Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 128

Queens, N.Y. photo


I noticed this photo was removed. The user's explanation was that "It's not his childhood home - maybe his toddlerhood home." This is not a valid reason to remove it. I would suggest re-wording the caption to "early childhood home." Should this photo be kept? Bergeronpp (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The caption isn't saying it's the only childhood home, we could list it as one of several, but "early childhood home" works too. ɱ  (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn’t object to a photo of Trump’s actual childhood home, the 23-room mansion on the hill where he lived until he moved out as an adult; there's a photo in this NYT article but there don't seem to be any free photos we can use. This house played no part in Trump's life because he was only 4 when his family moved into the mansion, and he probably doesn’t even remember it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether he remembers it. If he lived there, then it's of interest. It's also interesting that it doesn't look like a particularly big or grand house. Unless there's a real lack of space due to other encyclopedic images, then I'd definitely say include this. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It's of interest to whom? To the anonymous current owner who bought it for 2.14 million dollars (about 2½ times the going rate) and wasn't able to sell it for 2.9 million? To the blocked sockpuppet account who gave it its own Wikipedia article? To the vandal who edited Residences of Donald Trump to turn the 23-room mansion into a modest nine-room Colonial Revival house that, over several decades, Trump's parents gradually retrofitted ... into a 23-room mansion, using this–uh–source? BTW, it may not look particularly big or grand on that deceiving picture but it's a 2,000 sq.ft (~185 m²), five-bedroom house (the NY Times called it "relatively modest" - link see above). It's also interesting that it doesn't look like a particularly big or grand house. That, I suspect, may be the reason it was added to this page a few times - to show the alleged humble origins of the self-professed self-made man, from "relatively modest" rags to riches. As for space, it would be competing for space with the infoboxes and Trump's yearbook photo. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC) I dunno, slap some gingerbread cookies on the house in that photo and you can practically see the witch beckoning to Hansel and Gretel. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I primarily wrote the residences article, and am not personally a fan of the man. I too had a childhood home until the age of four-five, and I do remember it decently well. Sure, if the larger house had a free image we could include it instead, but for now, this one will do. I don't see any evidence for the expansion information being falsified, and don't see any reason that it would be. ɱ  (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence for the expansion information being falsified: The editor used one result of a google search for "Jamaica" as the source for the edit, never mind that those snippets from Wayne Barrett's 1992 Trump biography mention neither the mansion on Midland Parkway nor the house on Wareham Place. Where is the source for Trump's parents turning a nine-room house into a 23-room house over the course of several decades? That's too specific for an honest mistake. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm opposed to adding this. We want the photo for the early life section to get across the essence of Trump's early life, and the reality is that his early life was extremely privileged, something communicated by the mansion photo but not by this one, and less useful than the yearbook photo which shows what he looked like. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Add the loser.com phenomenon
Add the section: “Loser.com” phenomenon Shortly after major news outlets called the 2020 US presidential election for Joe Biden (who was Trump’s rival candidate), on Monday 9 November 2020, it was noticed that loser.com redirects to Trump’s Wikipedia page.

This is at least the second time that Trump has run afoul of this website. In 2016, after Trump came in second during the Iowa Caucus, Loser.com redirected viewers to Trump’s Wikipedia page.

The website Loser.com has been owned by comedian Brian Connelly since 1995. The website has been used to troll various people and organizations over the years, such as Kanye West, Wikileaks, and U.S. President Barack Obama.

References: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/loser-com-trump-wikipedia-page/, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/loser-website-trump-wikipedia-page-us-election-b1720938.html, https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/losercom-redirects-to-trumps-wikipedia-page/ar-BB1aUmLW, https://time.com/4204929/donald-trump-trolled-loser-wikipedia/ 176.203.219.26 (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Per WP:PROPORTION, not in this article. Possibly at Donald Trump in popular culture. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree, not really relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump’s voter fraud comments are baseless and without evidence. It should not be added to this article Michaeljacksonfan104 (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for organization of "2020 presidential election" section
Looking over this evolving section, it seems to me there ought to be a separate, clear, brief paragraph to the effect that Trump lost the election, "the most secure election in U.S. history", with the vote count XXX to XXX. AFTER that paragraph, the Trump shenanigans can be described, Trump refused to accept, etc. Such an reorganization seemed a bit too bold for me to do on my own. I had in mind forming the new paragraph by drawing bits from existing sentences, and there already is a citation for "the most secure election in U.S. history". I suppose there has already been discussion about whether to include the vote count, which is why it isn't in the article. I say this from the point of view that about half of U.S. voters may not believe the election results, may have believed Trump's rhetoric, so the result should be as clear and unambiguous as possible in this article. As it is now, it's still a little confused. Bdushaw (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * While Wikipedia editors are not dispassionate or apolitical, we should behave as if we are. Are you doing so in your view? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ??? I read the news. A selection of today's headlines includes: WA Post: In scathing opinion, federal judge dismisses Trump campaign lawsuit in Pennsylvania, WA Post: Trump’s attempt at unprecedented power grab runs into resistance from local and state Republicans, Reuters: After Pennsylvania Court Defeat, Trump Faces New Pressure to Concede Election, Reuters:  U.S. Judge Calls Trump Claim Challenging Biden Win in Pennsylvania 'Frankenstein's Monster', AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s flailing effort resting on mendacity, WA Post: Vindictive Trump seeks to undermine Biden’s presidency.  It is true that a large fraction of the American electorate believes the election was flawed, e.g. NBC: Poll: Most Americans are not confident the 2020 election will be conducted fairly, Fivethirtyeight: Americans Were Primed To Believe The Current Onslaught Of Disinformation.  Wikipedia should give no quarter to Trump disinformation. One of the things I realized recently was that "NPOV" does not mean neutral to politics - it means neutral to facts (the difference seems the source of many of our conflicts here). Bdushaw (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's about a mind-set. You are arguing that we should write and organize content for the express purpose of helping readers more clearly see the Truth of one side of the election-and-transition issue. If that is not taking a side, I don't know what is, regardless of the number of sources on that side. Some undetermined tens of millions of Americans take the other side. We should try very hard to remain detached from the subject matter when editing. At the same time, I understand that the chances of significant changes to the collective mind-sets of Wikipedia editors closely approximate zero, so I regret bringing it up and I'm collapsing this as a side discussion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I've made the revision I was suggesting above as tentative - it makes sense to me; revert if inappropriate. I realized early on that no one would know what I was talking about unless I did the edit. I am concerned about the effects of the Trumpist disinformation machine (a term used in many RSs!) and would prefer this clear statement of the election results. I noted the 2016 election results gave the voting numbers, so I've included them as well, for consistency. Bdushaw (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2020
DONALD TRUMP IS NOT OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT. CHANGE THIS. I WILL BE LETTING OTHERS KNOW TOO. 2601:582:4801:2B0:39C6:5681:5725:EAFC (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please be sure to provide WP:RS that support the requested change. Chetsford (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.
 * And please do not WP:SHOUT on this page or any other talk page. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request
"After Trump lost the election by nearly 10 million votes, he attempted a thinly-veiled dictatorial coup to remain in power, demanding that the votes not be counted and the election not be validated." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Not even remotely close to being neutral. The information on his actions after the election are already detailed. — Czello 16:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I propose we create a stand-alone article titled "Attempted coup in the United States, 2020". All in favor?


 * Aye, per nom. Trump's unprecedented efforts to seize power through non-democratic means in the United States is clearly notable, and reminiscent of his predecessors in Germany, Russia, China, et al. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that was supposed to look like two comments by two different people but we can see your IP address. Either way, you're welcome to attempt to create that article if you create an account, but it would almost certainly be speedily deleted for not being anything close to neutral. — Czello 18:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been proposed at Talk:2020 United States presidential election. And is being resoundingly rejected. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2020
37.153.217.192 (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Loser.com
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Seagull123  Φ  12:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe the OP is meaning that if you type loser.com, that redirects to this page, but that's not notable. On archive.org, that domain always redirects to something similarly mischievous. Thanoscar21talkcontribs 22:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2020 (2)
pls JoeBidenfan (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to say what you want done.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Seagull123  Φ  14:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is this article so biased?!?
Anything written should be from first hand knowledge and factual information, not assumption or here-say, and this article is explicitly biased. Please make adjustments to make this article to be non-biased, factual information and remove the statement, stating President Trump made false statements, because there is no proof the statements were false! Txgalinar (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia writes its articles by virtue of reliable sources, which are used throughout this article. If you think there are assumptions or hearsay, or you wish to challenge any of the sources used, please list them. — Czello 22:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Welcome to Wikipedia!  I've left a message on your talk page with some useful links to help you understand how Wikipedia works.  However, you make a fundamental error when you say, "anything written should be from first hand knowledge."  Wikipedia specifically does not permit first hand knowledge.  Instead, anything written in Wikipedia should be cited to reliable sources.  As you can see in the article, the assertion that President Trump made false statements is linked to another article, Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, which is substantiated by more than 300 sources.  I'm sorry you feel the article is biased.  If you can find information you feel is not adequately supported by reliable sources, please feel free to point it out. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 22:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. I will refrain from closing this one as completely redundant with the numerous uninformed complaints just like it (which you can find in this page's archives), but I encourage any editor to close it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The lizard men rigged the vote. The swamp is spreading, and the allegators swarm. Most editors here are biased bisexual cyborgs with an obsession with punctuation. Personally I refuse to wear clothes except an aluminium skull cap and only accept Spanish dollars as currency. The Internet is done. I'm training carrier pigeons and waiting for a coo.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2020
To whom it may concern, I want to request a edit for The Donald Trump article. I know you only want I person to be neutral and I will try my best. SuperSonicPlus (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to say what it is.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Ascertainment in lead
Should the final sentence of the lead "...and ordered White House officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition" be revised considering the GSA ascertainment this Monday? NO MORE HEROES   &#9880; TALK  20:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Independent of the GSA ascertainment, one could argue that it's out-of-date information now that he has backed away from said order (that's only one of the problems created by treating a biography as a daily news summary). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the ascertainment belongs in the lead. It's WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. It's more important to Murphy's article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because of the well-known fact that one cannot change the past, there is no way that his having ordered White House officials not to cooperate with the transition (and they obeyed for about three weeks) can be undone. That is what happened.
 * If he has now ordered something different, that does not change the fact that he ordered the officials not to cooperate originally, which is now properly part of history.173.255.104.66 (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ya know, I almost made that same argument. Then I thought better of it. Particularly in the lead, we very often remove detail that has been made less important by subsequent events. Lead content about the Mueller investigation and impeachment, May 1: And today: The no-cooperate order was deemed lead-worthy only because it was current. Now it isn't. You may note that the lead omits tons of things that are properly part of history, and it's still a pretty long lead. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point (I didn't need extra convincing). But that should only affect the location of that sentence, not whether it is removed.173.255.104.66 (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the WP:RECENTISM argument. There have been too many developments in the aftermath of the election, and we shouldn't put all of them in the lead. Perhaps that final sentence could be removed and read simply "Despite losing the 2020 presidential election to Biden, Trump has refused to concede defeat, making unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud and mounting unsuccessful legal challenges to the results". But of course, the lead is a product of continuous review to reflect only what is historically significant today about the article, so all of this will probably be revised in the future if/when the time comes. NO MORE HEROES    &#9880; TALK  04:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

COVID in the lead
I do not need to edit, but this following I quoted is biased. "He downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing." Trump did downplay the COVID pandemic, however, it should be written as Trump misinformed the threat of the coronavirus and made false remarks without health expert recommendations. I am a Republican, but I am willing to edit neutral articles. I would appreciate it if someone could make the word choice weaker, for example changed "downplayed" to "misinformed". 73.137.126.204 (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, he actually said he wanted to downplay the virus. Our existing text basically says exactly what you want it to say, only in a more accurate and source-supported way. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit requests are only for uncontroversial changes. Aside from things like spelling and grammar, very little in this article is uncontroversial. Edit requests are specifically not for things that might need discussion. Therefore I am converting this section from an edit request to a discussion by changing the heading and removing the edit request template. In the future please use the "New section" link at the top of this page for anything like this. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We go with RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, he actually said he wanted to downplay the virus. Our existing text basically says exactly what you want it to say, only in a more accurate and source-supported way. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit requests are only for uncontroversial changes. Aside from things like spelling and grammar, very little in this article is uncontroversial. Edit requests are specifically not for things that might need discussion. Therefore I am converting this section from an edit request to a discussion by changing the heading and removing the edit request template. In the future please use the "New section" link at the top of this page for anything like this. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We go with RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Consensus #17 - first paragraph of lead
I suggest adding the last two sentences of the lead (Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden but refused to concede defeat. He made unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud, mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results, and ordered government officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition. to the first paragraph. It's such an extraordinary occurrence that it should not be buried in the sixth paragraph at the end of a very long lead. Comments? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly not first paragraph, which is distinct from the rest of the lead in answering the basic question, "Who is Donald Trump?", for readers who have never heard of him (someday in the not too distant future, there will be readers who have never heard of him). Starting with the second paragraph, the lead summarizes the summary of the man's life, literally beginning with his birth. In other words, in my view, being extraordinary is not a good reason to include something in the first paragraph. And that's hardly the only extraordinary thing about Donald Trump, and it would be debatable whether it's the most extraordinary. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, but no. The lead paragraph of a biography is for a very general summation of the person's entire life. Details, even important details, go in the later paragraphs.-- MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the other replies. It is extremely significant, but it’s not really relevant to who he is in the most general terms. I also think that the fact that the leading paragraphs conclude with it means that it also gets significant emphasis, as it should. So yeah, the current spot seems ideal to me. Cpotisch (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox residence
Currently links to Residences of Donald Trump. The article lists the residences where Trump has lived in the past; apartments for rent and a mansion (Seven Springs) he's never lived at, AFAIK; and three places where he lives when he's there: the White House, Mar-a-Lago, Trump Tower. It doesn't mention Bedminster, NJ, where he has a mansion on the grounds of his golf club and where has been staying several times during his presidency. If I look at "residence" in the infobox of someone's bio, I expect to see that person's current residence, not the real estate he owns or where he lived in the past. Since article and infobox size are both issues, I've restricted the list to his current business and primary personal residences. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Presidential Election
After most swing states have certified their results, is it time to update the tab that says president and put, “succeeded by: joe biden?” Mikeybeckjr1 (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. See this thread (permalink, do not edit that). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Need to put: Succeeded by: Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. Amt71279 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please see the other extensive debates on this subject, such as Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_127 (permalink, please don't comment there). — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 22:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding "Official portrait, 2017" under the picture on the top
Doing what the title says, because every other president has it and this is an oversight — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:BC40:C6AF:94F:D784:2E9E:D016 (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no policy or guideline that this article should be consistent with other presidents' BLPs in such details, and the local consensus is to omit the caption here. See item 46. Furthermore, you have duplicated the thread immediately preceding; please review existing discussions before starting a new one. I'm closing this one for both reasons. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  00:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request
“Although many have speculated Trump will run again in 2024 after his staggering defeat by nearly 10 million votes in the 2020 (the largest vote margin against an incumbent ever), he is widely expected to be in prison (if not dead) by that time for his sundry crimes and misdemeanors committed while in office.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.244.145.61 (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  17:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Question: How is an IP address supposed to establish consensus on an Extended confirmed protection article, other than in the manner used?  I'm not supporting their request, as I think the statement is loaded and the terminology un-encyclopaedic, but more curious as to what process they should follow if not by opening up a new conversation topic?  Isn't that exactly what edit requests are for?  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit requests are for minor, uncontroversial changes that do not require discussion. For anything else, a user may click the "New section" link at the top of this page, which is not protected. That's how they would seek consensus. See related open discussion at Village Pump, here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2020
There is no legal evidence that shows the Russia theory that helped trump win election. There is factual information that the democrats led by Hilary and Biden actually involved Russia and are behind it. 2603:9000:5903:32D3:88C0:FB40:3C44:C622 (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  06:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Attempted Coup By Experts?
So we just gonna go full conspiracy nuts? and also with proper sourcing thats not full blown left wing tds? How the mighty have fallen :( Guitarguy2323 (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read wp:soap.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Easy there. The OP is objecting to the recent addition of content that certainly bears objection. That they failed to use the correct words like UNDUE doesn't make it soapbox. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * NO they use words like "So we just gonna go full conspiracy nuts".Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, wrong words, but not soapbox in intent. The content was added less than three hours ago and I guarantee this discussion would have been started soon anyway. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can only judge by the words they use (such as "with proper sourcing thats not full blown left wing tds") and not my mind reading ability.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But this is not the correct place to discuss their actions, so will stop and just asked them to reword this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The current phrasing in the article's lead is less than optimal, but the intended meaning is "described by experts as an attempted coup". From the way you wrote your heading, it's unclear that you understand that. (Not that I would expect that to change your objection.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed the content pending consensus to include it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it is clear this has been said, by a lot of sources, and no valid reason for exclusion has been provided.Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven. This is very well sourced and it's hardly disputed that it has been described as an attempted coup. It is also highly notable, as no President has ever done something even remotely similar. It certainly belongs in the article. (On a side-note, it's less than 24h since I warned the OP for abusing WP:SOAP in a different article). Jeppiz (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Comes off as WP:WEASEL. Also the sources should be a bit better for such a bit claim. For example unattributed opinion columns are not great. The first Washington Post article comes close but punts it with a "according to historians and other experts". Everything else are just opinion columns. PackMecEng (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

There is exactly no valid process reason to revert a perfectly legitimate BRD challenge – regardless of positions on the content question. Content and process are two different things. I've already asked to self-revert at their UTP. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am using my one revert for today to remove it., calling Mandruss WP:POINTY in an edit summary is not WP:AGF. Mind WP:BRD on this highly sensitive WP:BLP. 18:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * He was referring to the OP in this thread.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , if that's the case, it was not clear to me, which reasserts the importance of clear good faith edit summaries. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "but the objection by one WP:POINTY user" Mandruss did not raise the objection. Nor am I sure they have objected to it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Jeppiz was calling Guitarguy2323 "pointy", not me, ignoring the fact that I had already added my objection to that of the "pointy" Guitarguy2323, whose implied objection per UNDUE should have been enough anyway. Contrary to Jeppiz's edit summary, we don't include disputed content pending consensus to omit it; that's bass-ackwards and Jeppiz has been around long enough to know that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

There are a ton of sources, look through this lot https://www.google.com/search?q=Donald+Trump+%2B+coup&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBGB925GB925&ei=nAW4X4C6F7PIxgO4i4CIDw&start=0&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiA-PWc25HtAhUzpHEKHbgFAPE4FBDy0wN6BAgHEDc&biw=1280&bih=824.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Just now from the Associated Press: Trump to meet Michigan leaders in bid to subvert election  "Subverting election" is not that different from "coup"...  Extraordinary language applied to the present president. Bdushaw (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

And from 43 minutes ago [].Slatersteven (talk)


 * The "tonnes of sources" argument doesn't cut much ice. There are equally tonnes of sources questioning whether Biden is or is about to go senile or whether his age should raise concerns. Of course some of them are snide attacks from opponents but there are others e.g. here or here in The New York Times, hardly an anti-Biden source. Yet, if you read the Wikipedia article about him, aside from mention of him being the oldest president, you would think that no one ever raised it or mentioned it as a possible disqualifying factor, yet we're going to lead Trump's article with a disputed WP:UNDUE claim from opponents? Valenciano (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey: Attempted coup

 * Oppose per WP:UNDUE, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and PackMecEng. The word "coup" is meant to evoke evokes images of soldiers and tanks surrounding the White House, and is hyperbolic and inflammatory at best. It could be a coup attempt only in a very general, academic, almost metaphorical sense, and that nuance would be lost on the average reader. Coup d'etat: "especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group". This isn't close to the recent attempt to compare Trump to Hitler, but it's in the same territory. Needs far stronger sourcing. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That selective copying of the Merriam Webster definition fails to mention that before the word "especially", it says a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics, which this could be. There is no requirement that a coup has to be violent – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd posit that our reasoning should center around the "especially" definition, since it's the one likely to be used by readers (who generally don't consult a dictionary when they see such words in Wikipedia articles). That's why I copied selectively. Anyway, obstructionist legal maneuvering and game-playing is not "force". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: "meant to evoke images of soldiers and tanks surrounding the White House": 1) No, that is not what "coup" means (necessarily). 2) No, it was not "meant" like that in any way when I wrote it and added it to the article. 3) There is no evidence that any of the commentators who have used the term meant anything like that. A coup can be carried out with other means than tanks and doesn't have to involve the military, although it could be less likely to succeed without military support. --Tataral (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Edited my comment to remove mind-reading (which did not refer to any Wikipedia editors by name or otherwise). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support We are not saying it is a coup we are saying some have described it as a coup, plenty of RS do so.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose at least for now. Saying "experts" have called it a coup is weasel-words to try to present it in Wikipedia's voice.  Sure, "some" have called it a coup.  Some have called it treason.  I'm pretty sure some have called it batshit-crazy.  It's far better to describe the actions (trying to get legislatures to overturn the popular vote) than what some are calling them. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. By now this is the major topic of discussion around the world, with countless sources. It is an uncontroversial fact that Trump is attempting to undermine the election result, and it is also an uncontroversial fact that numerous commentators (historians, other experts) have describe his actions to undermine the election result as an attempted coup (albeit a clumsy one; The New Yorker calls it "Trump's Clown Coup Crisis"). This is WP:DUE and extremely notable, regardless of whether his attempt to ignore the election result succeeds. --Tataral (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Let's call a spade a spade. 50.69.20.91 (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The wording "historians and experts" was simply a quote from The Washington Post that discussed how historians and experts regard his actions as an attempted coup. As we all know, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on our own personal beliefs about whether they are "really" experts and so on. --Tataral (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. When the Post says "historians and experts", it means the couple of people that the reporter decided to talk to.  When Wikipedia says "historians and experts", it means a consensus of those respected in their fields. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with media organizations call many people "historians and experts" that hardly qualify as either. The WaPo article appears to be an opinion article but it’s behind a pay wall so I can’t fully evaluate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackBird1008 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is giving seriously WP:UNDUE weight to these claims and should not appear in this way in the lead. Valenciano (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * should not appear in this way in the lead. Also disputed is the related body content. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Until there is evidence of a coup, and not just (potentially biased) experts describing something that looks like a coup, the word "coup" should not appear in this article. It’s inflammatory, lacking facts and would result with endless edit request on this page. BlackBird1008 (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose specific "coup" language/word as a bit overly charged just now. It does not seem likely that that language will last, but call me on 20 Jan.  In favor of broader, specific language on Trump's attempts to remain in power and "subvert" the election, employing the mechanisms of government to do so and having support from GOP - we can say all that without "coup". Bdushaw (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Per Bdushaw. I don't think it's essential to use the word "coup", and doing so just generates endless arguments. It's more useful and encyclopedic to specifically and factually describe Trump's actions (per reliable sources, he is using the power of the Presidency in an unprecedented way to try to subvert the election, overturn Biden's legitimate victory, and remain in power despite his electoral defeat&mdash;with the nearly unanimous support of the Republican Party). Whether that constitutes a "coup" is then up to the reader to decide. MastCell Talk 21:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw this and was going to type out something very similar. We seem to be forgetting that Wikipedia does not have to (and in reality almost always should not) worry about the specific choice of words reliable sources use. This is more true with Trump than with anything else in history because news on both sides is being more polarized in their choices of words than ever. We should simply report the facts - lawsuits were filed, phone calls made, etc. We report the facts and we should allow the user to come to their own conclusions. Just because reliable sources are using charged language does not mandate nor permit us to do the same here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with and just added "In front page headlines on November 20, The New York Times characterized Trump's actions as a "ploy to subvert vote," while The Washington Post ran "Trump wages full assault to overturn election." soibangla (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - For now per Power mostly. They cover my concerns from above more concisely than I could. PackMecEng (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What is under discussion here is the specific word "coup," so your reversion is faulty. soibangla (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with Soibangla; there's apparent consensus against coup but possibly consensus for "subvert". I don't think that giving a laundry-list of newspaper headlines is good writing, but the basic thrust of Soibangla's edit is fine; we will need to say something about Trump-led efforts to have courts ignore the popular vote and to have legislatures overturn the vote. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * NYT, WP and AP would not use such big words in major headlines without a significant amount of deliberation. They don't take it lightly, and it's a telling time capsule that they all did it on the same day. soibangla (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I really have to disagree on that one. PackMecEng (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Me too. I see NYT headlines change too often for there to be a lot of deliberation in them. I don't know why WaPo and AP would be much different. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Along with the headline part we have the new content guideline WP:RSHEADLINES. PackMecEng (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They certainly don’t. Their deliberation is based upon what will get readers interested enough to subscribe, pay money to see the article, or talk about it (thus getting others to do the first two things). To think that need anymore cares about journalism instead of profit is unfortunately very naive at best. They choose the most sensational word they can possibly justify or change later if proven wrong. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * NYT is not in the clickbait business. They are perhaps the single best news source on this planet. They take great care in crafting their front page headlines. They are not Breitbart. soibangla (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Headlines are not RS. PackMecEng (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ”if the information in the headline is not explicitly supported in the body of the source.” NYT body: “Michigan has become the prime target in their campaign to subvert the will of voters”. WaPo body: “President Trump is using the power of his office to try to reverse the results of the election...to overturn the will of voters” soibangla (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is using the body as a source, not the headline. PackMecEng (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did that here to demolish your argument, but not in the article. Your reversion rationale was wrong, and your argument here is also wrong. Good day. soibangla (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha, yes I am demolished. You got me man. No, its that your addition was bad, just really really bad. Like oh my goodness what the heck kind of bad. Good day to you as well friend. PackMecEng (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is an exaggeration.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Very reluctant support:  This seems unthinkable, but here we are.  Our articles and frontpage routinely reference Biden as president-elect per RSes, as others attempt to use levers of power to influence the outcome.  If this were any other nation, our text would reflect the RSes, some of which have genuinely characterized the effort as an  'attempted coup'.  Feoffer (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I can't been believe we're having this discussion. No scholarly source would ever describe the current situation as an attempted coup, it's simply hyperbole by some media outlets, by which they are expressing their legitimate concern about Mr Trump's refusal to accept the election result. Unless he refuses to give up the presidency in mid-January though, there is absolutely nothing illegal about any of this. He's still the president now and he's constitutionally entitled to pursue things in the courts if he wants to. I don't think cooperating with the incoming team is mandated by law either. Let's revisit this in January in the highly unlikely event that he ends up bunkering himself in the white house or invoking the military to hold on to power. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As others have said this is a clear case of WP:UNDUE and is worded in a very WP:WEASEL-y way. Also agree with 's comment above. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 11:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Amakuru, who said it better than I can. Trump's struggles to overturn the election results are deplorable but they are in no sense an "attempted coup". See Coup d'état. If Biden gets inaugurated and Trump tries to storm the White House and take it back, THAT would be an attempted coup. It's not a coup when the person in power tries to stay in power. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Let's call a spade a spade. 50.69.20.91 (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Struck double !vote. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Coup is being co-opted and entirely misused in this context. (Call a spade a stone, but it is not a stone, it's still a spade, and more misinformation is spread.) Attempts to retain power is not a coup. Hyperbole and grandstanding do not a coup make. Lindenfall (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Disgraceful and undemocratic behavior, but not even close to being a coup, it's just shocking and embarrassing behavior. Bacondrum (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose coup implies illegality; everything he is doing is perfectly legal and well within his rights. This is nothing new, elections are always disputed Anon0098 (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Subvert the election or Overturn the election / Anti-democratic actions – Some experts do describe Trump's actions as a coup attempt (contrary to what some editors above say), but it's not a clear consensus among experts because the "coup" term has differing definitions. What all experts agree on is that Trump is in fact trying to subvert/overturn the election results through anti-democratic behavior. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose a coup is by definition the "overthrow by force, of an existing government" A) there's no force being used, B) the existing government in this case, is the Trump administration & C) We've no reliable sources claiming that Trump is trying to overthrow himself. GoodDay (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This is so obviously an attempted coup that debate over this is issue is silly. One might as well debate whether fire trucks are red. NOT ONLY THAT, every reliable source describes it as an attempted coup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk)
 * Oppose-Trump won. Democrats are trying to launch a coup just as they've done since Trump took office. Don't reverse it. Display name 99 (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Should the above be removed or struck, as it's clearly not constructive - even if the OP believes it to be so . Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah, we don't want to practice censorship, like MSM tends to do in manufacturing consent. Besides, DN99's position is quite entertaining. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ironically, I've struck part of my own comment, because based on this reply from DN99, I've removed the implication that I thought it was made in in good faith. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's just policy-free and POV-rich, like many of the so-called not-votes in these discussions. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "policy-free and POV-rich" nicely sums up the way that this article and most articles on contemporarily politics are written. If liberal editors don't keep their POV out of articles, don't expect me to keep mine off the talk pages. Display name 99 (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There ya go, blame your wrong actions on the wrong actions of others. That'll help. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Trump won"? You're entertaining. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But also correct. Display name 99 (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Whatever. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - although I think we could easily phrase it less provocatively, calling it "efforts to subvert the election in, what some news sources have likened to, a coup attempt"... or something similar. We have very clear sources available for both of those claims. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête

Proposed article text
The "coup" wording has little support. Per Snoogs immediately above, do editors support "anti-democratic efforts to overturn the results of the election"?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support this is unambiguous and reflects sources and article content.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Unsure of the precise wording, but "overturn the results" seems not quite correct, I don't believe. "Subvert" seems to be more correct, perhaps supported by RS.  "Overturn" implies he wants to do whatever to result in him having more votes and winning the election.  That's partly true, but he also wants to get the state houses to declare the vote invalid, throwing the selection of the electors to the state houses.  And so on, and so forth in whatever scheme.  Remarkable. "anti-democratic efforts to subvert the election and retain power"? Bdushaw (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Or "overturn the will of voters" would be correct (fr. WA Post) (though I personally think it is mere petty vindictiveness; muddying the Biden victory) Bdushaw (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, judges have cited disenfranchisement, so "...will of the voters" is OK. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * While I guess "anti-democratic" can technically refer to effect rather than intent, I think that sense of the word is at a very high reading level and the far more common interpretation is intent. How many sources seriously suggest that Trump is opposed to democracy? My read is that he just doesn't really understand the principles of democracy, or give them nearly as much priority as his own personal interests. In his own muddled and deluded mind, he is defending democracy. I think "anti-democratic" would be misleading, and I would oppose its use unless there is clear and compelling source support for it. Although I would have to think about it more, I know there are ways to describe this threat to democracy more clearly by using a few more words. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What better wording do you propose. He is aware of how elections are supposed to work. Sources discuss him undermining or denying democracy. The overwhelming number of voters know the basic principles of democracy.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I also wonder how many readers know the difference between anti-democratic and anti-Democratic. Language that uses "democracy" instead of "democratic" would eliminate that problem. And I'm still thinking. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why can't it just say "delegitimize the election process" - isn't that what the media is writing in RS? <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 21:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is quite a bit of RS using more pointed words about an existential threat to democracy. I think we should say something about that, but in a clearer way that doesn't imply that Trump actually consciously opposes democracy as if he is a communist or something. As I see it, he understands American capitalism better than American democracy. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mandruss. This reeks of WP:POV, WP:BUZZWORDS, and may sereve to mislead as Mandruss noted. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 20:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment To back up a bit on wording... Really what he is doing is exploiting every possible legal avenue to get around the will of the voters - trying to keep it legal (incurring the wrath of judges with amateurish arguments and no evidence), using all means within his government, while abandoning all accepted practice and disregarding all other democratic norms.  Is there a way to craft such a statement, assuming people accept the general nature of what I just wrote? (I suspect in the next few years there will be laws passed to formalize and enforce the transition process.) Bdushaw (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources report numerous judges treating these not as good-faith legal challenges but as abuse of the courts and a violation of a cardinal obligation of any attorney. At least one of the judges cited Giuliani's lapse of ethics, I forget which case. The upshot is that conspiracy theories and frivolous litigation are not being reported as efforts to exhaust his legal remedies. That is just a talking point for Republican officials and news pundits.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes...the perennial problem is how to describe events that are "legal" but at the same time inappropriate, horrible, corrosive, etc. It is often argued that because a particular action is "legal" (i.e., no one will go to jail for it) it is perfectly acceptable, within his right, etc., as I believe it is also argued in this case (and see Anon0098 below). The crux of the matter in the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Bdushaw (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose agreeing with Vaselineeeeeeee. Nothing he is doing is illegal. This is as democratic as it gets Anon0098 (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Illegal? No. This is as democratic as it gets. Also no. Accepting the outcome of presidential elections is an unwritten norm losers honored without a law compelling them to do so. It’s not illegal for Trump to file frivolous lawsuits. His lawyers, however, are officers of the court and can’t make baseless arguments under oath in court if they don’t want to risk their reputations (with the judges, their colleagues, and the public) and possibly their admittance to the bar.  That’s why the lawyers who initially represented Trump withdrew from the lawsuits and why Giuliani, Powell, Ellis, et al allege fraud and conspiracies at news conferences and other media appearances but not in court, because there they’d have to back them up with evidence . Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Frivolous lawsuits could be illegal.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * He has every right to take it to court, hence the democratic process. If the electoral college votes for Biden and Trump utilizes the military to stay in office, then I'll support the coup or "anti-democratic" terminology. Bringing lawsuits to court is hardly anywhere near that and is, again, well within his right to do so Anon0098 (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose let’s just leave this out until the dust has settled. A lot of these "experts" are simply speculating. Whether one agrees or not, Trump has a constitutional right to file all the legal challenges and he wants until the electors vote. Using the language above will lead to countless edit request and does not add anything to the article at this time. It should be revisited at a later date. BlackBird1008 (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of constitutional rights or any other rights, other than an ongoing abuse of the courts and ethics violations that, in other circumstances, would lead to Giuliani and his other elite squad being disbarred. That's not me speaking, that's Chris Christie and other attorneys and judges speaking, as reported in numerous RS reports.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support it's more neutral than "coup", and it's reflected in reliable sources. Prcc27 (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per . — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 18:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - MSM made a bigger story out of this attempt, then necessary. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, because Wikipedia policy is that we reflect the content and emphases of reliable sources, unless we as individual pseudonymous editors decide that the reliable sources are wrong?? MastCell Talk 22:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's WP:Consensus for ya. Doesn't matter if it's right or wrong as long as we agree on it Anon0098 (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Modification on last sentence of lead re. transition
As the GSA has now initiated the transition process with Trump's publicly-expressed approval, I suggest changing the last sentence in the lead to read "Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat. He made unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud, mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results, and ordered government officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition for over two weeks after the result was called by major outlets." I will wait at least 24 hours to do so myself, as per remedy guidelines laid out to me. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We're here because I challenged this edit because I did not see anything to the effect of the added words in the body. As some of you know, I think we need better lead-body conformance than "Topic X is in the body, so the lead can include anything we deem appropriate about Topic X." This is especially important at an article that does not use citations in its lead.As long as we're here, I will attempt to grade the entire proposed lead passage for lead-body conformance. Bear in mind that I'm not grading Truth or even verifiability (this is not about what sources say), but only lead-body conformance.

&#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the sentence is incomplete without it. Orders are usually indefinite unless contradicted later on. Since that sentence was written, the GSA has, with Trump's approval, ordered for preparations for the transition. thorpewilliam (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * What are your sources for stating that Trump stopped blocking transition cooperation after two weeks? The GSA is essentially procurement. They only provide funds, office space, etc. The Office of Management and Budget, on the other hand, is still "continuing to advise agencies to prepare submissions for Trump's upcoming budget proposal as if nothing is changing", and they have been telling other agencies to speed things up.  Not to mention  the Trump administration forging ahead with "the biggest change to the federal civil service in generations", to be completed by January 19 . An unheaval upheaval of the civil service of this magnitude and planting his political appointees in permanent senior-level government jobs within the last 2 months of Trump’s administration - does that look like cooperation in a transition to a new administration? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.businessinsider.com.au/stock-market-today-trump-authorizes-bidens-transition-process-2020-11?r=US&IR=T https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-administration-officially-authorizes-biden-transition-n1248726 https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/11/23/us/joe-biden-trump https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/23/trump-appointee-informs-biden-that-gsa-will-begin-transition-process-reports-say.html – good enough? thorpewilliam (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you forget how to use brackets [] or is that for emphasis? How about this source (13 20 days in October November)? As for your edit summary, I can live with either verb, as I mentioned before. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ordered government officials not to cooperate: Changed verb to 'blocked'. I didn’t pay attention to the verb when I changed White House officials to government officials. (Is there even a difference between blocking and ordering in this government-by-tweet? Also, why didn’t you just change it yourself?:) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Page size
This article has 500,787 bytes of markup; that's far too large. The page should be heavily trimmed and/ or split into several parts. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We can cut much of it as we have an article on his presidency, and both elections.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If there were a list of "perennial" issues at this article, that would be very near the top. See archives and . However, now that there is no longer a presidential election at stake, perhaps some real progress can be made (just when it no longer matters much because nobody is reading it). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The page views are still high. Perhaps it would be better to wait to the new year. In the meantime, it might be a good idea to work out some ground rules. For example, editors are sure to argue that because some text has a citation it has to remain in the article. Perhaps we could compile a set of relevant principles to work towards a criteria for inclusion, rather than have repetitive arguments that lead nowhere.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean like #37? Or WP:SYNC? &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  20:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The higher the page views, the more people the (frankly ridiculous) size of the article is impacting, and so the greater then need to act sooner. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty much what I and a few others have been saying for several years, to largely deaf ears. Welcome to our small club. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to let passions subside. Past experience has shown there are a number of editors with strongly held passions about particular parts of the article, meaning it is difficult to make headway. But if you want to try, go ahead... I think it is good we do have relevant principles, and it would be good to lay them out up front to avoid repetitive arguments. I would also add WP:ONUS.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's better to make our pages usable by as large a part of their intended audinece as practicably possible. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Practically possible may not mean now.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is practically possible to do so now; and the only thing that might stop us is people being deliberately obstructive. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, editors suggested cutting down the article after the election had passed, when arguments would be less heated. I don't think that point has come. It's not a case of people being deliberately obstructive. It's about people having very strong opinions about particular sentences. However, if you want to try it, go ahead. I suggest starting at the top and asking for suggestions on what can be cut.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My position has always been that this article contains too much detail about the presidency, by about half, resulting in the chronic size problems. The most common response (that I recall) has been that other U.S. presidents' BLPs do that, ignoring the fact that Trump is distinctly not "other U.S. presidents"; i.e. his life has not been typical of the lives of U.S. presidents in terms of Wikipedia notability. Despite massive discussion about size and the diligent trimming efforts of some editors, the article's readable prose now sits at 121% of the recommended maximum per WP:SIZERULE. Due to the addition of new content, that's where it was before most of the diligent trimming efforts. Despite the removal of some space-expensive navboxes at the bottom awhile back, the article is now about 60 citations away from busting the limit on post-expand include size, yet again, and Trump's high-profile life appears far from over. As I've repeatedly said, what's needed is a sea change in approach to this article's content, not the usual surgical trimming.I once suggested transcluding the lead of Presidency of Donald Trump to create this article's Presidency section – sandboxed here, permalink – and that was soundly rejected as either too radical or too easy. Again, it was said that we can't do that because other U.S. presidents' BLPs don't do that. And a few days ago I came across this at WP:SYNC: Since it doesn't mention transclusion, I assume it means periodic copy-and-paste. But it appears my idea wasn't as radical, nor as easy, as was suggested. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  02:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be appropriate in this article. We already have text. Too much of it.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What? That would reduce the amount of content. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What I mean is it seems more appropriate work with the existing text, not cut-and-paste text from other articles.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To which my response is: So how's that working out, after several years of insistence that that's the only good solution? The traditionalists who have clung to that so tenaciously seem not to understand that the consequence of that is that they are then responsible for fixing the problem "their way". They have clearly and objectively failed to meet that responsibility, and they need to now step aside and allow new ideas. Innovation is not, in fact, something to be avoided. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think any of us could produce a normal-sized article. The problem is that everyone has a different vision of how to do it. (Or ignores the issue.)--Jack Upland (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Who's asking about this? Look's like 3 editors, simultaneously. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's an Andy, there's Pigsonthewing & another Andy. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * One editor with an unusual signature, which you probably could have figured out for yourself by looking at the page history. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you have any specific proposals to trim or split the article? There are also many articles where content from here can be moved. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2020
He is not the current president 2601:603:187F:4F30:B438:467A:38E4:5C00 (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless you have a source saying he is not he is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Trump is a lame duck president, whose term expires at noon Eastern time on January 20, 2021. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2020
Remove the link of "45th" (List of presidents of the United States) in the lead section for consistency with other presidents. I think this is the only president article that has that link in his ordinal number. PyroFloe (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. As you said, no other president has their ordinal linked this way, although I only checked as far back as Richard Nixon. Also checked both Barack Obama and George W. Bush from the time when both were still in office. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Misogyny and allegations of sexual assault section
You reverted my edit with the summary going back to previous wording on opening without explaining the reason. I added the info you deleted when I removed the lengthy info on the Kelly incident with this explanation: Adding the general description from NY Times subtitle, trimming Kelly incident which was mostly speculation about what he did or didn't mean. The way the section is written now, it seems to imply that Trump’s history consists of the pussy-grabber tape and the 26 allegations of sexual assault. However, per the two cited RS and others, there are many other verified–i.e., not merely alledged she said/he said–incidents (tweeted by him, speaking to the press) where he insulted and demeaned women. IMO, that needs to be addressed. What is your issue with my original edit? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The partial revert was because the long quote seemed undue and inappropriate. For reference this is what I removed "mocking their bodily functions, demeaning their looks or comparing them to animals." Also since it is a quote it should be attributed to who said it. I would argue it is not a defining feature about him. On a related note I think the section heading in the article should be updated to be more in line with the main article on the subject and not accuse him of Misogyny in a section heading. PackMecEng (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just rephrased the first sentence:, let me know what you think. The quote was from the subtitle of the NY Times. not a defining feature—if you are referring to his decades-long history of sexist and/or derogatory remarks about women I'd ask you to define "defining." The title was changed in this edit which combined the sections Comments about women and Allegations of sexual assault and sexual misconduct. Now that the two sections have been combined, the new section isn't just about the sexual misconduct (bit of a euphemism for one rape accusation and more than 20 accusations of sexual assault, I would think), it's also about that long history of lewd, crude, etc. talk. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Trump's excuse for the Access Hollywood tape was locker-room talk—difficult to make when you call in to a radio or TV show. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly an improvement. I am not sure I would go though listing all the examples at the end though. I would probably end at the and calling them names part. With the defining feature I mean the phrase I removed was not a special or major aspect of his ‎Misogyny and allegations of sexual assault and misconduct. I still favor shortening the section heading, because again we should not be calling him a misogynist in Wikipedia's voice in a section heading. I might even be okay with a rephrase like "Allegations of sexual assault, misconduct, and misogyny". Though I think it could be shortened more. Either "Allegations of sexual assault and misogyny" or "Allegations of sexual misconduct and misogyny". PackMecEng (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

There's a noticeable difference between his insults for men (lying Ted, little Marco, sleepy Joe) and for women (horseface; fat, ugly face), so I think we need some examples. The heading is very long but the name-calling is not an allegation. Asking other editors to weigh in on both of these issues. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That first part is original research there. Take a look at our article for the subject List of nicknames used by Donald Trump, seems fairly similar for gender. For the heading name-calling is not misogyny so yes it is an allegation. It's kind of like calling him racist in Wikipedia's voice. Do you have an alternative suggestion? PackMecEng (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * original research: You mean me comparing the—uh—quality of his insults for men (moonbeam) with that for women (skank)? There are sources but I wasn't proposing to add that to the article. The name-calling isn't an allegation, it's a fact, as per the 117 sources for the list of nicknames article you mentioned. I haven't looked at them yet—there's a difference between insults Trump has used repeatedly and those he used once. Still waiting for input from other editors. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the section deserves a general rethink/rework. I am not sure I agree with the merge of insult/misogyny and sexual assault sections. I originally began the section with a long list of women personalities and politicians who were the butt of Trump's insults. I see now the section has been "trimmed" out of existence... This is a biography of Trump and his behaviour towards women is a defining characteristic. The article has been "trimmed" [using quotes to convey my derision...] back to just the sexual assault elements. If we have to, perhaps an RfC to explicitly acknowledge that Trump's insulting behaviour and comments should be properly described? The "menstrual blood" incident was infamous, an Clinton called out Trump's behaviour during one of their debates. Its something for Wikipedia to minimize all this. (There are other places to more effectively trim this long article!) Bdushaw (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Picture Caption
I think we should add the caption "Official portrait, 2017" to the picture to the right of the lede as we have done with other politicians. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See item 46. This is a settled issue. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  23:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I didn't see it before posting. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * De nada. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the spontaneous national celebration following Trump's crushing defeat?
Please include. Many have called the euphoric national mood following Trump's ouster a "reverse 9/11 situation."108.30.187.155 (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Its not relevant to him, but to his presidency.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say that it is relevant to Trump the man, but the first step would be to see copious RS narratives concerning the dancing in the streets, etc.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Any sources? What I have seen is the country is divided, with strong demonstrations in favour of Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a reverse 9/11 situation on November 9, but that was scheduled centuries ago. Anyone claiming to know a "national mood" is lying. Some Americans are always happier, drunker or louder than others, always will be. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that in the final reckoning, the celebrations on Trump's removal from office may yet appear in history books, but it's hard to say yet. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

NAFTA Acronym in Lead
Right now NAFTA is referred to by its acronym in the lead, yet the USMCA is referred to by its full title right after. I think to keep consistency NAFTA should instead be referred to as "The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)" in that sentence. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea to me. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 19:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

✅ -- MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Before I tag this article
I need people to see if it should be tagged with, because I've seen numerous complaints about this page's neutrality, and I have seen it myself and doesn't seem that neutral. Is it ok for me to tag it with ? a gd fan (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose, but you need to be clear why it is problematic, after all some people say the earth is flat, that does not mean its valid to put the POV tag on earth. So what POV is at issue?Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's standard for neutrality is not "How many of the public have complained?" Please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. To answer your question: No. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In what way(s) is it not neutral? Remember that neutrality doesn't mean providing WP:FALSEBALANCE. It means neutrally reflecting what the WP:RS say. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * - to do so, you must specifically point out the parts that are not neutral. Before you do so, make sure that those parts haven't already been discussed and come to a consensus to, by reading this whole list: Talk:Donald Trump.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Historical view of Trump
The Trump presidency is winding down and he is now in a lame-duck session. With all former Presidents, the success of their Presidency, according to historians and political scientists, is included. Of all the major surveys of historians done, Trump consistently is ranked as one of the worst Presidents in American history. See, , ,. Therefore, I believe that a sentence stating "His presidency is generally viewed as one of the worst in American history by historians and political scientists." should be included. Please let me know your thoughts. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See the recent discussion about this here. While there was no agreement on when this would be appropriate, there was weak consensus for "not yet". I remain strongly opposed. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pennsylvania2 that there's almost no way that Trump won't be considered one of the worst in history, a single term marked by essentially one continuous crisis-scandal, breaking records for fact-checking and corruption, Nixonian, but way beyond Nixon, perhaps due to the barrage of coverage and the broad-daylight nature of a lot of this. However, many of the seeming inevitabilities with respect to the Mueller report or other things haven't happened the way some have thought. It is entirely possible that history will rehabilitate some of the worst aspects of Trump. That being said, while Wiki is not news, we are also obliged to cede weight and breadth to the historical record and the consensus of academic scholars -- or at least report them. We can also report, in due minimum weight, the opposition viewpoint. So inasmuch as there is a massive primary source record that supports the idea of Trump being one of the worst, or at least in that conversation, in the running of a near-last ranking, we are obliged as Wikipedians to credit this viewpoint its due, as it appears to be growing a rolling boulder and a head of steam. It's kind of like anthropogenic global warming. The number of times that all of the notable economists, or all of the notable former Department of Justice officials, have all gotten together to agree Trump is unprecedently terrible has grown a lot in the past year. To try to sanitize the article for the benefit of some presumed POV-neutrality because we still have to live through several months of lame duck, might also be plausibly misconstrued as giving Trump a benefit of his own doubt for his own PR. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed Pennsylvania2's addition yesterday, I didn't realize there was already a discussion on it. I'm not opposed to including it when the time is right; my issue with the edit is that it was based on old sources from barely halfway through his presidency (the newest of them was published in May 2019). We shouldn't be including this statement unless (and until) it can be based on sources that review his presidency as a whole, in my opinion, otherwise we're violating WP:CRYSTAL. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is too early, and will be too early for a long while.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Strongly opposed. It will be a decade or more before any semblance of unbiased review could be possible in this instance and there is already a lot of reassessments of many past presidents based on their positions on white supremacy (Wilson) and slavery (Jefferson) as well as Indian rights (Grant).--MONGO (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A decade is a bit much. We already have a statement on historical rankings in both Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Historical views change constantly, we really just need to reflect what the current consensus is. We can pretty reliably predict that Trump will be rated among the worst once he's out of office, but until we can find anyone actually reviewing his presidency from a historical perspective (which, as a condition, requires his presidency to be concluded) see WP:CRYSTAL. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really. Bush2 had a positive favorability of less than a third of populace in 2009 but was at 61% in 2018. in 2006 some insinuated that Bush2 was the worst president ever Bush2 moved up a few notches on the historians worst category since he has left office now nearly 12 years ago.--MONGO (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all the WP:OR opinions, but how about investigating the sourcing -- away from daily journalism, etc. -- and see whether this is NPOV based on what sources are discovered.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Support but would prefer stronger wording to reflect true consensus among historians and relevant experts. What is with this mealy-mouthed prose? Trump is universally considered the worst president of all time (likely of any country, though we can have the discussion of whether Trump is the worst president of any country another time), and has no serious competition for the dishonor. Merely saying he is considered “one of the worst” hardly puts the Trump presidency in historical context for our readers, and does them a serious disservice if we wish them to be aware of Trump’s true historical standing. 174.244.145.61 (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * wp:notnews, wp:recent.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m terribly sorry for the need to be so blunt but if you think Trump is not nigh universally considered the worst president of all times by the relevant experts- scholars, historians, political scientists, economists, philosophers, etc— then it is you who have engaged in original research, and incompetent research at that. Nor does “not news” apply here. This isn’t a fucking news story, this is scholarship, friends.108.30.187.155 (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Since it's evidently so obvious, it should be trivial to provide multiple high-quality sources to support that this is the prevailing mainstream view. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * He maybe now, that does not mean he will be in the future (I also suggest you read wp:npa and wp:not).Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * He maybe now, that does not mean he will be in the future (I also suggest you read wp:npa and wp:not).Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Patience. Something so obvious will be well documented in time. That's when an encyclopedia includes. O3000 (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * He understandably has a lot of people very upset right now, and probably for some time to come. Scholars, historians, political scientists, economists, and philosophers are not immune to that. That's one of the reasons for historical perspective. Had Wikipedia existed in 1974 (and if I had been old enough to be a decent Wikipedia editor), I would have opposed the addition of content about broad evaluations of Nixon's presidency at that time. Most likely few historians were in a mood to give him due credit for things like opening up diplomatic relations with China; the wounds were too fresh. Regardless, anything in this area should be well established at Presidency of Donald Trump before consideration here, per WP:SYNC (by well established I don't mean added the day before yesterday). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Without Nixon there would be no global pandemic.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I once said on my TP that had Wikipedia existed, writing about Nixon during his presidency would mainly have relied on WaPo. Only later do the scholars weigh in. I don’t think this is apples and apples – but that’s just my worthless opinion. Yes, now is too early. When is it not? (And, it’s likely a myth that Zhou Enlai said it was "too early to tell" about the influence of the French Revolution.) O3000 (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * While I agree it is too soon, it is also too unrealistic to avoid having a section on this. By February, the section will exist. I'm sure most of us know that. I think it is a waste of time arguing against the inevitable, regardless of how sensible and erudite the arguments are. Let's just set up the crappy section and have done with it. In the unlikely event, anyone takes up my suggestion, I think we should concentrate on concrete issues, rather than some abstract assessment of whether he was the worst President since Andrew Jackson. It is obviously true that short-term assessments tend to overstate the historical importance of what just happened. Therefore, it would be better to give the reader — the person who we care most about — an indication about the issues on which Trump's presidency will be judged in the future: immigration, North Korea, governance etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We just discussed this a couple of weeks ago. Do we have to keep saying, it's too early? Maybe we need a numbered consensus item on this? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments like I think it is a waste of time arguing against the inevitable, regardless of how sensible and erudite the arguments are. make me want a list item. Nothing is "inevitable" when it violates a clear consensus, at least not at this article, and we (usually) don't tolerate frequent re-raisings of settled issues. That's what I like about working at this article, and why I avoid other AP articles. That said, I don't think a list item that read would be of much use, since "for now" is too vague to be useful. We would still end up with a steady stream of "Are we there yet?" threads. If we could establish a clear consensus for a minimum wait period, such as January 20, 2022, that would be more workable. I still don't think one year would be nearly long enough – Trump is not going to let us begin to get over him so soon – but it would be better than nothing and I would support it if it meant a clear consensus. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  22:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

As I explained in the previous discussion, inclusion of material like this is based on the apparent consensus of reliable sources, not on the passage of time or any arbitrary date. Trump is not Obama, and if there is a consensus of reliable sources there is no reason to arbitrarily wait a year; in fact it would not be in the spirit of Wikipedia's principles to ignore a consensus of reliable sources.

We already include material on this topic e.g. in Historical rankings of presidents of the United States which discusses an APSA poll among political scientists specializing in the American presidency with Trump appearing in the last position. The broader point that Trump's presidency is not viewed favourably by scholars (and other sources) is entirely uncontroversial, and unlike previous presidents, reliable sources have already had much time to form a firm opinion of his presidency since he is so extreme and not a normal American or Western politician.

As a matter of principle, we are not required to wait until a politician leaves office to discuss their rule. For example in the article Vladimir Putin we discuss his legacy and the broader impact of his rule (e.g. "Under Putin's leadership, Russia has experienced democratic backsliding"). Putin and similar articles are more relevant comparisons than Obama.

That said, and mainly since it requires some work to figure out the exact wording, I don't think it is necessary to add this sentence on Trump's presidency being seen unfavourably here before he leaves office. But this is something we need to discuss over the coming months, and it would be appropriate to add it to the article at some point during the first half of 2021. If someone are willing to do the work—find relevant sources, work on the best possible wording on the talk page—there is no reason to prevent them from doing that, even if we'll wait until (early) next year before we add it to the article. --Tataral (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I explained in the previous discussion, inclusion of material like this is based on the apparent consensus of reliable sources, not on the passage of time or any arbitrary date.If it seems nobody is paying attention to your "explanation", it may be because your "explanation" is not correct. While V is crucial, and WEIGHT is important, they are NOT the only things we are allowed to consider, and "the passage of time" is NOT an illegitimate argument as you claim. If you need a written policy, try WP:VNOT. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the notion of waiting some time before giving him any historical ranking - to wait for the dust to settle down, the partisan fevers to subside a little, and some longer-term, more scholarly perspective to come into play. I do favor putting something in the "consensus" section, but I'm not sure we have a consensus just yet. If we do it should not prejudge what will be said, so I do not favor the proposed The article will omit anything about Trump being one of the worst presidents in history, for now. It should say something like Consensus is not to add anything just yet about Trump's historical ranking among presidents. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is possibly a rough agreement among regular participants on this talk page that there isn't any need to rush this before he leaves office in a few weeks, but I wouldn't directly oppose it either if someone presented a well-prepared proposal backed up by impeccable sources, and I certainly don't agree with the claim that there is a consensus against adding something about his legacy (historical rankings are just one possible way to describe his legacy in a way that is representative of many scholars); in fact several editors have proposed adding something about this. It's just that I don't think we will get that far (a well-prepared proposal, consensus for it) before he leaves office anyway. But there is no reason not to have a discussion of what the wording might be when the time comes. --Tataral (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Labels and rankings convey little encyclopedic meaning. However, mainstream journalists, academics, authors and a wide range of former government officials have detailed his disinterest, incompetence, and subversive actions in office. This can be more directly stated without pinning him a label.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Recognition
The first sitting U.S. president to receive three different nominations from three different countries for the prestigious 2021 Nobel Peace Prize. https://richmond.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-oct-8-2020-trump-gets-3-nominations-for-2021-nobel-peace/article_bd21748d-882d-5005-836b-4b6c15c0503e.html Robinrobin (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A letter to the editor is not a Reliable Source. And in any case, a nomination for the Peace Prize means absolutely nothing. Hundreds of people are nominated every year. Trump has campaigned for the honor for himself ever since becoming president, and has been known to ask foreign heads of state and other people to nominate him. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Grammar changes
Please revert this edit. Your edit summary says that you made grammar changes. Quite a few of those changes aren't, 'though. Some examples: Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Each state names a number of electors equal to" changed to "Each state names several electors equal to". This was discussed at length several times.
 * "in excess of ninety percent" changed to "more than ninety percent". It's a direct Trump quote.
 * a U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian general and Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani changed to a U.S. airstrike that killed an Iranian general and Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani. The general/Quds commander is one and the same person. Your version says that an Iranian commander as well as a Quds force commander, a Popular Mobilization Forces commander, and eight other people were killed.
 * IMO ordered the headmaster of the school, Evan Jones, to give him Trump's academic records so he could keep them secret has a different meaning than ordered the headmaster of the school, Evan Jones, to give him Trump's academic records to keep them secret.
 * Trump said injuries were not "very serious" changed to Trump said injuries were not "severe". This was another direct Trump quote ("I don’t consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries I have seen.")
 * Yeah, sorry about that. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 04:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Foundation > Philanthropy
Requesting someone change "Foundation: section to Wikipedia-standard "Philanthropy" section, and include his $100,000 donation to the Penn Club of New York.


 * The Foundation section is about the history and demise of the foundation, not about Trump's philanthropic giving (or lack thereof). You'd need to provide RS, and one "six-figure gift" from the self-proclaimed billionaire IMO is not sufficient reason to add a philantropy section to the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we need a lot of RS saying what a great Philanthropist he is. What we do not need is a puffery filled list.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and besides, the WP:DAILYMAIL is no longer reliable and cannot be used as a source. Mgasparin (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we include his donation somewhere in the article, as it is significant it was made during the year he child was accepted to Penn, and he receives membership in return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.83.19.146 (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That looks dangerously like drawing inferences.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Lede should have paragraph, or at least more info, on economy
Right now, there is scarcely any mention of the economy under Trump. This is very odd since (rightly or wrongly) RS talk about the performance of the economy under a president all the time, and the public judges him on it.

IMO, we need to discuss in the lede the following four points regarding the economy: 1) By the end of his Administration, Trump was presiding over an economy in recession, that had lost jobs 2) Conversely, in the first three years of the Administration, the economy was strong by all conventional metrics 3) Trump supporters say that the weak economy with which Trump ended his term is entirely attributable to Covid 4) Critics of Trump argue that Trump bears a considerable amount of responsibility for the weak economy, supposedly because of his poor response to COVID-19.

By the way this information could be added to the lede without a whole new paragraph. Play around with the possibilities, ladies and gentlemen. CozyandDozy (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WhaTBOUTY but what do we say about Obama in the lead?Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Disagree. This article is about Trump as a person, not about his presidency; therefore, only things particularly important to his biography belong in the lead, such as things that dramatically changed the story about him or turning points in public perceptions of him. Aside from its collapse after COVID, the economy was not unusually important during his term in office, so it doesn't deserve a section in the lead of his bio - Presidency of Donald Trump is where we go into more nitty-gritty economic stuff in the lead.  If this was eg. Herbert Hoover, whose failure on the economy is central to his reputation, or FDR, whose remaking of the US economy was one of his major achievements in office, it would make sense to mention it in his bio; but the economy didn't significantly change direction from the previous administration under Trump until COVID hit, nor (COVID aside) is there any reason right now to think that any of the economic policies Trump took have had long-term ramifications. --Aquillion (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Lede way too long; paragraph on Trump's election litigation should be deleted
First, this lede is terribly written and way too long. Compare the six paragraphs to the five on Barack Obama or the four on George W. Bush. In general, the problem arises from people placing too much emphasis on the day to day hysterias of the Trump era and not taking a long view on the important things that happened in his Administration.

Second, Trump's lawsuits are a joke and don't deserve a lede mention. We should only have one sentence about this nonsense, e.g. "Trump refused to concede to Biden, and promoted conspiracy theories about the 2020 election in which Biden defeated him." CozyandDozy (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This current situation isn't comparable to previous presidents though. And RS make that clear.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Donny is about the first president who has done most of this, the twitter meltdown's the vexatious litigation. IN fact this may well be what he is most remembered for, the childish egotism.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with CozyandDozy; it could certainly be cut down, and I think I agree in the way he suggested. Some of the lede does strike me as a little WP:UNDUE (at least, for a lede). — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 12:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The central fact about Trump is that he did not understand or care about the roles of the president or the larger US government. This is the context for whatever events and detail are presented in the article. It took the mainstream 2-3 years to realize they were validating arbitrary, false, and self-serving narratives by describing Trump's actions as if they were based on principle or policy. WP appropriately followed suit, but those days are over and the article needs wholesale revision to bring it in line. I would not start with the lead, however, although some of the proposed revisions do reflect changes that should eventually be made.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like we should wait a few months before making any drastic changes to the lede, since things are still changing fast and it will probably be simpler to get a sense of what matters once he is no longer President. That said, his lede isn't actually longer than Barack Obama's, that I can see, and is about the same size as George W. Bush's? --Aquillion (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Another way to think about it, in terms of WP articles, is that Trump's case is fundamentally different than Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, G.W. Bush, or other presidents who are merely considered incompetent. We should review all the article text in this light.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Nixon, Reagan and Bush were all portrayed by Democrats as the worst presidents in American history, but later idealized. Trump will join them once the Republicans manage to elect another president. Nixon didn't have twitter, but have you listened to what he said in private? TFD (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But I have identified the critical and defining difference between Trump and other US persidents. In the case of Nixon, he was despised but not called incompetent, so he was not even in the category of the 3 failures I cited. Do you reject this distinction?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead edit request
"Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden" should be changed to "Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Democratic nominee Biden". JJARichardson (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why?Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree it probably isn't necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree. It only makes the article longer, I could live with changing it to "...lost the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden", instead of the very informal reference by last name only, but that's about it.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête
 * I would also support adding Biden's first name to the lead. Simply putting it as "Biden" is overly casual for a lead given that it is the first mention of him in the article. It also assumes that our readers are familiar with him, and I am sure that some international readers may not be. Mgasparin (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not the first mention. That's the point, per MOS:SURNAME. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was reading too fast. Missed his first mention in the above paragraph.  Mgasparin (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, there should be an edit. I left a comment under "'So far has refused to concede defeat'". The election is not over until the Constitution says it is, and that is when Congress elects the President. Just because we go vote, that is a courtesy because that's what people have asked for over the two centuries of America being a country. It is not the ultimate nor the penultimate stage of the election, it is merely a gauge to help inform the legislatures of the states and then Congress. 2600:8800:5E06:601:697D:353A:CE27:E539 (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

"So far has refused to concede defeat"
I think this should be changed to "as of December 2020 has refused to concede defeat," per this guideline. Anyone object? ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 23:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No need. As soon as he concedes (if he does), at least three people will try to update the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I would consider changing it to "Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat." There's no reason at this point to expect that he ever will; if he does, of course, we can always update it, but the current (and proposed) wording both carry the implication that he will at some point, which isn't necessarily true. --Aquillion (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd support Aquillion's suggestion. That seems to sum up the situation quite well.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I link the template in the link, because it will always update to today's date. But even it would be incorrect between Trump's concession and the seconds it takes for someone to update the article. I don't think though that we can assume anything about whether and when Trump will concede, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. And just to think all this will probably come up in another two years when Trump announces his run for 2024. TFD (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Two years from now? I'm betting he makes his announcement on January 20, at a big maskless rally. Anything to steal the spotlight. Wanna bet? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with Aquillion's suggestion. We shouldn't imply a concession is coming, and we don't need a ticking clock telling us it's X weeks and Y days and Z hours and Trump still hasn't conceded.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In two minds, I doubt he will ever concede, but I am not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So why should we raise the issue? Just say he hasn't, and when he does, change it. Just like we don't (normally) say people haven't died yet. Yes, I believe we will all die, but we don't need to raise the issue, and we certainly don't need to say that as of December 2020 Ariana Grande is still alive.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Because its just a bit Crystaily to me. Its not the same as dying we have no choice over that Donny has a choice as to what he does here. Thus he may decode to concede, not concede launch a coup or just throw a nasty little temper tantrum and be sick all over the carpet. The fact is we do not know what he will do. I am now leading towards we should not say this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Say what?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Its not January yet, anything can happen. We lose nothing by waiting.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the best course of action is to use "As of [Month/Year]" until Biden is inaugurated on Jan. 20. Assuming that Trump never concedes, the language can be changed after Biden's inauguration to "refused to concede defeat" or "never conceded defeat". Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with . It can be changed to a more permanent "refused to concede defeat" after Biden's inauguration, and in the mean time I think we should use "as of" language, as I suggested above, reflecting the possibility (however remote it may be) that he'll eventually see the light. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 19:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

a) Everyone knows he hasn’t conceded, so we aren’t adding any information. b) Concession is not required or legally meaningful. c) It will be changed shortly, not close to passing WP:10YT. WP:NODEADLINE O3000 (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I think User:ONUnicorn is absolutely right. We always try to avoid temporal terms like "currently" or "now" or "so far", because they assume a time frame which may or may not be known to the reader, and are just not encyclopedic. I think it should be changed to "but as of (insert current date template) he has refused to concede defeat." Alternatively, we could simplify things by going with User:Aquillion's suggestion "refused to concede defeat". The "as of" construction suggests that we are holding our breath, sure that he will concede any day now; I think most of us here are pretty sure that he never will. So all in all I think I prefer the second suggestion. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems the people commenting have developed a consensus to leave out both "so far" and "as of", with just "refused to concede defeat" per 's suggestion. I have changed it accordingly.  If anyone thinks I was premature and that the discussion should continue, I have no problem with being reverted. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, look. There is substantial sources saying that this is disputed. The best thing to do is to say that there are two main schools of thoughts, one from the defeat side and the other from the won side. There is a substantial indifferent-concerned school of thought, too.

Daily Wire and Anthony Brian Logan are two main sources that have shown consistent arguments that either the election is uncertain or Trump won.

R&R Law Group has been reviewing the lawsuits and has found legitimate questions of fraud that SHOULD be investigated. They, of course, are a law group and maintain a neutral stance as an observer trying to figure out what the government is doing. (The use of "we" is used since while it is they who talked about, I also am on the side that there is merit to these particular legal theories.) *We have #suitcasegate in Georgia, with probable malfeasance by the election officials after the election collection date.
 * We have a Wisconsin lawsuit that actually has Trump, himself, as the plaintiff where there was a lot of malfeasance on the Government side and the election officials running up to the election.
 * We have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court showing a partisan lean in its malfeasance and is likely to be in the US Supreme Court this week; we have a solid argument that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires changes to election law to go through a constitutional amendment process which was not done either by the legislature and could not be done by the judicial branch; we also know there is a history of corruption in this state.
 * Then Arizona has Kelli Ward who has found 2 out of 100 duplicated ballots were done incorrectly and resulted in a lost Trump vote and a switched Trump vote to Biden; there is, I believe, an FBI warrant and seizure in relation to voting malfeasance; there was a problem with Sharpiegate, and this may or may not be an issue, though it could be.
 * Michigan had some "glitches"; there were efforts to prevent observers from observing; and of course there is some Sidney Powell stuff.
 * Dominion is an electronic system. Thus, it will have security issues like normal computers unless they actually managed to do the impossible and make a perfect product, especially when using Windows platforms for their equipment.

So the additional caveat of "unsubstantiated allegations of electoral fraud" is incorrect. The three sources I mentioned are on Youtube. Why should I bother getting links to them if you are likely to ignore me? Do it yourself. 2600:8800:5E06:601:697D:353A:CE27:E539 (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think "as of" is also unencyclopedic. It should only be used if there is no certainty of further information coming to hand any time soon: such as, "As of 2015 Jerry Little was living in Seattle and playing the banjo in small venues".--Jack Upland (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead: "mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results"
I've revised the text to give a number for the lawsuits that Trump has filed. I'd like to change the phrase "mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results" to "filed numerous unsuccessful legal challenges to the results". I modestly object to the use of the word "series", since that indicates a plan or sequence of law suits, whereas I don't think that's the case. "mounted" is a little odd as well. Anyways, following directions to discuss first as requested in the lead. Bdushaw (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, but many of the lawsuits have not actually been filed by Trump himself, but rather by others on his behalf. We may want to think about that in the wording. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe "he has supported or called for a series of legal challenges to the results (yes I support "series, as many have in fact has second episodes (or more).Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This statement seems premature. There are still a number of challenges to the election pending before SCOTUS. Also, many of these suits have not been filed by Trump or his campaign. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 13:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * None of the so-called "challenges" will be successful, and the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources confirms this, but you are correct about the fact some of the suits are not directly from Trump (I point I made above). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Its a valid point that most of the lawsuits are not Trump himself. A look at the cites shows its Trump, his campaign, state congressmen, states attornies general, private citizens, etc filing the law suits. Sources use "Trump or his allies", perhaps "Trump or his Republican allies filed numerous unsuccessful legal challenges to the results"? Unsure of the value of having the article text describe the wide nature of those filing the lawsuits. Bdushaw (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This is an article about Trump, and the lead should be about him, not about what other people have done, and we don't want too much detail there either. It would be OK to say "he supported a series". I think the word "series" is broad enough to cover this.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I went with "he or his allies" in the article, which is what the citations seemed to use most often. I decided that "he or his confederates" was a might POV.  I'd suggest the same in the lead.  The reason for elaborating on who is supporting these lawsuits in the article would be to describe the breadth of support that Trump has in his efforts.  Republican congressmen, states attornies general, etc. and some 40% of Americans support the lawsuits and believe the election was grossly flawed - the power of Trump repeating his rhetoric from the bully pulpit.  Plus more and more people are warning of the possibility of violence.  It is not just Trump out on his own challenging the election. Bdushaw (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden as successor
<div class="boilerplate archived" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Joe Biden should be linked as Trump's successor in the infobox. The Electoral College has voted at this point. Successors to incumbents are linked in every other case in American politics — including all the members-elect of the next Congress, as well as, historically, Trump on Obama's page when he was elected, and all other American officials-elect. To ignore this consistent and longstanding practice is absurd. Trump's successor should not be linked only in the bottom of the lead. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's an RFC taking place at WP:Village Pump (proposals), concerning this topic. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We had a local discussion about this awhile back, you can find it in the archives of this page. It received plenty of participation but failed to reach a consensus to include – despite the precedent at other articles, which was one of the factors considered. When content is disputed and a consensus to include it cannot be reached, the default is to omit it, which is what this article currently does. If a community consensus is reached in the VPR RfC, this article will comply with it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have now commented on there. For the record, I think that the situation has changed significantly since that discussion, considering that the electors have now cast their votes. That being said, I do agree that the same policy should be applied universally. I present my reasoning on the linked discussion. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump was not listed on Obama's page, nor was Obama listed on Bush's page, until the inauguration. If you're going to cite precedent, please do so appropriately. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not breaking news nor is it the place to try and advertise the future you're happy with happening. Biden is not Trump's successor until he takes the office. The fact that's been done on less watched articles is irrelevant - obviously, less watched/less major articles are going to be prime grounds for people to attempt to violate the concept of being an encyclopedia for their own ideas/reasons. That's shown by the fact that in the discussion earlier, many people didn't even know that other articles were violating the standard (on template:infobox officeholder) of waiting until they take the office. There has been a consensus for years, if not over a decade, that it applies once they've taken the office - because that's what we are - an encyclopedia. The electoral college voting does not change the fact that Biden is not yet Trump's successor. He is merely the "expected successor" - which is not an encyclopedic piece of information. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, you are right that Trump wasn't listed on Obama's page at the time (Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_81). That being said, the precedent is present on virtually every page for every other position in the federal government — so if it is really a problem, then it is one in need of quite severe cleanup. It is quite clear that the consensus on the ground, so to speak, is not the same as the agreement in those discussions — that is to say, the results differ from what has continued to be all along the almost-universal practice. I think that the practice which has been in common use is appropriate — and I comment as much on the RFC. As for WP:RGW, my personal opinions on Donald Trump and/or Joe Biden have nothing to do with this (and indeed that Biden has been elected is verifiable — see what RGW says; that's not a matter of my personal opinion). And as for the "expected successor" not being an encyclopedia piece of information — see my comment on the RFC; Writing that someone is an elected successor is, I would say, encyclopedic information, pertaining to the result of a notable event which took place in the past (the 2020 United States Presidential Election, in this case). If it said that Trump's term were over, or that Trump had in fact been succeeded by Biden, then it would be inaccurate, but to say that Biden has been elected to the office is true. Counterexample: Hillary Clinton was expected by many to succeed Barack Obama. She did not. She was never elected President of the United States. While she was an "expected successor" on a speculative basis, that isn't fitting for an infobox (nor would it have been before the 2016 election). But the result of an election is indeed encyclopedic knowledge. If, for instance, Donald Trump were not to be succeeded by Joe Biden, due to some incident which were to hypothetically befall one of the two between now and January 20, the indication that Biden had been elected president would still be true and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia – I support mention of the "successor-elect" somewhere in prose (and this article does so), but I oppose the idea that that requires inclusion in the infobox. I think they can have different criteria for inclusion, with a higher bar for the infobox because of its limited space and necessary absence of nuance and context. When I framed the RfC, it was not my intent to address prose content, and I think I made that sufficiently clear. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Electoral College has voted and formally confirmed Biden as 46th president. We shouldn't wait any longer as there is no longer any doubt that Biden will succeed Trump (barring Biden's premature death). (1,2) Mgasparin (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been any significant doubt for some weeks, since a dozen or two court cases in a row had failed. Even when there was a little doubt, that was never the sole reason for omitting the field from the infobox until Biden takes office (although many editors regrettably saw it that narrow way and !voted accordingly). Beyond saying that, I don't care to regurgitate the entire debate here. Please, let's just wait and see what happens in the RfC. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm with the "lets wait" team. In the Trump 2016 election, we waited until january 20th. No reason we shouldn't do the same here. Coltsfan (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Even with Biden as the President-elect, it still should be on Trump's infobox. If we have it on Biden's infobox with him succeeding Trump, then why not post it on Trump's infobox as well? dylansh99/sandbox (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. How that article presents its infobox is a matter for that article's editors on their talk page; it doesn't automatically apply to this article. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 17:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ^^^^ This, and one could go to Talk:Joe Biden and ask: "If we don't have it on Trump's infobox with Biden succeeding him, then why post it on Biden's infobox?" Please explain how your reasoning makes more sense than that. If you find that explanation difficult, you have discovered one of the main reasons for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. An editor can usually find a precedent for anything they want to do, which makes such arguments largely meaningless. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to include this information in the infobox until Biden is actually Trump's successor. Anything could happen between now and the Inauguration, and we already have the salient information in the article. It is usual for us to wait, and I suggest we do so this time. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * IMHO, this should be closed. We've got the RFC ongoing, concerning this matter. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support listing Biden as presumptive successor, and oppose waiting for some other discussion elsewhere. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The RFC-in-question is leaning heavily towards waiting until January 20, 2021. A schism is not desired here. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. Yes, we need to include Biden as successor. And Trump was listed as successor in Obama's article in 2016, at least for a time. But more importantly, we have overwhelming precedent from other articles for listing successors with the appropriate qualification (such as "elect"). Successor here means the person who is elected to succeed him, even if he hasn't taken office yet. --Tataral (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Go the the RFC-in-question on this matter, please. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Mention election loss in the first paragraph
I think we should note in the first paragraph that he was defeated and will be a one-term president. He won't be in office anymore in 37 days, and one-termers are quite rare, so it seems important enough that it should be listed very early on. Thoughts? Cpotisch (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you please not add Outgoing in the infobox of this article, Mike Pence's, Melania Trump's & Karen Pence's articles? It's something we simply don't do, even for lameducks. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine, though I wasn’t the first to do it. I thought there was consensus early on that this was the eventual plan, but fine. Cpotisch (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose this in the first paragraph, per my comment in this discussion, which can be distilled to being extraordinary is not a good reason to include something in the first paragraph, with which you appeared to agree. It now appears that either you didn't fully understand my point, or you're prepared to set it aside for something you consider sufficiently extraordinary. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The obvious change now needed in the first paragraph is to say "was...." rather than "is the 45th and current president of the United States" Or does that have to wait until Biden's inauguration? HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it waits. He remains president until January 20, another five weeks and change, so it would be patently false to say he "was" the 45th president. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine, so there is no point in changing anything in the first paragraph yet. HiLo48 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think being a one-termer is really rare or extraordinary. I think 23 out of 44 presidents had one full term or less. I think 10 failed to win re-election. As I've said before, this isn't a baseball card.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2020
Change

Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat. He made unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud, mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results, and ordered government officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition.

to

Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat. He made unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud, mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results, and ordered government officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition. Qbmaster (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The sources are in Donald Trump per MOS:LEADCITE. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2020
{{subst:trim|1=

I want to add good thoughts about Donald Trump. All tho I may not support him but all people should get a chance to have somethings good written about them.


 * You need to say what it is you want to add, not just a vague assertion. Do you have any ideas about what we can add?Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Proposed shortening of one sentence in the lead section
Any thoughts on shortening a statement in the lead section as follows?


 *  CURRENT VERSION : 


 * ''' PROPOSED NEW VERSION :

This would go down from 33 words to 22 words; it would preserve the most important bits (i.e., the level/rate of falsehoods is unprecedented) while omitting the unremarkable/obvious (the fact that these falsehoods have been documented - obviously they have been or else we wouldn't be making a reference to it in the Wikipedia bio). Neutralitytalk 01:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This seeks to alter #35.the fact that these falsehoods have been documented - obviously they have been or else we wouldn't be making a reference to it in the Wikipedia bio - I'd disagree with that statement. We might be saying that because reliable sources have said that without any documented fact-checking (or at least without anything remotely approaching the scale of what WaPo et al have done). We do that kind of thing all the time. We generally don't require sources to prove the truth of what they say. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  01:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * On the actual proposed rewording, do you support or oppose? It was not clear to me from your comment. Neutralitytalk 13:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's because I'm waiting for other comments. I could even end up abstaining, and you'll know that by the absence of a bullet with my name on it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to see some discussion about the need for "the media have widely described" wrt NPOV. And whether the change is due to a change in situation or due to differences in policy interpretation. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Minor note..."his campaign" is singular, whereas he has had two campaigns now. (Though "false and misleading statements" doesn't begin to cover the situation...) Perhaps an opportunity to finally change "The statements have been..." to "The misinformation has been..." Bdushaw (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support the proposal with "campaign" changi7ng to "campaigns". I've long thought the extra stuff was really just there to deter edit warring, but as long as it is clearly spelled out in the body of the article I don't see the need for the longer version. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good catch. I just changed "campaign" to "campaigns" --Neutralitytalk 13:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. No need to tiptoe around the facts. François Robere (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support this improvement. It's a fact, so say it plainly. -- Valjean (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This is definitely an improvement. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The statement is accurate with no need to substantiate it.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not seeing a need to overturn long standing and well participated consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no need. I have no idea why this is even being discussed now. Efcharisto (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Economy is always good. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump said this is the best economy ever. Question: That comma bothers me, but I see why the wording felt awkward without it. Is there a way to improve the sentence structure?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the comma seems awkward because the sentence ought to begin with "To a degree..." Bdushaw (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose so blithely replacing a consensus resulting from an RfC that was open for six weeks and ran to over 10,000 words. I wonder why the decision is so much easier this time. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC) (Eighteen days later, "blithely" no longer applies. Replaced with "oppose" at the bottom.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that discussion was closed in February 2019. François Robere (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? Because in the 18 months since the press and numerous recent books have resolved any doubts they formerly may have held.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Quoting Paul Krugmann: Of course, we’re learning that Donald Trump and those around him lie about everything and don’t care at all about endangering other people. But that’s more of a confirmation than a revelation — we basically already knew that, although we didn’t expect such graphic evidence. I wonder why the statement is restricted to the two official campaigns and the presidency. This is his general bio, not the "Presidency of" article, and he's been making documented false statements since at least the 80s. If we remove the fact-checkers, shouldn't we remove the campaigns and the presidency, as well, and simply say that he's made many false and misleading statements before and during his presidency (to be changed to "before, during and after his presidency" sooner or later?) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The question is whether sources provide a statement to that effect. If you can provide enough sources that do, then we can. François Robere (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the things the statement says implicitly is that he is lying while president. It is one thing to lie as a real estate developer or steak salesman, another to lie to the American public as president about such things as pandemic response.  Perhaps the statement ought to more explicitly reflect this more consequential lying as president? I note that since the original statement was included in the lead, the section on Veracity was substantially expanded. Bdushaw (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I would support total removal from the lead. I would also support changing the proposed removed wording into a footnote. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the proposed change. Regarding the former RfC, I note that the process can be rather bizarre, and not altogether logical.  The existing sentence has, essentially, "weasel words" in "the media have widely described" - we have had considerable recent discussion on the use of such words (and recalling my recent RfC where my attempt to use such words in a misguided attempt a compromise went over like a lead balloon), with the solid consensus that they should be avoided.  Just state the thing; the problem in this case is that just stating the thing is to use Wikivoice to convey a clear flaw in Trump, which gets perceived badly, by some.  The proposed wording states the facts clearly and economically.  I suspect for better English the sentence ought to start with "To a degree unprecedented...", however. Bdushaw (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: precision and concision are beautiful things soibangla (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It might be worthwhile to try a different sentence structure, to avoid "to a degree..." Something like:
 * ''' KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION :
 * Or using a semicolon to make a substantive statement about how unprecedented the misinformation is (corrosion of democracy?). Bdushaw (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Tactic" is interpretational, suggests planning. François Robere (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting it was unplanned? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't like the alternative wording. I disagree that tactics imply "planning", because a tactic can be reactionary. Planning would imply a "strategy", but I would argue Trump's lies are habitual and are only occasionally part of some sort of overall strategy, otherwise we would have reliable sources to support the idea Trump's lies are part of a plan. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Trump has made more false and misleading statements than any other American president or presidential candidate in history.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a WP:RS for that? Or is it alternative wording you are proposing? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a paraphrase of the initial suggestion above? However, I think this is better: Trump has made more false and misleading statements than any other president or presidential candidate in American history<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ''' KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION : ??? Bdushaw (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ''' KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION : ??? (need "or" rather than "and") Bdushaw (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality's wording is correct: "to a degree unprecedented". "All politicians lie", but Trump doesn't just lie more than others, he rarely tells the truth. He is in a different universe, where hardly a single molecule of truth exists. It's a foreign concept to him. -- Valjean (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, as well. I let the issue sit overnight, and the nom's original proposal seems best.  I thought of changing "many" to "an extraordinary number" ("torrent"?), but we perhaps should not belabor the issue. But it should be "false OR misleading". Bdushaw (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, regretfully since I rarely disagree with Neutrality. Even as the sentence is we are constantly getting complaints about it at the talk page. If we change it to a simple assertion in Wikipedia's voice, without any explanation about what we are basing it on, we will be getting dozens of complaints a day, every day - and to some extent they will be justified. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We should never be concerned about the number of unjustified complaints, but I don't necessarily disagree with to some extent they will be justified. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree with "let's go ahead and change the article in a way that will justifiably offend lots of readers, rather than keeping it as it is giving the basis for our statement." As you know, we hashed out the existing wording over a long period of time, and it has been stable for several years now if I recall correctly. The existing wording makes it clear: this is not something we are saying arbitrarily or because we are biased; we are saying it because is one of his most defining characteristics and there is overwhelming evidence for it. The proposed wording WOULD sound like we are saying it arbitrarily or because we are biased. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is loaded with things that sound like we are biased – to readers who don't understand our policies (and some editors who don't understand our policies). The only question for me is how to best comply with those policies – and they are so vague, convoluted, and seemingly self-contradictory that there is no clear answer, leaving things wide open to editor bias. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * - the existing wording has a problem though. It's not only the media which is saying that Trump's behaviour is unprecedented. It's academics. The mega-citation with the bundled references has six instances of that: (1) McGranahan is an academic source, (2) the NYT source refers to the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, (3) the WaPo source refers to presidential historian Michael R. Beschloss, (4) the LA Times source refers to political scholar George Edwards, (5) the Toronto Star refers to presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, and (6) Skjeseth is also an academic sources. Given that academics believe that Trump's behaviour is unprecedented, I believe that Wikipedia can reflect it in wiki-voice. Does this change your view?  starship .paint  (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. Thanks for spelling all this out, Starship, and I'm glad it is in the article text. However, it does not make "Trump is an unprecedented liar" into the factual equivalent of "the sky is blue". IMO we need to supply support, even in the lead, for such an inflammatory statement. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Factcheckers have confirmed that Trump has made more false and misleading statements than any other president in American history. -- Isn't that readily Verifiable?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but, per policy, not all that is verifiable must be included in an article, let alone in its lead. If it's included, policy is sufficiently vague (flexible) that editors can reasonably disagree about how to word it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh? This discussion is about shortening it, not removing longstanding consensus content. Emir asked to be sure it's Verified. Yes it is. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It helps to put replies in context, or use .Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fact-checkers (WaPo, Toronto Star, et al) have not actually compared Trump to his predecessors. I don't know that anybody has at the item level, as if that were even possible or useful given that presidents haven't always made multiple public statements per day that were immediately fact-checked. That wasn't even feasible until the widespread use of computers, roughly 1980s (or maybe advent of the internet, mid-1990s). Any "verifiability" we have that Trump is unprecedented is from sources other than the fact-checker databases, and we accept their analysis without actual proof. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why do we currently say that in the article? I don't recall being involved in the initial consensus, because at the time I did not feel comfortable with what might have sounded partisan. However without discounting your argument, I think it is the case that the press has been more willing, over the course of the most recent year, to emphasize Trump's false statements and even to call them lies. And we have a number of books in the past year that go into great detail on it.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why do we currently say that in the article? That's my point, which may have been unclear. I was responding only to your bolded comment, and the article does not currently say that Trump's "unprecedence" has been confirmed by fact-checkers. It says that the media have widely described Trump as unprecedented and the false and misleading statements have been documented by fact-checkers – not the same thing. You may be equating fact-checkers with reliable sources, and I'm not. That was not the intent of the phrase in the 2019 discussion, as I understood it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, actually for the purpose of the current discussion, it is the same thing. Otherwise, you should have shared your concern at the top of the thread. Let's stay focused on the matter at hand.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Alternative: "Media outlets have widely considered Trump as largely unprecedent in making false and misleading statements during his 2016 election campaign and his presidency." We could do with sounding a lot more neutral about the matter, and not seeming like Wikipedia shares that a view, while also being far more concise. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would strongly oppose that. The fact of Trump's unprecedented level of false and misleading statements is a fact, not a "view," and we do not hedge on that. Neutralitytalk 01:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said it was a view. It should be paramount that Wikipedia appears neutral. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You wrote that you wished to avoid Neutralitytalk 04:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, what I meant was that it seems like Wikipedia has a view. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Onetwothreeip, Wikipedia (that's us) is not supposed to choose sides, but it is unabashedly, because of our RS policy, on the side of RS when there is no doubt about a matter. Wikipedia (editors) is unabashedly on the side of the fact that the sky is blue and that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale. That's not opinion or a "view", it's a well-established fact backed by the vast preponderance of RS and huge amounts of measurable data. Few facts are more firmly established by data and data analysis. You can bank on this, because experience has taught us that, quoting David Zurawik, we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards" because he's a "habitual liar".
 * You see, facts are not like opinions. They aren't mushy. They can withstand the onslaught of fact checkers and scientific analysis. They are falsifiable. They survive. Our duty is to make sure we don't present facts as opinions (and the converse). This is about the fact that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale and manner, and opinions that doubt that fact have little due weight and should only get passing mention. NPOV does require we document disagreement with that fact, but due weight tells us to do so in a very limited manner.
 * Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopedia. It is neutral when it documents what RS say, even if what RS say appears to be biased (to the uninformed). NPOV requires that we document that bias and not censor or neuter it. Bias isn't always bad, and it's actually good to be biased for the facts. The facts are not central in politics, but are often held more firmly by one side more than the other, hence the famous quote "Reality has a well known liberal bias", or, as Paul Krugman put it, "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias". -- Valjean (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia (editors) is unabashedly on the side of the fact that the sky is blue and that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale. There are a number of editors who are unable to check their POV about this at the door. Somehow that POV never makes it into mainspace, which suggests that "Wikipedia (editors)" is not unabashedly on the side of it, your view notwithstanding. Apparently "Wikipedia (editors)" feels that such strong statements are not supportable by Wikipedia policy. I happen to agree that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale, as well as a number of other really bad things, but I know my opinion is irrelevant here and it's crucial to understand that. I save that for discussions among family and friends. I happen to agree that RS supports the kind of content currently in this article about that, but that is quite different from wildly irresponsible statements about blue sky "fact" that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that not all Wikipedia editors are on the side of RS. I would never state in Wikipedia's voice that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale., but our sources would justify saying that Trump has made many false or misleading statements on a scale described as "unprecedented" in American politics. -- Valjean (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you would never state that in an article, to say it on an article talk page is to voice your POV opinion, violating NOTFORUM and distracting from policy-based discussion. Not to mention at least giving the strong impression that you are unable to leave your POV out of content decisions. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Neutrality. Let's reboot and get back to the source for the "unprecedented" wording. It isn't used in a willy nilly fashion. That is the sense in which we should continue to use the word. Trump isn't even close to anyone else. He's off the charts dishonest. -- Valjean (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It has long been a truism that politicians lie, but with the entry of Donald Trump into the U.S. political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented [...] Donald Trump is different. By all metrics and counting schemes, his lies are off the charts. We simply have not seen such an accomplished and effective liar before in U.S. politics. Bolding added.


 * You are far from the only offender, but statements like Trump isn't even close to anyone else. He's off the charts dishonest. are pure POV and have no place in any Wikipedia content discussion. That one simultaneously cites one source – or a hundred sources – does not make that appropriate. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for agreeing with RS and paraphrasing them. -- Valjean (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The point is that:
 * Whether you or I agree with RS is completely irrelevant for our purposes, as Wikipedia editing is not about our opinions.
 * You didn't say you were paraphrasing RS, you presented it as objective fact. Those are not the same thing.
 * This is not hair-splitting. What we say affects how we think about these things, and that makes it important. In my view it also demonstrates how we're thinking about them. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then let's say Media outlets have widely considered Trump as largely unprecedented in making false and misleading statements during his 2016 election campaign and his presidency., because this is what reliable sources say. We shouldn't go beyond objective reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That wording is grammatially awkward, at least to my American ears. Above I suggested that our sources would justify saying that Trump has made many false or misleading statements on a scale described as "unprecedented" in American politics. I have stricken "many" as "scale" covers that aspect. "Described" refers to the fact that sources do this so we don't need to mention them. When we say the "sky is blue", we don't say that "reliable sources say the sky is blue." -- Valjean (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with that wording, with some minor changes. Trump has made misleading and false statements on a scale described as "unprecedented" by various media outlets. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose this change as a way to backdoor a controversial claim into Wikivoice. How many lies did Andrew Jackson tell? There is no way to have this material without attribution because there is no way to actually prove it. It will lead to endless disruption on the article and talk page as drive by readers and editors change it to something else. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Far from endless disruption, changes to consensus content are easily reverted without counting against 1RR. Persistent re-reverting by the "drive by" would earn a DS block, although that never happens when they are referred to the ArbCom restrictions and/or the list; the first revert is almost always enough. This has been proven to be a non-issue at this article. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  07:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And I haven't seen any readers who have WP:ECP status. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Since the RfC on this statement, which was prior to the pandemic, yes?, there has been a significant change in the landscape. There are new sources, e.g., 'You’re Gonna Beat It.' How Donald Trump’s COVID-19 Battle Has Only Fueled Misinformation or From COVID-19 to voting: Trump is nation's single largest spreader of disinformation, studies say  I would say a revisit to the consensus statement is warranted, in any case.  An important factor here is he is acting as the nation's leader with this misinformation - which is different than misinformation at other times. The lead statement should reflect that factor (drop "campaign", ignore misinformation prior to presidency?)  As I've noted before, Trump's use of misinformation is one of his most notable characteristics; certainly a suitable, definitive statement in the lead is necessary. Voting and Covid-19 could be noted as two primary topics of misinformation. Bdushaw (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We could abandon "unprecedented" and its complications for a statement like:
 * ''' KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION :
 * (Interesting to note the difference between "disinformation" and "misinformation" in this context.) Bdushaw (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This fails to describe the outstanding nature of his falsehoods and misleading comments. Over long careers, plenty of politicians will have made "many false or misleading statements".  starship .paint  (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you are right - it is a curious problem how to describe, in a NPOV way, such incessant, voluminous disinformation and propaganda. I am not sure "unprecedented" does it either, while being a lightening rod for objections. I find I am, frankly, at a loss.

Bdushaw (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Could a statement like:
 * ''' KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION :
 * be supported? I believe this is getting closer to the truth of the matter, maybe. Bdushaw (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (Needs three serial commas per convention in this article. Following policies, disinformation, and print. Best to get such minute details taken care of before the text makes it into the consensus list, not after.) &#8213; Mandruss &#9742;  19:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

At this point, our efforts are in retrograde, with each attempt worse than the preceding. I think we should leave the current text alone. None of the subsequent attempts is without problems. The first one (that I foolishly criticised for a misplaced comma) was OK, and there seemed to be consensus for that one. I would not object to using that one, but it's clear there's a little too much meaning to be gracefully crammed into a single sentence. Let's go with v.1 or v.0. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, perhaps my thrashing was still a useful exercise...people have been complaining how we never think outside the box. :) I have no objection to Neutrality's PROPOSED NEW VERSION, which I think is an improvement, given the difficulties. I think including "factcheckers" is of no value now; I have modest objections to the troubles "unprecedented" raises (also based on the troubles we had with the word on another article Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy; first sentence), but know of no better alternative (I tried, as all can see). As an aside, I noted the article is rather weak at describing Trump's use of political rallies during his campaigns and presidency. Such rallies are part of Trump's identity. Bdushaw (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * While I agree on the revised statement, a continued discussion of it is still warranted, IMO - the statement falls well short in that it misrepresents what are deliberate, massive campaigns of disinformation (following the Russian model?). I revise the statement above, just for kicks, and give a few citations on the massive disinformation campaigns that are going on, and have gone on.  Its quite a bit more than what Donald Trump says or tweets out from time-to-time; its industrialized disinformation.  All not unrelated to his hour-long call ins to friendly radio or TV programs.
 * ''' KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION :
 * Billion dollar disinformation/Atlantic, Misinformation Machine/Sci. American, Trump's billion-dollar "Death Star"/Salon, Disinformation machine/CNN etc. The attacks on basic science are particularly disturbing, and have been notice. Bdushaw (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, skimming over the above, it seems that this is (unsurprisingly) leading to a lot of discussion about potential modifications to the clause. Trying to stay on topic, I'd suggest a guiding question might be this: Would it be possible to make the passage more concise without fundamentally altering its meaning?


 * The concerns raised above about the switch to Wikipedia's voice are reasonable enough to warrant consideration, but they apply only to the "unprecedented" part, since the first part is already present in the page. That'd leave us with something like Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree the media has widely described as unprecedented in American politics. But for that, the distinction between what's widely present in secondary sources and what we're willing to state in Wikipedia's voice shouldn't exist, since per WP:V/WP:NOR/other core policies, Wikipedia's voice is supposed to reflect what's been widely present in secondary sources. So that leads to Neutrality's proposal. It might seem like it's saying something stronger, but fundamentally it's really not; it's just cutting out statements that don't need to be there. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding "unprecedented": The first bullet at WP:WIKIVOICE reads: Does widespread RS agreement make "unprecedented" a "fact" for the purposes of this bullet? Apparently not, or we wouldn't have the passage "However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be [...] where justified, described as widespread views, etc." Since it's entirely unproveable, "unprecedented" will always be an "opinion" for the purposes of this bullet, despite the fact that the opinion is widely held. So I disagree that that qualification doesn't need to be there. In any case, there is nothing factually incorrect about the status quo language and we are beating our heads against a wall in an effort to save 11 words in the lead, a lead that many or most editors insist is not overly long. Those 11 words certainly do not constitute undue weight for this issue. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The RS agreement that Trump's willingness to speak falsehoods is unpreceded is exceptionally strong, as was established when current consensus item 35 was added. I'd say the more pertinent line in WP:WIKIVOICE is not the one you quoted, but the one that follows: Avoid stating facts as opinions. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - per the nom and soibangla. Neutrality's original proposal seems like a distinct improvement to me. I disagree with the basis of 's opposing rationale in particular - not just for the reason that Mandruss cites, but also because, to my understanding, it's an accepted fact among RS that Trump has used misleading statements to a degree not seen before in US politics, not a "controversial claim".  Jr8825  •  Talk  02:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. This essentially removes The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as, which is partially WP:PEACOCK stuff (it hypes how important it is) and partially describing facts as opinions ("the media have widely described").  Also, the current wording is inaccurate in that academic sources have also described it that way; but more generally, when something is essentially universally described a certain way by high-quality sources, it is inappropriate to characterize it as "described." Some people above have argued that this fact must always be framed as an opinion, but they haven't presented any actual reason why this would be the case (and, notably, they seem to implicitly concede that it is treated as fact by the overwhelming majority of sources.)  If we go by that standard, any editor could, based on their personal feelings, term any fact covered by sources as a mere opinion and insist that we cover it as such - the flipside of "don't state opinions as facts" is "don't state facts as opinions"; and we rely on sourcing to determine which is which, not the gut feelings of editors.  The sourcing here indicates that this is a fact. --Aquillion (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Insufficient justification for a change to the text resulting from six weeks and 10,000 words of discussion. See also my previous comments. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you didn't respond directly to the points that SPECIFICO and François Robere raised earlier, that the RfC dates from almost 2 years ago and there's now a much greater body of published media on Trump's exceptional use of false/misleading statements, allowing the statement to be given with more brevity and as widely accepted fact.  Jr8825  •  Talk  00:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Re the use of wiki voice for "unprecedented", see this comment. No one has responded to that, and I don't require them to do so. I remain unconvinced by those arguments, and I generally don't consume discussion space to say "I remain unconvinced." &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * On current consensus 35 (the long discussion you refer to), the point being amended is #3 from the close. The close says itself: Slight Consensus was for substantiating the "unprecedented" claim by citing fact-checkers. This was argued for mainly to avoid WP:WEASEL. Most seemed receptive to this logic. It was only part of the discussion, and there was only slight consensus for it. A full discussion just on that part has taken place here, and editors feel WP:WEASEL isn't a problem. So I personally disagree there is insufficient justification to overturn that consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "See also my previous comments." (which have nothing to do with WEASEL) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support new version.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Recent citation Today in the NY Times Dishonesty Has Defined the Trump Presidency. The Consequences Could Be Lasting "Whether President Trump wins or loses on Nov. 3, the very concept of public trust in an established set of facts necessary for the operation of a democratic society has been eroded."  Unprecedented, indeed. Bdushaw (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for brevity + link to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump for details. — JFG talk 07:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator for brevity amongst other reasons. I would also support 's suggestion that a link be included. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)*
 * Oppose. As per statements by MelanieN and BlackBird1008 (and possibly others above), removing the phrase that indicates these lies have been looked at by professionals with the specific purpose of determining the truth of his statements weakens it and leaves the reader with the impression that it's just "general opinion" without a clear factual basis. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 22:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the media needs to be mentioned to maintain some resemblance of objectivity in the statement. I’d support removing the statement all together because many of the “false or misleading” statements he has made are subjective BlackBird1008 (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * many of the “false or misleading” statements he has made are subjective Um, no. We don't peddle in alternative facts here. (Your editing history appears to be nearly entirely POV-pushing in favor of Trump.) &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, though noting campaign should be revised to the plural "campaigns" to reflect the 2016 and 2020 campaigns. The change in word-count by shortening it is minor. Additionally, to preserve neutrality, explicit reference to the fact that the media is widely reporting the unprecedented nature of these statements is necessary. It should not be stated as an unsupported statement of fact, particularly given how contentious the statement is, and the fact that accusing someone of making misrepresentations is potentially libellous. Such statements should always reference external factual support. KJS ml343x (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Closure
Does this need an RfC? Opinion above appears to be split, with most supporting the proposal (numerically, about 9 or 10 editors), but a substantial minority (numerically, about 4 or 5 editors) opposing it. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, your proposal has consensus.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've listed this at WP:RFCL, as I think everyone would benefit from an uninvolved close. Neutralitytalk 02:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

"during his campaign"
I note the present lead has "campaign", singular, while the suggested text was corrected to "campaigns", plural. (And I note to all that it is lead, rather than lede. WP:Manual of Style/Lead section) The lead wikilinks campaign to Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign. Might I suggest a revision to "2016 and 2020 campaigns", where now the years wikilink to the appropriate article? (There could be a 2024 campaign, but we can defer that problem to a later date.) Alternatively, and redundantly but more clear, one could write "2016 campaign and 2020 campaign". Bdushaw (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)