Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 141

Biased article
after reading the article if concluded that it seems quite biased please read it over and fix mistakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junger04 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Which mistakes? Everything is cited from reliable sources. - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Please point out these biases & mistakes, in order for any of us to fix. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The "bias" is that we follow reality instead of the pronouncements of Cheetoh Jesus. Duh. --Khajidha (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I Agree. Pages like this do suffer from heavy liberal bias. However, any attempts to change this result in reversion and scolding. Dswitz10734 (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So point out what we say that is wrong?Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven Please ping me when you reply. What about the national BLM riots? In the George Floyd Protests article, one of the causes is listed as "inequality and racism", and another "lack of police accountability", the latter being referenced by Politico, a known left-wing news outlet. When I attempted to add 'alleged' before the inequality and racism part, I was reverted and addressed on my talk page. Dswitz10734 (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's human nature to be biased. Consider yourself among the elite if you can set your biases aside and edit objectively. Try to make an objective edit and don't worry about being reverted. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding examples of bias, there are lies by omission. No where in the article is there mention that Trump's daughter Ivanka converted to judaism and married an orthodox jew, yet there are implications in the article that Trump is racist. Also omitted from the article are Trump's condemnation of racists. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What does his daughter's marriage have to do with his being racist or not? I know a lot of people in interfaith or interracial relationships whose parents are EXTREMELY bigoted. And clarifying that "no, I didn't really mean to say that the KKK were fine people" isn't really a condemnation of racism. --Khajidha (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You can also be a racist, and not hate Jews [].Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." Bob K31416 (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "After a public uproar, he disavowed Duke and the Klan".Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This very brief mention of "disavowed" is not condemnation as in Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists. Here's an excerpt from Trump's comments reported in that article,
 * "Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."
 * There's nothing like this in the Wikipedia article. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is now.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Re your edit, the 2016 election campaign is not when Trump said it. He said it in 2017 after he became president and regarding Charlottesville. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is the only mention of the Klan in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When you added 2017, it's still out of place there in the section Pre-presidential political career., is incorrectly connected with another statement, and is limited to the KKK. Trump's comment is appropriate for the 5th paragraph of the section Racial views. I tried that before in various forms and it didn't get anywhere. It doesn't look like this is going anywhere either, so that's the end of it for me. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason this article reads biased does not lie within the scope of this talk page. Our job is to interpret "reliable sources" and apply appropriate weight, and I think we do a relatively decent job at it, mostly. The bias your seeing comes from the fact that we have no conservative sources listed as reliable. Like Fox News is a major news publication with literal seats in the White House press room, yet it's not a reliable source for Wikipedia. This means we never get a true balance. There really isn't an objective way in which a source is decided to be reliable or not, its pretty much just votes from editors, which are usually biased to the left. This leads to pretty much only liberal sources being considered "reliable sources". It's that which leads to the appearance of bias; therefore, in reality the bias is not in this article, but in this article. However, I see my job as an editor as to follow community consensus and precedent, and I remain as neutral as I can. Right now, consensus is to have no conservative sources, I will faithfully and without reservation follow that consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus is that WP does not consider Fox a "conservative" source. It's deemed to be a fan fiction source. That is why it was tagged not Reliable.  SPECIFICO talk 12:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * RSN has deemed Fox to not be reliable. If you disagree with that take it up at RSN. By the way, it is not just "vote from editors", we have to demonstrate making stuff up.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "conservative" has come to be a code word for "blindly following the mad ramblings of a wanna be dictator". Any source that speaks out against Trump is immediately labelled "not really conservative" by him and his followers, regardless of what politics that source supports.--Khajidha (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I notice that FactCheck.org is not listed at Reliable sources/Perennial sources. One of their articles was Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And?Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can get CNN to shut up about Donald Trump for a whole month? I'd be grateful to ya. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "WP does not consider Fox a "conservative" source. It's deemed to be a fan fiction source." I would object to that. Fan fiction has literary merits and offers alternative interpretations of established characters. Faux News is just a propaganda machine masquerading as a news source. Dimadick (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think everyones commentary here, for example, regarding Fox News is why Wikipedia remains biased. I'm not an idiot, I know the consensus does not explicitly say Fox News is a "conservative" source, but when nearly every conservative source is deprecated it's a big problem . I don't think Fox is anymore "fan fiction" for the right than MSNBC and CNN are for the left. For example, CNN literally settled a multi-million dollar suit with Nick Sandmann for defamation against him because they were trying to propagate the Trump supporters are racist and bad notion. Every source is biased and every source reports misinformation sometimes—Fox, CNN, and MSNBC are not excluded. The truth is we hold Fox and other conservative sources to a standard not on the same level as liberal source. This is why Wikipedia has practically lost all credibility on the question of neutrality. This liberal bias is something that is not a secret or disputed anywhere outside of Wikipedia; there was literally a Harvard study confirming Wikipedia is biased to the left, its documented even in our own "reliable sources". Until this source thing is fixed, Wikipedia will never be considered neutral on political topics. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you should not be continuing to beat your head against the wall by editing politics-related pages on Wikipedia. I don't see anyone calling you an idiot here, so that bit was not constructive. SPECIFICO talk 03:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said anyone called me an idiot. I apologize if it came across as unconstructive. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It was never really meant to be constructive, it was just the same, tired screed about literal media and the Wikipedia. Zaathras (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the notion that Wikipedia is biased to the left then you must also disagree with the Washington Post analysis and Harvard Business Review study on this very topic. If you do believe them, you should actively be trying to fix Wikipedia's ideological biases to try an ensure WP:NPOV. Now, if you deny these RS, then you may have a problem with following reliable sources, which certainly could be problematic from an editors standpoint. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because the project may be, does not mean any one page is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Could you give links to the analysis and study? Bob K31416 (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC) I now see there were links in your message of 03:45, 13 November 2021.  Bob K31416 (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just read the WaPo article you linked and it does not say that Wikipedia is biased to the left. It says that Wikipedia is biased towards covering males and politicians from wealthy countries, which is not news. This is known. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Check out the other article. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did. They cite WP:BREITBART, a deprecated source. That's not credible. Nor is Larry Sanger. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * From the article,
 * A Harvard study found Wikipedia articles are more left-wing than Encyclopedia Britannica.
 * Another paper from the same Harvard researchers found left-wing editors are more active and partisan on the site.
 * Bob K31416 (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That same author, Shane Greenstein, also says that people who edit this site more moderate their views more. This issue is more complex than saying "Wikipedia biased to the left". And besides, none of this has anything to do with improving this specific page. Discussions about bias on Wikipedia belong elsewhere, not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Understanding bias in Wikipedia is useful in understanding bias in the part of Wikipedia that is here. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you name any instances of bias in this article? Looking through this thread, you mentioned the lack of mention that Ivanka converted to Judaism as having something to do with allegations of Trump being racist, even though the two are unrelated, and the David Duke / KKK episode that you said you were letting go. What else? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to rehash what I've already said, the examples etc., which differs from your characterization. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * That's quite the op-ed. Everybody has biases, aka views and beliefs. Good journalism takes that into consideration (and sometimes bends over backwards to give equal time/coverage—see Hillary's emails versus Trump coverage). Fox News doesn't—see Seth Rich. Other sources report misinformation sometimes (unintentional, editors asleep at the wheel), Fox News disinforms (intentional, whatever—as long as it supports their preferred view). Due to contingency fee arrangements and a system where both parties are responsible for their own legal fees, claimants sue big companies for huge sums, betting on a jury of—uh—peers or a settlement for an amount that's relatively small change to the big company. Per CNN: The settlement will allow CNN to avoid a lengthy and potentially unpredictable trial. I've watched all those videos on the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation. IMO, the later reporting was as biased against Phillips (too flawed, not heroic enough, or something) as the earlier reporting may have been against Sandmann. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC) The All Sides blog you cite has some terrific  sources: sashi and ExoticBeast on Wikipediocracy, and a Breitbart article citing a The Critic article citing the Harvard study and then saying bias is proven by WP deprecating sources like Breitbart, Epoch Times, InfoWars, Gateway Pundit, OAN, but not CounterPunch, AlterNet, and Daily Kos. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. –– Formal  talk 08:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that. Thanks, that was overdue since that edit at 01:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

If ya'll believe or don't believe that this article, Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's articles are being given equal treatment? Then there must be some place else on this project, to have that discussion. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can an admin please close this off-topic discussion that hasn't resulted in any content? Bob K31416 keeps reverting my closure. –– FormalDude  talk 18:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * is an uninvolved admin who could oblige. Or is around? Or ? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an appropriate discussion and Muboshgu is continuing to participate in it, which is inconsistent. Let it wind down on its own, otherwise it's suppression of the topic of bias in Wikipedia and in this article, which may be making some editors uncomfortable. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is quite uncomfortable for me to have my watchlist cluttered with endless comments on Talk:Donald Trump that have nothing to do with Donald Trump. If you want to complain about Wikipedia's supposed biases, why don't you do so on a more appropriate page, such as Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia? Kleinpecan (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I pointed out examples of bias in this article and another editor brought up bias in Wikipedia which I thought was useful. With yours and other comments this is turning into a long discussion about closing this section instead of the topic of this section. If you want the section to end, let the discussion wind down on its own. This will be my last comment on the subject of closing this discussion. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have tried to engage with you here on this. When it didn't look like anything would happen, I suggested uninvolved admins who could close this. Then you and I started engaging in some dialog, that you closed off when I asked for where you see bias in this article and you said I'm not going to rehash what I've already said leaving us at an impasse. We all have biases. This is not the place to address bias in general. This is the place to address bias on this specific article. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Another example of bias is being discussed in the section below . What was left out of the article was any mention that the claims were questionable. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

We can hat this general Wikipedia discussion, a strange flurry in a couple of hours, and continue with the discussion directly about this article, such as the above example of bias in the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)}}
 * Huh? Do not hat my edit. See Response to claims of bias. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I see this all over Wikipedia: People trying to shut down conversation s and block people because it puts them out of their comfort zone. TheeFactChecker (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

People need to read wp:soapbox and wp:npa, and stop with the assumptions of bad faith.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not assumptions. It is reality. If the co-founder of Wikipedia is saying it, there has to be a lot of weight to that argument. TheeFactChecker (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No there isn't. He has had no involvement in Wikipedia for years, to the point that he doesn't understand Wikipedia's core policies. He has no weight more here than any other editor would, if he showed up. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a violation of policy, both wp:npa and wp:talk. This page is not about wikipedia, its policies or its users. So stop.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Concerning US political articles, you might be more accurate suggesting a pro-moderate/corporate Democratic bias. But, what do you want me to do about it? I'm only one editor. I can't stop something 'negative' being put into 'this' bio's article or Bernie Sanders' bios, any more then I can stop something negative being barred from Joe Biden's or Barack Obama's article. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Larry Singer's opinion does carry a lot of weight as he has a far better understanding of how Wikipedia operates than the average user. How Wikipedia operates specifically affects this page as in the various sections highlighted by Bob et al. TheeFactChecker (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , Larry Sanger left Wikipedia in 2002. He has no understanding of how things have changed in the last 19 years. Now WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop going off topic. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to this article and this article only. This is not the place to discuss bias in general. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am merely agreeing with the points made by Bob et al. By removing the biases from this article, it will greatly improve it. TheeFactChecker (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Good luck. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering that Sanger has become a typical rightwing conspiritard complaining about muh liberals, "the left", Big Media, Big Pharma, vaccines, and other nonsense all the time, I would like to disagree with your claim that his opinion "does carry a lot of weight". Kleinpecan (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's vote on ending this discussion which has gone from "this article is biased" to "Wikipedia is biased". Shall we end this discussion?
 * Yes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No TheeFactChecker (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes with great obviousness. This discussion section has nothing to do with editing issues of this article, it has turned into a general tirade against "bias" by "TheeFactChecker" and "Bob K". TBH, an ANI filing against these 2 for disruption is long overdue. Zaathras (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. The discussion hasn't been on topic for 8 days. I wasn't involved but just read it, unfortunately. Teammm  $talk email$ 03:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes Clearly this section is going nowhere. The right way to do this is going on in other sections, like where editors are discussing the Russian bounty program and its place in this article. Create a section for each individual issue and keep it focused there, don't create a section to complain about bias in generalities. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes Clear violation of talk page guidelines. –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 03:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

No need for a vote, I am taking it to page closer requests, it is blatant soapboxing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Someone has just done it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I had hatted the objectionable discussion but it was unhatted by an editor who was paradoxically against the same discussion that they unhatted.

As a reminder, here's my last message. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Another example of bias is being discussed in the section below . What was left out of the article was any mention that the claims were questionable.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2021
In the final line of the final paragraph it vaguely states that scholars and historians refer to trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. This is an opinion, not factual, and impossible to gauge given the amount of time between his election and departure from office. It's highly unprofessional and immature. Allowing opinionated statements like that is polarizing and unproductive which wikipedia should be starkly opposed to. 174.71.204.115 (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Please see consensus here. — Czello 17:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between expressing an opinion and reporting an opinion. Wikipedia articles may report opinions. Articles about political controveries for example must explain the opinions of opposing sides. TFD (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Trump's Grandfather Ran a Brothel
Why isn't there any brief mention that Donald Trump's grandfather, on his paternal side, was a brothel owner? Why is that hidden from this article? It's a serious reflection of his character and is indicative of his lifetime patterns with women. This is a serious omission, and also reflects on the Wikipedia editors who have covered that up. This aspect was originally included in this article. Why was it removed? Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it has nothing to do with Donald Trump; this allegation is mentioned in Family of Donald Trump, where it is more appropriate. Iffy★Chat -- 10:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We are not a tabloid.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not to say we don't thoroughly enjoy mixing up a good wine-related political sex scandal, from time to time. In moderation. But yes, we certainly can leave it alone any time we want! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We've had to remove many details from this long article, including items that involve Trump directly. The grandfather who died 30 years before Trump was born was one of them, and he has an article of his own, Frederick Trump, which mentions the "hospitality services" offered by his hotels. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I heard the Brothel was secretly run by the Russians. But anyway, it doesn't belong in this BLP article. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

U.S.–Russian relations, Igor Danchenko
This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "Please gain consensus on talk. These do not appear to be NPOV improvements." I believe the sources are reliable and per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP they should remain in the article.

The proposed text:

"According to Russian President Vladimir Putin and some political experts and diplomats, the U.S.–Russian relations, which were already at the lowest level since the end of the Cold War, have further deteriorated since Trump took office in January 2017."

"Trump has repeatedly praised and rarely criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin, but has opposed some actions of the Russian government.      Trump imposed sanctions on Russia's Nord Stream2 gas pipeline to Germany.  In 2017, Trump signed the legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia; in 2018, however, the Trump administration lifted some U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia after its 2014 annexation of Crimea. Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7 and never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan."

"In November 2021, Igor Danchenko, a Russian analyst who was a primary source behind the 2016 Steele dossier of allegations against Donald Trump, was arrested in connection with the John Durham investigation and was charged with five counts of making false statements to the FBI on five different occasions (between March 2017 and November 2017) regarding the sources of material he provided for the Steele dossier."

-- Tobby72 (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Danchenko (third paragraph). Oppose including the material. The page doesn't mention the Steele dossier, Danchenko, or the Durham investigation. The dossier wasn't the reason the FBI started the investigation into possible Trump-Russia links, it was Australian officials reporting to U.S. officials what drunk Trump advisor Papadopoulos had said to an Australian diplomat at a London bar.
 * Putin said (first paragraph). Oppose including the material. The headline of the paywalled first Independent article (item 1 of your reflist) is misleading. Quote, courtesy of the Wayback Machine: The Kremlin continues to make a distinction between the president and his administration. Trump, by and large, is still viewed positively; he caused a breakdown in US politics, and that, for Moscow, can only a good thing. I didn't see the "political experts and diplomats" mentioned in items 1–3, just Putin and ambassador Antonov complaining.
 * Sanctions, etc. (second paragraph). Oppose proposed material. "Lifted some sanctions" is white-washing of what happened, for example leaving sanctions in place against Oleg Deripaska, who then officially transferred control of his companies to relatives and puppets, and lifting the sanctions against said companies. I haven't gone through most of the sources yet, I'll get back to this at a later time.
 * Sources.
 * Item 10 is a paywalled Kenyan newspaper which begins with What you need to know: President Trump claimed that the Russian interference did not affect the result of the 2016 race. He said the US would counteract any election meddling. I'm guessing you didn't look at the article on the Wayback Machine where you get to read a little bit more that just the title.
 * Item 18 is a piece from the National Review. It mostly slams "media outlets across the country" and Democrats and then mentions selected bits from a long NBC article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Foreign policy – Russia: Current version: "Trump has repeatedly praised and rarely criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin, but has opposed some actions of the Russian government.  The Trump administration lifted the toughest sanctions the U.S. had imposed on Russian entities after its 2014 annexation of Crimea.  Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7 and never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan."


 * "Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, citing alleged Russian non-compliance. After he met Putin at the Helsinki Summit in July 2018, Trump drew bipartisan criticism for accepting Putin's denial of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, rather than accepting the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies."


 * Foreign policy – Russia: Proposed version: "Trump has repeatedly praised and rarely criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin, but has opposed some actions of the Russian government.     Trump imposed sanctions on Russia's Nord Stream2 gas pipeline to Germany. In 2017, Trump signed the legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia; in 2018, however, the  Trump administration lifted the toughest sanctions the U.S. had imposed on Russian entities after its 2014 annexation of Crimea.   Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7."


 * "Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, citing alleged Russian non-compliance. After he met Putin at the Helsinki Summit in July 2018, Trump drew bipartisan criticism for accepting Putin's denial of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, rather than accepting the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies."


 * -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Continuing my objections from above.
 * Trump imposed sanctions on Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany. Oppose including sentence. Your BBC source says the the sanctions target firms building Nord Stream 2. In 2019, Trump signed the defense bill that imposed sanctions on companies installing deep sea pipelines (engaged in pipe-laying at a time when the pipeline was almost completed. The targeted firms were mostly from the EU. Your Reuters source says that in January 2021 Trump vetoed the defense bill imposing further sanctions. Congress imposed sanctions, not Trump.
 * Image. The image of Trump and Putin shaking hands and looking deep into each other's eyes was part of a photo-op for news media, taken by the WH photographer and released by the WH. The handshake was the photo most often used and debated in the press. Why exchange it for something bland? Less bromancy? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ––Nord Stream 2:
 * Euractiv, July 11, 2018 –– "US President Donald Trump launched a strong verbal attack on Germany on Wednesday (11 July) for its support to the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, aimed at bringing more Russian gas to Germany under the Baltic Sea. Trump said Germany was paying “billions and billions of dollars” to Russia, “the country that we are supposed to be protecting you against”, adding that NATO had to look into this. This is not the first time Trump has taken aim at Nord Stream 2. On 17 May, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump is demanding that Germany drop Nord Stream 2 as one of the conditions for a trade deal with Europe that would not include high tariffs on steel and aluminium."
 * Deutsche Welle, December 21, 2019 –– "Berlin and Brussels have criticized White House sanctions against companies involved in building a Russian natural gas pipeline to Germany. They accused President Trump of interfering in national and bloc sovereignty."
 * Financial Times, January 10, 2021 –– "Donald Trump administration’s decision to impose sanctions against the pipeline, while also promoting exports of its own gas to Europe, sparked intense arguments over Europe’s right to choose its own energy supplies and broader commercial relations with the US. Those sanctions have delayed the pipeline beyond its initial planned opening date of mid-2020, and forced Gazprom to adjust its approach to accommodate for the loss of foreign contractors, while Washington has vowed to keep imposing restrictions necessary to block its completion or usage. New US sanctions passed this month also apply to companies who insure and certify the pipe-laying operations, further complicating Gazprom’s efforts."
 * Reuters, January 13, 2021 –– "The State Department reached out to companies after Jan. 1, alerting them to the new sanctions risk after the Senate overrode a Trump veto of a massive defense bill that contained punitive measures on the pipeline, the spokesperson said. The Trump administration opposes Nord Stream 2, which would deprive Ukraine of lucrative transit fees, saying it would increase Russia’s economic and political leverage over Europe."
 * Reuters, January 19, 2021 –– "The U.S. Treasury Department said it imposed the sanctions on the Russian pipe-laying ship “Fortuna” and its owner, KVT-RUS, under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). The State Department said it would consider further actions in the near term, under CAATSA and under new sanctions expanded in the annual defense policy bill."
 * The Hill, May 21, 2021 –– "The Biden administration’s rationale appears to be that President Trump treated major ally Germany roughly, so we should give Germany what it wants — Nord Stream 2. Trump, the alleged pro-Russian president, fought the Nord Stream 2 pipeline throughout his presidency; in that, he, like Biden, enjoyed the strong backing of the U.S. Senate."
 * -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for hatting the reflists but this section with zero input from other editors was taking over the Talk page. As for the six additional sources, four of them deal with the sanctions imposed contrary to Trump's veto in January 2021. The other two don't mention any sanctions against Russian entities, just Trump's general verbal attacks on Germany, and a Swiss company announcing the suspension of its pipe-laying activities hours after the sanctions were signed into law. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Trump's veto of the annual National Defense Authorization Act had nothing to do with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. According to Forbes, "President Trump vetoed the legislation on December 23 after weeks of insisting he would do so because it includes no provision to repeal Section 230, which effectively gives tech giants like Alphabet and Facebook a shield against liability for the actions and words of private citizens on their platforms." Trump imposed new sanctions on Nord Stream 2 in January 2021. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the NYT, the U.S. will impose sanctions on a Russian-owned ship involved in the construction of an undersea pipeline... The sanctions ... are the first action the United States has taken against the project. No other sanctions against Gazprom or any other Russian entities were ever taken. There were only threats of "secondary sanctions" against companies doing business with Russia and Gazprom, and at least one of those companies terminated their involvement with the project. Here's some information on the ship's owner per a German webpage,

According to the Russian international shipping register, the Fortuna pipeline-laying vessel changed hands from one micro-enterprise to another. The change comes amid widening US sanctions against the construction of the pipeline. Germany had previously allowed the ship to complete the work to complete the laying of Nord Stream 2.

According to RBK, until October it was owned by Hong Kong Strategic Mileage, then Universal Transport Group, and now it's KVT-Rus. The exact date of the change of ownership is not given in the register. KVT-Rus is a Moscow-based company registered on the Register of Small and Medium Enterprises. In 2019 the company had no income, the cash balance was 1,000 rubles. The company employs one person - the general director and founder Sergei Malkov. It is only known that he runs ZAO JV Aeroprima - the company is registered at the same address as KVT-Rus.

On December 10th, 2020 KVT-Rus switched its core business from "Wholesale of sanitary and heating products" to "Providing transport services". The secondary business "Manufacture of other pumps and compressors" changed to "Activities in sea freight transport".

Maria Schagina, sanctions expert at the University of Zurich, suspects that the owner maneuvers are part of a complex scheme to shield the former owners from the sanctions. "It is possible that it has something to do with the desire to cover up the trail before Joe Biden's government takes control of the sanctions," she told RBK.

On December 11, the US Senate approved the draft defense budget for 2021, which provides for the expansion of restrictive measures against Nord Stream 2. The State Department said the United States will continue to impose sanctions on Nord Stream 2 until the project stops. per Bloomberg and per a German webpage


 * and per Bloomberg—"incorporated 2/21/2021". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Proposed version 2:


 * "Trump has repeatedly praised and rarely criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin, but has opposed some actions of the Russian government.     Trump opposed the Nord Stream2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. In 2017, Trump signed the legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia;   in 2018, however, the  Trump administration "water[ed] down the toughest penalties the U.S. had imposed on Russian entities" after its 2014 annexation of Crimea.   Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7."


 * "Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, citing alleged Russian non-compliance. After he met Putin at the Helsinki Summit in July 2018, Trump drew bipartisan criticism for accepting Putin's denial of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, rather than accepting the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies."


 * -Tobby72 (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Impeachments of Donald Trump
The article conflates the 2 Trump impeachments and makes it appear there was only 1. The 1st arose out of his attempted blackmail of Ukraine, the 2nd came about because of his attempted insurrection. 130.45.73.155 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How and where are they conflated? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump states:

After Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden, the House of Representatives impeached him for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in December 2019. The Senate acquitted him of both charges in February 2020.

It ascribes the cause of the 1st impeachment to the 2nd, and then moves to another subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.45.73.155 (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @130.45.73.155 I know that his is a talk page and not main space and there is a bit of leeway to certain principles of the guidelines, but WP:BLP still applies, even on talk pages.-- JOJ Hutton  20:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is the first impeachment. The second impeachment happened in January and February 2021. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Muboshgu. I believe the IP is misinterprating the passage. JOJ Hutton  21:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We might consider changing the wording on the first impeachment to "both counts", replacing the current "both charges". That would make it clearer the acquittals in the first lead mention were within one trial. SPECIFICO talk 21:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

BTW: I had to make a slight correction at the Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump article, as he was a former federal official during that trial. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

- I'm boldly changing "acquitted him of both charges" to "acquitted him of these charges". Fine?  starship .paint  (exalt) 08:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - come explain why not when you're free, h'okay? Hic.  starship .paint  (exalt) 12:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, got interrupted. If we're going to go bold, we should replace "both" with "the". It was the IP address who conflated the first and the second impeachment, not the wording of the lead. I don't see how using "both" or "these" or "the", for that matter, is going to make a difference. IMO, both impeachments belong in the same paragraph. The first impeachment wasn't a result of the Mueller investigation, including the obstruction of justice, but putting it into the same paragraph in the lead appears to indicate that it was. He was charged with obstructing congressional attempts to investigate his attempts to blackmail Ukraine (WaPo). I went even bolder and rearranged the two last lead paragraphs into three, with minor changes like adding dates, where necessary. I think it's easier to understand for readers who haven't been immersed in Trumpiana for the last few years. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Second impeachment trial
Can we point out that Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont (as president pro tempore), presided over the trial (as Trump was no longer US president) & that constitutionally, Leahy was filling in for Vice President Harris, who (had she chosen to) could've presided over the trial? GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: Chief Justice Roberts presided over the first impeachment trial, as Trump was US president at that time. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems like a relevant detail to Second impeachment of Donald Trump, and Patrick Leahy, but not relevant enough to Trump personally to belong on this page, IMO. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that is significant for Trump's bio and what does it have to do with Trump's being out of office? SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It was a suggestion, as he was the first former US president to have an impeachment trial. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a little trivial and insignificant for this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

"But made no progress" or "and made no progress"?
SPECIFICO reverted "and" to "but", saying an extensive discussion about this is here. I see an extensive discussion mentioning this in the Combat section. Jack says no other president did, either. And Starship says making no progress is what resulted, which is important. I agree with both of those claims. Making no denuclearization progress is par for the course in general presidential meetings, and always the way it's gone between these specific countries. I maintain "but" suggests he failed to meet expectations somehow, which is absurd in light of said history. Or isn't it? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure anyone did expect this to achieve anything, and it did not. So "but " seems inappropriate.Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "But" is in line with the North Korea section in the body. Trump failed to meet his own expectations and his very public claims that his special relationship (remember the "love" letters?) would lead to denuclearization of North Korea. Also, which other president has photo-ops in front of a wall with a picture of himself shaking hands with Kim Jong-Un ? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't remember love letters. I don't care to memorize photo ops, scathing remarks, leaked memos, chopper talks, new books, unearthed records or latest developments, either. No offense to you hardcore fans, but I'm more interested in wasting my time on cooler things, like learning to write universal English truth well before I die. As such, I insist you're using the common "but" like an ass. But with respect, good sir or madam, I will immediately defer to you on the inner mysteries of whether public handshakes can (or nay, do) reveal secret expectations. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Clinton and Carter and Billy Graham went to North Korea. As did St Madeleine Allbright. There were photos taken. The Harlem Globe Trotters went there too. And so did I. Unfortunately since Brezhnev died there has been very little SALT to mine. But the silos of the DPRK are filling up with ICBM. Allegedly...--Jack Upland (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither Carter nor Albright were POTUS when they met with North Korean officials, neither one staged a series of elaborate photo-ops with great fanfare, and I haven't found any sources for Clinton bragging about a special personal relationship with Kim Il-Sung or Clinton having Kim's picture up on his "I love me" wall. Carter's 1994 trip "was successful in defusing the first North Korean nuclear crisis, paving the way for the 1994 Agreed Framework", Albright was doing her job as secretary of state when she went to NK in 2000 "to persuade Kim Jong-il, the father of Kim Jong-un, to suspend his missile tests." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What on God's green Earth are you talking about Jack? Who frankly cares if you went to North Korea? When you become president I'll be sure to add it to your wikipedia page as well Anon0098 (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Last I heard of anything about American-North Korean relations, was Rachel Maddow of MSNBC news sounding like she wanted a war between the two countries. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Visited by Rittenhouse?
I propose that this meeting be referenced in the post-presidency section, along with Trump being awarded an "honorary" black belt, despite not ever practicing tae kwon do. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think both of those things are probably WP:UNDUE Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Does the Trumpster have a history as a martial artist?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to unsee that picture, and isn't that the old fist pump?. Both events are too trivial to be mentioned in Trump's biography. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, Trump is a Gingerbread Man. I think Trump's martial arts honour is something we SHOULD be documenting as part of our brief bio of this eccentric Emperor. After all he was involved in Wrestling...--Jack Upland (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Unsure what this adds.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Get off combat footing
Much of this article was written and edited when Trump was campaigning for President or was serving as President. Much of it has a combative stance to Trump in its language, structure, and emphasis. Let's say that's OK. But Trump is not the president any more. The text is simply dated. We now include a ranking of Trump as President. Can the article now be moulded towards a description of the Trump presidency (and everything else), not just a hard-hitting series of points about where Trump was wrong, failed, or fell short?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This comment lacks any specifics of what you want to change and why. As a result, it's not very useful. Neutralitytalk 04:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't engage in historical revisionism here. Instead we document the flow of history, and thus the POV and spirit of the RS as they spoke at the time. Newer events and evaluations may be described differently, so that content may sound differently,....or it may not. -- Valjean (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, that goes both ways; large parts of this article are a result of extensive compromises and back-and-forth related to the underlying political schisms, relying heavily on contemporary news reports that often tried to reserve judgement. Now that Trump's no longer president, we can take a longer view... and that view, according to the best sources, is that, as you referenced, Trump is broadly ranked as one of the worst presidents in American history. Stripped of the compromises and equivocation that were a product of that particular political moment, the article itself in many places naturally going look like a series of failures and a broad description of how its subject fell far short of the expectations that his job put on him. That's the current historical consensus; that's what a neutral descriptor of the Trump presidency based on the best currently-available sources will actually look like. Our articles shouldn't pass judgment, but they should dispassionately summarize the consensus of reliable sources, even when that consensus puts the subject in a starkly negative light; and the consensus of reliable sources on the Trump presidency is that it failed and fell short. That is the neutral, dispassionate description of the Trump presidency you're looking for. Trying to put our thumb on the scale and make it look better would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Aquillion (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Very well put. It is important that we frequently place dates in the text so readers get a feeling for the historical context of the subject matter. With time, more information and evaluations will shed more and maybe different light on previously added (and never removed) content. Although Trump has few redeeming character qualities, and a leopard cannot change its spots, the later judgments of some of his actions may well be softer. A defective clock is still right twice a day. We have seen this happen with other presidents and historical figures, so let's keep writing his history, keeping in mind that this is not paper. RS change their views, and so must we, but we must always remain "behind the curve". -- Valjean (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the opening message makes a good point. Unfortunately, although the 2020 presidential election is over and there is no reason for a biased presentation in that regard, there are still the upcoming congressional and 2024 presidential elections, so that there is reason for some editors to continue to campaign against Trump. The anti-Trump sentiment here is very strong and it's very difficult for an NPOV editor to bring this article into balance. Personally, it's taking too much of my time. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, it's taking too much of my time is an odd statement, considering you have made nearly 100 edits to this talk page in a little over a month. ValarianB (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Bob, don't make it sound like it's our fault that RS have a POV that we are REQUIRED to document accurately. That's NPOV editing. Two presidents have the fates of being at the top and bottom of the best and worst presidents lists because that's the "nature of the beast", and it is not our fault that TFG just happens to be rated the worst. It's his own fault; he is not the victim of a witchhunt, although he's a wimp who loves to play victim. RS document why he's the worst, and in turn it's our job to document all that without interference, neutralizing or censorship. I deal with that in my essay here: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. BTW, that essay deals with what you call "an NPOV editor". That's an admirable goal to strive toward, just like it would be nice to be unbiased (in the bad "uninformed" bias sense), but I hope you aren't claiming you have arrived. -- Valjean (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not the RS fault, it's what's being left out of the article that is in the RS. I gave various examples previously and I can repeat the last one, since a corresponding edit is currently under discussion. What I said was, "Another example of bias is being discussed in the section below . What was left out of the article was any mention that the claims were questionable." And if you want to discuss that further, go down to the section. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's in the # Jack, to be more precise the # of editors. Open up an RFC on any matter you wish in relation to NPOV & it's likely not going to end in anyway, accept no consensus, leading to keeping the status quo. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * NPOV relates to sources. Are we not reflecting them neutrally?  starship .paint  (exalt) 05:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just giving my 16 years of Wikipedia experience, concerning such matters across this project. I'm just one editor, so the content of this or any other BLP article, isn't entirely in my hands. GoodDay (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, but can you answer the question...???--Jack Upland (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your proposals aren't likely to pass. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * NPOV is even more about editorial behavior. Read my essay at WP:NEUTRALEDITOR. -- Valjean (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "Can the article now be moulded towards a description of the Trump presidency" The article is already overly focused on his presidency, to the detriment of almost every other aspect. The main article on his term is Presidency of Donald Trump, not the bio article. Dimadick (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with . This is the biography of a man who has long been famous and is now 75 years old. Of course, his presidency (and his campaign for it and his response to losing re-election) is by far the most important factor in his importance to history. And, we have articles discussing in great detail, various aspects of his presidency.


 * The current version of this overall biography devotes too little attention to his involvement with golf courses, professional wrestling, casinos and his numerous failed business ventures for decades. This article should be summarize his entire life and career, and should not over-emphasize the most recent six years of a 75 year life. Cullen328 (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Cullen328, I agree. Much of the presidency content should be removed from here and moved to that article, ensuring that none is lost in the process. We need to follow WP:Summary style more carefully. -- Valjean (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I still wonder, if Pamela S. Karlan avoids walking by Trump Tower in NYC. GoodDay (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day. Relevance?--Jack Upland (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a touch a humour to the conversation & highlighting the emotions & reactions Trump caused in people. He & Bernie Sanders, sure didn't have any friends on CNN or definitely MSNBC news. Feel free to 'hat', if you feel this doesn't add anything to the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (Cullen328) I agree that the article should include his presidency and everything else, as I said originally.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was asked for specifics, but all I can give is examples:
 * Trump met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un but made no progress on denuclearization. Neither did any other president.
 * The emoluments lawsuits were a failed attempt to remove Trump. Why mention them here? They are mentioned in other articles, but have no real significance to Trump's life.
 * Lafayette Square: it has its own article, but it's not a major part of Trump's life.
 * Protests: why mention them in the introduction? They didn't lead anywhere.
 * Losing the popular vote: why mention this in the introduction? He won the election according to the rules. This makes Wikipedians sound like bad losers. Nothing can be done about this result. It's part of history.
 * While conducting no nuclear tests since 2017, North Korea continued to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. This isn't known for certain, but, in any case, what has it got to do with Trump's life? The writer clearly doesn't know what "ballistic" means, but gee it sounds cool!
 * Five weeks before the November 2020 election, Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Eight days before the election, after 60 million Americans had already voted, Senate Republicans confirmed Barrett to the Supreme Court without any Democratic votes. Many observers strongly criticized the confirmation, arguing that it was a gross violation of the precedent Republicans set in 2016. Sure, this was a talking point at the time, but is it really that important in Trump's life?
 * The impeachment trial was the first in U.S. history without witness testimony. This isn't precisely true, as Clinton's impeachment trial had no live witnesses. This seems more about making a point, rather than presenting history accurately. Also, does this really belong in this article? It is really a testament to how the impeachment process has developed (or rather degenerated) over time.
 * Sure, these were all burning issues at the time, but will they still be burning issues in 10 years time? Will Trump go down in history with Stormy Daniels? I fear this article will be a museum piece of liberal angst and forgotten dreams.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (1 and 6) Meeting Kim was a key part of Trump's presidency and hence, his life. Making no progress, or lack of progress, is what resulted, that's important. (3) Lafayette Square was a key part of Trump's presidency and hence, his life. (7) Nominating ACB was a key part of his presidential legacy, and thus, his life. (8) Clinton's trial had closed-door depositions. Trump's didn't.  starship .paint  (exalt) 02:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Jack Upland, you appended a comment: "Neither did any other president." You're right, but it's notable because he is the only one who lied about it by loudly claiming he made progress when he didn't. Of course, that Trump lied about it is no longer a notable or interesting thought. We expect that of him. -- Valjean (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's an excerpt from the section Donald Trump. The excerpt starts with an item not from his early life and continues with a disproportionate amount of attention to the draft. All said, it takes up about half of the space in the Early life section.
 * In 2015, Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen threatened Trump's colleges, high school, and the College Board with legal action if they released Trump's academic records.[9] While in college, Trump obtained four student draft deferments.[10] In 1966, he was deemed fit for military service based upon a medical examination, and in July 1968 a local draft board classified him as eligible to serve.[11] In October 1968, he was classified 1-Y, a conditional medical deferment,[12] and in 1972, he was reclassified 4-F due to bone spurs, permanently disqualifying him from service.[13][14]

This can be fixed by replacing it with the text: "Trump was deferred from the military draft." And retain the given sources. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Take up the matter with what the sources have said extensively about the topic over the years. ValarianB (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And how does that convey ? SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I used to think that the military draft shouldn't be mentioned, but now I see that is a "rite of passage" (if that is the right term) for US Presidents and aspirants. Some communities might be concerned if a person is circumcised, can grow a beard etc etc, but for US Presidents, the question is did they go to Vietnam and, if not, why not? How Trump won his spurs (or otherwise), is of vital importance to all red-blooded Americans. The release of his medical and academic records over the coming years will no doubt be akin to release of the Nixon tapes in previous years.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see that regarding the draft item. The item regarding a 2015 action by Trump's lawyer about not releasing school records is out of place in the Early life section. It's an action in Trump's later life. Also, the schools said it was unnecessary because they don't release records to the public and acknowledged that it was against the law to do so. Here's the 2019 NY Times source for the item: Michael Cohen Says Trump Told Him to Threaten Schools Not to Release Grades Bob K31416 (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the "time warp" in this article is problematic. The Vietnam issue was not very troublesome for the Don for most of his career, any more than it was for Sly Stallone. Unlike in WW2, it was normal (and to some extent accepted) that a HUGE slab of the eligible population did not go, "dodged the draft" (whatever that means), or even actively protested in a foreign land. (Note: there is no evidence that Stallone protested against the war - as far as I know.) But I digress. The point is that this kerfuffle did not haunt the Don in his early life at all, but only came to the fore when he emerged as "President Evil" (or a candidate for that exalted office), at which time it was heaped together with his many crimes, misdemeanours, and alleged naughtiness by the muckrakers of the press. Of course, I don't include Wikipedia editors in this for I know - nay trust - that every single editor of this page has fought and died for his/her/their country in a uniform - or is a foreigner. Peace to all!--Jack Upland (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Please review our article on Calvin Coolidge and other long ago presidents. They are replete with detail you might not consider burning issues of 2021 but that were and are significant to the subjects' lives. SPECIFICO talk 14:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that the article on Coolage was constructed by editors on a "combat footing". Please point out examples if you disagree.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I referred solely to the content on the two articles. You should do the same. Please respond to the point I made concerning Coolidge content.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just did.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO, Here's an edit that you reverted that you might want to restore. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Take Paul Keating, former Aussie Prime Minister. We note there that Keating has a penchant for Mahler and French antique clocks. This is an interesting side of Keating's life that wasn't often displayed to the public, but he did cop a ribbing about his French clocks (2nd Empire, I believe). Keating was a lower-class boy from Sydney's West who left school at 16. He was fond of Aussie vernacular and had a combative attitude to politics. He was also a very cultured man who combined his love of Europe with a fiery Australian nationalism. He also used to take a trampoline with him on the campaign so he could destress (I think). In short, he was the Christopher Walken of Australian politics. A brief word picture gives you the measure of the man. I am not adverse at all to including "colour". But ad nauseum regurgitation of stale talking points does not add much. Less is more.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've no objections to what you & Bob are proposing. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding my comments, it's not clear what you are referring to. Recently I did some editing to the Early life section. Do you support those edits? Bob K31416 (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've no problems, with any attempts to make this BLP neutral. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For comparison, here's what the Early life section looked like before the edits and here's  what the section looked like after the edits . Do you or anyone else support this? Bob K31416 (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Aren't you & Jack in agreement with each other? GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove the sentence on Trump's lawyer threatening Trump's schools with legal action during his election campaign if they released his (presumably low) academic records which they were legally prohibited from doing in the first place? His academic records are part of his early life, and he was trying to hide something that presumably contradicted the claims he made about himself for many years. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. It's a dilemma. Because while you can say this is early life, it is essentially US Presidential Circus. The Emperor and the Clowns etc. Babylon is falling, is falling. How would we deal with Watergate? Can Art Garfunkel speak for the Nation?--Jack Upland (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Did we ever get Dan Quayle's academic records? GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * His undergraduate grade-point average was 2.4 instead of the 2.6 required for automatic admission, and he used family connections to get an interview with the dean of the law school. Public knowledge since 1988, apparently. Other politicians also had middling to poor academic records but none of them referred to themselves as geniuses or threatened their alma maters. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OR. I repeated Kindergarten, but I'm still qualified to edit WP, as is the Montauk Institute - apparently. But so what? So what? If he did struggle with his grads (presumably QUOTE UNQUOTE.com) so what. I struggled with the fact that the Princey Pal wore shorty short shorts. What's your point? I used family connections to be born. So the f what? I never fought with Vietnam and I'm bloody glad I didn't. I heard on the gravevine that the Don flirted with Romanism while at Sunday School. What's your point, Mr Smoot?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

American English

 * Trump has attempted to drastically escalate immigration enforcement, including harsher immigration enforcement policies against asylum seekers from Central America than any modern U.S. president.

Apart from the use of "has" which seems outdated, is the expression "harsher immigration enforcement policies against asylum seekers from Central America than any modern U.S. president" correct in American grammar? I would have thought it should be something like "than any modern U.S. president has implemented". Also is "immigration enforcement" the right term? Doesn't that mean forcing someone to immigrate? Also, what does "modern" mean? Every American president since the Renaissance? Of course "modern" can be defined in a number of ways depending on the context. But what is the context here? Since when exactly?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "has" is redundant, can be removed.
 * You're right about the grammar, it should be changed to something like either what you said or "including implementing harsher..."
 * It is the right term in my opinion. Immigration enforcement is the act of compelling individuals to comply with immigration law. So forcing someone to immigrate legally/stopping illegal immigrants, etc.
 * I believe the "modern" era is post WW2. 1946-present. –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 13:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I accept your first 3 points. I am interested in your belief, but don't think it helps improve the sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to implement this...--Jack Upland (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to implement this...--Jack Upland (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * What exactly constitutes the "modern era" of the American presidency is in fact something that remains uncodified. Some view it as beginning with FDR and even WikiArb rulings distinguish articles involving US politics pre vs post 1932 due to the risk of editors being motivated by contemporary partisanship. I think most would agree with that it is 1946, though others would again bump back the time frame to the post civil rights era circa late 1960s, an growing group favors labeling the modern presidency as the post cold war presidents. I am not sure where I stand exactly but given the subjectivity I am not certain this was the best wording given the context. "Harsher immigration enforcement against Central American asylum seekers", would be completely redundant pre the last 1970s as no such issue existed. Tbh, pre the late Obama presidency, this really wasn't a political issue and I personally am unsure use of "any other modern american president" is best (it also somewhat implies pre-modern presidents may have been more harsh). With that said, I will admit that the issue has come and gone to a certain extent and it is extremely hard to show a stance harsher than that of Trump's. OgamD218 (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Before "Tricky" Dick Nixon and his henchmen left town, presidents seemed to have a certain heroic vibe to them in the press. Since then, we've read about the dumb one, the weak one, the corporate one, the spewing one, the unfaithful one, the abusive one, the darkest one, the unpresidential one and the old one. It's almost like the last clean-cut crop of good old-fashioned respectful mom's-apple-pie-on-the-Fourth-of-July Jimmy Olsenesque reporters died in Vietnam, stayed in Asia or at least came back with (what might be politely called) "mixed feelings" about The Man, man. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * True. In Australia, PM John Howard tripped much like Ford, but not as spectacular. Seasoned reporters said that in the past this was censored out. After all, it is not the measure of man that he tripped on a camera cable or whatever.--Jack Upland (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Aye, Tony Ferguson also tripped his way out of the race and went on to become a perfectly stable genius. I forgot Ford's Bob Dole moment even happened, was more thinking of his Trixon execution fumble, his phrenological profile and that time he meshed with Homer Simpson. Doesn't exactly scream "industrious German", "highbrow Italian" or "brilliant Japanese", now do it? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Och, yes. That's something missing from this article: Racial analysis of Donald Trump. Is he a Kraut pretending to be a Swede, or a bratwurst pretending to be a haggis. What is his position on Black Pudding? WHY is Wikipedia ignoring this? Is it the Salami Mafia or the Borsht Crew? NO OR please...!--Jack Upland (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Unoriginal Old Faithful enough for ya? Well, I don't care. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know until I get my Danish! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still looking for the Templar Treasure...--Jack Upland (talk) 14:22, 2 December 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 reverted the subject edit previously  and gave the following edit summary, "Revert. New material that is reverted should not be restored, as this was, before getting consensus on the Talk page, especially on this page with Arbitration Enforcement. Also, it disrupts an ongoing RFC about deleting the unaltered sentence that the new material changes."  See . Bob K31416 (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 Express is a tabloid. How reliable is their reporting? The article is more than vague on their sources: "Sources suggest", "A former Taliban governor and member of the group’s military committee said" (to the Express?), "It is understood", "Intelligence operatives said". Even if all of that is true, I don't see how it affects Trump not bringing up the matter with Putin. The previous administration already had imposed sanctions on Russia, and Obama never claimed to have a special relationship with Putin or deferred to his "strong denials". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out this is not new.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

In the 2012 presidential debate. Obama argued that Russia was good & Romney argued that Russia was bad. What suddenly changed in the last decade? GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Denial of US intelligence estimates and public embrace of what RS consider Putin's deflections and/or lies.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Crimea, Ukraine, Skripal nerve agent poisoning, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Do whatever yas want. I tried to help by putting the 'reflist' at the bottom of the discussion, as is proper. But was reverted. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I formally and hereby rhetorically "raise the question" of whether this disclaimed independence and separation from the ongoing and aforementioned matter shall be construed for our purposes as constituting the actual fact of this reasonably similar proposal's true separation and/or independence, insofar as both relate closely or otherwise to another in spirit, letter and overall antipresidential attitude of the clear and present proponent (henceforth called "432x") and his apparent political sympathizer ("S" for short). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you repeat that in English, please? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, try rereading slowly, it's all legible. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But, is it edible? Firefangledfeathers 01:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

, you added nor their support of the Taliban with weapons, supplies, money, and propaganda. It's UNDUE. Please see WP:ONUS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. But I'm curious. Why did you pick only Russia and not China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan? -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ONUS and WEIGHT: See my remarks at the top of this discussion. BLP: Please specify what the BLP violation is. I didn't pick Russia, did  Sorry, wrong Russia mention. This was one was "picked" by RS. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)  I and other editors objected to its removal.  China: Why did you use DW?  Their reporting on China allegedly offering "money to non-state actors in Afghanistan to attack US troops" consists of two sentences based on this Axios report. Axios questions the sources of the unconfirmed intelligence as well as the Trump administration's reason and timing for declassifying and publishing it. Iran: I vaguely remember the U.S. killing the commander of Iran's armed forces and Trump not being best buds with Khamenei. Saudi Arabia: Why DID Trump take his first foreign trip to Saudi Arabia, sword-dancing and orb-touching, and staying mum on minor digressions like killing and dismembering Kashoggi? If you want to add that to the article, right next to the orb picture would be good. Pakistan: Do you have a source on what Pakistan's "alleged support to some factions of the Taliban and other Islamist groups" consisted of? There's no mention of Pakistan in this article or in Presidency of Donald Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Quatar: Opinion piece by GOP operative. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Idk maybe it has something to do with the fact his Saudi trip (complete with sword play and orb touching as you put it), was prior to Kashoggi’s death……. High level Pakistani support for the Taliban has been rampant since the Bush era-controversial and complicated but not something I thought serious people actually disputed. Qatari diplomatic support of the Taliban is publicly acknowledged. OgamD218 (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, the US of A supported the mujahdeen cf. "Living Daylights" and "Rambo III". And the Taliban (students) and Osama bin Laden (a terrorist) grew organically out of the Muj in Gramscian terms. In order to embarrass slab-faced Brezhnev. As is well known. What's the point. Hell's Kitchen's finest, Sly Stallone (pronounced Stalin in Russia) hung out in a girls' school in Switzerland. Arnie was body building until he looked in the immortal or immoral words of Clive James a condom full of walnuts. What's your point, Isaac Newton?--Jack Upland (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

#4 is obsolete
What does it mean in the highest current section of the talk page that #4 is obsolete?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Should have said "superseded by", per the hidden text (click "show"). I just corrected it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Exit and Succession of Trump
hey, sorry for the confusion, I can discuss this here. Bill Williams 03:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

My issue with the current wording is that it states that Trump refused to concede and that the electoral count was interrupted, but then makes no mention of the fact that it continued and confirmed Biden's win, and that Trump left when his term ended on January 20 and Biden was inaugurated. Considering the emphasis on the irregular transition that Trump caused, I think it warrants a description of the conclusion of said transition, otherwise it is confusing to readers what exactly occurred. Bill Williams 03:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's already mentioned that he left office & was succeeded by Biden. It's in the intro ("45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021") & also the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know, but it is necessary to state when, because it mentions how he tried to disrupt the electoral vote through pressure and lawsuits, then his supporters did so directly on January 6, so it should mention how regardless of that he exited and was succeeded by Biden on January 20. The timeline on one of the things he is most remembered for is important to be clearly mentioned together instead of in different parts of the article. Bill Williams 03:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The "when" is right there, in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not everyone will see that one portion of the infobox, and someone reading how he refused to concede, launched lawsuits and pressured people to overturn the results, and then his supporters attacked the capitol to stop the results from being certified, might wonder what exactly happened after that with no explanation. The infobox does not explain that he left after his term expired, and it would be reasonable for a reader to see how much he disrupted the results and think that maybe he exited after his term had expired and continued trying to dispute the results for some time. I think one sentence clarifying this important bit of info is worth it. Bill Williams 03:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think your proposed addition is necessary. But since we're in disagreement, it's best we let others chime in. GoodDay (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I understand, and you do make a good point as well. Bill Williams 04:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I can understand both sides of the argument here. Yes, it's true that the opening sentence of the article already states that Trump left office in 2021, and the infobox says so as well, in addition to saying that Biden succeeded him. However, one issue that I see with the paragraph in question in its current form is that it only states that the electoral vote count was "interrupted", but doesn't clarify that this interruption was only temporary. And I think I have to agree with Bill Williams here that if this paragraph is going to mention Trump's efforts to disrupt the presidential transition, there should also be something in it which clarifies that those efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Maybe this clarification could be made with a simple change such as inserting the word "temporarily" right before the words "interrupting the electoral vote count", but I also wouldn't find it unreasonable to additionally mention the eventual continuation of the vote count and Biden's subsequent inauguration, as was done in Bill's previous edit. --Zander251 (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * An interruption is temporary per se. Adding "temporarily" before "interrupting the vote count" is redundant, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

We have casual readers/editors complaining that the lead is too long and others who complain that it needs to add more details—damned if we do and damned if we don’t. u|Bill Williams, sounds to me as though you’re trying to introduce POV (so Trump did not concede and he did ask his supporters to march on the Capitol to interrupt the vote count. But in the end he didn’t have to be dragged out of the WH by the National Guard, so all is well—never mind the temporary interruption and his continuing claims that he actually won). Any reasonable reader thinking that Trump continued trying to dispute the results for some time is exactly right because he continues to do so to this day. Why would the same reasonable reader get the impression that Trump exited after his term expired? Biden would have been sworn in, with or without Trump's presence at the inauguration and whether or not Trump had vacated the WH. Certainly would have been interesting to find out whether there were any contingency plans for a former president having to be evicted from the WH. You bet that an involuntary removal would be featuring prominently in the body and the lead, including the video of Trump being carried out or quick marched out in handcuffs. Trump didn’t attend Biden’s inauguration, something that has happened only three times before and not since 1869, i.e., he did not indicate that he agreed to the peaceful transition of power. We don't mention that in the lead, either. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * you said "sounds to me as though you’re trying to introduce POV" and then made up a straw man that you claimed I believed; can you refrain from making rude allegations without evidence? The current lead mentions Trump obstructing the transition and refusing to concede but not that he ended up exiting when his term ended. Once again, there have been numerous instances throughout history when a leader refused to exit office but then did so later, and a reader might think this occurred without further explanation, especially since this topic was heavily discussed including calls for Trump to leave early. You may say that no U.S. president has done this, but no U.S. president refused to concede and obstructed the transition like Trump did, so this is a special instance when the mention of Trump's exit and Biden's inauguration is necessary. Bill Williams 14:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rude allegations without evidence? Your added text: The count continued a few hours later, confirming Biden's win; Trump left office when his term expired on January 20, 2021, and Biden was inaugurated as the 46th President. Sorry if I got the wrong impression of your intent. That Trump's efforts were ultimately unsuccessful is clear from the fact that his presidency ended on Jan 20. The lead needs to mention that Trump refused to concede and obstructed the transition and that he incited the crowd. That the count continued and Biden was inaugurated isn’t about Trump or Trump's doing. Saying that Trump "left office" is incorrect—are you sure you’re not awarding him brownie points for "leaving office"? The 20th Amendment says that The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * After the 117th US Congress certified the electoral votes (Biden-Harris: 306 to Trump-Pence: 232) on 6 January 2021? The 2020 US presidential election was officially over. From that moment (barring the unexpected), Biden & Harris were constitutionally designated as the successors to Trump & Pence. This certification was implemented at Noon Est, 20 January 2021 in accordance with the 20th amendment. At that moment, the nuclear football changed hands. Neither Trump's or Pence's concessions were required. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I have seen, Trump never conceded, which is why it is important to state that he stepped down when his term ended. Space4Time3Continuum2x is just ranting at me about how he thinks I love Trump and want to shove that in the article, when my one and only concern is that it does not state anything about how Trump left office. When a President obstructs the transition, refuses to concede, and implies he might not even leave office when legally required to, it is important to state that he ended up leaving when his term ended. Numerous reliable sources have covered this, as I linked a few above and you can retrieve more. Bill Williams 02:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That he never conceded defeat, is irrelevant in the eyes of the US Constitution. Furthermore, there was no way he could remain in office upon the expiration of his term. Mainstream news media, are known for talking about things they no little about or just exaggerating for viewer ratings. GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There was also "no way" that millions of votes could have been faked to cause Trump to lose, yet it mentions how Trump falsely claimed that he won. According to the logic that "there was was no way he could remain in office," why even mention that he refused to concede, obstructed the transition, and hinted at refusing to leave? If the article states what occurred throughout the transition, why not state how precisely it ended? Bill Williams 03:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's already in the article, that he didn't stay in office past the expiration of his term. See the intro & the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know that many people will have seen that, but the lead also mentions his Wharton degree, place of birth, date of birth, party, etc. even though they are in the infobox, so I don't think that discounts it being in the lead as well. The lead only states that he was President until 2021, but only two weeks before he left office, his supporters attacked the Capitol to keep him in office, and he continued to obstruct and criticize the transition and did not concede, which is why it makes sense to clarify that he left office when his term expired and not some time before or after. Bill Williams 03:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's already made clear in the intro & the infobox. Your proposed additions, aren't necessary. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand. Bill Williams 03:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems like your proposed additions, Bill, are benign and unnecessary at best and revisionist at worst. Correct me if I am wrong, but what does adding your proposition even add to the article? (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * my proposed addition stated "The count continued a few hours later, confirming Biden's win; Trump left office when his term expired on January 20, 2021, and Biden was inaugurated as the 46th President." After a sentence mentioning how Trump obstructed the Presidential transition, falsely claimed to have won the election, refused to concede, and even hinted at staying in office past the expiration of his term, I think my addition is necessary because it clarifies that he ended up leaving office when his term expired. That is factually what happened, not "revisionist". Bill Williams 03:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I appreciate the explanation but I do not see why this is necessary. Sorry man. (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Short description
The current short description is former reality show host and president. Is this intentional? The pages of other former presidents are described with this template: "45th president of the United States (2017-2021)". For example, Ronald Reagan is described with that pattern and not "former movie actor and president." I do not see this issue addressed in the current consensus section, but I may have missed it. -- M.boli (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarify - The intro matches those of the other US presidents. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Referring to WP:SHORTDESC, the short description which appears on the condensed Wikipedia display suitable for mobile phones and a few other places. It is not usually visible in the display on a desktop computer. You can see it in the source near the top when you edit. There is also a an editing gadget in the preferences. The short description on this page has been fixed now to align with the other former presidents. -- M.boli (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll need a visual of what you're going on about. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you go to Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and see the Trump hyperlink in the lead, hover your mouse over it, and you can see what the short description is displayed as. Bill Williams 01:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked the article over. Haven't seen what you're posting about. GoodDay (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Try and edit the source of the article, and it will be the very first line at the top of the page, appearing like so: { {Short description|45th president of the United States (2017–2021)} }. It doesn't appear on desktop, but you can see it right under the article title if you use the mobile app. BSMRD (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have a mobile phone. Reckon this is a topic you younger folk understand. I'll leave the matter in your (plural) hands. GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Enable the WP:SDHELPER and you will see it. ― Tartan357  Talk 06:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's beyond my understanding. I trust ya'll know what ya'll are doing. GoodDay (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * When you click "edit" at the top of the article, the top line of the editing window is "Short description|...." in curly brackets. According to Short description, Short descriptions do not appear by default when viewing an article in desktop view, but logged-in users who wish to see and edit them can do so easily by enabling the Shortdesc helper in their Preferences "gadgets". My motto: If it doesn't show up in desktop view for visitors, ignore it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've corrected this with changing it to 45th president of the United States Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Trump's opposition to Russia's Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline
This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "No consensus on adding Nord Stream 2 ." I think it is relevant and should be included.

"Trump opposed the Nord Stream2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany."

-- Tobby72 (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I objected to this addition when you first proposed it 10 days ago in U.S.—Russian relations, Igor Danchenko. Why are you starting a second discussion? Same objections as before: Your BBC source says the the sanctions target firms building Nord Stream 2. In 2019, Trump signed the defense bill that imposed sanctions on companies installing deep sea pipelines (engaged in pipe-laying at a time when the pipeline was almost completed. The targeted firms were mostly from the EU. Your Reuters source says that in January 2021 Trump vetoed the defense bill imposing further sanctions. Congress imposed sanctions, not Trump. I also mentioned before that, according to the NYT, the U.S. "will impose sanctions on a Russian-owned ship involved in the construction of an undersea pipeline... The sanctions ... are the first action the United States has taken against the project". No other sanctions against Gazprom or any other Russian entities were ever taken. There were only threats of "secondary sanctions" against companies doing business with Russia and Gazprom, and at least one of those companies terminated their involvement with the project. Here's some information on the ship's owner per a German webpage,

According to the Russian international shipping register, the Fortuna pipeline-laying vessel changed hands from one micro-enterprise to another. The change comes amid widening US sanctions against the construction of the pipeline. Germany had previously allowed the ship to complete the work to complete the laying of Nord Stream 2.

According to RBK, until October it was owned by Hong Kong Strategic Mileage, then Universal Transport Group, and now it's KVT-Rus. The exact date of the change of ownership is not given in the register. KVT-Rus is a Moscow-based company registered on the Register of Small and Medium Enterprises. In 2019 the company had no income, the cash balance was 1,000 rubles. The company employs one person - the general director and founder Sergei Malkov. It is only known that he runs ZAO JV Aeroprima - the company is registered at the same address as KVT-Rus.

On December 10th, 2020 KVT-Rus switched its core business from "Wholesale of sanitary and heating products" to "Providing transport services". The secondary business "Manufacture of other pumps and compressors" changed to "Activities in sea freight transport".

Maria Schagina, sanctions expert at the University of Zurich, suspects that the owner maneuvers are part of a complex scheme to shield the former owners from the sanctions. "It is possible that it has something to do with the desire to cover up the trail before Joe Biden's government takes control of the sanctions," she told RBK.

On December 11, the US Senate approved the draft defense budget for 2021, which provides for the expansion of restrictive measures against Nord Stream 2. The State Department said the United States will continue to impose sanctions on Nord Stream 2 until the project stops. per Bloomberg and per a German webpage


 * and per Bloomberg—"incorporated 2/21/2021". They sanctioned one ship owned by the erstwhile plumbing wholesaler Sergei Malkov who won't be able to spend those 1000 rubles on 5th Avenue and possibly some Russian sailors stuck on a ship stuck in an East German harbor. DW just says that a bill was signed into law. They don't mention any sanctions imposed on anyone. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

With all these recent requests for adding material to or deleting material from this BLP. One would think the guy was still in the White House. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * We have to remember this is an encyclopedic article not a news blog. Imagine if the article on President Polk said he opposed Bill 361 but supported bill 403? When you mention his positions, you need to provide context. You might say something like, "Trump continued and expanded the U.S. policy of treating Russia as an adversary, including opposing their completion of a gas pipeline into Western Europe." TFD (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion, TFD.


 * Proposed version:


 * "Trump continued and expanded the U.S. policy of treating Russia as an adversary, including opposing their completion of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline into Western Europe. In 2017, Trump signed the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which has targeted Russia's oil and gas industry, defence and security sectors, and financial institutions, and his administration imposed sanctions on several third countries for buying Russian weapons."


 * Trump repeatedly praised and rarely criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin ... well, it seems to me like a news blog. It is a view based on belief (Trump is Putin's puppet) rather than evidence. Trump repeatedly criticized Russia and Putin, but the media simply ignored it, and most importantly, as TFD correctly noted, he continued and expanded the U.S. policy of treating Russia as an adversary.


 * --Tobby72 (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you want more sources for his gushing praise of Putin [], [], [?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Trump talked a lot, and repeatedly praised world leaders (Putin, Modi, al-Sisi, Erdogan, Duterte, Bolsonaro, Kim, Xi Jinping, MBS, Johnson, Duda, Macron, Merkel, Trudeau etc), as well as repeatedly criticized the same world leaders and their countries. -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * True, but (as one of the sources pointed out) not someone seen as an enemy of his country, not one (again as sources point out) one who had been accused of interference in the US election.Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're advocating for one point of view to the exclusion of the other side. From the Wikipedia policy section Explanation of the neutral point of view, "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another." Bob K31416 (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, actually what editors are guarding against are fringe points of view being given equal weight to the reliably-sources point of view. ValarianB (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Trump opposed the Nord Stream2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany is not a fringe point of view. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2021
Change “served” to “was” as the word “served” telegraphs intent and is an implied value judgement. The word “served” is not appropriate. 108.30.70.111 (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't even need to look at all of the other U.S. presidents' articles to guarantee you that all of them use the word "served" in some way to refer to each president's tenure. I'm not going to decline this edit request myself, but I highly doubt that it will be accepted. Zander251 (talk) 05:47, 18 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC Russian Bounties claims
Should the article continue to include that Trump "never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan"? Firefangledfeathers 14:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Until my comment above (an attempt at a 'brief, neutral statement'), the top comment in this discussion was OgamD218's, just below. Firefangledfeathers 14:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Certain editors have insisted on retaining this content : that Trump "never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan." This wording fails to accurately convey the information and gives that section of the article an overly critical tone and the impression of bias. Trump maintained from the onset that allegations of Russia putting bounties on American soldiers fighting in Afghanistan were patently false. In fact from day one Trump referred to such claims as a "hoax". The citation this content uses barely touches the subject but is from the final days of Trump's presidency. Unlike many other instances where Trump labeled events fake news just bc he didn't like it-initial reports on the bounty subject admitted intelligence was not yet conclusive; as time has gone on there has only been increased reason to doubt the truthfulness of these claims. Trump never backed down from his original stance on the issue. Even still, Russia may have put bounties on American soldiers but the criticism, without relevant context, that Trump never confronted Putin on this issue is nonsensical as it implies it would or should be expected for him to "confront", a foreign head of state, over unverified claims he committed acts of war even though he publicly referred to such claims as untrue in the strongest terms. OgamD218 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The December 2020 AP source used for the item was about hacking and didn't even have a full sentence about the bounties. An April 2021 AP article, after Biden was in office, was devoted to the bounties subject, White House: Intel on Russian ‘bounties’ on US troops shaky.  The item  in the first AP article and Wikipedia is misleading, especially by not mentioning that the bounty subject is based on questionable intelligence.  Bob K31416 (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC) Delete the text. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think this should be included. It isn't clear that the Russian bounties existed.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support including the disputed text. This source sums up my thoughts: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/u-s-officials-say-intel-russian-bounties-was-less-conclusive-n1233199. –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 09:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I read that article, though it brings up some important and certainly relevant points I honestly don't see how it stands to prop up your position that we should include this specific content. If anything this source bolsters the ambiguity around the validity of the bounty claim and even states Trump has long called it a hoax. I ask again, why insist on retaining wording critical of Trump for not calling out Putin for something Trump did not even believe to be real? OgamD218 (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Since then, Ken Dilainian of NBC has revisited the subject: "While he was campaigning for president, Joe Biden treated as fact that U.S. intel agencies had determined Russia had paid the Taliban to kill Americans in Afghanistan....Such a definitive statement was questionable even then. On Thursday, it became more clear that the truth of the matter is unresolved."
 * , do you know if Biden has asked Putin about it? Maybe Putin can ask him if the moon landing was faked and where Obama was actually born.
 * TFD (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Biden raised the subject of the reported bounties on U.S. troops during his first call with Putin on Jan. 26, the White House said at the time. No mention of the topic was revealed by the White House after their latest call on Tuesday.
 * Defense officials and military commanders repeatedly said that the reports of bounties had not been corroborated by defense intelligence agencies and that they were not convinced the reports were credible. They also said they didn’t believe any bounties resulted in U.S. military deaths."
 * Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As the source claims the story is disputed. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC


 * Retain - oppose removing the text. Whether or not you call the alleged offers of payment bounty, incentives, or financial transfers and whether or not they resulted in actual casualties, it was still Trump’s responsibility as president and commander in chief to ensure the safety of the troops and to bring the alleged threats up in one of his "chummy chats" with Putin. O’Brien said that Trump was not briefed on the matter (the AP source BobK mentioned), while Haspel said he was (see hatted quote).

"The suggestion of a Russian bounty program began, another source directly familiar with the matter said, with a raid by CIA paramilitary officers that captured Taliban documents describing Russian payments. Taliban detainee told the CIA such a program existed, the source said, although the term 'bounty' was never used. Later, the CIA was able to document financial transfers between Russian military intelligence and the Taliban, and establish there had been travel by key Russian officers to Afghanistan and by relevant Taliban figures to Russia. That intelligence was reviewed by CIA Director Gina Haspel and placed in Trump's daily intelligence briefing book earlier this year, officials have said. The source described the intelligence as compelling, but meriting further investigation. Nonetheless, current and former U.S. officials have said, many CIA officers and analysts came to believe a bounty program existed. They concluded that the Russians viewed it as a proportional response to the U.S. arming of Ukrainian units fighting Russian forces in Crimea, the source said."


 * A sitting president not reading his intelligence briefings—if you believe that’s what happened—is dereliction of duty, not an excuse. Military commanders not changing their force protection posture in Afghanistan at the time—it’s not as if anyone was cavorting around the countryside sightseeing, shopping for souvenirs, and enjoying the local cuisine. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * All one has to do is read the article linked to in the above message to see that the above message is a misrepresentation of that article. And by the way, editors should not express their personal opinions or advocacy regarding Trump. That's a symptom of bias. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. We don't want to know what some Wikipedia editor thinks Trump should have done. He certainly didn't have a duty to bring up every intelligence report with Putin.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's UNDUE. Please see WP:ONUS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. "The intelligence was based on notoriously unreliable “detainee reporting,” the official said on the call, meaning that it came from militants looking to get out of jail." -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Retain text This narrative was well-covered by sources at the time, the subsequent and routine denials by the former administration do not really matter. Zaathras (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that an RfC is a good idea here. The downside of a simple conversion from discussion to RfC is that the original post is not a "brief, neutral statement" as required by WP:RFCOPEN. While we're in the early stages,, could you rephrase your opening comment? You might choose to copy your original below so later readers can reference what others were responding to. I'd suggest something simple like: Firefangledfeathers 13:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Being aware of the neutrality expectation, I would have preferred a different opening as well. I weighed this vs the appearance of being disingenuous and misleading as to how this post started, proceeded and got where we are now. I'll also admit to having somewhat limited experience in this area as well. If you think that that is how it is best to proceed then by all means. I personally see no issue. OgamD218 (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A reasonable concern! I hope that the version I implemented in this edit helps more than it hurts. Firefangledfeathers 14:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so would I be wrong to conclude that unless more editors weigh in within the next 24 hours then the consensus here is that the content should be removed? OgamD218 (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You removed the text without even waiting for your 24 hours to elapse. There is no consensus above to remove the text. Please self-revert your removal.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I waited longer than 24 hours actually? OgamD218 (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My mistake -- mobile edit glitch. But there are two more important problems. First, having reviewed this as an uninvolved editor, I see no consensus to remove in the above thread. Second, you have no standing to impose a deadline for others to respond further. Also, this having been a US holiday, there was little reason to think that any editor would take the time to reiterate views already clearly expressed above. Please continue to present your views on the talk page.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there's no consensus to keep it. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt but I'm struggling to see how you honestly should be recognized as an "uninvolved editor" vs an editor very much on one side of trying to pass as independent. If I had in fact fact failed to wait the full 24 hours I think you'd be in the right, except I had, despite the mistake being on you, you chose instead to skip responding here and revert the change anyway=giving the impression you were going to find an excuse to do so regardless. But maybe I am wrong, it is easy to misinterpret one's motivation (we're editing the page for Donald Trump); it seems to me that the consensus is clear, 5 editors favor removal, 3 oppose removal/wish to retain. After almost 4 days of no other editors weighing I posted, *in the form of a question, that I would go ahead unless more editors contributed in 24 hours-at which time this discussion would be a week old, with all involved editors no longer posting/debating having voiced their respective positions for 5 days or more ago. After 24 hours, no other editors weighed, yes in light of the American holiday I waited an additional 16 hours-nothing changed. The only new posts to have been from you, who unilaterally reverted the change discussed here without discussion/under questionable circumstances. Another editor, who has been involved in this thread since the beginning also weighed in agreeing that this should be removed,, who has also been involved from the beginning restored the agreed upon change. , another involved editor, reverted-though and once again this is troubling, did not comment any further, instead putting in their edit summary let the debate continue-though they themselves did not continue debating or say/do anything else including post here or take advantage of or even object to the extended to 24 hour window. This was all hours ago and still no more editors have weighed in leaving the consensus still in favor of removal. Notably, no editor accepted my invitation to suggest even new wording. The debate has been had, I remain fully open to more debate but as the situation stands, the debate is over, a majority favor removing the text, editors that do not agree with this should at the very least take greater initiative than stubbornly insisting that this drag out just because they don't like the result. OgamD218 (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I had no participation in anything related to this issue, nor having reviewed it do I have any opinion as to the content or sourcing.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I didn't make any edit on this topic, that was reverted. I think you meant Bob. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry my mistake, thank you for letting me know, I just corrected it. OgamD218 (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Today you did participate, and your participation has been far from token. Yes, had you reviewed it then you would have been made aware that a consensus was reached. I say again, it is at the very least suspect that you go around thinking of reasons to retain content that you apparently had neither reviewed nor have an opinion on. OgamD218 (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just replaced the AP cite, which only mentioned the alleged bounties in a half-sentence, with a Politico article that discusses all aspects of the matter. I also replaced "confronted" with "brought up". It doesn't matter whether or not Russia had a bounty program or whether the alleged program resulted in American death's and/or payouts. Our sentence merely said that Trump "never confronted Putin over [Russia's] alleged bounties against American soldiers". I haven't seen any sources saying that he shouldn't have discussed the matter with Putin. The officials quoted in the sources merely said that the low to moderate certainty of the intelligency intelligence community did not warrant any military or other punitive actions. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I certainly have to disagree: It does matter whether or not Russia had a bounty program, it also matters whether or not the alleged program resulted in American death's and/or payouts for killings. With that said I’m not sure if these changes are at all substantial enough to matter as far as a significant enough change to overcome the consensus that the material should be removed but at least we’re making some progress. OgamD218 (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to remove this content.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just added Trump not discussing Russian support for the Taliban to the article, with the NBC source mentioned here some days ago. Another instance where Trump argued that he wasn't briefed/informed and that he didn't bring it up with Putin because "we did it too". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong here. Barack Obama and Joe Biden, by the way, never brought up Iran's and China's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan with Xi Jinping and Iranian leaders nor their support of the Taliban with weapons, supplies, money, and propaganda., It's UNDUE and BLP violation. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's whataboutism, Toby. If you have an editing suggestion for the Barack Obama or Joe Biden articles, then make them at Talk:Barack Obama or Talk:Joe Biden, respectively. Zaathras (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

, your reversion has already been reverted but I'd still like to know where you see synth and blp in [Russia's] support of the Taliban with weapons, supplies, money, and propaganda. Please explain. As for Iran's and China's alleged bounties, where's your source on China? One of your two Iran sources, CNN, is about the 2016 "not-a-ransom money-for-prisoners" swap (Iranian money the U.S. had kept—possibly illegally—since the ouster of the Shah) and doesn't mention Afghanistan or the Taliban. If you think the 2010 allegations of Iranian payments for attacks on Americans (your NBC source) should be added to Obama's page, then that's the place to discuss it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the 2010 allegations of Iranian bounties should be added to Obama's page, per WP:ONUS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. As for Iran's and China's alleged bounties, see,. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support removal - the existence of these bounties are disputed. Saying that he never spoke to Putin about it creates a balance issue because it doesn't provide appropriate context. It might be ok to say that Trump denied the existence of these bounties and didn't mention it to Putin, but saying he just didn't ask him like he was just bad at his job is a WP:NPOV concern. As this text reads now remove it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I find your stance here to be rather contradictory. If you think the text needs to mention Trump's denial of the existence of the bounties, support that. Cleanup is better than blanking. –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 22:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've honestly been wondering this whole time as to why you don't at the very least think that? Trump is polarizing and reasonable people will expectedly hold a wide range views here-but it is simply nonsensical to defend including content critical of him for not addressing over an allegation he called a hoax. Serious people do not confront each other over claims they very openly don't believe to be meritorious. OgamD218 (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not against including that, I'm against removing the text altogether. Trump's denial of the bounties as a hoax is not notable in and of itself. The situation is, at the time, all U.S. intelligence agencies were reporting that (to the best of their knowledge) there were Russian-backed bounties on U.S. troops. The Commander-in-Chief therefore going against their own intelligence agencies and saying they don't believe it is only notable in that context. You cannot only include his denial without mentioning the history of the reports of the bounties, which are still not unconfirmed. That would be FALSEBALANCE. –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 22:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * both the tense and original sourcing for this content was from the time the allegations first came to light through the conclusion of Trump's presidency he did not confront/address the matter with Putin. By the end of Trump's Presidency the allegations had been increasingly called into doubt. However, at no point did a single U.S. intelligence agency report that to the best of their knowledge there existed Russian backed bounties on U.S. servicemen. From the onset the intelligence reports were not conclusive with the CIA only briefly describing the allegations as "plausible" or "credibly sourced" but still not "certain". At no point ever did all or even most U.S. Intelligence Agencies stand by the Russia bounties claims-if they had yes I would agree with you. My understanding is only the NCC shared the CIA's initial assessment with both the NSA and MI stating that while they too were uncertain, they had not found sufficient evidence to substantiate such claims, even at the CIA's lower level of confidence. OgamD218 (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well what I said is indeed true, so you should agree with me. Here's some cooberating sources:
 * That Trump was briefed on the intelligence and remembers it, and lied to the American people:
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/us/politics/russian-bounty-trump.html
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53231840
 * https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/29/trump-received-written-briefing-on-russian-bounties-in-february.html
 * https://www.businessinsider.com/intelligence-veterans-shocked-trump-wasnt-briefed-russia-bounties-taliban-2020-6
 * https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21307008/russian-bounties-us-troops-afghanistan-trump-explained
 * That every intelligence agency reported at least some evidence that Russia paid bounties for attacks on Americans:
 * https://www.wsj.com/articles/nsa-differed-from-cia-others-on-russia-bounty-intelligence-11593534220
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/politics/russia-afghanistan-bounties.html
 * https://www.justsecurity.org/71220/unpacking-the-national-intelligence-councils-memo-on-russian-bounty-operation/ –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 23:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We never went over the whole when was Trump really informed about these suspicious, everything I've seen so far though says that Trump was definitely provided the relevant reports though whether or not and when his staff brought them to his attention is unknown, he may have simply lied about all this however (that's the side I'm on lol) or also possible, not taken them seriously and forgot. But once again we did not go over this yet. With regards to your second point, those sources do not come close to corroborating the claim that all US intelligence agencies (theres like 19) stood by the allegations at some point. Further, you originally claimed the situation is, at the time, all U.S. intelligence agencies were reporting that (to the best of their knowledge) there were Russian-backed bounties on U.S. troops, this is a very far cry from at least some evidence, especially when that "some evidence" several agencies referred to was simply provided to them by the CIA, not independently gathered.OgamD218 (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a little too much grasping at straws for me. –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 00:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Grasping at straws? Give me a break. You claimed *"all" US intel agencies reported it + *as true to the best of their knowledge; out of 17 USIA, 1-2 reported it, zero gave any such assurances as to its validity.OgamD218 (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, per others. Seems to be an attempt to soften the edges of some of the former administration's controversies, but the sources still exist to cover this, then as now. ValarianB (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for joining the discussion. Please self-revert your unexplained restoration of new content pertinent to this RfC. OgamD218 (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What are your objections against the reliably sourced content? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The article edit and restore disrupts this RFC by adding to the sentence that is being considered for deletion. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The new material that disrupts this RFC is being edit warred into the article         without getting consensus on this Talk page. Two of the three restores were made recently by Zaathras. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Zaathras added material to the Donald Trump article . It was reverted and Zaathras restored it without discussing it after the editor Zaathras first added it, thus violating ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES. I'm not inclined to pursue it because I'm cutting back on my Wikipedia time, but anyone else is welcome to do it if they have the time. Bob K31416 (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I must need new glasses. The (below) tally keeps changing back-and-forth, between hatted & un-hatted. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * yes lol, SPECIFICO keeps trying to on their own self appointed authority deem sections irrelevant. From the beginning SPECIFICO has lied and misrepresented their intentions here so especially now that their disruptions have arisen to concealing content, I'm not gonna give the benefit of the doubt but will wait for an actual uninvolved editor. OgamD218 (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please strike your personal attack against SPECIFICO. –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 00:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Keep / Oppose Removal - It's well sourced and well covered. A single sentence is not WP:UNDUE given the coverage it received. Fieari (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Do Not Keep A rumour which snowballed into a a political opinion, enveloping various shades of lie, now commonly understood as much less real or meaningful than it seemed. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Favor removal First of all, thank you to the editors below for making it more clear who has !voted for what. We should give more WP:WEIGHT to the more recently published sources, which cast doubt on the entire event.LM2000 (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Keep / Oppose Removal since well sourced and well covered. Feedback request Bot brought me, an univolved editor, here on 29 November 2021 and I have been watching and studying the discussion ever since. I want to point out, that in this RfC many, if not most editors who are for removal, have made their bias for Trump clear over the years, in numerous edits on this and other pages and they are not uninvolved or neutral WP editors. Also, I had asked OgamD218 to update the tally and see he finally did it, but he still left SPECIFICO out. --Wuerzele (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As always I try to assume good faith but you're giving me at least some reasons not too. Since you have an issue with the motivations of many if not most of the editors who happen to disagree with you on this, please speak up and address these issues, that is kind of the point of all this and honestly it is a pertinent issue on this page that shouldn't be passively alluded too. I will say it is hard to view your post as being that of a legitimate neutral observer, while space is limited on a page like this, it stretches the bounds of reason to try and pass off the content in question as "well covered". I will make sure to include you and SPECIFICO in the next tally. My intentions were/are to update the tally in the next day or so, it seems logical to give it about week in between but that's just me-if you object by all means do it yourself, I am not in charge here. As a final point, this is now the second time (the first was on my talk page) that you have gone out of your way to-while posing as a neutral observer inform me only of untallied votes from editors who wish to retain this content, or in other words editors who agree with you. Between last week and today you noted I forgot to include a total of 3 votes to retain but somehow forgot to mention a greater number of untallied removal votes on both occasions..........OgamD218 (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ogam, it's not your role to keep a vote count on this discussion. Please don't do that any more. Also, please stop personal disparagement of other editors and focus only on the content issue at hand.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We prefer to try to not presume editors personal politics or intentions. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The two !votes below were salvaged from the collapsed Tally subsection. Alaexis¿question? 11:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove reference to disputed story. If we aren't even sure that X is true, how can failure to address X be biographical? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove or provide context. According to the latest assessments the US intelligence has "low to moderate" confidence in these allegations. It can still be mentioned in the context of the presidential campaign (e.g.,"Trump was accused by Biden of not raising the issue of alleged Russian bounties with Putin") if reliable sources consider this accusation important. I have no opinion whether it's in the scope of this article. Alaexis¿question? 11:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and provide context as it as notable as it is disputed. LondonIP (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Tally
It seems this situation has largely stagnated with very little momentum favoring a change in the content and almost all participating editors having by now only made clear their stance on whether or not the original sentence merits inclusion. This is the tally I am able to discern since the thread began 10 days ago. Please let me know if I make any errors.

In order of when each editor gave their position :

Favors removal/opposes retaining (1)

Favors removal/opposes retaining (2)


 * Opposes removal/favors retaining [1]

Favors removal/opposes retaining (3)

Favors removal/opposes retaining (4)

Opposes removal/favors retaining [2]

Favors removal/opposes retaining (5)

Opposes removal/favors retaining [3]

I also favor removal/oppose retaining the referenced content in its present form. (6)

By my count, this brings the tally to 6 editors in favor of removal/oppose retaining vs 3 editors in opposition to removal/in favor of retaining. I have pinged all involved in hopes that if anybody notices a material mistake in this summary it will be duly noted. New editors are obviously still welcome to weigh in but seeing as none have in over a week, if if no one does so soon, this needs to be closed. OgamD218 (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no consensus to remove this so I oppose removal. It is adequately sourced and significant. Note, it will not be up to you, Ogam, to determine the resolution of your own proposal.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Should be removed. Whether or not it will be, isn't my decision to make. GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nor mine, but yes, erase that mistake (per the 70%). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, this hasn't been opened as an RfC, so there is no official expectation for a closure. If one is desired it can be requested at WP:RFCL, which would probably be for the best, either that or actually tagging it as an RfC which it has effectively become. BSMRD (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This should really be an RfC in order to get sufficient community input. –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 06:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * ,, I agree. I was attempting to resolve this less formally and without too much contentious back and forth or edit warring but it does not seem to be working out. From the beginning I've attempted to maximize input and to be clear I never acted as though I had final say in resolving this (unlike SPECIFICO, who not keeps lying and making up reasons to stop an edit that they don't like from being made, despite a firm majority of involved editors agreeing should be.) A clear majority of editors have agreed with me from the beginning and despite that fact I did not leap at the opportunity to have my way. OgamD218 (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Moved to the general list of !votes. , please let me know if you have objections to moving your vote. Alaexis¿question? 11:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove reference to disputed story. If we aren't even sure that X is true, how can failure to address X be biographical? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove or provide context. According to the latest assessments the US intelligence has "low to moderate" confidence in these allegations. It can still be mentioned in the context of the presidential campaign (e.g.,"Trump was accused by Biden of not raising the issue of alleged Russian bounties with Putin") if reliable sources consider this accusation important. I have no opinion whether it's in the scope of this article. Alaexis¿question? 11:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Update/Survey
Favors removal/opposes retaining (1)

Favors removal/opposes retaining (2)


 * Opposes removal/favors retaining [1]

Favors removal/opposes retaining (3)

Favors removal/opposes retaining (4)

Opposes removal/favors retaining [2]

Favors removal/opposes retaining (5)

Opposes removal/favors retaining [3]

I also favor removal/oppose retaining the referenced content in its present form. (6)

Opposes removal/favors retaining [4]

Favors removal/opposes retaining (7)

Opposes removal/favors retaining [5]

Favors removal/opposes retaining (8)

There is no consensus to remove. I therefore favor retaining.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 04:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

By my count, this brings the tally to 8 editors who favor removal/oppose retaining vs 5 editors in opposition to removal/in favor of retaining. I have pinged all involved in hopes that if anybody notices a material mistake in this summary it will be duly noted. New editors are obviously still welcome to weigh in. OgamD218 (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Second Update
Favors removal/opposes retaining (1)

Favors removal/opposes retaining (2)


 * Opposes removal/favors retaining [1]

Favors removal/opposes retaining (3)

Favors removal/opposes retaining (4)

Opposes removal/favors retaining [2]

Favors removal/opposes retaining (5)

Opposes removal/favors retaining [3]

I also favor removal/oppose retaining the referenced content in its present form. (6)

Opposes removal/favors retaining [4]

Favors removal/opposes retaining (7)

Opposes removal/favors retaining [5]

Favors removal/opposes retaining (8)

Opposes removal/favors retaining [6]

Favors removal/opposes retaining (9)

Opposes removal/favors retaining [7]

Favors removal/opposes retaining (10)

Favors removal/opposes retaining (11)

By my count, this brings the tally to 11 editors who favor removal/oppose retaining vs 7 editors in opposition to removal/in favor of retaining. I have pinged all involved in hopes that if anybody notices a material mistake in this summary it will be duly noted. New editors are obviously still welcome to weigh in. OgamD218 (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not helpful, and borders on disruptive. It is not up to you, a participant, to gauge consensus of the discussion, that is left to a neutral and uninvolved participant when the time comes. Zaathras (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion
Recommend the supports & the opposes be placed (above somewhere) into a sub-section called 'survey'. Would make it easier to read over the RFC for the closer. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion RFC's do not and should not have a floor manager. I was summoned by a bot, have reviewed the article, reviewed the discussion, and found no strong reason to keep the disputed phrase. However, I find the discussion flawed by well intentioned but inappropriate hovering by (OgdamD218). Consequently, I do not see this exchange of views as useful—it can not really settle anything. With subject so contentious, an RFC proposal needs to be clean as a whistle—in the initial, impartial, and short statement and without one single editor dominating the discussion. A redo, if the phrase is still contentious to the pont of edit warring, is necessary for the outcome to be authoritative. I have no objection to OgdamD218 starting a new RFC after reading other rfcs on contentious issues that closed with an enforceable conclusion, a conclusion that was accepted by editors on both sides of the narrowly posed question. — N eonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 23:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In all likelihood, the RFC closer will ignore the tally lists. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as they don't violate Wikipedia policies or guidelines, editors are free to comment on this talk page and they should not be suppressed. The closing is disruptive and serves no purpose but to suppress an editor's legitimate comments. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , perhaps you need to read up on this process at Requests for comment, especially the "Ending RfCs" section. A RfC discussion is going to be closed with a consensus or lack thereof at some point. These don't run indefinitely. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the Tally and updates part that was closed by an editor, not the RFC. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bob K31416: nowhere has an editor been suppressed; all posts still exist. No section has been closed. It is quite common for parts of a lengthy discussion to be hatted to make the many views expressed more accessible to late-comers. Once a section of the discussion has reached an impasse, hatting just makes plowing through the entire accumulation optional. I thank that's very helpful. — N eonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 14:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comments aren't relevant to the Tally and updates. The closing is disruptive and is an attempt at suppression of any future updates and discussion. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The RFC had not been closed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Lets put it like this Wikipedia is not a democracy, and an RFC closer does not base his close on the number of votes, but rather on the quality of the arguments. If 100 users vote "Because Donald is the sexiest man on earth and I want to have his babies" and one user votes "it violates this policy, and here is why" the one user wins, as his policy-based argument is better. Thus a tally of just votes is in no way helpful (as the closer still needs to read ALL the arguments), and in fact, is disruptive as it adds to the closers workload (forcing them to read posts that add nothing to the debate).Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Closing time
I've put in a request for closure, now that the RfC tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)