificant but does not by itself warrant a caption. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons stated by Mandruss. We can add a short caption like "Official portrait, 2017" after he leaves office. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose caption per WP:THANKYOUCAPTIONOBVIOUS. - MrX 🖋 22:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per OP's rationale. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Adjustment to "popular vote" in lead

Proposing to merge this into the next sentence, so it would read like:

He entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and was elected in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest first-term U.S. president,, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to be elected without winning the popular vote.

Reasons are because (a) the second sentence compares the unusualness of his election to past presidents, so this statement fits in nicely and more appropriately to this sentence, and (b) the current version just reads iffy. Stole this from similar wording at George W. Bush. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The current language is the result of extensive, exhaustive discussion. Please consult the talk page archive for more details, because it was such a tortuous process I'm not sure anyone here would want to go through it all again. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

There is barely any change in substance proposed, it mentions the loss in popular vote, it just logically moves it to the second sentence. I've skimmed some of the discussions in archives already, I saw nothing showing consensus against such a change. It does not discredit this proposal on its own merits. This unusual approach of 'fixed sentence wording based on current consensus, never to be changed again' is probably why the lead is in such an awful shape. Probably a good reason why practically no other article does this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that there is literally no end to new proposals to make things a little better, and everybody has a different opinion about goodness. Discussing the proposals takes editor time and energy that could be spent doing something else. At some point we judge that we have crossed the threshold of diminishing returns, and the question changes from "Could this be better?" to "Is this good enough?". Perfect is the enemy of good.

If we discussed your proposal and it reached consensus, someone would be along before long with a proposal to further improve it (or even to provide reasons for why the language was better before). Rinse Repeat. We know this from long experience here. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

You're completely right, and that's exactly the issue. Small, uncontroversial changes should be added without needing to bash it through an RfC on the talk. That's the whole idea behind Wikipedia and keeping protection as low as possible and making them editable. This rigid idea of fixed wording hurts that, verses just having concepts approved (if need be) like "losing popular vote should be mentioned in the lead" and going with implicit consensus on the implementation. Usually, stuff improves by iterative edits over time, eventually turning into something good. This isn't a case of being petty over lacking perfection, we're a long bar from even acceptable. The issue here isn't in subject matter - the consenses correctly determines the topics which should be in the lead, the issue is in how they're worded. Each is discussed as a part, and when you lump it together it doesn't flow. I'm sure someone would come along with an even better way of wording it than me, and that's a good thing. This is a wiki after all. Again, there's a very good reason why (almost) no other article does what this one does–it can only lead to one outcome. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The proposed text makes sense and gives better flow to the sentence. I would support it. Can "regulars" weigh in here, with hope of finding consensus without yet another RfC? — JFG ^talk 14:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I also support this proposed text, although with a slight change, adding a comma after "He entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican" so that it flows more naturally. Bill Williams (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I prefer the current wording. The "oldest ever elected" and the "no prior political/military experience" are background facts relating to Trump as a person; the fact about losing the popular vote is more related specifically to the 2016 election, and so more naturally fits as part of that sentence. Neutrality^talk 15:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree: if you mention the "popular vote", you have to connect it directly to the 2016 election.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

What other election would it be? He's only won one. The wording changes the frame to the event in comparison to past presidents, like the rest of the sentence, as "and the fifth to be elected without winning the popular vote". Popular vote is mentioned in the leads of past presidents without being in the same sentence as their election. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

For a start, there are a lot of problems with the articles of other presidents, so I wouldn't treat them as binding precedents. Secondly, I think it should be connected directly to the 2016 election, because it is one vote. There will be another election soon. Your wording really risks confusing people.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I think confusing readers is the least of this lead's problems. Anyway, "the fifth to be elected" doesn't really cause confusion even if he is re-elected, but WP:CRYSTAL on that. If he is re-elected, we can deal with revising the lead further then, if needed. If he isn't re-elected, obviously it wouldn't apply to his second campaign, because he wouldn't've been elected in it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable, but it makes the text a bit longer. Also, I'm not sure that being the fifth at something rises to the level of lead-worthiness. - MrX 🖋 19:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. We don't want to turn the lead into a baseball card.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with "fifth to be elected without winning the popular vote." losing the popular vote in and of itself is not noteworthy because it has no impact on his presidency, but comparing it to past elections is a better way to contrast it. Anon0098 (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Notes

• I wouldn't even support this in the header, I support its removal. If he is the fifth in a row to do it why is it noteworthy, it seems normal under the USA election style. I would support its inclusion in an article about the electoral system but is is irrelevant here in the header. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support removal it seems its inclusion in the first place was only for degradation, considering that losing the popular vote has no impact on his presidency and isn't noteworthy in the first place as you said. Anon0098 (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support removal as discussed previously (see above).--Jack Upland (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• I prefer the current wording. The proposed new wording is longer than necessary, and "fifth" doesn’t add any meaningful information to it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that stats like "the fifth" should be avoided. However that was probably added to give some context to the "lost popular vote" remark. We should either keep both or remove both. I'd lean towards removing both. — JFG ^talk 20:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The argument was that the second sentence compares the unusualness of his election to past presidents. That's the so-called "surprise victory" (it was only a surprise to some pundits) and losing the popular vote by a wide margin. You'd have to remove both: "He won the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and won over the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton ." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• It must remain - losing the popular vote while winning the EC is historically and biographically significant, although being the fifth to do so is not. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  I read that he set a new record for the largest popular vote loss by an elected president, by a factor of 5 over #2 (it was a RS so I'll assume that's correct until shown otherwise). In that sense he's first, not fifth, and by a wide margin. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but the national popular vote margin was entirely in California. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Second revert in 24 hours

@BLDM: First revert: [11]; second one: [12]. You may want to revert yourself. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead "renamed it The Trump Organization"

JLo-Watson: The claim that Trump renamed his father's company appears to be based on the book Art of the Deal which says: We had no formal name for the company ... so I began to call it the Trump Organization. His father owned a number of separate business entities. There was no umbrella company that owned a number of subsidiaries. Fred Trump and the newspapers had occasionally used the names Fred C. Trump Organization, Fred Trump Organization, and Trump Organization when informally referring to Fred's real estate business entities as far back as the 50s. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The current article makes that clear. Stating he took over Fred Trump's real estate developing business, was then renamed (from Elizabeth Trump & Son) to The Trump Organization (with THE in the name) - and then Trump used this newly-renamed entity to house all of his business ventures. The new sentence achieved by common consensus achieves that. JLo-Watson (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean this discussion? Trump's book has been proven to be an unreliable source; its co-author called it fiction. According to D'Antonio and Blair, E. Trump & Son went out of business in the Great Depression. Trump opened and operated a supermarket until 1934 when he bought Lehrenkrauss and got back into the real estate business. None of the sources from that time on mention E./Elizabeth & Son. There was no business entity housing all of his (father's) business ventures. Trump incorporated an entity called The Trump Organization in 1981 but it never owned Fred Trump's business entities, including their chief moneymaker, Trump Management, which Fred Trump's heirs (Maryanne, Elizabeth, Donald, Robert) sold in 2004. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

RE Trump incorporated an entity called The Trump Organization in 1981 : The Trump Organization was not incorporated and is not a corporation. It is a umbrella name for hundreds of separately titled business ventures, and it is privately owned. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

If it is not incorporated, then how can it be privately owned?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Incorporation is the legal process used to form a corporate entity or company. A corporation is the resulting legal entity that separates the firm's assets and income from its owners and investors. ([13]) If corporations don't issue stock, i.e., go public, they don't have to release their balance sheets or the names of the owner(s) or how much they owe to banks, Scrooge McDuck, or Igor Oligarch. The Trump Organization and other Trump-owned and Trump Organization-owned businesses didn't issue stock, so Trump has been able to hide his actual wealth (or lack thereof). At first the name was a marketing tool but they incorporated in 1981 (Bloomberg). I don’t know whether this search result link will work. If not, go to NY entity search and search for The Trump Organization. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's clearly incorporated now.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Mention of Fauci

I don't know how we can say Trump initially ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, at least without even mentioning the fact that Fauci has publicly said that Trump followed all of the NIH initial recommendations. Am I missing something here? That is a direct contradiction of what we have in the page. Anon0098 (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Because that's what the sources say. For that matter, Fauci could be wrong. - MrX 🖋 00:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Anon0098, we can add that in. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I would appreciate that Anon0098 (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The video is totally consistent with the text. He DID contradict the advice, eschewing masks and claiming the virus would magically vanish. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Fauci initially discouraged masks actually, so he did follow medical advice. Of course now Trump blatantly is going against advice, but I'm just concerned about the claim that he initially didn't Anon0098 (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Forget Fauci. There were other health officials that he ignored and contradicted (including Fauci). Please read the sources to address your concern. - MrX 🖋 12:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

What happened to the succession boxes?

Why were the office and distinctions succession boxes deleted out of this article? It's in all the other US presidents bios. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you referring to this?

If so, see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 93#Protected edit request on 5 December 2018 2 and note that the article has been without those boxes since December 2018 without a single reader complaint or inquiry. There is no policy, guideline, or other community consensus that U.S. presidents' BLPs should be consistent in that way, so what editors have decided is appropriate for other articles has no bearing on this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Could we please put those back? GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I would oppose that, for the reasons put forth in the linked discussion. "Please" is nice, but it's not an argument. I will say that the article's post-expand include size is no longer a factor after the removal of a bunch of other navboxes (the succession boxes don't add much toward that limit), but the removal of that factor is not enough to tip the scales for me. In my view a small handful of Wikipedia editors want the boxes a lot more than readers need them, and this blind-consistency thing is hugely overrated. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Well then, delete it from all the others, including the US vice presidential bios. This blind-inconsistency thing is hugely over-rated. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I would encourage any editor to propose removal at any of the other articles, not for consistency but for the same reasons they were removed here. Those reasons apply equally at any of the articles. But I don't care about those articles enough to do that myself. I would suggest trying for a community consensus affecting all of the articles, but my experience is that those things usually end in a consensus to handle it on a case-by-case basis at article level (a strong indicator that the community thinks cross-article consistency is unimportant for most things). ―Mandruss ☎ 19:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

In the coming days, I'll be removing such boxes. Such inconsistency would never be allowed on hard cover pedias. An Editor-in-chief would not allow such sloppiness. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Well I wish you luck if your main or only rationale is "consistency with Donald Trump". ―Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Neatness over sloppiness. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobody ever looks at these boxes anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

If so, then nobody will miss them, when I delete them from all the presidential & vice presidential nominees bios. GoodDay (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I've taken them out at Washington & Adams, as a trial balloon. Would be a lot easier though, if ya'll would just agree to 'restoring' the info in this article. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

We'll see how it goes with you removing them from the other articles. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed two more, at Joe Biden & Hillary Clinton, since they likely get more viewers. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

You keep repeating this idea that these articles must be consistent, which is out of step with community consensus. You don't seem to care much about community consensus, in fact, which indicates you don't really understand how Wikipedia works. There are things larger than your personal view of what this encyclopedia should be. Meanwhile you haven't even tried to make the case that the boxes benefit readers, and what little tangible evidence we have suggests that readers don't care about those boxes. We are here to serve readers, not editors. No, while I obviously defer to consensus I disagree with, I am not going to support 'restoring' the info in this article just to make it a lot easier for you to achieve your out-of-step consistency. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This has been on my user page for over a year:

Widespread good things should persist because they are good, not because they are widespread. "This is how it's normally done" is a terrible argument for anything, allowing widespread bad things to persist. Instead of making that argument, explain why it's better than the alternatives. Change is not a bad thing, and resistance to change impedes progress.

―Mandruss ☎ 14:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not in favour of having a shelve of books, with one missing. The missing tooth appearance, just doesn't cut it. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel like we should have a wider discussion on this. The succession boxes suggest recommended reading when you get to the end of an article, and aid navigation if you are wanting to read about all the holders of an office. I have been referring to some of the Presidents articles which are featured articles for how to improve UK politicians articles, and I recently joined Wikipedia as a contributor purely because I noticed some were missing on local articles. I am in favour of them staying. ScottishNardualElf (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for a wider discussion. A proponent of cross-article consistency should go to WP:VPR and ask the community to choose one of the following options:

1. The succession boxes should be included in all U.S. presidents' BLPs.
2. The succession boxes should be omitted from all U.S. presidents' BLPs.
3. One size does not fit all. Cross-article consistency is less important than flexibility. Decide on a case-by-case basis at article level.

The proposal would not include a change to guidelines, so WP:CREEP would not apply (not all community consensuses have to be codified in PAGs, and omission from PAGs does not reduce their weight). I predict the consensus will be #3, which is where we are today. What's unacceptable is to continue to argue cross-article consistency on article talk pages. Refusing to go ask the community generally indicates that one knows the community would not support them. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The third option would be a disaster. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Better not go ask the community, since they might not give you the answer you want! And then where will you be? Sorry, but that is not good-faith Wikipedian thinking. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm just going to keep deleting the boxes from all the US presidential & vice presidential nominees bio articles. No complains have arisen, so far. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It has not even been a day yet has it. We will see if people say anything. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Following on from the above, I have created a WP:VPR#Succession_boxes_for_US_Presidents ScottishNardualElf (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)"

@ScottishNardualElf:, you should expand it to include all US presidential & vice presidential nominees. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Disagree per my comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Expansion of scope: succession boxes. That those are the articles that matter to you personally is not a good reason for that expansion. Re-pinging ScottishNardualElf lest they act on your say-so alone. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

University name in the Infobox?

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.

---

Heading modified from "Let's take another stab at consensus for the correct University name in the Infobox. "The Wharton School" or "The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania?"" per WP:TPO. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Heading modification reverted by OP here. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Pls. do not edit war over my title. X4n6 (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Huh?? I specifically DID NOT edit war over your "title" (heading). I left your revert alone and added the above note for clarity (otherwise my first comment above would make no sense to arriving editors). Pls. Do not insert nonsensical and misleading comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, the heading is not "yours", per WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

There was NO REASON for you to edit THE title/heading/new subject, OR post on MY talk page. So stay off both - and while you're at it, check your uncivil attitude. The End. X4n6 (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It has been two years since a narrow consensus was reached on whether or not to include Fordham in the infobox. It was only a slight "no" at the time. Also around that time, there was another close vote on whether or not to include the degree in the infobox. So, I think the time may be ripe to revisit both questions. For example, where else on any other subject infoboxes do we list undergraduate major? Or even the graduate major for that matter?

But for now, there is another issue that has really never been resolved by consensus: the correct name of the institution to be used in the infobox. "The Wharton School" is an abbreviation, not the full correct name. As our own article shows, that is the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Again, where else are we using school name abbreviations in infoboxes? Full names appear to be common practice throughout the project.

So should we use the full name: Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in the Infobox. Yes or No? Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. We should be consistent and use the full school name. X4n6 (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong no. where else are we using school name abbreviations in infoboxes? I don't know, but how often is the full name seven words and 50 characters in length? How often is the full name given in two other places in prose, including one in the lead? Thus the fallacy of citing precedent as an argument, looking at only one factor, rather than assessing cases individually on their own merits. "The Wharton School" is not an incorrect name; it is simply less than the full, official, formal name, and that's okay especially in an already-long infobox. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• No. The shorter variant is perfectly fine, particularly with an infobox that does not lend itself well to long forms. In fact, you can almost get away with just saying "Wharton". Readers are perfectly capable of clicking the link if they want to know more. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• No. The two infoboxes take up too much space as it is. Also, I’m not convinced that "Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania" is actually the name of the school. The University of Pennsylvania has four undergraduate colleges/schools. One of them is The Wharton School, and that's how they refer to it on their website. The others are Penn Nursing, Penn Engineering and the University of Pennsylvania College of Arts and Sciences. My preferred version is even shorter: Education  : BS in Econ. The alma maters are both in the body of the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Changed my mind after looking at many infoboxes. Voting for: Wharton School (BS). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• No. Prefer "University of Pennsylvania," to mesh with other presidents, like all of the ones who went to Harvard College, Harvard Law School or [[Harvard Buisness School] but are attributed to Harvard University, like John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, John F. Kennedy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, which is every one of them. Could someone provide an example of a person going to a named program at a university and that program being in their infobox? Hipocrite (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  PS: Here are some examples of people who went to named business schools but the university is listed as their alma mater - these examples were the first notable alumni listed on each wikipedia page that I had ever heard of: Peter_G._Peterson went to Kellogg, listed as Northwestern. Kofi_Annan from Sloan, listed as MIT. [[Jon Corzine] from Booth listed as UChicago, Alan_Greenspan from Stern listed as NYU. I don't think any other article lists this kind of thing. Hipocrite (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The question was simple: Where else on this project do we do what has been done here. The answers ranged from "I don't know," to let's just go with one word, to questioning the actual name of the school, to going with the name of the University itself. So, while it's still early, the only real consensus still appears to be no consensus on rationale, just one on conclusion. With still no response for why we are treating this Infobox any differently than we do with any other BLP or subject article. I would still like to read answers for that. X4n6 (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• No; use Wharton School, no "the". It's an unambiguous term and the WP:COMMONNAME, so no need to use the longer title just since it's official. For precedent, we don't use Columbia University in the City of New York, even though that's the official name of that institution. I'm open to being persuaded to University of Pennsylvania, so if the discussion veers toward that being the central question, consider me neutral. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• No - Everyone who cares knows what Wharton is. Brevity is the sole.... O3000 (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• No - The short version is preferable. Readers who have not heard of Wharton can click for more information. - MrX 🖋 11:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

University name in the Infobox part deux

There is no other named business school where Alumni are listed as having their Alma Mater be the business school as opposed to the university except for Wharton, which has about 50% compliance with the standard. Other schools with equally-famous named business schools are Booth (UChicago), Stern (NYU), Kellog (Northwestern) and Sloan (MIT). Another parallel is how we use university name when people go to colleges - "Harvard University," does not grant any degrees at all - undergraduate degrees come from "Harvard College," yet we list Harvard University as the Alma Mater of every Harvard undergrad from Harvard College through the phDs granted by the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. I suggest we move this article (and I'll be approaching a more centralized discussion to standardize the other wharton grads) to the Wikipedia standard "University of Pennsylvania (BS)," similar to the format of Alex_Gorsky, Jon_Huntsman_Sr. and who knows how many others. Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Not only do we use Harvard University across the board, (which we shouldn't, as you correctly note); but we also don't do it for any other business schools. Just as we don't do it for any law schools either. This is simply a question of WP article consistency. X4n6 (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

University of Pennsylvania vs. Wharton School

Thanks to everyone for the solid input. Since the only alternative to Wharton School (or Wharton), appears to be the University of Pennsylvania, can we see if we have significant consensus for that change? Could everyone please vote one last time?

* University of Pennsylvania - or even Penn or UPenn would also work for me (especially since the name is long). But only because those alternates are in the school's article. As several folks have said, we generally list the University not any individual school in the infobox. Which, I suppose, is why we don't see Medill, Annenberg, the former Boalt Hall, Harvard Kennedy, ad nauseum there. And surprisingly, there's nothing I found in the MOS. Perhaps our discussion here will lead to a formal rule or some guidance there as well. X4n6 (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Agree with "University of Pennsylvania." Simply "Harvard University," not Harvard Business School is listed for George W. Bush, "University of Pennsylvania" is listed for Rod Rosenstein, who is also a Wharton grad. This format seems to be more common for public political figures. Marquis de Faux (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• No. This should be "Wharton School" because that is what all the reliable sources say. I don't really understand the purpose of this "revote" either, since a clear consensus for "no" has already formed above. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment It is simply a misstatement to claim that all the RS say "Wharton School." By a significant margin, they do not. In fact, a simple Google search, which obviously includes RS, reveals 1,150,000 hits of "Donald Trump" & "University of Pennsylvania" as compared to just 158,000 hits of "Donald Trump" & "Wharton School." That's a ratio of over 7:1. By itself that's one reason I asked for the revote. But the second reason was the presence of several "no" votes that expressed a preference for the university's name. X4n6 (talk) 09:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Disruptive -- We just had a survey with a resounding response. O3000 (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. While you may think the response was "resounding," the rationales were decidedly not. X4n6 (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken to believe that we ever need a consensus on the rationale for doing something or not doing something. There are often a number of rationales for a common outcome. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken to believe it is your role to characterize what you think I believe. I'll be crystal clear: it is not. Especially, when you mischaracterized my belief in the process. X4n6 (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

"the only real consensus still appears to be no consensus on rationale, just one on conclusion." QED. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

"The question was simple: Where else on this project do we do what has been done here. The answers ranged from "I don't know," to let's just go with one word, to questioning the actual name of the school, to going with the name of the University itself. So, while it's still early, the only real consensus still appears to be no consensus on rationale, just one on conclusion. With still no response for why we are treating this Infobox any differently than we do with any other BLP or subject article. I would still like to read answers for that. Cherry picking my response was predictably disingenuous. But feel free to continue making this page all about you. X4n6 (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Best link for pandemic response

In Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead, I tried linking to U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic over "reacted slowly", since that's where Donald Trump and the Covid-19 pandemic redirects, following Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_121#Splitting_Covid-19 this earlier discussion. Emir of Wikipedia reverted me, with edit summary article is about the federal government as whole, not specifically Trump. I note that Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic also exists, but that's a little too narrow, since his reaction includes more than just his communications. I think the federal response page is okay, since Trump is the head of the U.S. federal government, so he is ultimately responsible for and directing its actions. What do you all think about which page we should link here? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I wonder why "no link there" is not even considered an option. I don't see article prose as a wikilink delivery system. Beyond that, I have little opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Overlinking can be an issue, but I think it's a clear service to readers to allow them to, if they are interested, easily learn more about Trump's response by providing a link rather than making them go manually search for it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion, but the "no link" option appears to me to be optimal. In the discussion about splitting Covid-19, the consensus was not to split, given there were two similar articles already. Those articles were not about Trump, specifically, leaving the present article to represent/focus on Trump's response to Covid-19. The statement in the lead summarizes the present article...the lead has done its job, and the reader can learn about Trump's response in the present article (seems to me). (Curious to contemplate wikilinks in the lead to specific sections in the article below...I suppose that's the TOC...) Bdushaw (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggested reorganization: New section "Use of print, television, rallies and social media"

An article today in the NY Times on how Trump is using media to manipulate public opinion - inciting and demonizing - reminded me of a long-standing objection to how this article is organized. Trump's main thing is this sort of manipulation - dropping verbal firebombs as a distraction and to set people off. It's his main thing, I say - he has been amazingly innovative at exploiting media, and, as noted before, he spends a large fraction of each day doing it (90 tweets the other day!). I think the tactic deserves its own section. So, just penciling how something might look, I suggest a new main section entitled "Use of print, television, rallies and social media", perhaps below "Presidency", to include the present subsections in "Public profile": Social media, False statements, Promotion of conspiracy theories, Relationship with the press, and Allegations of inciting violence. These topics are the main action of Trump, yet they are buried within this "Public profile" section. The new section would then need some development about that, perhaps taking relevant material from the other sections. Bdushaw (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this would be better than the current organization under 'Public profile'. The encompassing topic is broader than just "Use" of various media (which every politician does). What is unique to Trump is how his messaging is constructed to resonate with members of his base who feel that their lives suck because of globalism, automation, fancy college degrees, Mexicans, blacks, and so on. I have no objection to creating such a section, probably under a different heading like 'Self-promotion' or 'Propaganda', but I would not want to see most of the subsections you mentioned folded under it. - MrX 🖋 11:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Humm...today in the light of day, and given your thoughts, I see my original notion a little differently. I think I was thinking of a section with theme along the lines of "Trump as demagogue", though that word is verbotten. Lately he has become a virulent demagogue - irrespective of the word itself, the article has buried this major aspect of Trump. Bdushaw (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Propaganda would be appropriate here, though Trump is far from unique in using it.: "Propaganda is communication that is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented." The emotional response from Trump's audience is not unexpected. Dimadick (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe a new section is warranted under 'Presidency' called 'Propaganda' or 'Demagoguery'. Then we could decide if some of the content should be moved from existing subsections under 'Public profile' to the new section, or if the topic should be covered a high level (preferably without specific examples). - MrX 🖋 13:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2020

When an adjective is comprised of two words, a hyphen in between them is required to show the pairing. In the article copy (section “False statements”) that reads, “far reaching effects,” the adjective, far-reaching, has been misspelled. Its entry in Wiktionary proves as much.

References

Apachegila (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Trump's statements about slowing down of testing

Heading modified from "Inaccurate information about Trump's statements about slowing down of testing" per WP:TALKNEW bullet 5. Please keep headings neutral. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The article says " He told a June rally that "I said to my people, 'Slow the testing down please,' " later clarifying he had not actually given such an order" But the citation given for this statement says the exact opposite. The title of the cited article is " "Trump now says he wasn't kidding when he told officials to slow down coronavirus testing, contradicting staff", and the lede of the cited article says "President Donald Trump now says that he was not kidding when he told rallygoers over the weekend that he asked staff to slow down coronavirus testing, undercutting senior members of his own administration who said the comment was made in jest." It goes on to quote statements by White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and White House trade adviser Peter Navarro claiming that Trump was joking, but quotes Trump as saying "'I don't kid, let me just tell you, let me make it clear,' Trump told a reporter on Monday, when asked again if he was kidding" This is in direct contradiction to the sentence in the article that cites this reference. I think "later clarifying he had not actually given such an order" should either be deleted, or replaced by a more accurate statement, such as "later clarifying that claims by advisors that this was a joke were untrue, and confirming that he had requested a slowdown in testing.Andylatto (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Andylatto: Yes, I see what you mean. This should be corrected/clarified in the article text. By the way, Mandruss, I don't understand why you changed the heading of this section. The information in the article is inaccurate. I don't think that Andylatto was commenting on the veracity of Trump's statement, although that would be neutral as well. - MrX 🖋 11:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: I see your point, and the three words could have stayed per guidelines. I shall be more careful. Now the question is whether they are really needed to convey the topic, and concision is golden. No objection if someone wants to add them back. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't catch can someone please co operate and help me understand? WarrickEcoCity (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The information in the article does not conform to the source. It needs to be corrected. - MrX 🖋 11:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I've attempted to correct the statement, adding a second supporting citation. Likely too much text, but holy crackers the efforts required to explain the things that Trump does... It might all be condensed to something like "Trump directed that testing be reduced," at the risk of omitting the generally confusing atmosphere that occurs regularly with Trump's actions. Bdushaw (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. Someone may also want to consider adding the part about Trump later contradicting his staff, and reaffirming that he had requested a slowdown in testing. - MrX 🖋 01:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

What's the term?

Doesn't this guy's level of control over the beliefs of 60 million people qualify as "cult leader"?

Could that term be used in his bio? since it's so grammatically accurate?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/03/trump-american-war-dead-losers-suckers-report — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.47.82 (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Only when reliable sources start using the term. O3000 (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

War dead scandal

Is the War dead scandal covered anywhere in this page or related pages? I could not find something in this regard. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Faux-Bama gate

"Trump hired a "Faux-Bama" to participate in a video in which Trump "ritualistically belittled the first black president and then fired him."

ref. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/05/politics/michael-cohen-book-trump-white-house/index.html Should be mentioned in the main article. 82.131.146.165 (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Undue here. Probably undue anywhere at Wikipedia. Stop chasing one-off clickbait headlines that chronicle and enable the continuous adolescent bickering that permeates U.S. politics today, distracting from the issues that actually matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree this has no place here. O3000 (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

No. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Probably relevant content for Disloyal, but not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Very WP:UNDUE even on the Disloyal page or anywhere on Wikipedia 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Trump and the WHO

I've been reading over the Pandemic section and found that the existing WHO discussion was rather missing the mark; not consistent with the citations. I've developed the story a bit further - I am unsure of a few points/phrasing; I am sure people will correct me. I am in favor of including statements that counter Trump's assertions, rather than just stating Trump's assertions. I've also introduced sub-sub-section headings to the Pandemic section. The Pandemic section is presently roughly chronological, which means it behaves in editing almost like an endless and ever-growing list. Seems to me the section would be better organized around specific topics (Task force, WHO, Testing, Mask wearing, etc.), which might also allow for some additional trimming. See how you like it... At least the WHO discussion is a bit more accurate now, I hope, IMO. Bdushaw (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I've mostly completed an initial reordering of the section into themed subsections. Perhaps needs a subsection on imigration measures - there is a dangling sentence. See how you like it; revert if you hate it... Bdushaw (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2020

i saw grammar and tried to fix it but couldnt so can i please have edits Pingywingy (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Pingywingy - Can you please point out exactly where the grammatical errors are that you saw? I can make the edit to the article and fix them for you... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Very Important yet Semi Protected Edit Request

Could we expand the lead to include the descriptor “accused rapist” about our subject? See here, for example: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/ex-model-amy-dorris-alleges-trump-sexually-assaulted-her-1997-n1240291 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

No. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Fact checkers

There is no elaboration on the fact checkers mentioned on Donald J. Trump's page. There are no sources, no references, and no links. These fact checkers would be more appropriately titled, 'left-wing alignment checkers'. MichaelFSnake662 (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Everything is fully referenced in the body of the article. Per WP:LEADCITE we intentionally exclude references from the lead at this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You don't need partisan fact checkers to tell that Finland isn't part of Russia... Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 16:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Sentence about fact checkers

The second body paragraph of the lead states "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics." It seems quite unclear what precisely the "phenomenon" being referred to here is and hence should be better worded. thorpewilliam (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The language came from a consensus that formed after a lot of discussion on this talk page, and accurately reflects what the preponderance of reliable sources say on the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it speaks for itself that "phenomenon" clearly infers that such a quantity of "false or misleading statements" is unprecedented in American history. The sentence uses concise wording to express a clear idea. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement

This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "Excessive detail for this one-page biography of Trump (not a history of U.S. foreign policy during his presidency)". I think it is relevant and should be included. U.S. Presidents have more power and responsibility in foreign and defense policy than in domestic affairs.

NBC News: "The groundbreaking agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates has delivered a political lifeline to Israel's embattled prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and represents President Donald Trump's first genuine foreign policy success, regional analysts and former U.S. officials said. Apart from the immediate boost for Trump and for Netanyahu, who both face political headwinds over their response to the coronavirus pandemic, the agreement signals a potential realignment for the Middle East and a victory for Israel's decades-long effort to secure diplomatic recognition from Arab governments, experts said."[14]

Israel and the United Arab Emirates have agreed to begin normalizing relations in a historic Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement brokered by President Trump.

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

It is an important newsworthy event - but I think the point was that this article is a biography of Donald Trump, and the material is not directly pertinent to the man himself. I suspect it would be a fine addition to the article Presidency of Donald Trump, for example. The article is already excessively long, so editors are fairly critical of new additions. Bdushaw (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what Trump did personally to broker this other than staff it out and tweet about it. Did he lead summits, or personally negotiate terms? - MrX 🖋 11:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources are saying Trump did indeed play a role in this deal, so I would support inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC

Yeah, but what IS the deal? Quoting the latest Times of Israel report, AFAIK: Unlike Egypt and Jordan, the only Arab countries with which Jerusalem has official ties, Israel and the United Arab Emirates were never at war. Officials in Jerusalem, Abu Dhabi and Washington, which brokered the deal, have nonetheless insisted on referring to it as a “peace deal.” While a deal to normalize diplomatic relations was announced last month, the countries have yet to hash out an actual detailed agreement, which is expected to be signed in a White House ceremony.

References

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Foreign Policy: It’s a genuine historic accomplishment that’s unambiguously good for the United States. It will bolster Israel’s security and wellbeing, a longstanding vital interest of the United States. It will contribute to peace and stability in the broader Middle East, not only by indefinitely forestalling a potentially destabilizing unilateral assertion of Israeli sovereignty over parts of the West Bank, but by giving the UAE and other modernizing Gulf states full access to the region’s dominant military and intelligence power, and to its most technologically advanced economy. It will worry, isolate, and enhance deterrence against Iran, the United States’ most dangerous regional adversary. And it reaffirms Washington’s still-unrivaled ability to serve as a force for good in alleviating some of the world’s most intractable conflicts. ... The agreement will rightly garner virtually unanimous support across the U.S. political spectrum. As Joe Biden, the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, indicated in his response to the announcement, the effort to advance peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors has been a top priority for administrations of both parties going back decades.

References

--Tobby72 (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Why don't we just wait some time to let this simmer down a bit? Even then, this probably only warrants a couple of sentences. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 11:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It’s an opinion: Elephants in the Room is a blog about U.S. foreign policy in the age of Trump, written by experienced GOP policymakers, scholars, and others not currently working in the new administration.. John P. Hannah, VP Dick Cheney’s national security advisor from 2005-2009, works for the anti-Iran lobbying group Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Assume lots of bias. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

BBC News: Israel and the Gulf state of Bahrain have reached a landmark deal to fully normalise their relations, US President Donald Trump has announced. "The second Arab country to make peace with Israel in 30 days," he tweeted. For decades, most Arab states have boycotted Israel, insisting they would only establish ties after the Palestinian dispute was settled. But last month the United Arab Emirates (UAE) agreed to normalise its relationship with Israel. There had been much speculation that Bahrain might follow suit. Mr Trump, who presented his Middle East peace plan in January aimed at resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict, helped broker both accords. Bahrain is only the fourth Arab country in the Middle East - after the UAE, Egypt and Jordan - to recognise Israel since its founding in 1948.

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

...although he lost the popular vote

The statement that Trump lost the popular vote has been raised twice above. Do we really need this (and its note) in the lead? It has no consequence. In fact, as a piece of information, it is misleading. Trump won via the electoral college system, which has been the system for electing presidents for over a century. It's like saying the Kansas City Chiefs wouldn't have won the Super Bowl if it had been a soccer match. I don't know if that's true, but it's irrelevant. The voting statistics are relevant, but they belong in the section about the election.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length, your points have been raised and rejected more than once, and I oppose discussing it again. See the talk page archives. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree this has been discussed at length, but I don't think there's been a decisive conclusion, and it's not listed in current consensus.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It was discussed to death and the necessary consensus was formed. I believe it was resolved long before the current consensus listing was conceived, which might explain its absence. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree. This has been discussed many times and the conclusion has always been that this should be mentioned in the lead. For precedent, note that it is included - in fact more prominently (as a separate sentence and with more detail) - in the lead for George W. Bush. -- MelanieN (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Previous discussions:

1. November 9, 2016
2. November 10, 2016
3. November 30, 2016
4. February 25, 2017
5. March 28, 2017
6. May 3, 2017
7. December 25, 2017
8. February 8, 2020

These are the more significant discussions. Feel free to add to the list, then maybe we can make it sticky. - MrX 🖋 11:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Based on that survey, it seems questionable to say that it was "discussed to death". It was discussed sporadically in 2016 and 2017, and then wasn't discussed again until I raised it earlier this year. I don't think most people would call February's discussion conclusive. I don't think there are grounds for not raising this again if it has lain dormant for so long. With regard to the alleged consensus, which of those grab bag of discussions are you relying on, exactly? Where are the points I raised rejected? With regard to the point about George W Bush, all that means is that both articles have Democratic party talking points in their introductions. That's not good. And there are plenty of politicians who won elections without the popular vote where this isn't mentioned at all, for example, John Howard. Bush was different anyway, because there was the whole saga of the Florida recount etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, those old discussions from the early days of Trump's presidency are worth revisiting. The question seems simple enough (for once) for a conclusive RfC. I'll try and formulate something in the coming days. — JFG ^talk 20:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Jack Upland. Putting it in the lede gives it undue weight, and the combined impact of this undue weight and the word although seems like POV-pushing to me. The clause suggests that Trump's victory was of questionable validity, which is not something we should be stating in wiki-voice. Perhaps something like "He entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and was elected in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Liberal commentators subsequently drew attention to the popular vote, where Trump won fewer votes than Clinton." would be an appropriate compromise, though tbh I'd favour just removing the offending clause. —Kilopylae (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree the current wording should change. The wording "although he lost the popular vote" seems to imply that there was something wrong or incorrect about Trump's victory, which is not the case. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Disagree per previous discussion. No new arguments are being raised here, and it is not productive to swing article content back and forth and back depending on the numbers of editors who happen to be present on each side as issues are re-raised again and again. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't see a previous discussion that came to a consensus for the present text.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

More clear identification of Trump as far-right in body and lead sections

In other articles on politicians widely viewed as far-right, the body and lead sections quite clearly identify them as far-right. In this lengthy article, the term is barely mentioned. It is briefly mentioned somewhere in the body that he became the preferred candidate of the alt-right, but his key role in the alt-right movement (that came to prominence largely through him) is so important that it should be mentioned in the lead section. The term Trumpism, although well-established in scholarship and with its own WP article, isn't mentioned either. We need some material on his political ideology as it has emerged in practice, i.e. on Trumpism and how it relates to the wider alt-right and far right. --Tataral (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

He isn't considered far right in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes he is. There are many examples of Donald Trump, his policies, and Trumpism being described as far-right and alt-right. For example Cas Mudde's book The Far Right in America (2017) which extensively discusses Trump and his ideology. Even articles on far smaller players in his administration such as Stephen Miller (political advisor) identify them as far-right. --Tataral (talk) 06:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The views of one person doesn't mean we abandon the absence of all the others referring to him in this manner. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that Trump is necessarily a far-rightist. Economically, he's shown that he isn't necessarily leaning completely to capitalism. While he's shown notable favor to people with social far-right views (e.g. KKK) plenty of times, he hasn't directly expressed far-rightist views. Sure he's extreme in many ways, but rightism is not one of those areas.

The views of a single person on Trumpism, expecially in this polarized age, is not reliable enough to call Trump a far-rightist. Additionally, Trumpism being far-right doesn't necessarily equate to Trump being far-right (though it may strongly signify such). To be able to include such on the article, there would need to be much more objective evidence that he explicitly holds far-rightist views than someone's opinion. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Remember Wikipedia's due weight policy. While some people may believe him to be far right he has not been described this way by any major or reputable organizations that I know of. Mossypiglet (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not a common nor reliable descriptor. thorpewilliam (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Fake video influencing Trump

The info about Netanyahu showing Trump a fake video removed here:[15] belongs in the article because it influenced Trumps political positions in the Arab-Israeli conflict. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a minor, trivial footnote that does not belong on an encyclopedia article, even if true. Trying to reconnect (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

How is it minor or trivial when the reliable source states that Trump viewed Netanyhau as an obstacle to peace and Netanyahus fake video changed his mind. That is a huge thing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

It is a minor footnote in the history of a man, whose history with regards to Israel and Netanyahu suggests it is false. It is speculative hearsay, at best, and as such , does not belong here. Trying to reconnect (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing suggesting that its false, because several reliable sources has reported about it: Haaretz: [16] TimesOfIsrael: [17], Jewishinsider: [18], Independent:[19]. The fact that all these reliable sources has written articles about it is proof that its true. Rex Tillerson was also Trumps Secretary of State. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

What these sources report on is what is written in Woodward's new book. No one is disputing that it is written in the book. The question is, did it actually happen, and if it is notable enough for an encyclopedia article about Trump if it did. There is much to suggest it is false. Trump had campaigned on a pro-Israeli platform long before any such video was presented. Tillerson is a disgruntled employee, fired by Trump. He did not actually present any proof that the video was doctored, it is just his personal assessment - "Tillerson watched the clip, but was highly skeptical. He later said he believed it had been crudely cut together using various bits of speech by Abbas."[20]. But as I wrote, even if true- i,e, a video was shown, it was misleadingly edited, and influenced Trump (this last bit is simply unknowable, unless Trump says it did) - it is a minor, trivial footnote. Doubtless many things that happen over the course of several years influence people's decisions. Trying to reconnect (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing that suggests that its false. Trump being pro-Israel doesn't contradict him believing Netanyahu is the obstacle to peace. We have to follow RS not your personal opinion, and its also attributed to Tillerson.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Excessive detail for this one-page account of an entire life. The article is currently at 121% of the size where it "Almost certainly should be divided", all reasonable spin-offs have already been done, and we simply do not have the space for content of this nature. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This seems very trivial to be placed on the Wikipedia page of Donald Trump. The page can't include every single stance he's had and every thing he's done. Compared to the other content on this page, this one topic is very unnotable. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Downplay of pandemic

Would it be appropriate to mention Donald Trump's downplay of the pandemic? Here is a paragraph I made on the matter:

In a series of 18 interviews from December 5, 2019 to July 21, 2020 between Donald Trump and Bob Woodward, Trump admits that he deceived the public about the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. On February 7, he told Woodward, "This is deadly stuff. You just breathe the air and that's how it's passed. And so that's a very tricky one. That's a very delicate one. It's also more deadly than even your strenuous flu." On March 19, he said in another interview, "I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic." Audio recordings of these interviews were released on September 9, 2020.

Here are the URLs of the references I would insert with the paragraph:
edition.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/bob-woodward-rage-book-trump-coronavirus/index.html
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54094559
www.npr.org/2020/09/09/911109247/trump-admitted-to-playing-down-the-coronaviruss-severity-per-new-book
www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-woodward-book-09-09-2020/h_5bb44945ec0cf0eba9cdd92ab28fde3c TheGEICOgecko (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

It could be appropriate in some form, but not the way you have written. We don't need to say how many interviews, the exact dates of the interviews, who he was interviewed by, or the fact that were in audio form. Basically it might be worth a sentence or two, but not the level of detail you suggest. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

So how about this?:

Trump has admitted that he knew the severity of the COVID-19 virus as early as February, but decided to downplay it. "I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don't want to create a panic."

TheGEICOgecko (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Trump says so much stuff. There's no way that you can record everything false or misleading about him. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I have in mind a new subsection at the end of the pandemic section on the effect of the pandemic and Trump's "actions" on his reelection prospects. I thought the Woodward book mention would go there, since IMO it has affected his reelection chances CNN today. We need to be brief, however, so the quote may or may not be appropriate. Bdushaw (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Bdushaw, that would be good, though his reelection really only matters for a couple more months, and most of it would be speculation, in my opinion. Feel free to start in RfC if you'd like. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 11:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanoscar21 I think that while most of what he says isn't notable enough to be included, this one in particular very objectively paints a picture of his contradictory actions. I think that somewhere in the COVID-19 section, it would be best to include some version of my paragraph, so as to clarify that he did the actions he did in spite of his clear understanding. It might be best to shorten this information more, merely saying something along the lines of "Despite Trump significantly understanding the severity of the COVID-19 virus, he downplayed the seriousness, claiming that he didn't want to cause panic." From the perspective of someone that hypothetically is unfamiliar with the subject of COVID-19 and Donald Trump that reads the section on the pandemic, it may seem to one that Trump believed that the pandemic isn't a big deal. I think that in making this objective clarification on his intentions, it will help provide useful, relevant, and notable information. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

So I'm thinking it would be best to include the sentence "Despite Trump significantly understanding the severity of the COVID-19 virus, he downplayed the seriousness, claiming that he didn't want to cause panic." at the end of the first paragraph of the CODI-19 pandemic section. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to add the information in a header paragraph of a section, but content-wise, it seems the most appropriate to add this information at this spot to give the context of his actions upfront, in the light that he did everything he did despite his understanding of the virus. If it's included in the middle, it seems out of place. Does anyone have other suggestions to where the sentence could go, or objections to the wording and/or inclusion of the sentence? TheGEICOgecko (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

We need to wait to see how posterity treats this. Your narrative implies that Trump knew something the rest of us didn't and could anticipate how serious the pandemic (a term that was not used by WHO at the time) would become. Note that he had already banned travel from China and would soon ban travel from the EU, UK and Ireland. TFD (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It is possible he knew something the rest of us didn't, but we can't write an article based on that. We can only write on what we know now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces Emir of Wikipedia I'm trying to focus on the contradiction of Trump's belief on the severity of the pandemic and his public opinion, rather than a mere possibility that he knew more than us about the virus. Despite the travel bans he made, he has largely dismissed notions that the pandemic was serious, through his words and actions. To clear things up, I edited the sentence: "Despite Trump believing that the COVID-19 virus would be a serious issue, he downplayed the seriousness, claiming that he didn't want to cause panic." If needed, it may be good to further clarify by saying "he usually/regularly downplayed the seriousness." TheGEICOgecko (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

News media at the time said he overplayed the danger. He banned travel from China, the EU and the UK, and accepted the closing of the U.S./Canadian border. So he can be criticized both for downplaying and overplaying the epidemic. Which one do you think we should go for? TFD (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

TFD Travel bans are the only time he's ever showed serious concern of the pandemic similar or greater than that of scientists, at least that I'm aware of. Additionally, there was no reason to create most of the travel bans, as America already had the virus, and it wasn't exactly widespread in other countries, and so it may just be a random set of actions that didn't make sense, rather than overplaying the pandemic. And regardless, by the time he claimed he was downplaying the virus, he was regularly calling it a hoax, and regularly dismissed the severity even around the time he made the travel bans. So even if he did overplay the pandemic, it is clear that his overplaying is insignificant in comparison to his downplaying. If you're worried about the little bit of overplaying that he has done, then I could easily clarify with "Despite Trump believing that the COVID-19 virus would be a serious issue, he regularly downplayed the seriousness, claiming that he didn't want to cause panic." By using the word "regularly," it is clarifying that it did happen often, but not necessarily 100% of the time. If that isn't clear enough, regularly can be replaced by the word "usually," or a similar word of the sort that very explicitly clarifies that he didn't downplay the virus 100% of the time. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The "travel bans" were porous, with tens of thousands of people excepted and traveling to the US from China afterward. Further, we know that the virus had arrived in the US from Europe long before those presidential actions. This is fundamentally a Trump talking point that has established a niche in the American consciousness simply and merely through repitition by Trump and his allies. In terms of real world effect, Trump's mask denial and failure to use the Defense Production Act powers, along with his dogwhistle States' rights abdication of Federal leadership are reported to be the principal features of his approach. Emerging narratives, such as the infection of his Red State voter base with rallies etc. may turn out to be noteworthy, but are more recent. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I've added a new subsection a the end of the pandemic section on the effect of Trump's pandemic response on the presidential campaign, with a mention of the Woodward book. Bdushaw (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Bdushaw The topic doesn't deserve such extensive focus. This kind of coverage would likely be considered too much on even more specific pages that cover such matters, and definitely needs to be removed until further discussion is made TheGEICOgecko (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the significant content is in the section about his handling of the epidemic, rather than current-day analysis or speculation about its impact on the election. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, current-day analysis and impact of the election will almost certainly be too unnotable to be mentioned on this page, and the main focus, if not the only focus, of this particular topic should be on how it correlates to his handling of the pandemic. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree, of course. It seems clear that a significant motivation, if not THE motivation for Trump in his handling of the pandemic was universally how it would affect his reelection - all the way back in January-February: testing, treatments, vaccines, etc. - all pressed in response to election timing. The Woodward book and its recordings are fairly stunning, undermining Trump's statements over the previous several months and coming in the heat of the campaign. I've been reverted out, though the material was well sourced, and of primary importance. I will exercise my one revert option; my wording could be revised, but I think the theme is solid. Bdushaw (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC) (See the recent additions on Political pressure on health agencies...in time for the RNC, political manipulation, not to mention the pressure to have a vaccine before election day, which we've not covered yet.) Bdushaw (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Remember that this isn't an article on his political motivations. Relative to his political motivations, it would most likely be relevant enough to mention to a certain extent, assuming everything was well-sourced. However, this is about the actual president, Donald Trump. Sure, it's stunning that Trump would admit to faking his public opinion. But in the long run, it won't be notable. It may slightly affect the election, and will make minor (though likely significant) changes to public opinion. However, these small changes are certainly not noteworthy of being mentioned to such a large extent. I originally proposed a paragraph (of slightly less detail than yours) that similarly emphasized the interview and his specific admittance, similar to that of what I wrote on the Veracity of statements by Donald Trump page. However, I no realize that there is no room for such topics on the main page of the actual person. Currently, I am pushing to put a singular sentence about the matter, as I still think it's important to clarify his intentions. But the clarification does not need all the extra details. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have any further objections (or unwavering mentioned objections) to adding the sentence "Despite Trump believing that the COVID-19 virus would be a serious issue, he regularly downplayed the seriousness, claiming that he didn't want to cause panic" at the end of the opening paragraph of the COVID-19 pandemic section? TheGEICOgecko (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I would object on the basis of the language you have chosen, because it uses wikivoice to condemn Trump's behavior with words like "despite" and "claim". Without expressing support or opposition for inclusion, I would suggest a more neutral approach like this: In a series of interviews with Bob Woodward, Trump described COVID-19 as "more deadly than even your strenuous flus" while publicly saying the virus was "very much under control." Later, Trump stated "I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don't want to create a panic." (source) -- Scjessey (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, you wrote a much more neutral sentence than me. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Effect of Trump's pandemic response on the 2020 presidential campaign

I've reverted back my edit on this topic. I've read the concerns of others and am frankly baffled... I see opinions, assertions of "speculative", "too much detail", "too long", etc., none of which makes any sense to me. The concern written above is vague and general, IMO, and has no specific complaint to reply to. The entry in question is six well-sourced sentences - the sources were selected from several available to preclude over-citation WP:DUE. The section shows the consequences of the accumulation of Trump's behavior regarding the pandemic, as described in the preceding sections. As noted above, many, if not most, of Trump's actions have been about preserving his chances of re-election; witness the false claims of treatments (often related to political events) and the extraordinary pressure to produce a vaccine prior to the November election. Ludicrous claims of similarity to Roosevelt and Churchill go straight to Trump's character. I could go on... Incidentally, Woodward's book is meant to be released today; he concludes, mostly on the basis of the pandemic response, that Trump is "not fit to lead", which is extraordinary. Bdushaw (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is a biography, not a platform for delivery of information relevant to the next presidential election. The one and only reason that level of detail is in this article – as opposed to any encyclopedic reason – is because this is where readers are deemed likely to land first, and we can't expect them to click on {{Main}} hatnote links. The article is now at 124% of the size at which it "Almost certainly should be divided" – up from the recent 121% largely due to COVID-19 content – and climbing, and there would not be a size problem if the space were being used appropriately. After Trump leaves office, and to a large extent after the election if he wins it, that detail will no longer have a purpose here and will be gutted with little objection. That fact in itself should be enough to tell experienced editors it's an improper use of BLP space. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, we all saw Trump on TV standing alongside doctors and public health officials saying to wear a mask. I don't think it's news that he knew mask wearing was critical. He even said he didn't wear one because he feared it would spoil his good looks. The book and the tapes don't really add anything new about his reaction to the virus. We know that in January he was warned and did nothing because he feared a stock market panic. So a recording saying he wanted to avoid panic is nothing new. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, OK - I am still baffled, but OK. In good faith it seemed to me the original objection to the text was vague and insubstantial, and acted on that basis - I did not know how to revise the entry to respond to the objections. It's clear I am seeing things a certain way that others are not, so...such is the situation. No agreement here (continued bafflement...), but no worries. Bdushaw (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The effects of his actions on the election isn't really about him in a notable way. Such information could to some extent go on a page that more specifically deals with such issues. But so far, you haven't given any reasoning as to why such a specific correlational is notable with respect to Donald Trump's page. A lot of your attention seems to be focused on short-term focuses and overthroughly depicting his personality. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Article text aside, it's a bit more than "personality" when one uses supporters as props, placing them at risk of infection or death {they having been required to waive all legal recourse) simply to create video footage of a packed rally like the good old days. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Yah, this sort of detail is not really needed in this BLP. Definitely recommend it be placed in a daughter article.--MONGO (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Make NYC a link in lead section

It's only a link in the infobox but many users may not see this. It should be made a link as "Queens" is. Mossypiglet (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS:OVERLINK, New York City is one of the locations so universally recognized that it is not generally linked. The link in the infobox is an anomalous side effect of the #Current consensus system in use at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it is time to propose a small amendment? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Such as? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to remove in the link in the infobox, nothing more nothing less. I can't see anything at a quick glances at the discussions used to support the consensus that it had to be linked. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The early discussion(s) that established consensus #2 specified both links (Queens and New York City) without considering OVERLINK. In November 2019 I attempted to rectify that, here. In a discussion that was open for about 13 days, there were three participants:

• One for,
• One against, who appeared to be somewhat unclear about what was being proposed, and stopped responding when that was clarified, and
• One straddling the fence.

So the discussion died and the proposal failed. Perhaps it's time to try again, but I won't be the one to make the proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Well-known places such as New York City shouldn't be link, it is definitely considered to be overlinking. Refer to MOS:OL. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to change consensus of link to NYC

As mentioned above, there is consideration of removing the WikiLink for New York City in the infobox, as it may violate MOS:OVERLINK. As the Manual of Style states:

"Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked:

• The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of:
  

• locations (e.g., Berlin; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario; Southeast Asia"
  
  

Thoughts on removing the NYC WikiLink? Support or oppose? TheGEICOgecko (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support per OVERLINK and additional reasoning in the November 2019 discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support OVERLINK explicitly states that New York City should not be linked unless it is "particularly relevant." It is too trivial to be linked in this article. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - This is a no-brainer to me. What is the point of having a Manual of Style if it isn't followed? I agree that there are times when exceptions can be made because of unique circumstances, but this is not one of them. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC) Also, my apologies for not making my support for MOS clearer in the November 2019 discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per nomination and above comments. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Consensus summary

The WikiLink of New York City in the infobox breaks the Manual of Style (see MOS:OVERLINK), as it states that well known places, explicitly including New York City, should not be linked "unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article." The context of the article is Donald Trump's birthplace, which is not relevant enough. There is unanimous consensus on the removal of the WikiLink in question, and so it will be removed, and the consensus on Trump's birthplace will be changed. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

What happened to this article being fully protected?

Okay so maybe I am going crazy but I seem to remember our precious Donald Trump being fully protected. It is now extended-confirmed protected. What happened? I can't find any discussion of this anywhere or I wouldn't be posting this.

Mossypiglet (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Full protection is necessary only when there has been persistent disruption involving extended-confirmed editors, and then for no more than a few days. There is nothing to be gained by freezing this article for an extended period. The most recent full protection occurred in December 2018. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Addition of "Category:American anti-socialists"

Trump should get the category of American anti-socialists, especially as he has been critical of the left-wing to far-left policies of countries like Venezuela and China, being critical of Bernie Sanders's role in making socialism prevalent again in American politics, and even calling Joe Biden a "trojan horse for socialism" in his RNC 2020 speech. Sources can be seen here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/how-trump-runs-against-socialism-without-a-socialist-opponent/2020/08/24/5e8ee016-e649-11ea-bf44-0d31c85838a5_story.html and https://www.cbsnews.com/video/trump-says-socialism-is-one-of-the-most-serious-challenges-world-faces/ Josharaujo1115 (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Josharaujo1115 Socialism is in no way prominent to America, and the such a concept is simply conservative propaganda that have no basis. Sanders is more of an economic centrist than a socialist. The Republican mindset of Sanders even remotely resembling radical socialism is laughable. Keep in mind, economic idologies can go to two main extremes, capitalism and socialism. Pure capitalism is completely unrestrained economics, while socialism is complete economic equality. Sanders does not even moderately lean towards socialist beliefs. Is this so-called American anti-socialism a psuedo term specifically geared towards American politics? If not, I suggest to not waste your time pursuing this matter. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Given how Trump is constantly critical of socialism, I think the category absolutely makes sense. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• No. Category creep is a constant problem on Wikipedia, in my opinion. People should be categorized according to what they are chiefly notable for. Trump is chiefly notable for being a businessman, a property magnate and a politician. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)