Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 124

2000 president run
2000 president run AlexHilzim (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's at Least be Consistent with Obama's Lead Section
Do me a favor, go read Barack Obama's lead section, and then read Trump's. Do you notice a difference in tone or attitude? Do you get the feeling that Obama is some sort of political genius, whereas Trump is the spawn of Cthulhu? If you do, you're not alone. Whitewashing Trump's record is the last thing I want to do, but could we at least pretend to follow Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view? I know full objectivity is a lost cause, so I won't press it. But allow me to suggest a few corrections for the lead section so we can be consistent with President Obama:


 * I couldn't help but notice that Obama has numerous pieces of legislation that he signed listed in his lead:
 * "Obama signed many landmark bills into law during his first two years in office. The main reforms that were passed include the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act...the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010."
 * This is great! Signing bills into law and policymaking is a pretty important part of a president's record. Unfortunately, Trump's lead only makes a brief mention of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. How about we mention some of Trump's major bipartisan laws, such as the Great American Outdoors Act, the Enhancing Veteran Care Act, the First Step Act, the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, etc. Or we could make note of the nearly 200 Executive Orders Trump signed. And, perhaps I'm wrong, but I think mentioning the biggest spending bill in American history--the CARES Act--is worthy enough for the lead section.


 * Let's take out Trump's 'ideological descriptors' in the lead ("Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, and nationalist"). There is zero mention of Obama's ideological persuasions in his lead. If you want to add such descriptors in Obama's lead, by all means--but that's an argument for the Obama talk page.


 * Let's add the killings of Soleimani  and  Baghdadi. Obama's lead clearly notes that Obama "ordered the military operations that resulted in the deaths of Osama bin Laden and suspected Yemeni Al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki."


 * Obama's lead credits him with brokering numerous foreign policy agreements/treaties such as the Paris Climate Agreement, the JCPOA, and the normalized relations with Cuba. Most of Trump's foreign policy agreements listed in his lead appear to be only the ones that are in the 'negative' (i.e., Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, he withdrew from the JCPOA, and he withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership). Let's counterbalance these examples with foreign policy deals that work in the 'positive'. For example, we could include the implementation of USMCA and the  Israel-UEA Peace Deal (this is not to say that these deals were good or bad, but simply they worked to expand or create certain objectives, rather than rescind them). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk • contribs) 10:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutrality doesn't mean presenting false balance, it means presenting information as is found in professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources (without any sort of commentary like "but that's just what the Trump-hating lamestream media says").
 * Obama didn't cater to racist and fascist groups. Trump has.  "But we don't cover Obama doing that" is not a reason for us to overlook that's something a lot of sources report on Trump doing.  Ian.thomson (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The comparison with Obama is a false one, though. I agree that the lead for Obama should be consistent with Bush; a Democrat and a Republican, different policies, but both of them respectable presidents. What Ian.thomson says about false balance very much apploes. Trump, according to a lot of reliable sources, is much closer to a fascist demagogue than to a normal US president. It's an NPOV fact that he's a habitual lier who refuses to respect the US constitution, frequently dog whistles to outright fascists and neo-nazis, etc. Of course the lead will look different than Obama's. Even as someone who identifies as a rightwing conservative, I'd say Trump is much closer to Mussolini than to Obama. Jeppiz (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the lead for Obama should be consistent with Bush - I wouldn't go even that far, believing that articles should be completely unencumbered by any such linkages. If there's anything in policy supporting cross-article comparisons like that, I'd like to see it.Otherwise, I'm piling on. Trump's lead is distinctly different from Obama's lead because Trump is not Obama, per sources (those last two words are essential; our personal views have to stay out of it). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See also Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, I think most of you are missing the point. One of the first things I said was "Whitewashing Trump's record is the last thing I want to do." I don't want to provide any "commentary" I just want to report objective, neutral facts like for any other president Ian.thomson.
 * Some of you are indeed interjecting your own personal feelings on Trump into the discussion: "...but both of them respectable presidents...It's an NPOV fact that he's a habitual lier who refuses to respect the US constitution..." sounds very similar to an opinion, or at least it is hard editorializing. It is quite impressive that Mr. Obama never lied during his tenure, or disrespected the constitution... oh wait, he has (on numerous occasions): https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?category=&ruling=false&speaker=barack-obama, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/obama-leaves-the-constitution-weaker-than-he-found-it/512015/, https://reason.com/2014/02/20/obama-shuns-constitution-congress-silent/, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg75846/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg75846.pdf, https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2014/1204/Obama-immigration-executive-order-A-violation-of-the-Constitution Jeppiz.
 * And give me a break with this "false balance" charge. I'm not saying vaccines cause autism, I am just saying that all politicians lie a lot and violate established norms/laws. And when Trump does lie or violate the constitution, that should defiantly be noted in his article! So I simply don't understand how mentioning some of Trump's major laws/foreign policy initiatives is creating a 'false balance.' Ian.thomson, Jeppiz
 * Thank you to whoever brought up George Bush. Many of our so-called reliable sources have basically called Bush a fascist war criminal: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/may/12/rich-lowry/did-liberal-writer-warn-about-bush-fascist-takeove/, https://www.vice.com/el/article/yv54dj/george-bush-and-tony-blair-are-war-criminals-obv, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/12/08/the-icc-will-investigate-alleged-u-s-war-crimes-in-afghanistan/, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40550717?seq=1, but I don't really get the sense that Bush was some sort of dictator after reading his lead, do you? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you as to Some of you are indeed interjecting your own personal feelings. The same occurred to me when I read that, as it does every time I read something like that. Nevertheless, the great predominance of reliable sources support that hard editorializing, so it would have been both accurate and proper with the addition of "per sources" (and I suspect that's what they meant, anyway).We have been through the "all presidents lie" thing again and again at this article and elsewhere, and there is overwhelming and persistent consensus that Trump's lying is something both unprecedented and dangerous – per sources – and that that's therefore a seriously false equivalence. To my knowledge no database of over 20,000 false and misleading statements, built by one of the most widely respected news organizations ever, largely uncontested beyond dismissively throwing it on the fake news pile with everything else, has ever been compiled for any other president in U.S. history, or anything remotely close to that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Mandruss Where did I ever contest that Trump lies a lot? I even said we should document all of his lies. The only point I'm trying to make is that why can't we insert a few additional details of Trump's record into his lead (e.g., major laws, assassinations, etc.)? Is it against Wikipedia's policy to include those details when the subject in question has a long documentation of lying? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with discussing things like that, although experience tells us that it's best done in smaller pieces (separate discussions for major laws, assassinations, etc) for organization's sake. Otherwise discussion goes in so many different directions that it can become very difficult to discern any consensus one way or the other, and that means a ton of editor time goes to waste. But that's quite different from saying that this lead should be consistent with Obama's lead. (I would probably be in opposition to more presidency-related lead content here, strongly preferring less of it, but let's save that for said discussions.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What is this supposedly "one of the most widely respected news organizations ever"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MONGO (talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You seriously dispute that The Washington Post is one of the most widely respected news organizations ever? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good Lord. I wanted you to clarify as there have been numerous publications that have made it their mission at times to list every single exageration and campaign piece of rhetoric by Trump as a "lie". Sandman didn't feel very respected by the Post...but if you want to call them one of the most "widely respected news organizations ever" you surely can.--MONGO (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mandruss In all fairness, the WaPo may be "respected" but it certainly has lost lots of its credibility in the last few years, as per https://www.statista.com/statistics/739442/washington-post-credibility-usa/. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the database is largely uncontested, which lends it a lot of credibility in my book. If there were significant error or distortion in it, there is little doubt that Trump supporters would have long ago ponied up the cash for a separate database to debunk it point by point. That would be pocket change for many of them. That they have not done that speaks volumes. The best the Trump side can do is say that we shouldn't take seriously anything that Trump says – and imply that doing so demonstrates bad faith bias, despite a 200+-year history of taking seriously things that presidents say. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The community favors WaPo over Statista, which has been compared to Worldometer, and (once one actually researches them) is clearly a marketing firm. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your source shows a point in time, not a trend over time, and its original source is not clear. soibangla (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * OP's activity in this thread does rather suggest a habit of misrepresenting sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you brought up PolitiFact, so you must accept it as a valid source, right? Barack Obama rates 20% true, 27% mostly true, 26% half true, 11% mostly false, 11% false, and only 1% pants on fire.  Donald Trump rates only 4% true, 9% mostly true, 13% half true, 20% mostly false, 35% false, and 16% pants on fire.  Comparing with Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, you can see that most politicians fall across all categories roughly equally (except for lower "pants on fire" scores).  Any honest assessment of those ratings (unbiased by personal feelings that one might be hiding with a misunderstanding of what "neutrality" means here) would reveal that Trump does lie far more often than other politicians (Republican or Democrat).
 * Then there's the matter of what he lies about, such as the severity of Covid-19, which he knew damn well about. For the benefit of future readers, Covid-19 was a pandemic that started in 2019 that the Obama administration tried to prepare for but that Trump scrapped the defensive playbook for as well as sane actions for.  Covid-19 would go on to (as of this posting) kill 200,000 people in the US in a continuing rampage while (in Trump's prior words) "shithole countries" pretty much contained the situation.
 * The only way one cannot look at those facts and see how dangerous the lie is, is to be a Trump cultist who is never going to be interested in what this community defines as neutrality. While I'll get that plenty of non-Americans might be laughing at the US instead of angry at what Trump is doing, the only way an American cannot be angry about these facts is to be a Trump cultist who is never going to be interested in what this community defines as neutrality.  And that anger (or any other emotion) doesn't automatically disqualify someone from editing, it's how they use it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A "Trump cultist"...exactly what is that?--MONGO (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Want to clarify that concur that the reliable sources do state that Trump lies more than any other President, just so we are clear.--MONGO (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * MONGO Apparently, a "Trump cultist" is simply someone who wants to inject some basic facts about Trump in his lead. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the opposite of what you're trying to do. You are trying to get us to downplay how much Trump lies under the pretense of focusing on other topics, using false equivalence to other politicans by misrepresenting sources that actually disprove your arguments. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The only thing the Politfact ref provides me is ample evidence that they all lie, but Trump apparently lies more and according to you, about something as bad as the pandemic.--MONGO (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a pretty clear difference in the numbers, which are in line with reliable sources that you'd hopefully be accepting. Please stop misrepresenting my statements, and please stop feeding Swag Lord. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the opposite of what you're trying to do. You are trying to get us to downplay how much Trump lies under the pretense of focusing on other topics, using false equivalence to other politicans by misrepresenting sources that actually disprove your arguments. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mongo, you're surely aware that there are a number of Trump followers who blindly accept anything Trump even suggests is completely true and that everything Wikipedia considers a reliable source is lying. Hell, QAnon is readily compared to a religion. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not know what those numbers are. I know many liberals and conservatives and none adhere to anything QAnon espouses. I don't know why the left and right always go out of their way when they write magazine/newpaper articles to make sure (especially in an election year) that the "opposition" is either a bunch of commies/green new deal loons/antifa rioters on one end and fascists/QAnon conspiracy theorists/white supremicists on the other. The overwhelmingly vast majority of persons do not fit any of those labels I am pretty confident and many actually fall over the line and fit a more social liberal/fiscal conservative mold for instance as an example...that is not defined solely by allegiance to any one party. Many find the entire election process to be so polarizing and saddening to not feel deeply troubled.--MONGO (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * MONGO I couldn't agree more! Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more, either. American politics recognizes that the vast majority of the voting population can't handle much complexity or nuance, and can't count higher than 2 (Democrat, Republican). But let's not get too far into WP:FORUM territory. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ian.thomson why are you using character attacks against me? For the one-millionth time, Trump lies--a lot! I never disputed that. All I requested is that we add some additional facts to his lead. What is wrong with that? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For better or worse, you very likely won't successfully get the lead amended until at least 6 months after Trump leaves office. Maybe worth trying then? The regular editorial process has totally broken down on this page, as you may realise seeing the number of archives, 2 DS restrictions and 47 active "current consensus". I know it's not an ideal answer, but just saving you some time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * While there are always a few dissenters, always editors who resent pesky process rules standing between them and their preferred content, most of those who have been around this article regularly since late 2016 agree that things were significantly (I would say dramatically) improved by those 2 DS restrictions and the current consensus list. I'm not going to count the ways in this off-topic tangent. As for the number of archives? I'm afraid you've lost me there, as I thought discussion was considered a good thing around here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * you very likely won't successfully get the lead amended until at least 6 months after Trump leaves office is nonsensical considering the reality of the amendments that have actually occurred in the lead, long before 6 months after he leaves office, including the recent addition of COVID-19-related content and removal of net worth. But it does set up a convenient "see, I told you so" should a proposal fail to reach consensus to include, so there's that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * ProcrastinatingReader *Sigh* I guess you're right. I didn't think adding a few key laws or policies would be so controversial. Hell, even FDR's lead makes no mention of his internment of the Japanese! That seems, by leaps and bounds, more deserving to be in a lead than calling someone a big-fat-liar. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, I advised you hours ago how to maximize your chances of success in this (obviously with no guarantee). You ignored my advice. Thanks for stopping by. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Mandruss Based off the vitriol & bias on this page, my "chances of success" seem close to zero. Thank you for providing such an inclusive and neutral environment. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't want a battleground. Calmly discussed, rational and well sourced details sometimes can be persuasive. You also don't want to take such a huge bite all at once...perhaps just focusing on adding/changing/subtracting one small detail at a time is better as a wholescale alteration to any portion of this article is not going to happen in the near term.--MONGO (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Re vitriol, silence ≠ agreement. If adding lead content were as easy as you want it to be, the lead would be three times its current size. Try to see the bigger picture here, you're hardly the first to propose what they see as obviously lead-worthy content. And I'm afraid you won't find an "inclusive and neutral environment" anywhere in the American politics area of Wikipedia, as well as various other areas, as Wikipedia editors aren't somehow superior to the general population. Blame human nature. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Mandruss I never thought for a minute that adding to Trump's bio would be "easy." In retrospect, I should have expected comments like "how DARE you compare Obama to Trump." It's unfortunate that Wiki's editors can't get past their blatant biases. I guess it is human nature. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * At least some of us explained the policy-based reasons for not comparing Trump's lead to Obama's lead, and "how DARE you compare Obama to Trump." hardly characterizes what we said. Since you seem intent on distortions, I think I'm about done here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Pandemic statement in lead
About my removal in the article saying "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", as you understand, I removed it as I said and you agreed it broke WP:NPOV. I think that the sentence egregiously breaks that policy, both the wording of the policy and the spirit of it, and so the sentence either needs to be gone or extensively rewritten.

I however do have an issue with you reverting the edit even though you agree with it. WP:BRD suggests that making bold edits either improves Wikipedia or stimulates discussion. However, you reverting but agreeing with me means that I can't meaningfully discuss the issue with you, as there are no differences to settle. So I would prefer my edit to be reinstated so either a) the biased sentence stays gone or b) someone reverts me and discusses here why they think the edit should remain. Even if you think the edit will be reverted anyway, I think for the above reason it's better for someone who doesn't agree with me to revert the edit instead. Either way the page still gets reverted, so no difference is made to the article. -- Ted Edwards  21:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I read it, the content should remain because it has talk page consensus, which makes it protected from BOLD edits; see archives. See also "Remedy instructions and exemptions" in this page's top material. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The statement already has consensus, as Mandruss says, after very extensive discussion. Go to the archives if you want read it through. The bottom line is that this sentence accurately summarizes Trump's conduct, as reflected by the reliable sourcing, on what is likely the most important aspect of his tenure as president. Neutralitytalk 22:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ted, as I said on your talk page, you Tartan457 violated both of the Discretionary Sanctions page restrictions when you edited that bit. It's beside the point who reinstated the consensus. SPECIFICO talk▪︎01:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This situation would probably benefit from a consensus list entry and a hidden comment pointing to it. Then, perhaps editors like Ted can avoid trouble (and wasted time). But I wouldn't be sure which discussion(s) to link to in the entry, among that mess of discussions. If that question could be answered, I'm happy to do the work. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I absolutely agree that the sentence breaks WP:NPOV, and probably WP:BLP, as well. "Reacted slowly" is the part that I think is most problematic, as that is an opinion. —  Tartan357   ( Talk ) 00:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither have you edited my talk page, nor have I edited the article more that once, so I cannot have broken either of the discretionary sanctions.
 * Regarding the topic of discussion, I understand that being neutral is easier said than done, and true, unbiased statements can still seem biased. Case in point: the sentence "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency" is completely true, but looks very biased even though it isn't. There however is no way that the sentence can be made to look unbiased, so I support that statement being in the article. The two main problems with the sentence in question when I edited it though are whether he acted "slowly" or not, as said, it's a matter of opinion, and cannot be taken as unbiased fact. There was also a sentence (since removed by someone else) about the Trumps being tested positive, which seemed to be placed next to the sentence in question to imply that it Trump's own fault he got covid. While the pandemic is an important part of his tenure, I believe in the lead it should rather be a brief overview of what he did during the pandemic e.g. set up the task force, leave the WHO etc. rather than saying whether he dealt with it well or badly.
 * The phrase "minimized the threat" I think is also problematic, but rather due to it seeming to mean the opposite of what it's meant to mean, it sounds like he made the US epidemic less severe.-- Ted Edwards  00:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

"Slow" COVID-19 reaction in the lead
ORIGINAL EDIT SUGGESTION: "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."

HAKO9 RESPONDED: "see the discussion on this talk page above. There is a broad consensus among editors for inclusion of the descriptor with backing from sources [66], [67], [68] , [69] , [70] , [71], to list a few.” (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC).

MY RESPONSE TO HAKO9’S RESPONSE: COVID-19 is a novel coronavirus. "A novel coronavirus is a new coronavirus that has not been previously identified," according to the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html). With my original edit suggestion in mind, one cannot unambiguously describe Trump’s reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic as “slow” since there is nothing to which his reaction can be compared. Describing Trump’s reaction as “slow” is based on flawed reasoning and no encyclopedia can be taken seriously when it's founded on unsound information. Also, all but one of those sources are liberal biased according to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/, invalidating their opinions and authority. Ktg.jr.md (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OP refers to this discussion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow. Your argument is so full of holes, I'm not sure where to start. This is largely because you lack knowledge of Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, but you don't seem to have much awareness of that. And partly because you're simply careless about your facts.
 * While editor reasoning plays a part, Wikipedia's primary criterion for inclusion is what reliable sources say. Therefore Describing Trump’s reaction as "slow" is based on flawed reasoning is itself flawed reasoning when you're on a Wikipedia talk page. If a majority of reliable sources call it slow (or say similar things), we can call it slow whether you or anybody else agrees with them or not.
 * all but one of those sources are liberal biased according to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ - Incorrect. That site rates those six sources as follows:
 * Time - left-center
 * NPR - left-center
 * Politico - least biased
 * KHN (Kaiser Family Foundation) - least biased
 * AP News (Associated Press) - least biased
 * New York Times - left-center
 * Can you produce six sources rated that close to center who contradict those sources?
 * Ad Fontes Media produces widely respected media bias charts and also rates those sources highly over all. Can you produce a widely respected media bias analysis that does not?
 * invalidating their opinions and authority - Incorrect, per WP:BIASED. If we invalidated biased sources, there would be no reliable sources left. If you think "your" sources are unbiased, you should take a very hard look at your own bias.
 * Five of those six sources are listed as "generally reliable" at WP:RSP based on past Wikipedia discussions (the sixth, KHN, is not listed there; see WP:RSPMISSING). This is ultimately how we judge the reliability of sources, not by ad hoc discussions on article talk pages. You may discuss the reliability of a source at WP:RSN, but I wouldn't advise it unless you have far stronger arguments than you have presented here.
 * Wikipedia editors have weighed all factors and reached a consensus for the language currently in the article. That is how Wikipedia works, and the acceptance of consensuses we disagree with is a routine and frequent part of Wikipedia editing. Please respect the process. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Media Bias/Fact Check is not a reliable source. All major media except Fox News lie near the center of the U.S. political spectrum. Until that changes, most of the news sources used in articles will be centrist. Furthermore, Trump's slow response is a matter of fact, not opinion. Experts can compare his actions with what they advised at the time and what other nations did, as well as look at government response to previous pandemics. They can also cite infection, hospitalization and death rates compared to other nations. The U.S. is in the top ten of over 200 countries, despite the pandemic arriving later than other countries with high infection rates. TFD (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Slow" is still an opinion, even if it is expert opinion. If it's a notable and reliable opinion, it should be included in that context, not as fact. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding neutrality to COVID-19 response in the fourth paragraph of this article
To keep neutrality in this article, I believe the words of "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" should be changed. Something along the lines of "Trump had instituted policies to mitigate the threat of COVID-19 including (insert policies here). Many have criticized Trump, stating he acted slowly, he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments." The current state of the aforementioned line has had some controversies about it not being truly neutral on the matter, as well as not adding any of the polices he did enact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by State College CONELRAD (talk • contribs) 20:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * See the discussion immediately above. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2020
Under the 2020 Presidential campaign subsection, opponent is incorrectly spelled as opponet. Please fix. Rohagr (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yes check.svg Done Glen (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

COVID Section
Wouldn’t COVID related stuff be more relevant in the health and lifestyle section, maybe not fully, but at least mentioned? Flalf Talk 18:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Verbatim Trump quotes
You restored your text–including the Trump quote–with the edit summary that it is "important context." I can live with your opinion that it's necessary to spell out why Trump believes it's important to get his nominee confirmed immediately but is repeating his verbal flatulence du jour encyclopedic? The sentence works just as well without to overcome "this scam that the Democrats are pulling". And this edit this edit is pretty much repeating every lie he's uttered about his non-existent America First Health Care Plan. If anywhere, it should go into the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign article because that joke of an executive order is nothing but empty campaign blather, probably written by Stephen Miller after Trump was made to shut up by that terrific lady at the townhall. I'm pretty sure that your intention wasn't to promote Trump's "vision" but that's what the paragraph does. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Sorry about that, wrong link. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the paragraph about the Trump's new health-care plan that isn't really a plan. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

My bad. Not what I meant. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is stale
Much of the content has remained static for literally years and it needs a major refresh. I'm attempting to do that, and now I see someone wants to take it all out. I suggest we need to talk about an overhaul here to prioritize and update the content. soibangla (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This article has over 3,000 page watchers. I don't think any attempt to do a "major refresh" or "overhaul" will meet with success unless any substantial changes are proposed on the talk page. There are 122 pages of talk page archives. Changes are thoroughly discussed! Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say most truly biographical content is static for literally years – that's the nature of biography. But, if we're talking about an overhaul, I fully support an overhaul that removes much of the detail about his presidency and surrounding domestic and foreign relations and policy issues. This article does not need 487 words about "ISIS, Syria, and Afghanistan", for example, and other articles are better suited for that kind of information. I would expect to find that in a biography in book form, but we have far less space to work with here. As of this comment, the article is at 125% of the size at which it "Almost certainly should be divided" per guidelines, and growing. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are just talking about moving content from this page to another Trump-related page, I think you'll have more success than proposing a complete rewrite. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked, but I assume most/all of this is already in those other articles. If it isn't, it becomes even harder to justify here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Mandruss has said what I would have said. This article should be about Donald Trump, not four years of American political history. The article should also not be a catalogue of random quotes from or about the subject. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing any political history except with Trump at the center, i.e. bio-worthy. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not everything that has Trump at the center is bio-worthy. Trying to reconnect (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the "Investigations" and "Impeachment" sections can be updated. I believe they are largely concluded.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

This edit is not "superfluous"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&curid=4848272&diff=980866170&oldid=980865795

It corrects some significant flaws of the paragraph and should be restored

soibangla (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Paragraphing of the lead section
User:Davide King changed the paragraphing of the lead section, by combining the first paragraph (two sentences saying he is president and before that was a businessman and television personality) with the second paragraph (about his early life and business ventures). I have changed it back to the longstanding version pending discussion here. I can understand the rationale for the change (a short paragraph of only two sentences would generally be frowned upon, and the change gives us a four paragraph lead instead of five). On the other hand, for such a highly visible and much-visited article (tens of thousands of views per day), it may make sense to set off what he is currently known for clearly and up front. The wording of the two sentences in the lead paragraph has been endlessly debated and now requires consensus to make any change at all. The short first paragraph has been in place for a long time - years - and IMO it would require consensus to change it. Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The status quo works better for me, and I can't begin to articulate why that is. While two-sentence paragraphs might be avoided as a general rule, I have absolutely no problem with a two-sentence first paragraph of a biography. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I prefer the longstanding version. If the other paragraphs were equally short I would think again, but having such a brief opening paragraph is actually preferable in this instance. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For readers who have never heard of him, the first two sentences answer the question, "Who is Donald Trump?". The subsequent material is the beginning of our description of his life; that being a distinctly different kind of content, a paragraph break makes sense from a writing standpoint. I don't think it should matter that few readers have never heard of him; it's just a good way to start any Wikipedia biography in my opinion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well said. This makes sense for him and for most biographies. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

COVID related perceived bias
I propose the line "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." be edited to express less of what could be considered bias, or just remove the line altogether. Char322 (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Sources seem clear in their characterization of Trump's response  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See, item 48. The preceding comment is misleading, as it is highly unlikely we are going to revisit this question so soon after such massive discussion. At least one such request has already been rejected for that reason. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Transition of power
Should the recent "peaceful transition of power" stuff be in this article or is it better suited for his other articles? It was recently added by, I reverted stating lets hold off on this for now. right now it is clearly undue for this article, and reinserted stating this part is okay. PackMecEng (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Usual objection to that level of recentist (and transient) detail in this article. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is something that would be highly relevant if it happens. If it doesn't happen, it's just another piece of stray rhetoric from Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, if it happens it is a big deal. PackMecEng (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Something for Presidency of Donald Trump, methinks. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It has also been thrown in Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign by Soibangla. PackMecEng (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also added to 2020 United States presidential election by . PackMecEng (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump has been known to spew empty rhetoric quite often. If this ends up being something that follows him for an unusually long time or something that is remembered as one of the biggest examples of his extraordinary speech, then it should be included (God forbid it actually happen). Right now this story is just too new to know with any objectivity what this will amount to, speculation aside. mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 22:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * While it most certainly is notable for him to suggest something of the sort in normal circumstances, it is at the moment just another one of his outlandish statements. I think that it may be best to wait to add this and see how everything pans out. If he doesn't actually notably resist transition of power, this may not be something to be included. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see you have consensus to remove the content as you did earlier today. As you raised this issue, I recommend you self-revert and put this matter to a vote here. soibangla (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the first time in the history of the Republic, to my knowledge, that a sitting President has suggested that he will not comply with the peaceful transfer of power after an election. To claim that any mention in the relevant biography constitutes "undue weight" is inexpressibly bizarre, speaking as someone who doesn't frequent this particular talkpage bubble but who has been applying WP:WEIGHT for a decade-and-a-half now. MastCell Talk 16:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Similar happened during the 2016 election. It is a standard Trump says crap and unless it happens it is meaningless like most of what he says. PackMecEng (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of anything he does or doesn’t do, his words alone are extraordinarily dangerous because he has the biggest bully pulpit on the planet and many millions of his supporters hang on his every word. Some believe he was sent by God to vanquish evil from America. He is giving people a “reason” to question and challenge the legitimacy of our democracy. The danger of such speech cannot be overstated and one doesn’t need to be a “liberal” to know it. soibangla (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Meh, probably not. PackMecEng (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In 2016, he wasn't Commander in Chief, able to deploy troops. (I doubt they'd follow his orders but what about the armed cruise rally followers?) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It really comes down to an if it happens situation. Right now it is undue weight for his main bio, but if it happens it will be lead material I am sure. PackMecEng (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a common misinterpretation of WP:WEIGHT, which is about the prevalence of views in reliable sources, not about our own analyses of relevance or importance. You and I feel that most of what emerges from Trump's undisciplined mind and mouth should be taken with grains of salt, but what we think is irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes. Reliable sources generally do not take it with grains of salt, and they haven't done so in this case. (This doesn't mean I support this content as proposed (see my comment above), but only that your WEIGHT argument is without merit. If you are not in fact referring to the WEIGHT policy, you should avoid words like "undue" and "weight" for the sake of clarity.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * When assessing due weight for a subject you need to look at the totality of their life and impact. In this situation it fails weight because of the quantity of text in proportion to his overall life and impact. Realistically that speaks more to recentism or NPOV than due weight at times. So while I partially disagree with your definition, I will try to be more clear in the future. PackMecEng (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I see a majority in favor of removing the new material. Also I should remind you, since this is new material the onus is on you to secure consensus for inclusion. Not the other way around. PackMecEng (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct as to the second point, which moots the first. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Does anyone think this is less significant to the totality of Trump's life than, e.g. the barebones recitation of detail regarding his "media career"? I don't. That whole section could simply say that he developed a bold public media persona through a variety of successful forays into a variety of media -- with a link to relevant breakout articles. I have frequetly been an opponent of WP:RECENTISM, but per this is Mt. Vesuvius rumbling. If Trump chickens out or loses decisively we will adjust the article text accordingly, but we do need to exercise some informed realistic judgment. This is not just bleach at Covid TV presser. The campaign has retained hundreds of attorneys who are reported by The Atlantic and others to be preparing to game the election laws. That comes on top of DeJoy. That's on top of other RS-documented voter suppression schemes. WP:ONUS does not confer a veto on one or two editors in the absence of a compelling argument. I don't see any. Finally, I think this content is very much a propos for his biography. It is so far outside of norms and precedents that it speaks directly to him as a person rather than a functioning civic leader.  SPECIFICO talk 23:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Stating a position is not a "veto", in intent or effect, and it's not for you or anyone else to declare that opposing arguments are not compelling and should be disqualified. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not helpful. Please do as I have, and speak to the merits. SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's more than helpful, it's essential. It's also not for you or anyone else to dictate the parameters of discussion. I have stated my position above (articulated at some length in the diff) and I have not been swayed by subsequent discussion. I'm sorry-not-sorry that you find that inconvenient, but that's how Wikipedia works. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The reverted material was speculation in an already unwieldy article; therefore, UNDUE and/or WP:CRYSTAL. We really need to be more cautious and avoid RECENTISM. This material also brings to mind similar unwarranted fear that was expressed by Democrats in 2016 when Trump responded to a similar question asked by HRC. According to the NYTimes, she called his response "horrifying". Looking at it retrospectively, it was all rather ironic. Also keep in mind that neither Trump nor any other sitting president has the power to do anything like that in the first place, so inclusion brings WP down to the level of clickbait media when we should be striving for encyclopedic quality. It is also partisan because it is the fear of most Democrats according to The Guardian, which also states, "Conversely, two in five (41%) Trump voters are worried that Biden will lose but not concede, as opposed to one in four Biden voters (28%)." If it is presented in that manner, which is actually compliant with NPOV, I probably wouldn't object, but that doesn't make it anymore DUE or less CRYSTAL. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 02:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not speculation when Trump himself has made those comments. -- Calidum  02:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 😂 When there's an "IF" involved, it's conditional, a presumption, a supposition; therefore, it's speculation. It has not yet happened, and there is a 50-50 chance that it will not happen. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 03:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Mostly irrelevant comments made by the article subject. Certainly doesn't belong on this article at least. Another reason that editors should try not to let their personal feelings on the news of the day impact their writing. WP:NOTNEWS. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing significance
This does not seem to be going away. Extensive coverage after yesterday's debate.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sensational statement in the summary
The statement I'm referring to is this one:

"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."

I think it should be removed. While it might sound relevant right now, it lacks a lot of foresight, especially when quoting the media to make it even more hyperbolic and sensational. In this climate of public distrust, Wikipedia needs to remain as neutral as possible and stay away from polemics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.179.255.54 (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you bother to read the sources which support this statement? Praxidicae (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That statement is the product of six weeks and over 10,000 words of discussion in Jan–Feb 2019. See, item 35, and follow its "link" for that discussion. The content is currently under re-discussion on this page, although the result is unlikely to be total removal. See for that. Per WP:TALKFORK and WP:MULTI, a separate discussion would be counterproductive, so I'm closing this one. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  19:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Add First Family health issues to Table of Contents
I haven't really edited this article in any depth, but as a reader, I was thrown when the Table of Contents didn't immediately tell me where to find coverage of the President and First Family's health issues. I would encourage editors here to make it easier to find. Feoffer (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know why Donald Trump was hard to find. As for the first family's health issues, you shouldn't expect to find that in a biography of Trump. The article title is not "Donald Trump and family". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it was hard to find either, but it's there!   Suggestion withdrawn!  lol Feoffer (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Another satisfied customer. Closing. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Treaties between Israel and UAE/Bahrain in the lead
"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, moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and withdrew U.S. troops from northern Syria." Would it be appropriate to add the US-mediated Bahrain–Israel normalization agreement and Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement? As such, it would read "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, moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, withdrew U.S. troops from northern Syria, and oversaw the normalization of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates & Bahrain." thorpewilliam (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It can be added. However, "America First" is marketing blurb which we should either qualify ("what he refers to as...") or replace with proper terms ("isolationist policies"). François Robere (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't appropriate, neither for the lead nor the body. "Oversaw?" Trump hosted a signing ceremony for three documents whose contents haven't been disclosed . Israel had been "normalizing" relations with the UAE and Bahrain for years before Trump took office. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is appropriate and significant definitely for the body at least., (noting here that this is was an "improbable diplomatic victory for Trump"), .--MONGO (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think so, too, MONGO, and I tend to agree that we have waaaay too much presidential trivia in this BLP that belongs in the Presidency of article as noted by ValarianB below, along with many other editors who have expressed concerns over the size of this article. I'm pretty confident that it will be trimmed down considerably after the election, not unlike what we've seen in all the other BLPs of presidents. There is so much trivia/rhetoric/speculation/opinion in this article now that I seriously doubt our readers get past the lead; unwieldy is an understatement. What will this BLP look like if he is elected for a 2nd term? SMirC-unnerved.svg <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 22:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This has precious little to do with Trump personally. Use it in Presidency of Donald Trump. ValarianB (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's in the presidency article where it belongs. The main reason this is an "improbable diplomatic victory for Trump" is because it could not have happened if Trump had stuck with the approval of West Bank annexation contained in the Kushner plan in January: "The proposal gives American approval to Israel’s plan to redefine the country’s borders and formally annex settlements in the West Bank." They had to do a 180 on that to get this deal. It was a serendipitous accomplishment that was in spite of their polices, rather than because of them. soibangla (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "America First" needs to be qualified or replaced with neutral language, but those particular treaties do not belong in this article as they have almost nothing to do with Donald Trump. I would also be sceptical of them belonging in the presidency article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I added it. I should note that the "America First" descriptor is in the previous sentence, not the one where this was inserted into. thorpewilliam (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This discussion does not support adding it to the lead, and I've reverted you. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Mandruss I didn't require approval before enacting the edit, though I did seek it and found several people to agree. thorpewilliam (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Which several people? For the lead, the only support I see is from François Robere. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've changed my mind. Move to Presidency of Donald Trump per, add context to reflect 's concerns. François Robere (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * François Robere (formerly), MONGO & Atsme. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're reading MONGO and Atsme incorrectly. Even if you're reading them correctly, that would make it four for, four against, which hardly constitutes a consensus to include anywhere in the encyclopedia, let alone the lead of this article. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You can add my opposition per my usual objection to that much presidency-related content in the lead, which currently devotes 77% of its space to 7% of his life, in an article that is not specifically about his presidency. That's excessive, and the last thing we need is to make it more excessive. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Potentially just a mention of somewhere of "Abraham Accords" rather than the full 'normalization of relations between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain etc would be an option? JLo-Watson (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This doesn't rise to the level of importance requiring inclusion in the lead. Neutralitytalk 18:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be added to the lead intro.Editing Scapegoat (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why User:Editing Scapegoat, seems pretty trivial, and rings of recentism. I'm also concerned, as some of your posts suggest you harbour anti-Muslim racism. Nfitz (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please strike that personal attack .Editing Scapegoat (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Expressing a concern, isn't a personal attack, User:Editing Scapegoat. You've only been on Wikipedia for 3 days, so perhaps you are not familiar with that. In your second edit here on Wikipedia (ignoring your edits on your own talk page) you repeated a racist anti-muslim lie that being anti-muslim isn't racist. Why shouldn't I be concerned? One has to be very racist to lie that vile anti-Muslim or anti-Jewish prejudice isn't racist! Nfitz (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump getting moved to the hospital
User:Cullen328, instead of fixing a minor factual error, you removed a bunch of clearly relevant information from the "Positive COVID-19 test" section. I ask you to self-revert, as that is clearly information that should be present. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, it's not. None of it should be present, please see WP:NOTNEWS. This is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. Jeppiz (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact of his hospitalization has been restored to that section. Not the experimental treatment; too much detail. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is my advice to you, . Do not be in such a rush to add information to the encyclopedia that was demonstrably false at the time you added it. You do not get brownie points for adding breaking news, especially when it is false when you added it. No, I will not self-revert to an edit that added false information at that point in time. Never. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

"although he later walked that back"
why is that "blatantly inappropriate language?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=981699233&oldid=981696462

From NYT source:

soibangla (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * From CNN source: "Conley issued an update on the President's condition". When one statement calls the cup half full and another calls it half empty, they are not inconsistent and "walk back" is undue (although "blatantly inappropriate" is an overstatement). As usual the article is far too reactive to daily headlines. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * They are inconsistent. See nyt.com headline at this moment: "Confusion and Concern as President Ails and Accounts Conflict" soibangla (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * CNN does have a headline, "White House sows confusion about Trump's condition...", so it's probably not a good example. But the question is moot since the article is far too reactive to daily headlines. This is a biography, not a summary of daily news about Trump. We should all be taking a longer term view at this article, as difficult as that is with an upcoming election. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , "tried to walk back" is the type of editorialism that doesn't work well in an encyclopedia article. It's best to stick to a factual reporting of the statements rather than this assessment by an apparent mind-reader. It's not encyclopedic. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 23:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The editor was free to change the language such that it did not change the meaning, but instead the editor took it out, thereby changing the meaning, then characterized it as "blatantly inappropriate." This sort of action makes it difficult to AGF. soibangla (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

IMO we should not try to put every day's news updates into this article. This is a biography and concerned with history. There is a separate article, linked in the Coronavirus section, where people can find all the day-to-day details. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand what you and Mandruss are saying, but that's not the issue of this topic. soibangla (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My point was that we should remove the whole sentence. The doctor said this, the other guy said that. Tomorrow the doctor says something else, another guy says something else, do we keep the first day's comments or replace them? IMO we should keep all of that breathless updating out of the article. To make it even clearer: I am going to boldly challenge that information and remove it from the article. Discuss. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I will change it to "early accounts of the president's condition were inconsistent." soibangla (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Agreed. We don't need an up-to-the-minute play-by-play in this article. Either he recovers and gets better, at which point a few sentences are warranted, or he doesn't get better and a larger section is warranted -- but in both events, it's something that will come in a couple weeks rather than a news stream right now. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 23:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO your edit swung too far the other way. soibangla (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you mean the Ronald Reagan comparison, I don't think that adds much - and could be deleted without loss to the article. But today's news, totally contradicting yesterday's reports which contradicted Friday's, shows how impossible it is going to be to try to keep up with the latest situation, or even to make a decent summary of where things stand. Let people go to the main article if they want the latest; that article is staying current. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Current tag
Trump is affected by a fast moving event so should be on top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.63.144 (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, since this article does not "document a current event". This article documents the life of Donald Trump. And we needn't add legitimacy to the rush to publish anyway. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree we don't need this notice. Virtually everything that happens to Trump is a "fast moving event". -- MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed notice is not needed. We had it briefly last night, but we're beyond that point now. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per  —  Tartan357   ( Talk ) 12:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

How are we beyond that point? He's in hospital and his condition is deteriorating. Things could change in short order, therefore it's current affected.--46.7.63.144 (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's an understandable confusion about the Current template that often leads to it being misused. It's not just for any article affected by a breaking news event; see its documentation and a bunch of discussions on or linked from its talk page for further details. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The template should just be abolished.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see how the current events taking place are more fast-moving than events of the past. If this is referring to Trump getting COVID-19, I'd argue that it's less fast-moving in terms of reasons we would include the template. The topic is very simple, one-sided, and factual, and is much less prone to false or unreliable sources. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

General discussion
You guys know the article better than I do but Trump just announced on Twitter that because Hope Hicks tested positive for COVID-19, Trump & Melania were entering quarantine. Tweet. Not sure whether this is notable or where. Just thought I'd share. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 04:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If he gets it I suppose it could be notable. As of right now probably not. PackMecEng (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd substitute "would" for "could", but otherwise sounds about right. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed as it is not yet ready for primetime. We are NOTNEWS. However, in a week or so if trump tests negative it may warrant a sentence somewhere. If positive then that is another story.--MONGO (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * He tested positive  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So has his wife.—Glenn L (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The thot plickens. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to someone else to add it. Very difficult from phone.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Where should this be inserted? Health section? Glen (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nowhere, just yet. The news is minutes old and there is no rush to publish. We can discuss it for a few days. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd wait till an official announcement from the WH...might be only a few hours or by Friday morning.--MONGO (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone's already inserted it. Glen (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I just boldly added a sentence to the 2020 presidential campaign section. I wanted to get something up instantly, but the wording/placement could probably be improved; let's discuss. I certainly think Trump testing positive himself is notable. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I wanted to get something up instantly - Strongly object to getting stuff up instantly. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think this is a WP:DEADLINEISNOW situation moreso than a WP:NODEADLINE situation. Let's put aside the immediatism/eventualism debate and focus on managing this as best we can. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well if you think so. Count me out, but knock yerself out brother. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ugh...well, if it has to go in, likely best in the Health section? I mean, obviously this is going to also end up in the intro shortly I suppose.--MONGO (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why does it have to go in? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that we should wait. but.....looks like unless someone wants to lock the article down.--MONGO (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's definitely noteworthy. Trump has been the most outspoken advocate for the virus being a "hoax" in the entire world. All our reliable sources are reporting on it and it will impact the election campaignig as he has to cancel appearances and rallies. No question in my mind. Glen (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You sure about that? and --MONGO (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Note anything? Glen (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then how would you have phrased it differently? I take BLP very seriously, especially considering this event...best to not play games at all.--MONGO (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with your reversion of the addition to the lead; it's significant enough for the body but not for the lead. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * added it in the COVID-19 section, which I think works better than where I added it, so I removed the mention I made. We've got sourcing to NYT and a few others. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI In_the_news/Candidates  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, this will affect the campaign & debates. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 05:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

WH Physician has chimed in now--MONGO (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The phrasing from another user drew a "likely from Hope Hicks" line explicitly, which I think is overstating what we know a bit. I adjusted it to merely note that she tested positive shortly before. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you . At the moment, we cannot say anything suggesting Hicks transmitted the virus to either Trump. Just that Hicks tested positive. The Trumps were tested and quarantined as a result. Those tests then came back positive.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep...just the facts.--MONGO (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Soon each paragraph will mention it apparently. Needs to come out but I already removed similar from the lead so up to another if they wish.--MONGO (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it might be worth considering also whether this should be in multiple sections. While it might be a bit early to place it in the lead, having it also in the health section might make sense since someone reading the article could reasonably expect to find it there. I'm not sure if there's a specific guideline regarding this but I'm curious what you all think about it. ChromeGames923 (talk · contribs) 06:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I've used up my 1RR, but we need some eyes on this page to keep it in check right now. just moved the information from the COVID-19 section to the health section that seems to go against the prevailing consensus here, and another user just added it to the lead again. Pinging  and anyone else who's around. &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Me too...I already spent my allowance. I concur now it is best placed in the COVID section.--MONGO (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant it when I said count me out. I won't be involved in this mad rush to publish NOW. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good call...and for the ITN it didn't get any headwind at all, so I am still a very reluctant supporter of this NEWS cycle. Have deep concerns about how this will play out as it surely is going to lead to a lot of hypotheticals and potential BLP concerns all around.--MONGO (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * For anyone who wants to make the click to revert, here's the stable version; the only constructive change since then has been changing "tweeted" to "announced" and "will" to "would"., forgot to ping you earlier, but I think you still have your 1RR. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Sdkb ✅ with a mention of reading the talk page. Aasim (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding your edit changing the link from COVID-19 to SARS-cov-2 since that's what the actual test is for, I'm not quite sure what to think. I understand where you're coming from, but COVID-19 is also much more the main page and seems the more useful link. Does anyone have strong views about this? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is simply incorrect to say they have tested positive for COVID-19. They could very well not get COVID-19 even though they've been infected with SARS-CoV-2. I piped the link as "coronavirus" because that's the WHO's recommended short name for the virus itself, and the cited sources say that they've tested positive for "coronavirus". — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 07:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There were huge and repeated title battles over the COVID-19 pandemic related articles in en.Wikipedia. I think it's safe to say that any consensus would now very likely converge on:
 * the pandemic is the COVID-19 pandemic
 * the virus is severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or SARS-CoV-2 for short
 * the disease is coronavirus disease 2019 or COVID-19 for short
 * Let's stick to an encyclopedic quality of terminology...
 * Boud (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, that's what I'm saying; thank you. These terms are being used interchangeably far too often. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 08:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Would be worth adding his move to a military hospital today

Location of positive test information within article
There's definitely some disagreement as to where the test result should be mentioned. Personally I would imagine many readers coming to this page would look for it under Donald Trump though the current version has it under Donald Trump, and obviously some have tried to insert into lede (and some have put in multiple sections). Interested in getting some consensus below. Glen (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support under Health and lifestyle until we get some formal confirmation as to how it will impact the presidential campaign (currently seems to be just speculation). Too early for lede. Glen (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For context, "Health and lifestyle" is a subsection of the "personal life" section, whereas "Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign" is the last subsection of the COVID-19 pandemic section, itself a subsection of the "presidency" section. My first inclination is that it's more appropriate for the mention to go within the presidency section than the personal life section, since the immediate clear significance of this announcement is not that it's drastically affected Trump's personal life but rather that it's affected the narrative of his presidency and campaign. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in Donald Trump per ; having it in that section also puts it in the context of how Trump's handled the pandemic and how it's impacted his campaigning. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 07:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in Donald Trump. Too soon to tell if it is a real health issue; mostly a political problem.  Against inclusion in the lead just yet. Bdushaw (talk) 07:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Except for the first paragraph, Health and lifestyle deals with announcements about Trump's health during the first campaign and throughout the presidency. I don't see the difference to this alleged positive test announcement. On the other hand, it's getting him out of the second debate, so it has at least that Effect[] on the 2020 presidential campaign. For now, I'd go with Health and lifestyle, though, and wait for further developments. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to Donald Trump, which is the only logical place for this information. It is about his health, not his campaign. --Zeamays (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * His health affects his campaign. - hako9 (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything going on in the United States affects his campaign. Your logic is a recipe for putting everything about Trump there. --Zeamays (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet, that section is quite terse, which I am sure everyone appreciates, given the size of the article. - hako9 (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - hako9 (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , could you please provide a rationale? —  Tartan357   ( Talk ) 08:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Testing +ve now, is transient, healthwise, unless it gets serious afterwards. It will likely have an effect on the campaign though, I feel. - hako9 (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * How could this test result not have an effect on Trump's health? Reports indicate the test result was confirmed, so it is definite. He has a serious disease for someone with his risk factors. --Zeamays (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , well, no, it has not yet been determined that he has the disease (COVID-19). It has been determined that he's infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that can cause COVID-19. Just because it can cause COVID-19 does not mean it will. Many people experience asymptomatic infections with SARS-CoV-2, and it cannot be assumed that he will get sick from this. —  Tartan357   ( Talk ) 08:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am not really averse to putting it in that section too, but most editors wouldn't like it being mentioned twice. If later reports find it as a serious health issue, we can definitely have it there, I think. - hako9 (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep where it is right now inside of the h3-level COVID-19 pandemic section, but (1) insert an h4-level subsection header just above the current sentence such as Infection of Trump with SARS-CoV-2; and (2) add a brief sentence that cross-links from the Health and lifestyle section to the Infection of Trump with SARS-CoV-2 h4-level section. Reasons: this is a question of Trump's health, but it is also a consequence of the pandemic, and the effects on the election campaign are not yet known. Trump's infection is important as part of the pandemic, i.e. the global event -- only a few other world leaders are known to have been infected, e.g. Boris Johnson. Boud (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Too early to move: Does not go under health and lifestyle at the moment.  If the virus does have an effect on his health, then we can mention it in that section in addition to the campaign section.  Currently, this event is notable only because of the affects it has on his political campaign.  If Donald Trump experienced this in his private life only, then I would say "health and lifestyle" under "personal life". Aasim (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment the NYT article currently used - https://archive.today/m5MNH - has a lot of material predicting the effects on the election campaign. Adding some of this snowballing by the NYT, with attribution to the NYT, could help bypass the question of shifting between sections. It depends if we want the snowballing or not. Boud (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Definitely not in the lead. Suggested locations here have been "Health and lifestye", "COVID-19 pandemic", and "Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign". My !vote is for the health section, where it obviously belongs. The pandemic section is about his actions related to the pandemic, not its effect on him, so not there no matter how his personal infection progresses. As for the campaign, not now. At this point we don't know what the effect on the campaign will be, it's all prophecy and guesswork. If it turns out to have a massive impact we could add that later. At that point I wouldn't mind having it in both Health (adding brief updates regarding progression/recovery) and campaign (when it turns out to have a significant impact). It definitely needs to be in the article somewhere NOW, and I favor the health section. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I also oppose noting this in the lead section at the moment. The huge death toll among Americans (21% of global deaths from COVID) is far more significant than Trump's own infection, which could be mild. If he becomes gravely ill as a result of the infection, we can reevaluate, but for now placement in the body of the article is sufficient. No view from me on the best place within the body to put this material. Neutralitytalk 17:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The current situation is: a sentence in the Health section and a section in the COVID-19 section. I can live with that. I think we have consensus not to put it in the lead, which means we can continue to remove it when people put it there (as they will continue to do). -- MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC) P.S. Boris Johnson DID become gravely ill from coronavirus, but it isn't in the lead of his article - just the text. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I consider it inevitable that his positive test will be in the lead, it is a major development relating to a major story of our time, particulary in light of his words and actions during this time, on the eve of an election, and these facts will not change with the passage of time, so we might as well include it now with a sentence at the end of paragraph four. soibangla (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The story of his infection is in its infancy. We don't know if this positive test is a two-day wonder, or the herald of something very important to his biography. As I noted above, the Boris Johnson article doesn't have it in the lead even though he was very ill, hospitalized, and later said it was touch and go whether he would survive. Apparently the editors of his article felt the incident was not significant enough to his biography to include in the lead. We need time to develop that kind of historic outlook before we decide whether it belongs in this article's lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But consider the sentence that would immediately precede a new, final sentence in paragraph four: "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." And now he's at Walter Reed. soibangla (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We all "get" the irony/poetic justice/karma/whatever applies to the current situation. So do some commentators, at least the ones who want to say it out loud. Someday historians may make it important. Not yet. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Your bold addition of a duplicate sentence to the health section here seems to go against the prevailing consensus here. Could you consider self-reverting? (I have used up my 1RR, so I can't revert yet myself.) &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (Once that's done, we should add a hidden text warning, since editors seem not to be checking the talk page before adding a duplicate mention, and we don't want to have to keep reverting.) &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence has already been removed, but not by me. I don't object to adding a comment within Wikitext explaining that. Interstellarity (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.&#32;Scapegoat (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is time to move Trump's case of COVID-19 to the section Donald Trump. The reasons given earlier (no symptoms etc.) are no longer true. In fact, they were obsolete when it was announced he was having symptoms Friday, October 2, when he was moved to Walter Reed.  --Zeamays (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the new circumstances, if there is no further objection by October 4, 2020, I will move this information to Donald Trump.--Zeamays (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The discussion above clearly favors keeping it in its own section in the COVID-19 section. I am personally OK with having a one-sentence mention in the Health section, but that's all. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * MelanieN: The discussion was all before the President started showing symptoms, so your point is incorrect.  The main reason stated for not moving was that he didn't have the disease.  Actually that's a false distinction, but that was the reason given. --Zeamays (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Um, many if not most of the !votes above were not contingent on Trump remaining asymptomatic. This would be a disruptive move clearly against the prevailing consensus. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sdkb: The main reason given in previous discussion is obsolete, so votes taken earlier are out of date. What other reasons do you think are convincing?  I just don't see it.  The discussion should be re-started and previous voteds disregarded, sorry.  --Zeamays (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Recentism and NOTNEWS
Could we all please resist any temptation to update this article based on the latest news report on whatever media. The main thrust of coverage so far is that the situation and its ramifications are unclear and under investigation. The only thing we seem to know is that the White House has not been forthcoming with the kind of information that would make the press' investigation quicker, easier, and perhaps more fruitful.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more. But nothing is more powerful than many editors' need for the newsroom adrenaline rush. Many others believe that Wikipedia must function like a newspaper because many readers expect it to function like one. No doubt others do it because they see others doing it and assume that's how it's supposed to be. Combined, they usually form a majority, and majority wins when there is no higher governance in play. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. Trump's (and his wife's) positive test for COVID-19 is significant since he is leading the country during a COVID-19 pandemic. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson tested positive for COVID-19 and spent 2 weeks in the ICU, yet it is only mentioned in one paragraph in Boris Johnson. Time will tell what significance Trump's diagnosis will have. TFD (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed to be reading that we should respect RECENTISM. Indeed. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 17:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * They may think it's a movement, and that's what it is. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes we are not a news organization. But this news has important political implications.  We have the  template because this information may change quickly without notice.
 * Oh, and Donald Trump is now hospitalized: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/president-donald-trump-s-hospitalization-has-aides-wondering-if-more-should-have-been-done-to-protect-him-from-covid-19/ar-BB19ECxy and https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-hospitalized-out-of-an-abundance-of-caution-white-house-says-he-ll-work-from-walter-reed/ar-BB19Ew9L Aasim (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But this news has important political implications. Granted. On this topic, my objection is more NOTNEWS than RECENTISM. This could have waited a few days without doing significant harm to the nation or Wikipedia's reputation, and the resulting content would have been better as a result. Wikipedia should not be a place for readers to go for breaking news, no matter how much some of them want to do so. My strong opinion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither WP:Recentism nor WP:Not news advise not updating an article with clearly significant information just because it is very recent and a news item. I think most editors seem to feel a mention is WP:DUE, and if there is disagreement on that point, it should be discussed in terms of due weight, not through assertions of "not news". &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * There is now so much media coverage (including long form) of Trump's illness and treatment, that it should be expanded to a small section in this article, and documented at more length in its own article. This is a good source about fitting what's known about Trump's condition, with the general progression and treatment of Covid-19.  Recentism isn't too much of an issue here.  The NYer article mentions this is the worst presidential medical crisis since Reagan was shot in the 1980's, and also that a president going into an election in such condition is unprecedented.  Or maybe it was a different article that said the latter.  Either way, it's already historically significant. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Underrepresenting Trump's "deal" with women? A gender bias?
I write without a strong opinion, but a question or a suspicion. The post is prompted by 's recent edit of the Donald_Trump subsection, with the comment "I agree we can trim cites here, but let's get rid of Slate and Cosmo rather than NYT". I recognize the less-than-world class nature of the citations, but one of the reasons for those citations (which, I included them) was that they have extensive documentation/examples of what Trump has said about women; the citations gave the reader ready access to those examples. My reason for posting, however, is that I am wondering if the whole issue of Trump v. women isn't underrepresented in the article, and I have in mind the gender bias problem that Wikipedia has. People have been trimming and trimming, with the result that that subsection, and related subsections nearby, are small indeed - this section "Comments about women" is left with the one grotesque example of Trump's comment about Kelly after the debate. Trump's horrible history wrt women is extensive indeed - not only comments, but actions, rape allegations. Not just sexist, but misogynistic, a word which likely should be in the article. Clinton famously called him on it during their debate, you may recall. To my mind, it rises to the level of his racist views, which has warranted a sentence in the lead. (I've often thought that sentence should be "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as sexist, misogynistic, racially charged or racist." But after all the trimming, the issue is reduced to essentially a couple of footnotes. This is a biography of Trump - his history and who he is. What sayeth you fellow Wikipedians? Bdushaw (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt that this is being underplayed because Trump is male. More likely, editors are bending over backward to appear neutral in the face of overwhelming Trump-negativity in RS. We get a lot of anti-Trump-bias complaints, but we would get a ton more if not for that bending over backward. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant, rather, that since most Wikipedia editors are male, the gender issue may not be perceived as that important, hence it may be downplayed/underrepresented. (If this article were written by female Wikipedia editors...I suspect it would look different...) Bdushaw (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant, rather, - Sorry, I don't see any difference between what I said and what you clarified. Anyway, the article enjoys the frequent participation of multiple established editors of the female persuasion, so I guess this is a question for them. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh no, it's a question for us. And we shouldn't care in the slightest about complaints that aren't backed by sources. François Robere (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's my answer, then: Like any man, I will always lack a female perspective, but I don't need one to be very tough in this area. Don't get me started on how I feel about Trump vis-a-vis women, or Trump vis-a-vis anything else, as that would violate NOTFORUM. End. This discussion feels a bit too FORUM-y and "blue sky", anyway, as I can't picture a scenario where it results in significant change to the article. If we want to discuss expanding content per WEIGHT, fine, but a conversation about gender bias is not going to bear fruit. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is too short, as is Donald Trump. François Robere (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Of relevance: Gender bias on Wikipedia Bdushaw (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Insofar as article content has been affected, I suspect it already has. When I introduced that section it was (well, first it was non-existent) #Controversial_comments_about_women.  That section, perhaps overly wordy/listy/etc, seemed to me then not quite enough coverage (the Clinton debate exchange was omitted), but I thought it could be refined.  But it has been "trimmed" down to Donald_Trump; next I expect the section to be entirely deleted - I am suspecting that this reduction is on account of a gender bias, a failure of editors to recognize the importance of the issue on account of the gender(world view) of the editors.  Again my opinion here is not adamant - but I thought the concern was worthy of a discussion.  And it certainly is content related; there are reliable citations on the issue (several have been deleted). Bdushaw (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree this article needs to meaningfully address the sexism/misogyny. I've done some copy editing to the section and cut some over-citation, but otherwise kept the section as it was. While I personally would not object to an modest expansion of the material, note that many other editors feel strongly about article size (see further up this talk page). One thought: Should there be a standalone article on Trump's sexist comments, akin to the standalone article on racial views of Donald Trump? That would allow for a comprehensive treatment (leaving a summary on the biographical article). Neutralitytalk 14:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreeing the issue is not unrelated to the excessive length question. I understand trimming, but there is a real danger of misrepresenting things if one trims back too much. I am thinking of this diff of a recent edit.  The short version was just playing into Trump's intent with the frivolous lawsuits - but one needs text to explain it. Bdushaw (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * On 1 Sep, the file size was 478 kB. It is now 494 kB. I don't think things have been trimmed too much. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Mysogny of Donald Trump—I'd support it. I was familiar with the NYT article but I hadn't read the section or the other sources until just now. That’s not a paragraph about his comments about women, it’s a paragraph about his spat with Megyn Kelly (who herself has quite the track record at Faux News), with People magazine as the major source for most of it. I'd say both Slate (which is the newest source) and Cosmo (lots of examples) in this case are better sources than BBC or People magazine. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a split as well. In my experience in many cases it's better to just skip something that try to squeeze it into just a few sentences.  And it's stuff we really should be including too, not just tabloid gossip. As an aside Bdushaw, speaking as a woman, in my experience the men here tend to bend over backwards in their attempts to be fair to a woman's point of view.   Which is not to say that they do not get nervous when women start to try to explain how they feel about their point of view and suggest that we need to be careful about getting too FORUM-y. {  (Bdushaw, I will "chat" with you on your TP, okay?  Gandydancer (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was beginning to think along those lines - rather than "trimming" and leaving an incomplete description of an issue, it may be better just to delete the whole thing. It suggests a possible strategy to shortening the article may be to select and delete whole subsections, rather than cut to something that could be misleading. Not easy with this article; how to select? Happy to chat... Bdushaw (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support split. Then we can rewrite the sections here from main. François Robere (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Too long!
This article is now 129,769 characters, 20,203 words, 108 sections, 1,094 references of which only 966 are unique. This needs some serious trimming and splitting. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We know, it's been discussed numerous times (in August, for example), and we're doing the best we can. Please, remove the tag. It isn't helpful, and it adds 32 unnecessary bytes to the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It HAS been discussed, and there are some tentative plans, but a general agreement, I believe, that nothing much can happen until after the election and the article settles down some. I agree with the advice to remove the tag...while true, it serves no purpose and is an (minor) annoyance on an article with huge traffic. Bdushaw (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's pretty simple - eliminate all the trivia, speculation and mountains of material that fail WP:10YT, and don't forget to remove the material that is not supported by the cited source, if any, and then do the grammatical copy editing. Once that is done, people might actually read beyond the lead. There's no room to move anything from here over to Presidency of - it's 168 kB (26369 words) of "readable prose size", and this one is 126 kB (20149 words) of "readable prose size" (100kB is the gotta split limit). A lot of work went into adding all that material, not to mention the time spent debating back and forth. Now we have to spend more time removing/trimming those articles, more debating - ugh. There are so many articles about Donald Trump or that are directly related to Donald Trump that he warrants his own encyclopedia. SMirC-chuckle.svg <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 17:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The tag is part of how you solve the problem. If you don't tell people the issue, they won't help. Use the power of the crowd. We have 100s of good editors. In a single edit I was able to remove 303 characters. If you won't admit the problem, you cannot find a solution. Why put off until tomorrow what you can accomplish today? --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It's definitely too long; there's also very little chance of any substantial changes happening before the election. The "Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op" section seems the most ripe for removal in my opinion.  The COVID section could easily be reduced by 25% as well. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support dramatic article size reduction, oppose a tag, same reasoning as the last time around. See archives for that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Since dramatic size reduction has failed, and clearly doesn't have much support, what about cutting the article into Trump Part 1 and Trump Part 2?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I suggested that years ago. Can't be done because it has never been done. No thinking outside the box allowed at Wikipedia. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But, in fairness, the article size guidelines have as much to do with "How long does it take to read the entire article?" as with "How long does it take to download the page?". So that kind of split wouldn't really address the problem; the total time to read would be unchanged. The idea is that 100 kB of readable prose is a good maximum for any article, including the biography of any person, and I would agree. The problem is that this one contains too much of the wrong kind of information for a biography. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't realise that you'd proposed it before. Well, I think we should start thinking outside the box. It is still possible that Trump will win the next election. The article is bound to expand even if he loses. The problem with nominating the "Lafayette Square" section for removal is that some editors think it is the equivalent of Kristallnacht. While having a shorter article might be ideal, it is hard to believe that we will get consensus trimming the article. Trump is unique in that he had prominent career in business and entertainment and then became US President. Some of the earlier sections are now cut to the bone so much that they don't represent his life properly. Depending on the outcome of the election, it might be worthwhile having an RfC on this issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In hindsight I should have removed that first bullet. Better yet, I should have thought a little longer before posting it. As expressed in the second bullet, I don't see what would be accomplished. Sure, we could then say that neither half of the biography exceeds the size guideline, but that would sidestep the more important fact that the biography does. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Splitting the article in half would solve technical issues. No, it wouldn't solve readability.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The technical issue is the most important one, so let's just do it. Who reads a whole article anyway? Readers can still do it if they want to. It would just be like a two volume book. WP:PRESERVE and WP:FORK should be obeyed. We do not throw away good content, even when its current value might only be historical. Wikipedia isn't paper, and our biographies are not typical biographies. Is it possible to have a TOC that would cover both volumes/parts? -- Valjean (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The technical issue is the most important one - Please elaborate on the technical issue. The answer to your question is no, because this has never been done before or anticipated. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , download time and cellphone use for one "volume". That's a problem when it gets too large. Actual size of total content of a complete article in several "volumes" is no problem. It can be done easily, so let's think outside the box and use this easy solution. Deleting content solely because of size issues violates policy and is a slap in the face to good faith editorial work. We should follow the POLICY of WP:PRESERVE. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is useful, but not sufficient for this task. Splitting solves the problem. Start with an article "home" page (volume 1), where a TOC shows content of all volumes. We have tech geniuses here who can easily solve this. -- Valjean (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. We *already* have "split" the article into at least 30 subpages, everything from Presidency of Donald Trump to Wealth of Donald Trump to Donald Trump in music.  The problem is that people don't respect WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.  I don't believe we're near the technical limit yet, which is 2MB after transclusions. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This article need not and ought not PRESERVE content that is inappropriate for this article and is present in other articles. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * While you have a point, the fact is that the article prior to "Political career" is threadbare. It is reasonable for readers to come here and expect to see information about Trump's golf courses and his foreign policy forays. This article has reached the point where there is too much material for a biographical article. Yes, most of us could put together a much smaller article, but there are too many editors involved, and many of them think X or Y just has to be included in depth while A or B can be discarded, and vice versa. We tried shrinking the article and failed.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support dramatic size reduction, ideally to around 80kb or less. This should accoplished by splitting out sections and use of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, rather than deleting sourced information from the encyclopedia entirely. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific. We have tried and failed. How do we do it?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Start with WP:BOLD editing and take it to the talk page if there is a dispute, same with any other article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is now at 126 kB, and growing. It hasn't stopped growing since 2016. We are not going to get to the recommended maximum 100 kB, let alone 80 kB, by "same with any other article" BOLD editing. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a 3 kB reduction in a single day. We should continue. I also propose splitting Presidency of Donald Trump into 2017-2018 and 2019-2020. That will allow us to move more from this article into those articles. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Proposed at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I would oppose a tag. We use tags to draw attention to comparatively little-known or obscure article; by contrast, this article is high-traffic, so there's little need to bring attention to any issue. Frankly, I don't think the article length is dramatically out of scale. Sure, there should be some trimming, but I don't see an urgent need to get to 80 kb. If editors think there should be major size reductions, they should also put forward specific proposals on what they wish to cut. Neutralitytalk 18:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For years, I and others have been saying that this level of detail about the presidency is both unnecessary and inappropriate in this article. The overall response has been either opposition or the talk equivalent of blank stares. #37 is a dismal failure and might as well be cancelled for all the effect it has had. If we can't get past that, more specific proposals would be a waste of time. We need more experienced editors getting behind the concept first, and then we can proceed with specifics. You could be one of them. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  22:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think we should wait until after the election results are out. If he wins, the article need much larger cuts than if he loses.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The page takes five seconds to load on PC, that is way too long. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  07:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support a tag: clearly many editors are unaware of the problem and continuing inserting their pet peeves into the article. We have to make sure everyone is aware of the issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * As we discussed before, substantial reduction of the size of the article by "trimming" is not likely to be effective, and I actually object to some of the "trimming" that has been going on. Often the context of actions or statements are removed, at which point the original thing at issue has lost all meaning.  It's clear the solution to the excessive length is a redesign/restructuring of the article, coupled with splitting the article - I have in mind splitting out three articles:  Trump as president (biography, not presidency), Trump in pandemic, and Trump as businessman, for example.  Reducing the article to the personal information, extended abstracts of those three topics, say, and a skeleton framework (I mentioned a Table before; could be an organized annotated list) of some kind giving a roadmap to the many, many Trump articles that exist.  One issue is that to synthesize a large amount of text into an extended abstract could be difficult on Wikipedia - witness the trouble we have with sentences in the lead.  Such a restructuring right now is just not possible/not advisable - all things will be possible after November 3.  I would actually prefer that people stop with the aggressive trimming for the time being; its just a reality that Trump needs a lot of explaining. Bdushaw (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Supporting the tag fully. It's absurd to claim that "we know" that the article is too long, as if this was a reason not to have a tag in place. Not enough editors know, and editors are not sufficiently aware of the issue. Otherwise the article would not be too long. Hopefully this is the last time any editor will claim that an article that is too long shouldn't have a tag saying so.
 * Since pretty much all of the content in this article is also present in other articles, WP:PRESERVE is irrelevant and bold removal of content from this article can be encouraged. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support trimming Donald Trump, which has a dedicated article, and expanding other sections which are too short ATM. François Robere (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A NEW MILESTONE: Today the article's file size briefly topped half a million bytes for the first time, in this edit. I said in this 17 August comment that "We are on track to exceed half a million bytes before the election," and we beat that by four weeks! This article's editors are nothing if not prolific. Great work, guys! &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Readable prose size was 126 kB on October 2-3. As of now, readable prose size is actually lower (123 kB), even though the article is now better than it was three days ago. Neutralitytalk 23:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's terrific. Now, to get down to the recommended maximum, all we have to do is repeat that improvement 7.6 more times without adding anything new in the meantime, and then remove an equal amount any time anything is added from then forward. I don't know what it's going to take to convince people that the usual surgical trimming is not going to solve this article's chronic size problem. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2020
The notion that Donald Trump has made "many false or misleading statements is not entirely true." So please remove that statement. When statements are taken out of context, they can be construed to be true, while that is not really what he said. , Patriot2721 (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌ Wikipedia doesn't follow a "truth isn't truth" approach. We follow the reliable sources. See talk page archives. Neutralitytalk 22:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump discharged from hospital
Hospitalization with COVID-19: Does the verb "discharge" apply when you can order the hospital/your doctors to discharge you? The cited source (WaPo) uses "discharged" in the caption of the photograph; in the text they say "returned to White House" and "a few hours before leaving." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk • contribs) 06:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Discharged" is the term uniformly used by reliable sources to describe his exit from the hospital on October 5th. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 12:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"America first"
As suggested earlier, I made a clarification to the lead, which was then moved and deleted. I don't think we should use the buzz phrase "America First" without at least some clarification as to what it is. Opinions? François Robere (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My only opinion, which is not an opinion but a Wikipedia guideline, is that the lead summarizes the body. As I indicated, that case did not do so. If it's any consolation, the lead wikilinks "America First" and the target article has "isolationism" in its first sentence (although I generally oppose making following links essential to understanding the prose). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I now see that "protectionist" has the same problem. Sigh. We really need to get into the habit of thinking about body first, then lead. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, and both are true nonetheless. If you have no objection, I'll add them to the body, then the lead. François Robere (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No objection from me, and I know you'll provide strong sourcing in the body (I suggest two high-quality sources each). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , It's definitely a campaign slogan, but it has an obvious plain meaning which is that Trump claims that his policies put America first instead of other nations. This has been a cornerstone of his campaign and has received substantial coverage. I think it's appropriate in the lead. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 12:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but aren't all presidents' policies do that? Hence the need to elaborate. François Robere (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Countless presidents have used "America first" or some variation thereof. It is nothing special, and certainly not leadworthy. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have squeaked about this phrasing before, and there is a confusion. Above you all talk of "America first" (an idea of putting America first), whereas what is said here is "America First", with capital F and a wikilink, an actual program/policy/platform with nativist/nationalist tendencies.  In the lead, the two meanings are crosswired.  I believe that Trump has adopted the latter, as the lead sentence sort of is meant to indicate.  And I've never thought that sentence was written particularly well; slightly propagandistic. I've suggested using "a program called "America First (policy)"", or some such, for the sentence before. Bdushaw (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't comment for the others, but I'm referring to the particular phrase used by Trump and his surrogates, which corresponds with historical use of the phrase. My qualm with it is that on its own it says little, and should be qualified with accepted descriptors like "isolationist", "non-interventionist" or "protectionist", two of which I added with backing sources. François Robere (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Need to change the Russia/Ukraine stuff as conspiracy theories from the left.
Trump has been subject to numerous conspiracy theories about possible connections to Russia which after a lengthy investigation found no evidence and the Ukraine stuff was because he was concerned about illegal racketeering. Guitarguy2323 (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Praxidicae (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

How about the fact that Robert Muller said he found nothing?Guitarguy2323 (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * He did not. Please cite RS for any further concerns along these lines. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: Mueller actually said he found numerous connections between Russia and the Trump campaign, just not anything he thought amounted to an indictable crime. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump was never personally under investigation until he fired Comey in May 2017, which raised obstruction concerns. The FBI investigated possible efforts by Russia to infiltrate the Trump campaign via people he had hired. I'd like to think good patriots would want the FBI to keep a foreign adversary from penetrating the inner circle of a man who might become president. soibangla (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Info from the recent NYT article in the lead?
I see that two referenced sentences have been added to the lead’s second paragraph, about Sunday’s NYT articles reporting information gleaned from his tax returns. It is in the article too, of course, as required for something to be in the lead: a subsection has been opened under the "Business career" section, and a rather shaky sentence has been added to the "Wealth" section. I certainly agree with putting this in the article text, and I predict the material will be expanded as additional NYT articles are published. If secondary sources other than NYT report it heavily, or if it becomes a major election issue, it may well become important enough to include in the lead. However, I question adding this to the lead right away, especially two sentences (overkill) with references (we have avoided using references in the lead) based on a single source published only yesterday (NOTNEWS). I suspect this was put in the lead based on editors' opinions of how important the information is, rather than on the weight of coverage by Reliable Sources. I have not reverted this addition, but I would like to hear what other people think. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it should stay out of lead for now soibangla (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no hurry for wikipedia to include this, so keep it out of the lede and just wait for whatever happens next. Carptrash (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I have removed it from the lead for now. Discussion can continue. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

What about net worth?

 * I added this. The rationale was that since his wealth figures are disputed (and have been for years), the NYT piece would serve as an important bit of balance. I'm fine waiting for [even] more coverage, but I'd like some sort of "caveat lector" around the Forbes estimate in the lead. François Robere (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the net worth figure should be removed. It has long been dubious, but it is no longer credible or DUE especially for a BLP.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For the lead, I'd sooner remove net worth than attempt to qualify it. If we feel the need to get that deep in the weeds, that's generally a sign that the issue is too complex to be adequately covered within the space constraints of the lead. But I'd be ok with leaving it low in the infobox. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * NYT reports: "[the data] report that Mr. Trump owns hundreds of millions of dollars in valuable assets, but they do not reveal his true wealth." If Trump owns gross assets of hundreds of millions, it's hard to see how he could have a net worth of $2.1 billion considering his debt load. Forbes et al. attempt to make estimates about an opaque private company, and it may make for fine entertainment, but I find it dubious guesswork. I think the whole thing is too fuzzy to even mention. soibangla (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This sounds to me like consensus to remove the "net worth" sentence from the lead. And possibly from the infobox also? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to removal from the lead prose, no objection to removal from the infobox. Repeating the pings, since notifications don't work when you add them after the fact. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  01:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's remove both.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thanks for pinging. François Robere (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, both should come out. soibangla (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing them, François. And thanks for the re-pings, Mandruss. My bad; I just spaced. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if we don't put an exact figure in the lead and infobox, do you not think that some mention should be included. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no RS for any statement about his wealth - excepting the ultimately uninformative and inconclusive reports that he has long overstated it. I don't think that would add much, but we could consider something to that effect. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As we would not put an exact figure, so it would be inconclusive. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that lead must summarize body. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So, Emir, what text do you propose? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I will have to give it some thought. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Wealth and business career
ATM the article expounds on Trump's wealth in a subsection under "Personal life", but some of the information there is also relevant to the "Business career" section. How should we handle this without duplicates? François Robere (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikilinks to works/publications in refs
Is there some reason why we link to the Wikipedia articles on the work/publication in each of the 965 refs? I don't think it's necessary to have repetitive links, as many of these sources are repeated (i.e., New York Times is cited around 160 times, but the article on the newspaper is linked in every single ref). This doesn't seem very helpful to the average reader, and it presumably inhibits page loading times by quite a bit. We don't seen to do this in other articles. Neutralitytalk 17:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a very long page. Do we expect a read to go through all 965 references to find a link? If we are going to change the references we should use cite web instead of cite news, which would save around 901 characters that do not help the reader at all. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Most people going to a ref are going to want the URL to the cite. They're not going to want/need the Wikipedia article on the Associated Press or Reuters or whatever. Neutralitytalk 18:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have always felt the same way. I never link to the source when I post a reference, but somebody comes around afterwards and does it. Waste of time and bandwidth in my opinion. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if the reporter(s) cited in the reference have a Wikipedia article, somebody links to their article every time too. More waste of time and bandwidth. I wonder if there is some central location where we can get a community opinion on this practice? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Doing the math: 965 references x 4 keystrokes for each link = 3,860 bytes just for the links to the sources. Linking to authors - I’m not going to do the math but it’s at least as many, probably more. The article currently has almost 500,000 bytes. Looks like up to 10,000 of those bytes are from these unnecessary links. BTW they also violate MOS, see MOS:DUPLINK. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * DUPLINK says "Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". We could say there is a benefit to linking the work/publication, but there is no benefit to using cite news over cite web so if we are going to start somewhere we should start with that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction re: DUPLINK. I don't understand your point about cite news and cite web. They look totally identical to me, except that cite web has entries for an archive URL and archive date while cite news does not. Where is the saving? (I grant you I am using an older version of reflinks so maybe you are seeing something that I am not.) -- MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Both cite web and support the archive parameters. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  23:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Cite news and cite web do look identical. That is my point. We can save around 901 characters, with no loss to the reader. Removing the wikilinks does save space, but at the loss of the wikilinks. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The word "web" or "news" is not in what the reader downloads, so the choice makes zero difference to readers. The effect on editing of reducing 498,913 bytes to 498,012 bytes would be vanishingly insignificant. A sense of proportion is required. The only significant factor is how important is it to comply with the template guidance on this? While the difference is completely cosmetic and arbitrary today, that could change in the future. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have changed cite news to cite web. It looks like no reference has been negatively affected. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * IIRC, and I could be wrong, but one difference is italicizing. -- Valjean (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're wrong, and you may be thinking of the difference between publisher (not italicized) and work and its aliases (italicized). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's it! Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , you missed the obvious case where any reference without a URL throws a CS1 error when used citeweb.
 * This is a purely cosmetic change that is absolutely useless and as others have said they do not make any difference whatsoever. The difference is much more easily separating "news" sources from "web" sources in the edit window - which is invaluable to many editors. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was reverted by who deemed it unnecessary. When I looked at the list of references I could not see any that showed a CS1 error about a lack of URL. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Johnson, Glen. "Donald Trump eyeing a run at the White House". Standard-Speaker. Hazelton, Pennsylvania. Missing or empty |url= (help). It is a minor note on my part however. While the difference is completely cosmetic and arbitrary today, that could change in the future. I think is salient, though I don't anticipate it changing from being consistent given that cite news was deliberately made consistent within the past few years, at least for the core citation details. I agree the most value is much more easily separating "news" sources from "web" sources in the edit window - which is invaluable to many editors. which is subsequently used for e.g. citation review like Headbomb's. From memory, these citations also put out minor distinctive HTML s.t. one could reasonably highlight news sources in CSS vice those which are generic web sources. --Izno (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support status quo per MOS:DUPLINK, and note that nobody is required to conform, or criticized for not conforming, but their tolerance of editors who choose to do so is appreciated.Using 15 for average length of the values, the author links contribute about 8,000 bytes to the file size – 1.6%. I say it's worth it. It's true that few of the author links will be used, but some will and I don't care to get into the business of trying to decide which ones will and which won't, not at that minuscule benefit of doing so.As for the tangential topic cite web vs. cite news, it's true that it makes no difference in what readers see; on the other hand lots of good things we do in citation coding (parameter spacing, etc) make no difference in what readers see, so that's not a good test in itself. The current template guidance says to use cite news for web-based news sources, so I do so. But I feel less strongly about this and would be happy to convert all cite news to cite web at this article if there is a consensus for that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To wade further into the technical weeds, it's the rendered HTML that gets downloaded, not the wikitext that we deal with on a daily basis. It only takes four characters to create a wikilink, but the resulting HTML is far longer – and the HTML page is far larger than our 495 kB file size. I don't know of an easy way to determine exactly how much HTML would be saved by unlinking these items, and it might be useful to know that. On the other hand, download time is becoming less critical as the speeds of devices, cable internet connections, and cell networks increase. I don't have a smartphone, but I believe many smartphone owners are streaming videos these days, relatively glitch-free. That trend can only continue. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * HTML for The New York Times:
 * HTML for The New York Times:

HTML for The New York Times:

Thus linking NYT in a cite costs 66 bytes of HTML, and all 165 NYT links combined cost 10,890 bytes of HTML. Unless I'm reading the information incorrectly in Firefox (that's possible, as I'm not a web developer), the current total HTML size is 5.72 MB. 10,890 bytes is about 0.2% of that, so we can reasonably estimate that unlinking NYT in all cites would improve download time by about 0.2% (one-fifth of one percent, for the math-challenged). If you added in the source links in all other cites, you might get that up to slightly over one percent. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This 10,890 bytes/0.2% estimate is likely way too high due to HTTP compression, see below. Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, but it's easily low enough. I could use confirmation of that 5.72 MB number, if you have a way to do that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Webpagetest.org is a popular tool for that, I just ran the article through it. It says  that there were 340,354 bytes of HTML transferred (compressed, uncompressing to 1,879,048 bytes on the reader's device), out of 1,319 KB total (compressed) for the entire article including images etc.
 * Either way, whether 0.2% or (more likely, see below) something like 0.03%, I agree that the savings are minuscule. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, the HTTP compression would reduce the total HTML size by roughly the same percentage, and that pretty much moots your point. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure I'm following, what do you mean by "the HTTP compression would reduce the total HTML size by roughly the same percentage"?
 * My point is that "all 165 NYT links combined cost 10,890 bytes of HTML" is not true as a statement about the amount of data that needs to be transferred over the internet. The second link and all following ones will add the same 66 bytes (characters, actually), which the compression algorithm should detect and replace by a reference to the first occurrence ("repeat these 66 bytes"). If that takes two additional bytes each time, say, cutting out these 164 repetitive NYT links would end up saving only 2 * 164 = 328 bytes.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. I didn't know the compression worked like that. I'm inclined to believe that ordinary editors would be wise to refrain completely from discussions about performance (like much of this one). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a bot that can strip the brackets from the source and author? -- Valjean (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unlikely, and I think you mean script. Anyway the author links don't use the brackets because they are implied by the parameter itself, eg Maggie Haberman. If you don't want a link, you don't code the parameter. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't understand all the ins and outs of this, but the Steele dossier article has 449 refs, all using this format. (I'm a bit anal about uniform formatting.) It would take a long time to manually fix them. Fortunately I have rarely used the authorlink parameter. -- Valjean (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * With creative use of my browser's Find function (eg finding  would locate all source links in work parameters), I could probably remove all source links and all author links in 1–2 hours, assuming no edit conflicts during that time (in the wee hours my time, when I'm often awake anyway). And I would reluctantly do so if there were a consensus for it. So that's not an issue. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  00:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's how I would do it. Feel free to start, but do a few and then leave an edit summary asking for some peace there for a couple of hours. That way I, or anyone else, am less likely to disturb you. -- Valjean (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to start - I'm not starting anything without a consensus. And you can put an template at the top of the article "asking for some peace" and estimating how long you will need it. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  03:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you mean uniform formatting across articles, that's a non-starter. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. It is only on that article that I have done it. Many, if not most, of my edits there have been that type of stuff. -- Valjean (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I guess I am not really seeing much of a possible benefit while I am seeing a possible harm. So why do it? PackMecEng (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do what? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For removing the links from refs. I can see a negative for the reader, just not seeing much of a positive. PackMecEng (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, please explain. We don't want to cause harm, just cut down on total bytes and download time without actually deleting content. -- Valjean (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea to think about how to make life easier for readers who access this article over slow connections. But the assumption underlying this proposal, namely that these links "presumably [inhibit] page loading times by quite a bit" seems highly speculative and likely wrong. For starters, WMF sites use gzip HTTP compression (which today is supported by basically every browser), and gzip is good at eliminating overhead from repeating content. There are other aspects to how users experience web performance and I just pinged the Wikimedia Performance Team in case any of them would enjoy weighing in in this discussion with general guidance. But we should not make content decisions based on lay speculations about potential performance benefits.
 * What's more, the The New York Times example is an extreme one, both in how frequently this wikilink occurs in this article and how likely readers are to already be familiar with the publication. Most other wikilinks used in the references (say David Fahrenthold) are likely to be much more valuable to readers and occur much less frequently in this article.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Someone changed work to newspaper, but it looks like this has been self-reverted. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Nobel peace nominations
Should we add section about his 3 nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize?7rexkrilla (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No. A nomination means nothing; almost anyone can submit a nomination to the Nobel Committee for almost any reason. Trump has been known to solicit nominations. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you lying (on the internet)?. Show me three examples of trump soliciting nominations. Also you have to fulfull specific criteria to submit a nomination for the nobel peace prize. The criteria is public and can be found on the website of the nobel prize comitee, but I'll post it here for ease of access.

'According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, a nomination is considered valid if it is submitted by a person who falls within one of the following categories: '''

''Members of national assemblies and national governments (cabinet members/ministers) of sovereign states as well as current heads of states

''Members of The International Court of Justice in The Hague and The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague

''Members of l’Institut de Droit International

''Members of the international board of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

''University professors, professors emeriti and associate professors of history, social sciences, law, philosophy, theology, and religion; university rectors and university directors (or their equivalents); directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes

''Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

''Members of the main board of directors or its equivalent of organizations that have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

''Current and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee (proposals by current members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after 1 February)

Former advisers to the Norwegian Nobel Committee 7rexkrilla (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hyberbolic language doesn't help Melania.Editing Scapegoat (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

So, no. Don't add it. It's not a big deal.  starship .paint  (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * No MelanieN and starship.paint have the right of it, this is trivial. It wouldn't even be relevant at List of honors and awards received by Donald Trump. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is relevant at that article if not here too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

C’mon guys — It’s obvious the vast majority of Wikipedia editors hate President Donald Trump but that’s no reason to say being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize is not a big deal. You guys add plenty of content about Trump that is far less significant, like eating fast food. How do you expect to attract new users and donors when the average reader realizes its editors think eating a Big Mac is a bigger deal than a Nobel Peace Prize? One reason Trump was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership in brokering the Abraham Accords, bringing about the full normalization of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and marking a major step toward a more peaceful Middle East. Even CNN thought it was Nobel worthy. A Middle East peace agreement is a big deal, no matter how many Big Macs Trump has eaten, and it is for that reason President Trump’s Nobel Peace Prize nominations should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktg.jr.md (talk • contribs) 05:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. In 100 years are people going to be bothered about his fast food preferences, or his multiple Noble Peace Prize nominations (and possible victories). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Trimming reverted, lacking reason
Do you have any objections to my trimming here, other than it being in one edit rather than spread across several? If there are no objections then I would ask you to self-revert, or for any other editor to revert that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please restore this edit? These are constructive efforts at trimming the article, and the editor who reverted this has not given any reasons in the edit summary or in this talk page section. I would do it myself now that some time has passed but I am wary of 1RR. I won't necessarily take it as an endorsement of every alteration I made. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Of the cuts that were made (and were subsequently reverted), I take issue with a handful namely the elimination of content on (1) Trump's stated desire to "let Obamacare fail"; (2) the emphasis on coal/oil/natural gas in energy policy; and (3) the budget deficit increasing to nearly $1 trillion. These are important, highly salient elements of his tenure. Neutral on the other cuts. Neutralitytalk 00:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (1) That's not an especially notable quote from Trump, who has made many comments about Obamacare with about the same notability. There is still plenty of content there about his opposition to Obamacare. (2) We don't really have an energy section here, but we could mention this in conjunction with his opposition to renewable energy. (3) That's a relatively minor detail, especially with the 2020 deficits, so I made it more prominent that the debt has increased rather than the deficit. Are you persuaded by any of this? Otherwise we can restore the trimming I made except for your objections. What's important here is that as much of the trimming as possible is left trimmed out. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to make these edits piecemeal.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And "not discussed" is not a valid reason for reversion, per #43. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  02:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but Soibangla's reason for reversion was the sweeping deletions of significant content that are better done incrementally. "or discussed" reads like an afterthought to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the request to make these edits spread across multiple instances ignores that it takes a long time for the article to save edits. "Sweeping deletions of significant content" doesn't mean anything, and even if they are done better incrementally, that is not a reason to revert them either. I'm very eager to see what editors have to say about this, which will certainly inform how I go about this, if only to have my trimming not reverted going forward. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The edit summary "trimming" without an explanation why specific content is being trimmed is insufficient, often leaving other editors no choice except reverting, especially in cases such as this (9 or 10 deletions squeezed into one edit). With 1RR other editors would end up with a long to-undo list of unexplained deletions. "Trimming" should only be used for the obvious, i.e, The most commonly consumed type of citrus juice is orange juice, which as the name implies, is extracted from oranges. #49? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Would it be sufficient to say "too much detail"? My trimming has been of the same variety as other editors, with the only significant difference being that it is contained within fewer edits. Many size reduction edits have no edit summaries at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Depends (and if I come across a size reduction edit without summary that I disagree with and if my hands are not tied by 1 RR I'll revert every one of them). I'd consider it sufficient for trimming this sentence: At the 2019 G7 summit, Trump skipped the sessions on climate change but said afterward during a press conference that he is an environmentalist., but not for deleting this sentence (see Starship.paint's comment): Trump's energy policies aimed to boost the production and exports of coal, oil, and natural gas.. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The coal, oil, and natural gas boosting is crucial to understand his administration's policies. It should be kept. As is "let Obamacare fail".  starship .paint  (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the Media career section
I've been looking at this odd looking section. Odd because we have these tiny, single paragraph subsections (to be compared with other huge subsections in the article; e.g., Pandemic). I thought of combining them into a single subsection like "Radio, television, and film". But I worry that the TV show "The Apprentice" was such a huge, important event for launching Trump's political career, as was the book "Art of the Deal". So I worry about reducing "The Apprentice" too much, and I am wondering if this section shouldn't be developed a bit more with the theme that "The Art" and "Apprentice" were significant factors in Trump's subsequent political career - both were vacuous self-promotion events, apparently, but both raised Trump's profile at the national level. Not knowing quite what to do, I make this posting. Bdushaw (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this section has been cut to the bone. "The Apprentice" and "The Art of the Deal" were enjoyed by people around the world. He became famous internationally. Just because he became president doesn't mean his previous career is irrelevant. And, yes, his political ascendancy built on his pre-existing fame. It's not easy to accommodate this as the article is already large and continues to grow.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2020 (2)
Please add to the foreign policy section under 'Afghanistan': In President Donald Trump’s August 2017 speech laying out a revised strategy for Afghanistan, he referred to a “political settlement” as an outcome of an “effective military effort,” but did not elaborate on what U.S. goals or conditions might be as part of this putative political process. Less than one year later, the Trump Administration decided to enter into direct negotiations with the Taliban, without the participation of Afghan government representatives. With little to no progress on the battlefield, the Trump Administration reversed the long-standing U.S. position prioritizing an “Afghan-led, Afghan-owned reconciliation process,” and the first high-level, direct U.S.-Taliban talks occurred in Doha, Qatar, in July 2018.2 The September 2018 appointment of Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, the Afghan-born former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, as Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation added momentum to this effort.Gg100699 (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Gg100699 (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Per WP:UNDUE[ and WP:COATRACK. Already adequately covered at Foreign_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

There is not a single positive sentence in the introduction
I'm not one to police on bias but I was surprised to see the blatant bias on an article that is protected to the level that it is. Contrast this with the article on Barack Obama where the introduction is noticeably more positive. Here are several sentences that are blatantly negative as well as not a defining characteristic worthy of the introduction section:


 * 1) His election and policies have sparked numerous protests.
 * 2) Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency.
 * 3) Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist.
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) 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.

There is noticeably a small portion about how he was impeached, but the impeachment is absolutely noteworthy to the point where it should be mentioned. The aforementioned sentences violate WP:NPOV. Some of these sentences can also be written about other politicians (Joe Biden is on record having said, arguably more than Trump, many racially charged comments) and some of these comments are wrong (Trump banned travel from China in January which, despite my general disapproval of Trump's handling of COVID-19, is not at all a "slow reaction" to the COVID-19 pandemic).

Disclaimer: I voted for Donald Trump in both the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections and am a registered Republican. However, I believe that in this case my arguments about this article's bias against Donald Trump are strong enough to stand. -- zaiisao (talk 12:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna also put a disclaimer first: I'm a Canadian (libertarian) liberal (leaning towards socialist) who basically disagrees with everything that Trump says. But, I think that you do have some point. While I think that everything said in the article is correct-ish, I think that the 4th sentence is too partisan. The other ones I don't see as very POVish. His policies has sparked a lot of protests, just a fact. He said a lot of incorrect things, more then the majority of politians normally do. He has been called a racist; note how it doesn't say his comments were racist just that a lot of people have called him racist (which is very true). The Mueller is interesting, I think it's carefully worded to have both sides happy. Basically, I don't think its very POVish.


 * But all of this is mute in the end. If you want to overturn this, you are gonna have to attempt to overturn present consensus on each. The 4th one (I think) has a full archive for itself. That's gonna be a challenge. Sixula (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The 4th sentence about COVID is definitely the worst of all of these. It could be made significantly better by just simply saying "Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was widely characterized as slow..." etc.


 * Regarding the others, I think some analysis should be done on whether they are truly noteworthy and unique enough to Trump to warrant being mentioned in the lead.


 * For example,


 * 1. Every U.S. President ever has sparked "numerous protests", although you could perhaps make an argument that the size of protests against Trump is historic and therefore noteworthy. I think I remember reading that the initial protest on his inauguration day was one of the largest ever in the U.S. or something like that. Personally I think a better and more objective way of mentioning public discontent with Trump is the fact that he has been one of the most consistently unpopular Presidents in the history of modern polling.
 * 2. Kinda ambivalent on this, but I lean towards keeping it as is. All U.S. Presidents have lied in office, but Trump certainly has lied a lot.
 * 3. It is objectively true that the media has characterized him as racially charged or racist. Personally I don't agree with this characterization and think it is mostly the result of media twisting things to be what they want to hear, but it is undeniably true that it is what the widespread characterization of him by the media has been.
 * 4. Addressed this above
 * 5. Maybe could re-word a little but I think this is mostly fine.


 * There needs to be a realization here that the large majority of editors who edit this article actively dislike (hate?) Trump, and that is very obviously going to showcase a bias in the article itself. The unfortunate problem here (and this is a problem with all of Wikipedia as a whole to be honest) is that all of the sources used to justify edits to the article are also written by people who actively dislike (hate?) Trump, many of whom have zero pretension about seeking to use their profession to harm him in whatever way possible. The sooner an honest attempt is made to acknowledge this, the sooner we can have a more neutral and fair article.


 * By the way, since we're all disclosing our biases, I should say that I have had four opportunities to vote for Trump (R primary 2016, general 2016, R primary 2020, general 2020) and I have never done so! Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with except for the second last paragraph (we use a fair number of international and neutral sources which report the simple facts), but I feel like we are descending into useless complaining (or will soon). If you actually want to get these sentences changed, then I suggest opening up individual requests for each sentence. I'm not very inclined to go through the complicated process of overturning each of these sentences, but if either of you are willing to, then feel free. Sixula (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Is it still the case an RfC is needed to change pretty much anything controversial on the page? <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * technically not, but it will be instantly reverted by another person and they'll challenge you on the talk page. Then an RfC opens up. Sixula (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. Per WP:RFCBEFORE, there is usually an attempt to reach a resolution without RfC. No different from any other article, and sometimes an RfC is not needed. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * yeah, you're right. I used RfC when it was simply a discussion. Thanks Sixula (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Would you agree with the statement “Donald Trump is notable for following the norms, traditions and conventions of previous presidents?” soibangla (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)