Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 140

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2021
Under the health section, should "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol ..." not be "Trump says he has never drank alcohol ..."? ― Levi_OPTalk 02:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: 'drunk' is the correct past participle. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

OPENING ARTICLE IS OPENLY BIASED AGAINST TRUMP
Hardly seems neutral at all - mentions the fake Russian story, the "big lie" which is the "big truth", etc. What is wrong with being objective? No one can be worse than Joe Biden in comparison. His page reads much more neutral although it is clear he is totally lost and has made HUGE mistakes already (Afghanistan, open border, vaccinations, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.204.56.195 (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We go with what RS say, and there is no need to shout.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Corrections and dead urls
, you were right in [this edit] that the url was dead. It's often a good idea, though, to search for the title of the article since some publications move their content to new urls, as was the case here. I just added the new url and removed the archive-info. You also changed the correct date of the Independent article to a wrong one (I corrected it). Were you going to change some other date maybe? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Surge_Elec (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The first link does not link to "politician", but to his political career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:404:C680:4B60:4DD5:6011:23CE:BD24 (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is how it is supposed to be, see consensus item 50. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2021
Swap low quality image of Trump attending baseball game in 2009 to photo of Trump attending a press conference for the New Jersey Generals under "Side ventures" subheading (represents actual side venture, not mischellanous baseball game attendance). BarneyHank (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

,, thanks for mentioning the picture. I found a place for both images (see this and this edit). We don't have that many pictures from before the presidency, and this one shows the pink marble in the lobby of Trump Tower as a bonus. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Scholars and historians generally rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history."
Remove-no conseus or reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:C980:9400:1C2E:831F:CAEE:8765 (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See above, there is both consensus and reliable sources. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes from people who are not academics. Anyone can be a scholar.It's been only 8 months not enough time. Looks like you are gonna have to change it four years anyway:) 2600:8805:C980:9400:1C2E:831F:CAEE:8765 (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Should we mention historical evaluations of Trump's presidency?
I brought this up in the previous section, but I think that a formal RFC is best, so I'm copying it below.

Should we state in the lede that scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history? Cpotisch (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: I opened this RFC at 02:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC), but rewrote and reformatted it for neutrality at 17:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)‎. The signature above has been edited to reflect the original date. Cpotisch (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. We have done this for every former president; in fact we added rankings to Obama's lede less than a month after his term ended, and the scholarly consensus was far less clear for him than it is for Trump.


 * Doing so will of course be controversial, but it is exactly how we have treated every other president, and it is backed by ample RS. See our article on the matter, the 2018 APSA survey, the 2018 Siena survey, the 2019 Northwestern CSDD survey (though the scope of that one was more limited), and the 2021 C-SPAN survey.


 * The consensus among academics on this is wholly unambiguous, and I believe that the article should reflect that. Pinging . Best, Cpotisch (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the guy's only been out of office for slightly over eight months. GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Eight months is more than eight times as long as we took in 2017. If you want to make the case that that was improper, I'm open to it, but the precedent clearly is there. Cpotisch (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Change the precedent & make it ten years. GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments like that are frustrating, and rude. The proposer wrote - "we added rankings to Obama's lede less than a month after his term ended". HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't have done that in 2017. GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. It seems precedent is to include this info in the lede section. –– FormalDude  talk  03:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support We have it in the article, in the "approval ratings" section. It is reported there accurately and neutrally. So yes, I think it is time to put a short version into the lead. But let's keep an eye on it; it could become a vandalism target in either direction. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Can't think of a reason not to. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose. I don't have much doubt how history will remember a President Trump: I find it improbable historians will cast him in a flattering light, generally speaking.  But there are at least two obvious and substantial flaws in the logic of the reasoning by analogy of "well, we did it immediately for President Obama."  First, that assessment was a largely positive one, making these non-equivalent situations under policy: the WP:BLP concerns are very different insofar as that policy (clearly very relevant to this scenario) has different concerns depending on how negative the tone of the disputed content is.  Second, I'm not sure I can agree that doing so in Obama's case was the right call, whatever the tone of the content here.  To some degree this is a quasi-WP:CRYSTAL issue: of course one can point to primary sources rating the man's general effectiveness  (or lack thereof) and conduct as president, but the corpus of secondary sources that will eventually fix the man's place in history is still a very much in a nascent state.


 * Now normally, those factors standing alone, I still might err on the side of inclusion. Afterall, BLP is important, but I'm generally of the opinion that it has to be evaluated in the light of WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT: or more to the point, I think there's almost always a way to square BLP and WP:DUE, usually with well considered prose and attribution. But given the profile of this article, I'd want to see specific proposals containing fairly well-refined wording before I could support inclusion.  That being lacking here, the BLP concerns being substantial, and the sourcing being of a mixed nature, I just can't see giving a blanket support at this time.  I'm 50/50 on whether well-tailored content could address the relevant concerns at this point in time, but would need to see significantly more detail in the proposal to shift my !vote in that direction. SnowRise let's rap 05:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support I wandered across this discussion today. Provided edits are cautious and well-tailored, I can't see a problem. Nickm57 (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Sufficient time has passed for these comparisons to become meaningful, and providing a careful and measured approach is taken, now is the time to do this. -- The Anome (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose We are not even 12 months from his defeat, and he is still a figure who is causing controversy and crisis. It is too close to events for a fair analysis.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, there is no policy or guideline that says that we shouldn't list information because the subject is still causing controversy. I would in fact argue that because the mayhem we're currently dealing with is exactly what got him such low rankings in office, it has become even more relevant and important that it's covered here. Cpotisch (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. There has been plenty of time since he lost the election, and RS have spoken, so we should include a section in the body and mention in the lead. -- Valjean (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in the body, last paragraph of Approval ratings. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I assumed we were talking about more than just "approval rating." -- Valjean (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. This is well-sourced, encyclopedically and historically important, and something that our readers will justifiably expect from us. The C-SPAN 2021 survey is authoritative -- it is a broad, representative assessment of many well-known and respected scholars. Other presidents' biographies have similar information. I can see no reason, based on Wikipedia policy, to omit this information from either the lead or the body. Being close in time to an event does not preclude us from including content. If the historical assessment changes over time (which is true not only of recent presidents, but of all presidents to a certain degree), than we can tweak the language accordingly. Neutralitytalk 16:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is a significant criticism of Trump and should be included. While I believe his ranking is affected by the closeness to his presidency and may therefore rise, we can change the wording when and if that happens. TFD (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support post-presidential rankings I support this in principle, however no ranking made prior to Jan 20 2021 should be used. Only rankings that deal with his entire presidency should be considered. BSMRD (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. We have 1-2 post-presidential evaluations and they say the same thing as the contemporary ones, so it works out the same way, at least until another one drops. Cpotisch (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support post-presidential rankings - certainly is precedented to add rankings to lead by this time after presidency. I don't anticipate academics to suddenly shift gears on this. I do question if this is really needed in the lede under WP:DUE, but since there is such a strong consensus with every other presidents article, I regress. The sentence should be well articulated to stay in accordance with NPOV and I believe the final text should be approved with community consensus before formal inclusion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: per Neutrality and MelanieN soibangla (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I dislike the entire idea of including these rankings in the leads to begin with because they're totally subjective and come from a group of people who have been proven to have significant political bias. But regardless, it's too soon and there's also a significant possibility that Trump's time as President isn't over yet (2024). Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I vehemently disagree with every part of this argument. First off, we simply report RS, and if you are concerned that a source is too "biased" to be reliable, you need to address that at WP:RSP. But doing that still wouldn't even be sufficient to ignore these rankings, because we wouldn't be saying that Trump was one of the worst presidents; we would be accurately stating that historians/scholars view him as such. I also fail to see how it is relevant that he could be president again 3 1/2 years from now. He hasn't said he's running, so under your logic, we could never include evaluations of any one-term president. Cpotisch (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't actually care about the substance of the question, so I am not going to weigh in on it. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was bored and browsing WP:RFC/All, and this obviously caught my attention. This RFC completely fails WP:RFCNEUTRAL as it makes an argument right before instead of asking the question (outside of the header). Please be aware of this the next time you draft an RFC.


 * Support post–presidential rankings It's a part of the article, it should be mentioned in the lead. People want to know such things often, so it should be easy to find. The objection that it's too strongly biased because of recency is not very valid, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and is not here to predict what the ultimate legacy of someone will be. This is something that is always changing, at any rate. Dege31 (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Speaking of recentism, 10 years ago Bush was considered the worst president in history and now, sure enough, he's at the 29th place. Alaexis¿question? 20:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a different survey (Siena, not C-SPAN) and you're misreading the table. G.W. Bush was 39th out of 43, and on their latest survey (2018) he was 33rd. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, I didn't notice the numbers. It doesn't invalidate my point though. This is inherently subjective and the rankings, especially of more recent presidents, fluctuate a lot from survey to survey and from time to time. Alaexis¿question? 05:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose though I expect I am in the minority. I think even now it may be too soon to have "historical evaluations" on Obama's article; waiting at least 5 years seems appropriate.  And separately, considering the volume of discussion about a potential Trump 2024 run, it seems too soon to consider anything "post-presidential" at all right now. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 20:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Neutrality. I think there was a valid reason for omitting it in the past, but that time is now behind us. Also MelanieN rightly points out that it will likely be a target for vandalism, and will need extra attention. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (Please tag me in replies) 11:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Snow Rise. Not even a year has passed and the impacts of Trump's policies have not had proper time to develop, and his controversies are still ripe. Even other presidents' pages such as Bush admit that the consensus has changed over time to be more favorable. I don't know why this is such a pressing issue that people consistently bring it up Anon0098 (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. More time needs to past to measure the effects of his presidency upon the nation and the world. Less than ten months does not paint a complete picture especially with all the factors going on in the world today. Jurisdicta  talk
 * Strong Support - This is neutral reporting, and no different than what we've done for any other president. There's no need to wait for more time when the research has been authoritatively been done already. Fieari (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support We should have already added the evaluation in 2020, not waiting for so long. Dimadick (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - historians are, by definition, experts at the study of history, and in my opinion they hold no special authority on things that are happening now or happened a year ago. I don't think this is important enough for the intro. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Far too soon to give historical evaluations in the lead without context. In the body I am neutral about as we can give further context there. But strongly oppose doing so in the lead since it is far too soon to know the long-term consequences of his action in office. Moreover 'precedent' on another article like Obama is entirely irrelevant, it should not have been done there so it should not be done here. Just becauase we did it before it does not mean we have to blindly follow the same mistake again. Also this RfC question completely violates WP:RFCBRIEF and WP:RFCNEUTRAL.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 17:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. As Neutrality pointed out, the survey is a broad, representative assessment of many well-known and respected scholars. It was mentioned by every major and many minor newspaper, news magazines, news channels, and websites. A brief mention in the lead in addition to the present mention in the "Approval ratings" section is justified. 2A02:8109:B640:15D8:118:E7ED:1922:1686 (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support; clearly a defining part of his legacy and biography today given the level and breadth of coverage. If the historical consensus changes over time the article should of course be updated, but WP:NOTCRYSTAL means that, given how clear it is at the moment, we should cover things as they are. --Aquillion (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per DUE and RECENTISM, months is too soon for such a retrospective assessment in the lead; it should be years. Same with Obama, and the changes to Bush's ranking over the past few years proves the point. Levivich 16:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. deisenbe (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)‎
 * Support Now that several surveys of historians have been undertaken, there is no reason to exclude this from the lede. Historians are perfectly capable of giving a measured point of view on American presidencies, including recent or on-going presidencies. Even back in 2020, there was no reason why we couldn't have included one sentence about this in the lede. By now, we are well overdue to include it. Obviously, if historical opinions change, we can change the article, but it's pointless to hold off indefinitely just because opinions can change. We should insert the current opinion of the historians now. Worldlywise (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Neutrality, Aquillion and Worldlywise. Wikipedia should reflect his current ranking, and if it rises, we can reflect that also. Of course historians can judge recent history.  starship .paint  (exalt) 06:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Cpotisch, Dege31, and Worldlywise. Also I do not agree that with BSMRD in that I think that pre-2021 sources could also be used so long as, when used, their dates are be mentioned. BirdValiant (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (closure)
This has been open a week, discussion has slowed greatly, and the consensus seems clear to all participants: the change should be made, with a preference towards rankings conducted after his presidency. Some users who have opposed the change have even acknowledged that they are in the minority. Per WP:SNOWBALL, I see no reason to wait to proceed. Cpotisch (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say this is on the level of WP:SNOWBALL. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah not really a SNOW close. This RfC may need to run the allotted thirty days. –– FormalDude  talk  04:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no required minimum or maximum time. The "30 days" thing is just that's when the bot may automatically close it. See Requests for comment. It should be closed when the result is clear; we are getting close to that point but new !votes are still coming in. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The "30 days" thing is just that's when the bot may automatically close it. That's automatically remove it from the RfC listings, which is not a close. An RfC can be re-added to the listings (by adding a new template), or it can continue to remain open without being listed. But you're correct that 30 days was never intended as a suggested run time. That is a widespread misconception and trying to dispel it is like playing Whac-a-Mole. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

When the template expires, I'll head over to WP:Closure requests -- GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Historical evaluations)
The big difference to other presidents is that they were done with the presidency when their terms ended. Trump isn't, regardless of whether he actually believes that he should still be the legitimate president or whether he's just using the pretense for continued publicity and fundraising. Also, the sourcing is a bit meager. Are there any ratings/rankings other than the C-SPAN Presidential Historians Survey 2021? The only one I found was Brookings, "Comparing Trump to the greatest—and the most polarizing—presidents in US history" from March 2018. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, by his hand or not, he was certainly one of the most polarizing. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Brookings survey should not be included. For one thing, it was taken in 2018, only halfway through his presidency. For another, it surveyed "dozens" of "experts" rather than hundreds of academic historians. The C-SPAN survey has always been the gold standard for this kind of rating. And they only take it after a new president has taken office. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with MelanieN. That's why the Brookings one isn't even included in our historical rankings page. The sample size is tiny and the credentials are ambiguous. Cpotisch (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We should just rely on the C-SPAN 2021 poll. It's very authoritative, and a broad sample of experts. Neutralitytalk 23:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm troubled that we appear to be fine with including this rather subjective and judgmental content while bending over backwards to suppress a variety of valid, factual biographical description, e.g shying away from racist, fascist, anti-American, or criminal views and issues widely supported in mainstream RS reports and analysis. We still don't say, e.g. that he attempted to "extort" election support from Ukraine's Zelinsky. We only recently described his statements and actions as "racist". We should really be focused on improving descriptive content rather than ill-defined indeterminate high-level rankings or labels.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See People accused of crime: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." These are opinions, not proven facts. If and when Trump is accused of any of these crimes, then we will report them. I believe that Gov. Cuomo is pursuing indictments in N.Y. TFD (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Cuomo resigned a month ago. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ironic, isn't it? TFD (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think SPECIFICO has a good point here. If we're at the point of including historical evaluations, which it looks like we may be, we should also be including objective biographical content that is notable. I don't, however, think that's a reason to not include historical evaluations. –– FormalDude  talk  05:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * These qualities are not "suppressed", quite the contrary. The article already says in the lead, "Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic." That's a separate matter from his ranking by historians. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, insofar as the lead goes, it reads quite bleak for Trump.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Has this RFC been re-listed? I notice the editor who opened it, changed his post date to October 6, 2021. -- GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible wording for historical rankings sentence
There is now clear consensus: we should add the sentence “Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.” Cpotisch (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Given that we seem to have a strong consensus to add a statement about historical rankings of his presidency, I think it is time to determine how we will phrase it. Other presidents who are considered the worst have it stated as follows:
 * Warren G. Harding – "These and other scandals greatly damaged Harding's posthumous reputation; he is generally regarded as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history."
 * James Buchanan – "Historians and scholars consistently rank Buchanan as one of the country's worst presidents."
 * Franklin Pierce – "Historians and scholars generally rank Pierce as one of the worst and least memorable U.S. presidents."
 * Andrew Johnson – "Johnson's strong opposition to federally guaranteed rights for black Americans is widely criticized; he is regarded by many historians as one of the worst presidents in American history."

Given that, I believe that it would make the most sense to add the sentence "Scholars and historians consistently rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history" to the end of the last lede paragraph. I also think that it may be good to add to that sentence something like "with particular criticism leveled at his use of falsehoods, promotion of misinformation, slow response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and efforts to subvert the 2020 election." I am more cautious about adding that part because I don't want the sentence to run too long or be redundant, however that is totally justified by the sources and is consistent with other articles. Pinging. Best, Cpotisch (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with adding the wording by MelanieN below. The "conspiracy" thread isn't finished yet, but it's at 13 vs 9 (for inclusion), so I think we should also consider adding conspiracy theories to that list. We may have to wait, but at least keep it in mind. -- Valjean (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * IMHO, we should wait 10 years after a president has left office, before including evaluations. Therefore, it's best for others to do the write up, if the RFC will end up pro-inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Cpotisch, I agree that we should add "Scholars and historians consistently rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history" to the lead. But we should leave it at that. We should NOT spell out our own reasons for why he deserves that ranking, because none of the things you mention were part of what the historians were surveyed about. They were given a list of ten categories in which to rank the presidents. Those categories were: "Public persuasion, Crisis leadership, Economic management, Moral authority, International relationships, Administrative skills, Relations with Congress, Vision/Setting an agenda, Pursued equal justice for all, and Performance within context of their times." The categories did not include "told a lot of lies" or "spread conspiracy theories" or even "tried to subvert democracy", although individual essayists may call attention to this type of thing. But they are not specifically named in the 2021 C-Span survey which is our source. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, you are entirely correct. Struck. Cpotisch (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. BTW the only categories in which Trump was ranked dead last were "moral authority" and "administrative skills". But he was in the bottom quartile for every category except "public persuasion". -- MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with MelanieN. I suggest replacing the ambiguous "consistently" -- which could mean across experts or could mean over time -- and replace it with uniformly or some other word that indicates broadly consider him thus as of now.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree. ‘Uniformly’ and its synonyms mean a totally different thing, and we don’t use them on any other presidential article; in fact AFAICT we never have, even when a presidency had ended just weeks prior. Cpotisch (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Unless the sources say that is why Trump was ranked lowest, then it would be OR to mention the reasons. The current or last Republican president or candidate is always rated very low by partisan Democrats (which includes most historians) and then works his way up the ladder as the Republicans pick new candidates. There were a lot of discussions about mentioning that some sources rather George W. Bush as the worst president. Nixon and Reagan were disliked by Democrats both before and during their presidencies too, although less so after. TFD (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent points. I have altered my comment above. -- Valjean (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we should follow other articles in saying "Historians and scholars generally rank Trump among the worst Presidents." without listing reasons. I prefer generally to consistently as generally lacks the temporal nature of consistently. BSMRD (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with BSMRD's version. It's short and to the point and is in accordance with WP:NPOV. Use of generally is a good decision. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that MelanieN and I both like my original proposed phrasing, I’m open to swapping in “generally” if it is “Scholars and historians generally rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.” I’m leaning towards this because it is the basic format we used for every other article; it’s still only 15 words (which I would consider quite to the point), and it is specific. One concern mentioned about the word “consistently” was that it could be ambiguous, so I think that precision in the rest of the sentence is important. Cpotisch (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that, "one of the worst, "among the worst" or whatever doesn't really matter to me. As long as "consistently" is replaced (doesn't even have to be "generally", though I do think that is the best replacement), I'm happy. BSMRD (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with MelanieN: “Scholars and historians generally rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history." But we should leave it at that. soibangla (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK cool. Cpotisch (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

At what point should I add it to the article? I think we’ve covered all bases at this point, given that there’s an overwhelming consensus to make the change and a broad agreement on the details of it. Per WP:RFCCLOSE, it doesn’t look like it’s necessary to wait for an uninvolved to close this. Cpotisch (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) Speaking as someone uninvolved in this RfC, it is far too soon to determine consensus. These usually last 30 days, and this one is still receiving !votes. If the current ratio of Support/Oppose continues, there might be a solid case for a WP:SNOW close, but I don't think we're there yet. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's probably becoming time for a non-involved editor to close this and access consensus. However, I think it should at least be a day or two from now since this discussion is still active. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is to remove the qualifier from the verb. "Scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history" adequately summarizes the current content of the body without suggesting that there have been numerous rankings over time and/or by numerous sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why past tense instead of "rank"?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 11:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We use past tense in the article. I wouldn't oppose present tense in the lead but any survey is always going to be from a specific point in time in the past. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I’m game for just “rank”, present tense. I’ll leave it with you to get some more votes for that, but I’m onboard. Cpotisch (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that "rank" present tense is better. And I am OK with "generally", noting that it is used in two of the four examples cited above, and that "consistently" might imply that multiple surveys have produced this "consistent" result, when in fact we are using just one survey. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would prefer generally rank. Leaving out the qualifier creates an IMO undue level of certainty, and present tense flows better IMO. BSMRD (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You know I’m starting to lean towards ditching the qualifier. I feel like “generally” implies that there are a bunch of sources and only relatively clear agreement between them. Meanwhile here we have a small set of sources (indeed only one conducted post-presidency) and they all say that he is one of the worst. So “scholars and historians rank Trump” just seems to fit better with the number of sources and what they say. Cpotisch (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems like we've narrowed this down to either: Could y'all please write your preferences below? Thanks. Cpotisch (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A) “Scholars and historians generally rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.” or
 * B) “Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.”
 * B. I originally preferred A, but now I'm leaning the other way. In my mind, the word "generally" may imply that there are a larger number of sources that agree broadly, but perhaps not completely, which isn't quite the case here. Every ranking we have which includes Trump puts him in the bottom four. There are only three or four of those rankings in total (depending on if you count the Northwestern survey), and just one if we're only talking post-presidency. I therefore think that "generally" implies a greater preponderance of sources and a greater variation between them than we have here. However if more sources come out in the future, I'd be open to adding "generally" or "consistently", depending on how much they agree. Still, at this time, B. Cpotisch (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * B per Cpotisch. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * B per Cpotisch. -- Valjean (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer A but I would accept B. My preference for including "generally" is that leaving out any qualifier could seem to imply "always" or "unanimously". But I will go with whichever people prefer. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * B per Cpotisch. Fieari (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * B per Cpotisch.  starship .paint  (exalt) 06:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A Don't ask me for their names in particular, but while the great majority of historians do regard Trump as one of the worst presidents, I think there is a sizable enough majority which defend him to warrant "generally" as it is not unanimous. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 11:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * B per Cpotisch. "Generally" is a waste of breath if all scholars rank him poorly. BirdValiant (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A per MelanieN. While most scholar do rank Trump near the bottom, it is not unanimous. Destroyer (Alternate account) 21:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support adding that he is seen as the worst president in living memory, but only if we devote subsequent sentences to explain the ranking. Single-sentence statements are often vague and uninformative, and brevity is not a virtue. Dimadick (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think in this case brevity is a necessity IMO. We are dealing with a huge, huge biography article, that was huge even before he became president. We really need to keep things to a minimum at this article, and possibly expand on them in daughter articles such as "presidency of Donald Trump" or "public image of Donald Trump". -- MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging. Discussion has slowed and the change does not seem at all contentious. I don't see any reason to wait longer on this, but I'd like your thoughts before moving forward. Cpotisch (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * B Brevity is a virtue. But really, until there are any prevalent viewpoints not ranking him among the worst, I agree 'generally' is not needed. –– FormalDude  talk  08:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * !Votes are still coming in on the RfC, with two just today. We can afford to wait for a proper closure, it's best to have clear and decisive consensus, both generally and especially with this page. BSMRD (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no hurry. I think we should wait until it has been 24 to 48 hours since the last input was received. It's only been a week since the RfC was launched. RfCs often take longer than that. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No hurry. These RfC's can last a while, we want the consensus to be as clear and developed as possible. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the closures notion that "generally" should be included in the sentence. The majority of editors say otherwise in the discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The closer has fixed that. –– FormalDude  talk  04:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In case anyone missed it, MelanieN amended her closing statement to clarify that the version without "generally" gained consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my error and I have corrected it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Request to open a RFC debating adding a caveat to the sentence regarding historical evaluations of the Trump presidency
I do not object to the statement "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in United States history" on the grounds that its underlying claim is false. Nor do I object to it on the grounds that attribution is not provided, since there is a well-regarded and prominent a C-Span survey whose findings could be construed to corroborate its argument.

However, the grammar and phrasing is what I have trouble with. Putting my own subjective opinion aside, I believe that, to borrow Adam Smith's term, several "impartial spectators" might hold the same objections that I share. Namely, the lack of the caveat "Some [historians]" or "Several [historians]" results in the statement being made in the absence of evidence.

My argument is twofold:

1) The statement "historians" implies unanimity of opinion among historians, which is not the case even within the most commonly-cited piece of evidence (the C-Span study);

2) There have been no opinion polls or surveys with a representative sample of historians that could lead us to claim that even a majority of historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents, and certainly no evidence to suggest unanimity.

There has not been any survey representative of nationwide (or supranational) historians on presidential rankings, only non-probability samples. The C-Span survey, as made clear in its methodology page, is based on a system of C-Span-initiated recommendations and subsequent referrals. However, C-Span is the progenitor of all historians surveyed. As such, its sample does not constitute a simple random sample or even a post-stratified sample, or any other survey methodology that can have a claim to approximate a SRS. Instead, it constitutes a nonprobability (non-representative sample), rife with potential sources of statistical bias attendant with such samples.

Making a statement regarding historians' perceptions in Wikipedia's voice that does not have extant collaboration or credible data to support it casts doubt on the impartiality of the rest of the article, regardless of its authors' intent. Rather than putting the credibility of the rest of the article at risk, I think it would be advisable to refine the claim by adding the caveat "some", "many", or even "generally", although even the latter term would be suspect given the dearth of available data to make a claim regarding the beliefs of the entire population of historians. We cannot extrapolate from a non-representative sample what the population of historians believe, even in a general sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:103:881b:1035:f83a:c14d:c5af (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This exact kind of objection is why I supported generally. Current wording implies too much unanimity. BSMRD (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, many of those opposed to 'generally' felt its addition implied more unanimity than the version with no descriptor. I think I'm with you on this. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We did a full RFC that covered all these points, and we specifically decided on this phrasing. The C-SPAN survey is indeed the primary source that the decision was influenced by, but we also considered the handful of rankings that were conducted during his presidency, since they all say the same thing. We therefore felt that, at this time, there is enough unanimity to word it without a qualifier. Considering that some support for adding the sentence was contingent on the specific wording already being decided, I think it is a bad idea to rehash it right now. Cpotisch (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I second Cpotisch. This was covered in the recently closed RfC. –– FormalDude  talk  04:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussions that took place in the recently closed RfC did not address, even in part, the fact that there are no extant surveys or opinion polls available to corroborate the claim that depend upon probabilistic samples, also called "scientific" or "random" samples (certainly not the C-Span survey, as evidenced by its webpage revealing methodological details and selection procedures). That means that the vast majority of historians in the United States (presumably the target population) did not have a non-zero probability of inclusion into the surveys that have been conducted to investigate the matter of presidential rankings. This precludes the ability to deduce from these non-scientific (and this is a technical not subjective modifier) surveys any impartial claim regarding the beliefs held by historians at large (members of the population from which a statistical sample ought to be drawn, of which none exist currently). Even though the RfC may have reached consensus ad idem, this point regarding the dearth of scientific polling (scientific being the operative term) was not addressed, which has an array of implications on the veracity of the statement in question in absence of a caveat (whether this comes in the form of "some", "several", "many", "various", inter alia.) - 2603:8000:103:881B:1035:F83A:C14D:C5AF (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no expectation that we source this claim to a rigorous scientific study. If one were to come along, that would be great. The surveys we have now are fine. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In my view, as well as many others' in all likelihood, this matter is not settled. This is why I mentioned creating a RfC as an avenue for debate, where a discussion could take place that may turn out to be fruitious. One could make the argument, and this is by no means the only perspective, that there is an absence of corroborating data in this case and a claim ought to have at least a spec of evidence, a threshold of evidentiary standards that has not been met in this instance. Considering that 160,000 social sciences and history postsecondary degrees are conferred on the annual basis (including 20,301 Master's degrees and 4,544 Doctor's degrees), the population of historians (even prominent ones alone) is undoubtedly much higher than the 142 that accepted to participate and take the C-Span survey, precluding the ability to make any accurate claim that implies unanimity, which I sincerely believe is the way the sentence reads upon first impression. Even with a small sample size, a claim can be made regarding the position held by the majority of historians once a survey with a representative sample arises. But a non-probabilistic sample only reflects the views of most historians if a majority of all historians participate. - 2603:8000:103:881B:1035:F83A:C14D:C5AF (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant and it is pure original research. Again, we talked about this issue in-depth, and we shouldn't start a new RFC just because some people disagree with the strong consensus that was already reached. Cpotisch (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is exceptionally biased, making it dangerous to democracy. The "Average Joe" who works from 8-5 and doesn't pay attention to politics would be highly mislead. The author is clearly angry, all while treating one side of various controversial subjects as absolute "fact". While it's understandable and even natural to be upset, a journalist/editor should never carry that imbalance into their professional life. This post is highly inappropriate, and should be rescinded immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.246.239.168 (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. this article was not written by one person, it is in fact a collaborative effort. 2. We are not journalists, rather we go with what journalists say in RS. 3. please read wp:talk.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended confirmed edit request on 19 October 2021
Change the last sentence in the lead "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in United States history." to "Scholars and historians generally rank Trump as a below average president." DeaconShotFire (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would, had the two fresh discussions made yesterday and earlier today not been closed by a third party.
 * This change does not change the meaning of the sentence; it makes it sound less flagrantly biased (which it is). Using the word worst in Wikipedia's voice is terrible writing practise. DeaconShotFire (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It absolutely would change the meaning of the sentence, and you wouldn't have suggested it if it didn't. Whether or not you find it "flagrantly biased" does not matter, because we report what reliable sources say. Cpotisch (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No it would not. The word worst (or best) is not used in the lead of any other U.S. president. There is no reason to use it here. DeaconShotFire (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is patently false. If you were to simply read the RFC in question, you would see that the articles for James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, and Warren G. Harding all say in the lede that they considered among the worst presidents. Cpotisch (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Why couldn't we say that Lincoln and Washington are rated at the top or Harding or Buchanan are rated at the bottom, as long as supported by reliable sourcing? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Because the wording suggests that Demo pedia Wikipedia has an opinion on what constitutes good and bad. WP:OTHERSTUFF is irrelevant when seeking consistency and neutrality on similar or identical issues. DeaconShotFire (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * James Buchanan’s lead has “ Historians and scholars consistently rank Buchanan as one of the country's worst presidents.” Andrew Johnson also has “worst”. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I take issue with those as well and will change them. The vast majority of U.S. president articles do not use this language. DeaconShotFire (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don’t. Ditto for Pierce, by the way. Trump is up next on the CSPAN 2021 list. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don’t. Ditto for Pierce, by the way. Trump is up next on the CSPAN 2021 list. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove evaluation of Presidency
> Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in United States history This sentence fails to provide any sources to these claims. Until multiple, credible sources that back up this statement are included, I think it should be removed entirely. His Presidency ended less than a year ago, and opinions on his Presidency are still fresh and volatile. donnellan Donnellan0007 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ We just had an RFC on this, which resulted in an overwhelming consensus that the statement is well-sourced and should be included. Cpotisch (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Have we just not come out of a discussion about this?Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding picture to the Post-presidency section.
Back in July on Wikimedia Commons, I uploaded some pictures of Donald Trump (credit to Gage Skidmore) from the "Rally to Protect Our Elections" held in Phoenix, Arizona on July 24, 2021. I think it would be good to add one of them to the post presidency section of Trump's Wikipedia page. Here are just a few images to chose from. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing the pictures. I used the left one on TPUSA's page but I don't think this article needs another picture of Trump speaking at a rally (we have three, from 2011, 2016, and 2020, respectively). Same old same old—rhetoric, heavy make-up, shoulder pads, and bursting-at-the-seams. Gotta love Gage Skidmore. So many great pictures of the event in his Flickr photo stream: the Trump rump, the ones proclaiming Trump to be president, the one with the horns. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the one on the far left should be added. This section is standalone and large enough to fully contain an image. An image is certainly warranted. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * An image is fine.  starship .paint  (exalt) 09:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"Little resistance", ? The editor offering said little resistance was the only one who actually had an argument as to the merits of adding a fourth picture of Trump speaking at a rally. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Only you have opposed it. Another editor and I have supported an image placement, and the starter of this presumably supports an image to by the nature starting the discussion and saying he thinks it would be good to have one, thats 3-to-1. This discussion hasn't been going anywhere since it started and has faced only a little resistance from you. If you would like to revert my edit pending the possibility of more comments go ahead, an image being placed in a section is usually uncontroversial, but I suppose this is Donald Trumps article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing how it hurts the article even considering that this is another picture of Trump at the rally.  starship .paint  (exalt) 06:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't improve the article, either (and I'm no longer the only one opposed to its addition:). I haven't seen any arguments as to what value or information another image of Trump at a random rally brings to the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Those convey nothing about "post-presidency". A better image would be needed.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 07:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the biggest things it conveys about "post-presidency" is it depicts Trump post his presidency speaking about his election fraud and integrity stuff, that have a whole paragraph dedicated to in the post-presidency section. If you have a better image then we can consider it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It conveys Alt: Trump, mouth open, wearing black suit with U.S. flag lapel pin and red tie, grabbing lectern he is standing behind with his right hand unless we change the caption to say "Trump promoting election fraud lies". For all we know, he's standing there catching flies. A picture can't convey the continued promotion of the "Big Lie" at all, the text does. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2021
Add Toddler Trump please. Swappaty (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Image is a copyright violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Wealth
, I thought we agreed long ago to exclude his wealth estimates, because The net worth of Donald Trump is not publicly known. He has a private company with no disclosure requirements, and though Forbes and others take their best shots at estimates, it's still pretty much "for entertainment purposes only." Fact is: no one really knows if he's even a billionaire or if he ever has been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1048613359&oldid=1048544746

soibangla (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the last discussion was #Richest president sourcing and content. I just skimmed it, but it seems like no consensus for including the descriptor. Happy to be proven wrong by those who participated or care to read through more thoroughly. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * These are 2 separate issues. The first is the wealth, about which per consensus #5 is pretty clear. The second is the “first billionaire president” text, which was originally baselessly removed as unsourced despite the clear source directly after, and later also baselessly removed on the grounds that the source is deprecated. Because the removals had no valid policy basis, the long standing status quo should be honored. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Immediately after announcing his candidacy:
 * And that comes from information Trump provided. "At least" on both sides of the balance sheet makes it real fuzzy about whether he was a billionaire just prior to becoming president. soibangla (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So at least $1 billion +? I mean I hear you and I agree that it is fuzzy, but that’s also why consensus #5 was established. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So at least $1 billion +? No. Deduct at least $265 of debt. soibangla (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think Forbes is a reliable source for this wealth, but apparently there is a consensus that it is. Maybe that needs to be rediscussed.
 * There's no consensus, however, on whether he was the first billionaire president–it's only that he was one of the wealthiest officeholders in American history. –– FormalDude  talk  01:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Forbes source is clear on that too. If you have an issue with the source please open a discussion at WP:RSN. Otherwise please help ensure that long-standing consensus text remains stable. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding the history here, you're using two definitions of consensus. One is agreed upon consensus (noted at the top of the page), which is that Forbes should be used for net worth. I don't dispute that. The other is a "silent consensus" that "first billionaire" is appropriate. That consensus appears to be over, now that editors are objecting. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the problem is that the objections to the text as unsourced and deprecated are invalid. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it a problem though? Are you saying we still need to add "first billionaire president" to the article? –– FormalDude  talk  02:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Until consensus develops around a valid reason for exclusion then long standing text should remain in articles. What’s the reason to remove it and where was consensus established? Don’t say it’s unsourced or deprecated, because those aren’t valid reasons. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But nobody seems to agree with you. BLP content needs indisputable sourcing.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not that it's unsourced or deprecated, it's that reliable sources contest it. We can't include Forbe's version of who was the first billionaire president over other reliable sources. That's not a neutral point of view. –– FormalDude  talk  02:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Which reliable sources say he’s not the first billionaire president? Mr Ernie (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The AP source I provided doesn't explicitly state it, but it establishes some reasons for skepticism and caution. Though I hasten to add that Trump said a week earlier that the data he gave to the FEC showed he was worth TEN BILLION DOLLARS, so there's that. soibangla (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * These sources cast doubt:
 * https://247wallst.com/banking-finance/2010/05/17/the-net-worth-of-the-american-presidents-washington-to-obama/
 * https://www.businessinsider.com/the-net-worth-of-the-american-presidents-from-washington-to-obama-2010-5#35th-john-fitzgerald-kennedy-1961-1963-kennedy-estate-worth-nearly-1-billion-34
 * https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/donald-trump-richest-president
 * https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/02/13/donald-trump-george-washington-net-worth-us-presidents/39011559/ –– FormalDude  talk  03:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are not reliable sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * According to WP:RSP USA today is an RS and there is no consensus that business insider is not. Thus I think this is a contested claim, not a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Both the Business Insider and USA Today articles reprint the info from the 247 Wall Street source. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And? They use it, they are an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's an interpretation of sourcing that I don't subscribe to. If a RS reprints info from a non-RS, does that make the information reliable, or does it simply need to be attributed to the non-RS? Maybe that's a discussion worth having at RSN, but I think now that isn't how it's treated. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If they do not question it yes, as they are accepting it as fact.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If they do not question it yes, as they are accepting it as fact.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie, why does this article need this information? J. B. Pritzker's article doesn't say that he's the richest person to ever hold the office of state governor, and Michael Bloomberg's article doesn't say that he's the richest billionaire to ever run for president. It's not as if this article was suppressing any information about Trump's (real, estimated, imagined) wealth. If any reader does wonder whether there were any other/richer billionaires, there's the inline link to the list of wealthiest officeholders in American history. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are three problems with this content. 1) The WP:BURDEN for verification is on the editor who favors the content, but in this case, it has not gained support that it's adequately-sourced. 2) It's WP:UNDUE trivia. even in the counterfactual event it were true. The WP:ONUS would be on those who seek to include it. 3) Current consensus is clearly against inclusion of "first billionaire president", and there was no prior discussion that would confirm previous approval or awareness of this first billionaire snippet.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem if the text is ultimately removed. I had a problem because SPECIFICO falsely removed it as unsourced and later on the grounds that the source was deprecated, and then again on the grounds that there was no consensus to include it. That's a misuse of the policies, and if I went and removed something cited to the NYT as unsourced or something to WaPo by saying WaPo was deprecated then those edits would be promptly reverted as nonsensical and I would likely get a talking to. I hope my fellow editors here don't endorse those types of tactics. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're aware this bit was not sourced to either NYT or WaPo. The billionaire bit is nonsensical for reasons agreed by every editor other than yourself. Let's move on.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Corrections of access-dates
, I just gotta ask how you know that whoever added or later looked at that cite did it on October 9, 2018, and not on October 3. I've noticed you doing an edit like this before. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that on certain sources, the access-dates were written as when the source (with that particular content) was archived. In this case, on that day (October 9), the source was like this (the archived October 3 source, was not like this). So, I made that way. Surge_Elec (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't make sense to you, we can discuss. Surge_Elec (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand your reasoning. You mention an archive, but the example link from Space4 wasn’t archived. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input . I changed it. Oct 3 archive and Oct 4 archive . The Oct 4 archive matches the content given in the wikisource. Surge_Elec (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you still don't agree, you can edit as you like. As, I have completed editing this article. Surge_Elec (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And what difference does it make and why is the access date significant?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What difference does it make: Explained above. That seemed to be the case for certain sources.
 * Why is the access date significant: In the format of sources, it is. All the sources generally on Featured Articles have access-dates. Surge_Elec (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So what? I see no defense as to the importance above. It sounds like you are way too involved with a pointless task.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is part of the format, and I also find it helpful to know when a cite was added or corrected. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , I was curious and checked the edit history from October 3 to November 21 when I stopped looking. The cite was added on October 3 with the access-date but without the author's name. Whoever added the name later didn't change the access date. I just mentioned it because changing the access date to some time in the past didn't make sense since you checked the source today. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The "access-date=" parameter should be used, and it should be the date when the person who creates the content read the source. (I don't think a later addition of the author's name necessitates updating the access date, as the author doesn't change.) The date the editor added the content and ref is another matter, and the access date should not be updated without actually rereading the source, which can be a pain, so just use the original date of access. Keep in mind that the URL doesn't change when an article is updated, so we are currently dependent on the access date. -- Valjean (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * When copying sources and content from other places at Wikipedia, remember to attribute the article it came from, and don't change those original access dates unless you actually have reread the source. Keep the original access date. -- Valjean (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of conspiracy theories in the lead
, yeah, agreed, it needs to be discussed but until then the consensus version per the RfC should be used. Except for the words "conspiracy theories", none of this was discussed: Through social media and mass media manipulation, Trump has brought fringe conspiracy theories into the mainstream, and used them to his political advantage. Please self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I viewed that as a bold edit that's also consistent with the RfC. Maybe needed some tweaks, but it reflected article text on the matter.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Which RfC would that be? It isn't this one. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It did not limit the detail or context. The !votes and close were not for specific wording. The wording was briefly, minimally discussed, I believe. Anyway we need to discuss what wording is appropriate.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The current wording in the article reflects exactly what was decided in the RfC just closed: that he promoted conspiracy theories. Period. If anyone wants to expand on that wording, they should first do it in the article text - which currently says nothing about "social media and mass media manipulation" or "bringing into the mainstream" or "using to his political advantage". And of course such an addition to the text would need solid sourcing. Then and only then could it be considered as an addition to the lead. Come on, folks, you know this. You can't add original material to the lead that is not reflective of what is in the article itself. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. The "and promoted conspiracy theories" is definitely supported by the body and by RfC consensus, and any further addition should probably start in the body. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought that the additional detail was already in the body text (as I said above).<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed my contribution to the body of the article on grounds that it was "way too much detail." I completely disagree. My edit only added four sentences about vital parts of Trump's mass media usage, all properly sourced. –– FormalDude  talk  17:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Are there perhaps even better sources, tertiary evaluations perhaps from some of the torrent of books that've come out in the past 12 months?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I had to begin the revert a few times because of edit conflicts, and in the end I wrote the edit summary in a great hurry—apologies for the curt results. For starters, I disagree with making "Relationship with the press" a subsection to "Use of mass media". Trump had a relationship with the press long before social media existed (see laying-of-the-pipes and pouring-or-the-cement ceremonies) but the using went both ways. He wanted the publicity, and the press used him as filler/comic relief. If "media manipulation" needs its own subsection, it should be be part of his relationship with the press/broadcast media. It’s separate from his use of social media which was entirely unfiltered and unchecked by journalists and editors and manipulated the public. The cited NYT article is four years old, and they clarify that news media allowed themselves to be manipulated: 1. Mr. Trump remains a master media manipulator who used his first news briefing since July to expertly delegitimize the news media and make it the story rather than the chaotic swirl of ethical questions that engulf his transition. 2. The news media remains an unwitting accomplice in its own diminishment as it fails to get a handle on how to cover this new and wholly unprecedented president. That's changed somewhat. As for the sources, I find it a bit problematic to cite a book or article based on its summary or abstract. I don’t see what makes Cassam’s opinion quote-worthy (never heard of him or the Nature journal, for that matter). Also, Cassam didn’t say that, Nature paraphrased him. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2021
Donald trump used the russians to win the election with 1100000 Maxamillianocito (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It might help if you were more clear, what election and 1100000 whats?Slatersteven (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2021
Remove the links from "politician, media personality, and businessman" in the lead sentence as per WP:EGG. Readers, particularly mobile readers, should know what they're clicking on. DeaconShotFire (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus, item [50]. ValarianB (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia rules trump consensus. DeaconShotFire (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Manual of Style article on linking says that it "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." We've had three RfCs about the phrasing of the first sentence, which included the links, and a number of discussions about linking. IMO that's reason enough for the application of the "occasional exceptions" and for leaving the sentence alone for a while. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The words "politician", "media personality", and "businessman" don't make it clear enough what the links are nor is it customary to link like this in the lead. Why not link "served" to "Presidency of Donald Trump"? It's equally as clear. Context is still highly important. DeaconShotFire (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Linking "served" to "Presidency" would also be an EGG where readers might expect a link to Service. Personally, I don't care where these wikilinks go, it's just that linking every other word in the first sentence seems a bit much. We should respect current consensus, though, item 50, which includes the links the current four links. If anyone wants to change it, start a discussion or an RfC. It's been a whole five weeks since the last one :) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Linking "served" to "Presidency" would also be an EGG where readers might expect a link to Service."
 * Yes, that's quite the point I was making.
 * How is anyone, particularly anyone on a mobile device, going to expect that the word "politician" is going to take them to "Political career of Donald Trump"? DeaconShotFire (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * They are not asking to remove the words, just the links.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2021
Height: 6′ 3″ Net worth: 2.5 billion USD (2021) 71.241.221.84 (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is is height relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Dates of cites
Is there any guideline on which date to use when a source is updated, in some cases several times? I've searched "Help" in vain. This article, for example, was published on July 30, 2020, and updated on August 20. Do we keep the original date or use the date of the last update? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Very good question. Ping me if you ever get an answer. -- Valjean (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably an unhelpful answer, but I remember in HS English class my teacher was telling my class about MLA citation format. She said that we use the date that we saw when we cited the page, not the most recent date. The information cited was current and correct to that revision, but may not be in a later one. Not sure if this is any assistance, I've found the Help desk here to be unhelpful too, lol.   Mgasparin (talk) 08:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That applies to the access-date= parameter, not the date= parameter. -- Valjean (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think the teacher meant the cited page's date on the day it was cited, i.e., cite's original date was January 4, student wrote paper on January 5, cite was updated on January 10. Student's paper was correct on January 5 but possibly not after January 10. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Space4Time3Continuum2x, I agree. The student should make sure the date in the access-date= parameter fits the actual date they read the source, and base their paper on the source content on that date. No other dates are relevant in that connection. -- Valjean (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks. That's pretty much what I remember. I interpret that to mean that if the student cited the page on January 11 they'd use the date of the update. So, basically common sense :) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

BTW, the original question ("Is there any guideline on which date to use when a source is updated...?") is still unanswered. I tried at Help talk:Citation Style 1 and got nowhere. Even they can't agree, and some even got hostile. (I may have made it too complicated.) I think a very specific RfC there about the date=parameter (and only that) might be necessary to solve that problem. -- Valjean (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I just had a look at that discussion. Oh my! I think I'll just go with common sense. When I add a cite, I use the date of the last update; when I read an updated cite that doesn't support or no longer supports the WP text, I'll update WP and change both date and access-date of the cite or I'll replace the cite. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

firehose of falsehood
I propose the lead sentence:

be changed to



Comments? soibangla (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Strikes me as UNDUE and not descriptive for most readers. Possibly some other wording about propaganda technique?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is WP:UNDUE. I've never even heard the term used towards Trump before. I think it's fine the way it is now. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the sources you provided, it's a "contemporary form of Russian propaganda known as the 'Firehose of Falsehood'" (quoting Mother Jones). The Rand Corporation calls it The Russian "Firehose of Falsehoods" propaganda model. It doesn't look as though the term caught on for Trump's torrent of lies except for a few comparisons with Russian propaganda. (Financial Times is the only recent source, and it's paywalled so I haven't read it.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * UNdue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Amended version
Not sure where in the article it belongs but the term is very descriptive and useful. Here is a source from 2016

The only caveat I'd add is that we don't know if Trump was knowingly using this technique, I don't think so.

Amended version:

-- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer your version. As to whether it's knowing, this isn't him talking but his former chief strategist makes clear it's strategic:
 * And it was adapted from Putin's propaganda strategy:
 * soibangla (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good version. -- Valjean (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Likened to" sounds weaselly, and I am not convinced the "firehose" is well-enough known to be referenced in this way in an encyclopedia bio. Maybe there's a way to indicate that Trump executes propaganda techniques without getting into arcane detail.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Likened to" sounds weaselly, and I am not convinced the "firehose" is well-enough known to be referenced in this way in an encyclopedia bio. Maybe there's a way to indicate that Trump executes propaganda techniques without getting into arcane detail.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The original sentence does not need adjusting, this just rings of UNDUE.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose in the lead. It's not a common term (personally I never heard it until just now) and it is not uniquely connected with Trump. Add a sentence to the article text if you want. To the "False statements" subsection, or better yet to the article Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a neologism coined by the Rand Foundation that hasn't caught on. Donald Rumsfeld, who was chairman of the board, used this technique to sell the War in Iraq, before Putin was credited with inventing it. Misinformation was broadcast through major U.S. media on a daily basis. TFD (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose in the lead and in the body. The term hasn't caught on, and the concept is pretty well-known (repeat a lie often enough, and enough people will believe it—the "I heard that before, must be true" effect or something along those lines). It's sometimes referred to as a "torrent of falsehoods" but I don't see that either term adds useful information to "unprecedented" or the number 30,573. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact the well-known concept you describe - "repeat a lie often enough, and enough people will believe it" - is already being consistently applied to Trump's claims under the term The Big Lie. That term is already used in this article and in Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. No need for this little-known, Johnny-come-lately of a term. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose in lead and the body. The term is just not used abundantly enough in relation to Trump to appear in this article. An inclusion over at Veracity of statements by Donald Trump might be appropriate. Here it's certainly not warranted in the lead and probably not in the body. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in the body only. Sources show that an important part of Trump's presidency is his use of propaganda techniques. –– FormalDude  talk  08:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

One of the most biased pages on Wikipedia. "Ranked among the worst presidents" is wholly inappropriate for someone who hasn't even been out of office for a year — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec935 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

There should be mention of criminal justice reform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec935 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Not a politician
He didn't serve in government before taking the presidency. Sources: https://www.toacorn.com/articles/trump-is-not-a-politician/ https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13587532/donald-trump-no-experience (even a LIBERAL source knows I am right) 71.94.157.155 (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * hes a politician deity 06:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

My stepdad told me the same thing and he knows politics! So, question... Can someone please remove the very first part in the area of the article where it says he is a "former politician"? Thanks in advnace!!!
 * No. GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As previously discussed on Talk:Breitbart News, your stepdad is not a reliable source... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * None of this is RS, I agree he is not (but I am not an RS either).Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * He's the 2024 GOP front-runner... that makes him a politician. –– FormalDude  talk  06:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @FormalDude is Trump really the 2024 frontrunner? Would that not be somewhat notable (unless there aren't sources) and worthy of an addition in the article? deity 06:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We'll figure that out in the spring of 2023. Meanwhile, could somebody (with the know how) archive/close. The OP's question has bee overwhelmingly answered. GoodDay (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There's sources:
 * "Most GOP Voters Want Trump to Run Again, but Among Those Who Don’t, Pence and DeSantis Are the Leaders" Morning Consult. October 13, 2021
 * "Two-thirds of Republicans want Trump to retain major political role; 44% want him to run again in 2024" Pew Research Center. October 6, 2021.
 * "85% Of Republicans Want Candidates To Agree With Trump, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Americans Support Early Cut To Federal Jobless Benefit" Quinnipiac Poll. May 26, 2021.
 * "Poll: Trump dominates 2024 Republican primary field" The Hill. September 20, 2021.
 * –– FormalDude  talk  06:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * He very obviously is a former politician, and we even had an RfC on it. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 10:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't run for president without being a politician. Even if you had never been one before, that act makes you one.--Khajidha (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Per Oxford English Dictionary pol·i·ti·cian /ˌpäləˈtiSHən/ (noun): a person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of or a candidate for an elected office. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Very fine people
Re this revert — According to the edit summary, something like this was rejected in the past. Could anyone give me an idea of why it was? Bob K31416 (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Because we go with what RS say, and Trump is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt that was the reason for rejecting it in the past because the RS was, not Trump. Anyone else? Bob K31416 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The source you cited fact-checked something Biden said during the campaign (Trump has "yet once to condemn white supremacy, the neo-Nazis"). The source says that Trump was criticized for saying "very fine people on both sides", exactly what the WP sentence says. WP's sentence doesn’t mention the KKK, neo-nazis, or white supremacists. Neither did Trump when he made the "very fine people" statement. The "clarification" came two days later (also per your cited source), after Trump had been criticized in news media and even by allies like Lindsay Graham, and reporters kept hammering him about it. A few more factchecks: PolitiFact, WaPo, USA Today.

I was about to revert your edit myself but another editor was faster. The Racial views section has been discussed many times—just scroll back through the last 70 archives or so. Long story short: "Trump said"—well, he would, wouldn’t he, to quote WP:MANDY Rice-Davies whom I didn’t know until recently (and I know it’s an essay and not a WP guideline, and I don’t care because it’s common sense). The second sentence of the section says that Trump has repeatedly denied being racist and then quotes him directly with "I am the least racist person there is anywhere in the world." And then he continued to say, tweet, and do things many people consider racist, followed by a denial/strong denial/very strong denial, rinse and repeat. We do not need to mention every denial. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If there was criticism of Trump's explanation, then both Trump's explanation and the criticsm should be in the article.  Otherwise important information for understanding the situation is suppressed and it would be an example of biased editing and harm the credibility of this article and the reputation of Wikipedia. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Only if RS report it, not quote him report that he had denied meaning the KKK or white supremacists. I note the WP source does inf act call Trumps denial BS. So indeed if we use that source we can say "trump denied he meant white supremacists, but this denial was shown to be flawed".Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As a starting point, here's the item regarding his explanation.
 * Trump said that "very fine people" wasn't referring to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and he referred to the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists as criminals and thugs.
 * To this, various editors who are critical of Trump's explanation and other information that appeared in the given RS can add RS criticsm. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Some have argued that explanation doesn’t hold up, because Trump referred in that statement to a protest “the night before” when — it was widely reported — white nationalists burned tiki torches and chanted anti-Semitic and white nationalist slogans. We’ll leave it to readers to make up their minds on Trump’s remarks,", this only fact checks Biden claim Trump has never condemned white supremacists (read WP:SYNTHESIS}. Again it's not he denied it, it's also a fact his denial has also been questioned.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The RS is titled "Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists", and the excerpt you gave is about Trump. So I don't think you have a valid argument that the article is not about Trump. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Bob, the flag-waving "harm the reputation of Wikipedia" mom-and-apple-pie rings hollow here. If you cannot demonstrate wide RS coverage that took Trump's "clarification" at face value, then this content is undue or downright misleading. It would take a much-expanded version to contextualize the attempted revisioni and glossing-over of his first declaration of support for the white supremecists, and this article is not the place for that. As you should be aware, these watery revisions and wink-wink denials are part of Trump's longstanding communications style.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's an example of how RS criticism of Trump's explanation can be included. I'm not saying it's best, just giving an example.
 * Trump said that "very fine people" wasn't referring to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and he referred to the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists as criminals and thugs. However, in the original statement Trump referred to a protest the night before where white nationalists burned torches and chanted racist slogans.
 * Bob K31416 (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, we already knew that. There would need to be a discussion of his use of these "clarifications" to disarm those who (sorry, like you,) know of his dogwhistle messages but do not wish to acknowledge them for how they are understood by the overwhelming majority of mainstream media, academic, and analysts writings.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone else care to comment? Bob K31416 (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with SPECIFICO. Needs wider RS coverage. –– FormalDude  talk  02:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO your tone is rude. Could you please give a reliable source that describes Trump "fine people" comments as "dogwhistle messages"? --Pakbelang (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Should we change how the article conveys Trump calling white supremacists "very fine people"?
If Trump has clarified his "very fine people" statement & we've a reliable source for it? Then, indeed add it. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. TFD (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Trump said it, then he "clarified", then he backtracked to "very fine people" in his—uh—infrastructure speech (Atlantic). If you want to add all the clarifications and reversions, we might as well add a new paragraph "Support for and from the far-right", add the stuff about Duke ("don't know him"), "stand back and stand by" ("don't know who the Proud Boys are") (USA Today), etc. (LA Times). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd like to describe what changes you're proposing specifically? May make it easier for other editors to weigh in. –– FormalDude  talk  02:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's Bob's proposal. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So the proposal is adding:
 * Correct? –– FormalDude  talk  02:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe so. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Then we would also need the fact that RS have called this clarification BS. Moreovoer WWE do not say he said they were, we said RS accused him of doing it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I gave an example of such an edit in the previous section:
 * Trump said that "very fine people" wasn't referring to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and he referred to the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists as criminals and thugs. However, in the original statement Trump referred to a protest the night before where white nationalists burned torches and chanted racist slogans.


 * I got the idea from an excerpt you presented. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but RS say his clarification does not add up, if we give his view we have to give RS voes on his view.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I tried that in the above example. Could you give an excerpt from an RS that is along the lines you're thinking of so it can be used? Bob K31416 (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How about the WP source "But that’s wrong. There were white supremacists. There were counterprotesters. And there were heavily armed anti-government militias who showed up on Saturday.".Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ...and the link to whatever RS that excerpt was from? Bob K31416 (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Its already here, read the sources people have already posted here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone else? Bob K31416 (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/08/very-fine-people-charlottesville-who-were-they-2/. Just googled the quote. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That excerpt, "But that's wrong..." taken in context says Trump was wrong when he said that there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. Is this what should be put in as criticism, along with the original edit proposal? Bob K31416 (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

These "clarifications" have been discussed many times on this and other articles. The consensus has repeatedly been not to elevate these manipulative WP:MANDY revisions on a par with the widely covered primary statements. At the least it would take an RfC to make any change along the lines proposed here.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you give a link to a discussion? Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No. You're an experienced edtor. If you want to parachute into a very highly edited article to insist on a controversial reversal of longstanding content, you can very well search the talk and article archives for yourself. Or you can recede and take up more constructive suggestions.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone else care to give a link? Bob K31416 (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How about a link to the last time someone tried to add "balance" to that sentence, with the same FactCheck.org cite you used, and was reverted? It was on January 27, 2021. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC) Here's another link, from a day later. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The reverting editor criticized the edit, the usatoday source, but not the factcheck.org source. Bob K31416 (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone care to give a link to a discussion? Bob K31416 (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Bob K31416 Please see the extensive discussion at Talk:Unite the Right rally. I find the consensus there to be fairly balanced and reflective of RS. Pakbelang (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Note linking to another Wikipedia article's section that discusses in detail Trump's Charlottesville remarks
I made an edit that was reverted. It's a note that contains a link to the following section in Wikipedia: Unite_the_Right_rally. The section is a detailed discussion of Trump's remarks about the rally.

My edit summary said, "added note with link to section with detailed discussion of Trump's comment, otherwise the reader would most likely not know about it." The reverting edit summary said, "Readers will see it if they're interested enough to follow the link to the article on the rally" Readers wouldn't follow the link to the article and find the section if they didn't know the section was there. Here's what the note said, "See the section President Trump's statements for a detailed discussion of Trump's statements about the rally."

Maybe the most efficient way to handle this is to ask: Is there anyone here who supports the edit that adds the note? Bob K31416 (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The most efficient will be to drop all this discussion, which has increasingly taken the form of a one-way insistence against and longstanding consensus and the current reaffirmation of same.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Citing a chimerical "consensus" without any objective agreement on how one would measure such unanimity is a form of bludgeoning, where you constitute the unitary arbiter of such matters. I among many others agree with the proposed edit that has been reverted, whose inclusion you inacurrately describe as the result of a "one-way instance". It is Wikipedia policy to "include those facts that are of historical, societal, scientific, intellectual or academic significance". Including the widely-reported (in credible sources) fact of the ex-president's objection to having been characterized as having called neo-Nazis and the KKK as "very fine people" reaches the standardly-agreed upon threshold of evidentiary notability and significance. - 2603:8000:103:881B:6D35:A480:EE61:E3AC (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment but see no need for a 'remark'. What I would do is wiki-link "Trump's comment" to Unite the Right rally.  starship .paint  (exalt) 02:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Shame it's been reverted already, that section (Unite the Right rally) is nearly 1,800 words long, exceeding the WP:DYK minimum character limit for new articles over 7 times.  starship .paint  (exalt) 03:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * thoughts on the wikilink? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's actually more important to link to Unite the Right rally than Unite the Right rally, because this article focuses on his statement on the rally. He didn't even attend the rally, so the focus on the rally itself is secondary to his statement.  starship .paint  (exalt) 08:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A link to a section of another article is very unusual. This article needs to provide a summary of fact and context as described by the weight of RS. That link is only confusing and diffuses the issue rather than focusing and summarising it. A link to the entire event is fine. The link I reverted is not. And Bob has disregarded BRD, falsely claimed that the link was endorsed on talk, and reinstated it without consensus. It should be removed and reinstated only if we reach consensus for it here on talk. I've addressed this behavior with Bob on his talk page.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't believe that was a BRD violation. It was Starship who initially added the link. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, not a 24-BRD DS violation. Just a violation of the general BRD norm that most experienced editors respect and follow.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The part about section links is not true. They're all over the place, including about 18 others in this article alone. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Should have been more clear. It was too narrow. SpaceX offered a much better link, which we may end up agreeing on here.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you mean. The target was a subsection of a subsection after all. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Trump’s initial statement at Bedminster (we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides) two hours after the homicide was critized as spreading blame to "many sides" and "false equivalency". Two days later, he read a "conciliatory statement" at the WH, then tweeted an attack on the African-American head of Merck,who resigned from the American Manufacturing Council in protest of Trump’s remarks, and later attacked the "#FakeNewsMedia" in another tweet. The next day at the infrastructure speech at Trump Tower, he doubled down on his initial "many sides" statement with "very fine people, on both sides".


 * The WP text from at least as far as back as 6 September 2018 (I didn’t go back any further) said "comments" (His comments following a 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, were seen as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist marchers and those who protested them.). It was changed to Trump’s comments in reaction to the 2017 Charlottesville far-right rally were interpreted as implying a moral equivalence between white supremacist marchers and counter-protesters on 10 July 2019. On August 29, 2020, unnoticed by other editors this edit added an op-ed (by some) not supported by the source. On January 22, 2021, the "by whom" tag was added to "by some" and finally, on January 27, another op-ed ("by his opponents"). Then "very fine people" was added, changing the meaning of the sentence to make it exclusively about the infrastructure press conference, i.e., the [∫https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally#Third_statement third statement]. After some back-and-forth over the next few weeks we ended up with the current version.


 * I just added the initial plural-s to Trump's comments and his remarks two hours after the vehicular homicide at the rally ("We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.") which were also widely criticized. I also changed the wikilink from the third statement to all of Trump's comments. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC) I just removed the link pending further discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, it looks like you support adding the link Trump's comments. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Haven't made up my mind—a link right before another, rather long link ("Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia") is overlinking, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think some infrequent duplicate linking to provide helpful context is excusable. To be clear, this is an opinion, as this situation doesn't appear to be mentioned at all at MOS:OVERLINK. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Links competing with each other for user attention (last sentence of first paragraph)? Do we need both, and, if not, which one is more helpful for the reader's understanding? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If we decide only one link is appropriate, probably the section link is more relevant. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We just have to look at the article's lead to see that links in the vicinity of each other has not been considered a problem. Also, I agree that the section link is more important because the paragraph is about Trump's remarks. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, we don't cherrypick crude irrelevant analogous examples. Otherwise we would have to evaluate all the instances of text for which there might have been similar overlinking but for which it was not done. So let's discuss the merits, please. The wider context of the entire page link is better. For this article (Trump's bio} the noteworthy and significant factor in the rally was -- wait for it -- Trump's reaction. So the link to the entire article allows our readers to digest the entire context and the section header in the subsidiary article lets them skip to Trump's statements. It is not as if we were to link to an article on mammals when we are intending to refer to squirrels.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Re "the noteworthy and significant factor in the rally was -- wait for it -- Trump's reaction" — That's what the section link goes to. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Now please respond to my argument as to why the full-article link is better.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think my last message refuted what you had to say. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No. You repeated what I said. You do not appear to be understanding the issue, so I will not address you further.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the section link proposal. Incidentally, Trump's comments on Charlotteville arguably qualify for a stand-alone article. Joe Biden cited them as the main reason he decided to stand for president.Pakbelang (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Have ya'll come to a settlement? GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We quote the Trump comments that were widely critized, and we cite the sources with the details of the criticism. I think the link to the rally page is more helpful to provide context for readers not familiar with or even aware of the events (nazi salutes and imagery, racist and antisemitic chants, armed military militia groups, a vehicular homicide). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * i agree. The reader needs the entire context to understand Trump's two apparently disparate statements. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The section link is to inform the reader of the detailed discussion of Trump's remarks in Wikipedia. All we need to do is take what is already in the text, "Trump's comments", and make it a wikilink, "Trump's comments". Nothing else. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2021
Trump did not start the child separation policy that was Obama please correct this information. 2601:152:4300:9AF0:DC41:C1E:6D16:401B (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The article does not state that Trump started the child separation policy. –– Formal   talk 05:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the claim that Obama started or did the same child separation policy as Trump is rated "misleading" by FactCheck.org here. –– Formal  talk 05:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2021
It states that President Trump, did not condemn the KKK, However source 200 is about him denouncing them. Meow-moo2 (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , "The God Emperor of Mankind"? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "during his campaign" and that he "after a public uproar, he disavowed Duke and the Klan". So yes we do say he went on to condemn then.Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Text says Trump helped bring far-right fringe ideas, beliefs, and organizations into the mainstream, pandered to white supremacists, retweeted racist Twitter accounts, and repeatedly refused to condemn David Duke, the Ku Klux Klan or white supremacists. After a public uproar, he disavowed Duke and the Klan. That seems proper. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Trump on Israel
Under foreign policy section I suggest adding the remarks of former president Donald Trump with Ari Hoffman on America's first conservative talk radio station, 570 KVI, which happened on Friday on 10/29/2021, and in which the former president said "Well, you know the biggest change I've seen in Congress is Israel literally owned Congress – you understand that, 10 years ago, 15 years ago – and it was so powerful, it was so powerful, and today it's almost the opposite. Israel had such power – and rightfully – over Congress, and now it doesn't. It's incredible, actually." MYS1979 (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Trumps


 * , he did say that. Why should we add it, though? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for concurring that he did say that and for posting the question of why the former president's comment that "Israel literally owned Congress" is relative to fit this article's paragraph about Trumps foreign policies towards Israel. The short answer it's only natural and extremely relevant to the topic. The longer answer is it's not important whether his statement is true or false (Personally I think it's false), but what is important is that he thinks that way, and it matters even more when you consider that while he was under congress/senate impeachment proceedings where he needed every legislative vote he can muster he took many unparalleled steps towards Israel, to name some

Let me know if you need any references to any of the points above, I will be more than happy to provide them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MYS1979 (talk • contribs)
 * Recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
 * Recognizing the Golan heights as part of Israel
 * Withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear deal
 * Assassinating the Iranian General Soleimani
 * Reversing course on the legality of Israeli settlements in the west bank
 * Cutting ties and funding with the Palestinian authority
 * Withdrawing from UNRWA and UNESCO
 * Adding Israel as a country of birth on American passports for those born in Jerusalem reversing supreme court ruling of Zivotofsky v Kerry


 * MYS1979, please take care to only add your own comments without altering the text of other user's comments. When adding your reply above (see this edit), you also added a bunch of weird formatting in the previous section. Zaathras (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you Zaathras for your feedback. I believe that was done unintentionally, as I checked the page to edit it and took long time doing so, meanwhile other edits where being made so when I applied my changes it overwrote these new edits, will be more careful in the future 47.187.39.94 (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Has the consensus changed?
If I recall, a year ago, we decided that on American politician bios infoboxes, we wouldn't show the successors-to-be, until they took office. AFAIK, may have missed that consensus. I'm bringing it here, because this is the article where (if memory serves correct) the consensus began. See Ralph Northam and Justin Fairfax for examples, of a little disagreement between myself & he. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where consensus started forming, but the RfC was held at the Village pump. You can also point people toward the Template:Infobox officeholder documentation itself. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Would appreciate it, if you'd explain this to Therequiembellishere. He & I don't always see eye-to-eye. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Post-presidency activity to lede
What do you all think of any of the post-presidency content being mentioned in the lead? Considering the fact that it has it's own section, I feel it at least warrants a sentence or two in like the last lead paragraph under WP:DUE. I made an edit not too long ago mentioning how he has remained politically active including holding rallies and making endorsements, but it was reverted. Just thought a discussion might come up with some ideas. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: For reference, was Iamreallygoodatchecker's edit to the lede:  –– FormalDude   talk 05:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing that edit I was to lazy yesterday to find. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd support adding something that mentions that Trump is still politically active, and possibly the fact that he is the current 2024 republican frontrunner too. –– FormalDude  talk 05:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Something like the original edit or the actual edit looks OK, with something along the lines of the following excerpt from the post-presidency section,"Since leaving the presidency, Trump has been the subject of several probes into both his business dealings and his actions during the presidency." Bob K31416 (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Any mention would need to desctribe the unconventional form of his continuing political activity.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bother adding anything, until he announces his bid for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Right now, it's just CNN continuing their obsessive coverage of him. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything that needs to be noted at the moment. 2024 is a fair way away.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we're good for now. It's been less than 10 months since Trump left office. Other former POTUSes build presidential libraries and podcast with Springsteen, Trump's on a golden-oldies tour for his fans, getting his adulation fix for playing his greatest "stolen election, deep state, socialist, CRT" hits and telling the fans to vote for the candidates who have most sucked up to him. He doesn't appear to spend PAC money on them, so that's the kind of support any popular influencer on social media gives, and he hasn't declared his candidacy, so we don't know what he's hoarding the money for (legal fees, pay for venues (maybe, eventually) and plane rentals?). Current RS coverage of Trump is mostly about more information being uncovered about his term in office. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

then-wife
"At least twenty-six women have publicly accused Trump of sexual misconduct as of September 2020, including his then-wife Ivana." President Trump has not been married to Ivana for 29 years. It is difficult to understand what that sentence is conveying.Easeltine (talk) 07:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to "ex-wife." –– Formal  talk 07:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume "then-wife" was supposed to convey that she accused him of having raped her while they were married—something to do with a scalp reduction to remove a bald spot on his dome. Ivana recommended her plastic surgeon who botched the job, Trump got mad and took it out on Ivana, allegedly. She retracted and got a hefty divorce settlement or was supposed to get it, but the bankruptcies got in the way. (It's been a loooong six years since 2015.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - see above - your change now fails to describe that she accused him when they were married, in fact it seems to imply the opposite - that she accused him after they divorced.  starship .paint  (exalt) 06:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I've often found the "then-" prefex to be un-needed. The time period should dictate the usage. For example: "In 1951, US President Harry S. Truman, went for a walk", which reads correctly. Where's "In 1951, then-US President Harry S. Truman, went for a walk", just reads odd. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the Ivana bit altogether since she withdrew the allegation in 2015 (source). I don't think it's due weight. –– Formal  talk 06:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I should have specified that she disavowed the term "rape" when Hurt's book was published in 1993 and then described the incident as having "marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage." She didn't walk back how she had described the incident earlier, i.e., that he threw her on the bed, yanked out her hair, ripped off her clothes, and had "marital relations" with her. The publisher pasted her statement on the flyleaf of the book, preceded by a notice to the reader saying that the "statement by Ivana Trump does not contradict or invalidate any information contained in this book, and it is included here only to give full expression to differing points of view on an important event." ( I have a "First Edition"—three bucks, used.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Amazon has a preview of the Kindle edition. If you scroll down, you get the full description of the liposuction, head-shrinking, medical-grade tattooing, and the marital relations. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I like the current wording. –– Formal  talk 22:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think then-wife might be the best phrasing. Ex-wife isn't precise enough in getting the point across that they were married at the time; it leaves a certain degree of ambiguity. While I agree with GoodDay's assertion that the "then-" suffix is usually un-needed, in some specific cases, such as this one, it conveys a meaning. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Then" is factually incorrect as she wasn't his wife then (September 2020). If it were saying that he was accused in 19XX (don't remember the exact year) by his then-wife, that would be correct. --Khajidha (talk) 12:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The wording of the sentence has been changed from "As of September 2020" to "Since the 1970s". I still think "then-wife" is confusing. If there really needs to be clarification we could say "wife at the time". –– FormalDude  talk 12:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Both "then-wife" and "wife at the time" have the same problem. You have to mention the actual time in question. If ether were to be added to the current formulation, the mention of "since the 1970's" would imply that she was his wife during that entire time. In either case you would need to say something like what I said above. "Since the 1970s, at least twenty-six women, including an accusation in 19__ by his then-wife Ivana". --Khajidha (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * She was married to Trump from 1977 to 1990. The "marital relations" happened in late October or early November 1989, Ivana mentioned the incident during the divorce proceedings, and the divorce was granted in December 1990 "in a hearing at which State Supreme Court Justice Phyllis Gangel-Jacob cited cruel and inhuman treatment by Mr. Trump as grounds for granting Mrs. Trump's divorce plea." She was his wife in 1989 and 1990, so "then-wife" applies in either case. I don't really see the necessity for adding an accusation in 19__ by to the sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC) We don't really need As of the 1970s, either. If any other women come forward, we can change the number. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the time period is specified as "since the 1970s", the phrase "then-wife" means that she was his wife during the entire time from the 1970s until the source was written. The source was written in 2020. As she was no longer married to Trump after 1990, she cannot be described as his "then-wife" for that time period. What you appear to try to be saying is that Ivana made the accusations while she was his wife. But that is not what was written. --Khajidha (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't quite follow your reasoning but decided to remove the term and, while I was at it, the year and the first name, and simply leave At least twenty-six women, including his first wife, have publicly accused ..., just the bare bones for his top biography. In the first sentence we say "has a history" without specifying a time period. I don't think it's necessary to specify a time period here, either, and the name of the first wife is mentioned in the infobox and the "Family" section. Using the first name feels a bit condescending to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Why was MSNBC used as a source?
Wikipedia's disgustingly far left bias is very present, especially when a conspiracy theory website that's 100% opinion (literally) is used as a source. https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-denies-racism-most-americans-dont-believe-him-msna1259321 Whenever you go to it, it also claims "Most Americans consider Donald Trump racist. He's convinced, however, that these beliefs aren't his fault." That's not appropriate when you're trying to get factual content. Since there's a rule here, left wing news source only, this https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-biden-racism-debate/ would be a way more appropriate source to use. The same thing applies to about 99% of the content in this article. Very disgusting and is why Wikipedia isn't worth a dime (once again, literally). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superblaze27 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, we wouldn't want to downsize Trump from "least racist person in the world" to "least racist person in the room". Depending on the situation, that could have been Trump and Stephen Miller which isn't saying too much. The article's author, Steve Benen, is a respected journalist and political commentator, and we use his article as a source for something Trump said in a public Q&A. Having a neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to all viewpoints. Rather, it refers to Wikipedia's effort to discuss topics and viewpoints in a roughly equal proportion to the degree that they are discussed in reliable sources, which in political articles is mostly mainstream media. For further information, please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Russian support of the Taliban with weapons, supplies, money, and propaganda
This is a separate and independent matter from the alleged Russian bounties, which has evolved into an RfC. Russian involvement in Afghanistan since 2014 and increasing support of the Taliban during the Trump administration has not been discussed on the Talk page, so I’m putting it up for discussion here. Previous objections to the new material were SYNTH and BLP violation (both unexplained), and "needs to wait for resolution on bounties". Whether or not the text on the alleged bounties is retained does not affect this separate matter. Recapping the edit history on Russian support, pinging all editors involved: While Russian and U.S. interests in Afghanistan were initially "largely aligned" after 2001 (routing "al Qaeda and its affiliated terrorist groups and prevent[ing] Afghanistan from once again becoming a haven for terrorists"), Russia began providing "financial and military support for the central government, power brokers in the north, and the Taliban" when relations between the U.S. and Russia deteriorated after the annexation of Crimea. General John W. Nicholson Jr., who commanded allied forces in Afghanistan from 2016–2018, said in March 2018 that Russia was "supporting and even supplying arms to the Taliban" and that "he'd seen 'destabilising activity by the Russians.'" He also said that the destabilizing activities had picked up within the past 18 to 24 months. The 2020 NBC source says that Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, commander of U.S. Central Command, told reporters this week. "And [the Russians] are not our friends in Afghanistan. And they do not wish us well." If Trump agrees, he hasn't said so. Instead, he has praised Putin and called for Russia to re-join the Group of Seven (G7) nations … Three retired generals who served in the chain of command over the war in Afghanistan told NBC News they saw indications Russia was supplying weapons, money, supplies and, on occasion, even transport to Taliban fighters as far back as 2016. … US officials repeatedly have discussed Russia's general support for the Taliban in Congressional testimony and other public statements--and have sent that intelligence up the chain of command.. I believe the information is reliably sourced and important enough to be included in the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I added nor their support of the Taliban with weapons, supplies, money, and propaganda, with a reliable source (NBC, see below), to the article here. My edit was reverted here by with an edit summary calling my edit "SYNTH and BLP violation".  After the reversion was reverted by  with the edit summary "neither synth nor blp issue", I asked Tobby72 on the Talk page to explain what was SYNTH and/or a BLP violation. They did not respond.
 * The text was again removed here with the same "SYNTH and BLP violation" edit summary, restored here with the edit summary "neither synth nor blp issue", reverted here by with the erroneous edit summary "take back to ongoing talk page discussion",  restored by  here, reverted by  here, restored here, and reverted here.


 * I am unsure this is specially a problem with Trump.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources saying that it was a big problem before Trump took office or that Obama publicly lauded Putin/Russia? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe not a big problem, but it was there https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/taliban-gain-putins-help-at-secret-meeting-md9lbkhvl2h.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have a subscription to the Times, so I can only see the top three paragraphs that say "a Taliban commander claimed". Does the rest of the article say whether the Times followed up on the claim? If there was large-scale support and it was ignored by the Obama administration, then a mention on Obama's article might be justified but, either way, it doesn't absolve Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * MAybe you can read this source https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/614710/Islamic-State-ISIS-Vladimir-Putin-Russia-Syria-Taliban.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The lede is a disaster
Per MOS:LEDE it is way too long. It should be trimmed. I believe bloated ledes are the byproduct of unrestrained POV-pushers and it would make sense that it's the case here...some editors, for whatever reason, don't seem to like Trump. Irrespective of the cause, someone really needs to use a bazooka on the lede. 2600:1012:B06E:D117:C55B:3D91:1261:D8F1 (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We heard all that before, biased against Trump (see Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias), article too long, lead too long. MOS:LEAD merely says that—as a general rule of thumb—a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs. An unusually large number of thumbs and other digits was involved in writing that lead. If you have any specific proposals, set up an account, do the required number of edits, and start improving the lead, keeping in mind the above current consensus. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Necessary unnecessary wording
, your two edits (removing the comma and deleting "many as") changed the meaning of Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic. The consensus (item 51) was to add a sentence stating that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. The options were two separate sentences or a compound sentence with a FANBOY coordinating conjunction. I chose the latter and then removed some words from the second sentence that were not necessary for it to be understood (see ellipsis) because two sentences starting with Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as were rather clunky. Your removal of the comma and the two additional words turned the compound sentence into a simple one stating that his comments/actions were racially charged/racist and misogynistic which was the case sometimes but not always. BTW, weren't you one of the editors opposed to combining racism and misogyny in the same sentence ? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yea that's my mistake; grammar is not my favorite subject. I don't recall what I advocated for in an earlier discussion, but it doesn't make much of a difference to me if it's a separate sentence or a compound sentence. I think it's good the way it is now. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump is actually a former president.
According to Valjean, Donald Trump is just a former president. I think spell it wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NB4ITYTWP (talk • contribs) 11:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you think is spelt wrong?Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is a former president. There can only be one president at a time. Trump is one of five living former presidents. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2021 (3)
"Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents"....where's the reference for this? This page is chalk full of political biases that you left-wing editors are trying to pass off as impartial. I read where WP does not consider Fox News a reliable source, yet CNN and MSNBC, Axios (seriously Axios), CBS, PBS, NBC, Vox, Vice, The Atlantic, WaPo, NYT, HuffPo, and on and on, are all considered legit, never mind the fact they all have severe left-wing biases. Is WP really that afraid of conservative opinion? You guys aren't even citing this page, just writing whatever crap you can think of, and should you happen to cite something it comes from a left-wing source with no mention of a counter-point other serious, legitimate journalists have made. How can people believe anything WP writes? Can't wait to see how rosy the Joe Biden page is....I wonder if you've even covered his health issues, or how badly he botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan (probably a passing reference to this), or how the economy is in tatters due to his policies, or how crime is increasing at astronomical rates, or how the crisis at the border is growing worse by the day, or how he has failed to end the pandemic as he promised he would do within the first few months of his presidency. 23.31.83.54 (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The sourcing will be found in Donald_Trump. The lead of an article is introductory, and generally does not need a lot of citations, as it is just an intro for content found later on. Zaathras (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2021
In the third paragraph of this page, the claims that the editor(s) are making are both unfounded and unsupported. If they are going to make the claim that Donald Trump triggered a trade war with China due to the tariffs he imposed, they should either detail the agreement and the conditions of said tariffs or remove the claim completely, as it is an unsupported, politicized claim. Also, in the fourth paragraph, it states that Donald Trump instigated the events on January 6th, which is also unsupported and false, and if you want a source, look at the Senate hearings and the dropped impeachment charges pertaining to this particular incident. This is one of many politicized, unfounded, and plainly unsupported claims in this article that either need to be supported by reliable, non-politicized sources or removed from the article entirely. Ppsucky (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. BSMRD (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2021 (2)
Is Wikipedia openly trying to be a left-wing news source? The way President Trump is portrayed in just the few opening paragraphs is wholly inaccurate and blanketly political. "He reacted slow to the COVID-19 pandemic" is pure opinion, yet Wikipedia is trying to pass it as fact. Thousands of school children of all ages to turn this information source on a daily basis, and it seems the editors of this encyclopedia want to use that exposure to further their own agendas. This is what every tyrannical government in history strived for, the control of information. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro (just a few mass murderer tyrants of the last century) would be proud. You're propaganda machine is exceptional.... 23.31.83.54 (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2021 (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. BSMRD (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)