Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 172

Archive 165

←

Archive 170

Archive 171

Archive 172

Is it necessary to include he's a Teetotal?

Underneath the health section is it possible to include that he is a teetotal. He said in a recent interview and I found this article from the New York Times [1] Serrwinner (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 00:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Undone. Biden is one as well. It is an unimportant piece of trivia. Zaathras (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: Yea, Biden is one, and it's also in his article and in more detail than what I inserted for this article. Maybe you should hop over there and remove it too. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 01:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

That won't be necessary, I just did. The mention on Biden’s page was added to the "Early life" section on April 10, 2024, no reason given. The source was a post Mark Leibovich wrote in the NY Times "Caucus" blog in 2008, "Riding the Rails with Amtrak Joe". Leibovich cites Biden answering a reporter in the large pulk that started to accompany Biden after Obama picked him for VP. The reporter had asked Biden why he ordered cranberry juice. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's unimportant. It's been a significant part of discussions and information about him for a long time. As to whether Biden has similar reasons for not drinking or doing drugs is entirely irrelevant in relationship to an article about Trump, because the article is about Trump, not about Biden, and the article is not a comparison of the two. As to whether it's true or not? I don't know. We do know that Trump's Whitehouse had a lot of prescription medications being given out in recent reporting on the subject, but I don't know if we have any information on who this medication was given to or prescribed for. Centerone (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: that is utterly irrelevant, and frankly, betrays an overtly political perspective on editing. Riposte97 (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not at all irrelevant, and your comment addresses nothing in what I said. Kindly refrain from pinging me if you have nothing to say, please. Zaathras (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

There's no shortage of discussion about this in the archives. I see consensuses to include different specific content in 2018 and in 2021, but I haven't done exhaustive (and exhausting) research and didn't run across a later consensus to say nothing. I encourage someone to look deeper, someone who's better at that than I. Certainly, previous consensus should carry weight even if there is no item in the consensus list. This does not meet our traditional criteria for revisitation of a consensus: the situation has not changed, and there are no significant new arguments.

Once we have determined what the existing consensus is, perhaps a consensus item would be in order to avoid spending further time on this. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The article is more than three years old, and it says that both major party candidates abstaining from alcohol has drawn so little notice is to some extent evidence of how the once hard-drinking culture of politics is changing, and Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump rarely discuss their non-drinking ways, much less present their abstinence as any kind of virtue. WP:WEIGHT applies. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue that "hard-drinking culture of politics is changing" lends weight in a historical context. That it isn't a campaign topic does not mean much to a wiki-bio. Historical context does. JackTheSecond (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

For comparison, there's Iamreallygoodatcheckers addition,

Trump is a teetotaler,[23][24]

which would have preceded this item that is currently in the article,

Trump has called golfing his "primary form of exercise" but usually does not walk the course.[23] He believes exercise depletes the body's energy "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy".[24]

which can be compared to the presentation of this item in the article,

In 2020, the White House hosted the signing of agreements, named Abraham Accords, between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to normalize their foreign relations.[376]

Bob K31416 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's the "Health habits" section in 2021. It was gradually reduced. The last time Trump’s claim of never having smoked or drunk alcohol was mentioned was on April 25, 2022. It was gone the next day, and this is the edit that removed it. I went through the archives until the end of 2022, didn’t find any discussion. Looks as though the general reaction was either "meh" or "good riddance" or both. We don’t actually know whether Trump ever drank alcohol or smoked. He was reported as saying that he never did, and we know the man has never uttered a lie in his life, though 30,000+ falsehoods during his presidency alone. It’s a trivial detail, and I oppose reinserting it. Also, remarkable how some of the editors who keep cutting content now want to add this. What’s next, his hair? We mentioned that, too, at one time. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Trivial Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Should obviously be included. The article even has a seperate health section --FMSky (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree it should be mentioned. It's a rather unusual detail, and that makes it significant. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that it is notable and should be mentioned, but rather than saying "Donald Trump is a teetotal", something like "Donald Trump has stated that he has never consumed alcohol" would be better. Pecopteris (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not unusual, according to the source cited by the OP: has drawn so little notice is to some extent evidence of how the once hard-drinking culture of politics is changing. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It should be included, per Valjean. Fred Trump Jr. died from alcoholism in 1981, fwiw soibangla (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Undue and trivial. Unusual != significant. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The very term we're talking about ("teetotaler") is a near 200-year-old euphemism of Temperance societies. It does not belong in an encyclopedia to describe a person of the 21-st century. Beyond that, Donald Trump's life does not center on alcohol awareness or avoidance. He has proposed no legislation, advances no agenda, and does not regularly give lectures or speeches on abstinence. It is just a piece of trivia, on par with a favorite color or favorite food. Zaathras (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras, I agree about the term teetotaler, which is why I proposed a different wording. I disagree with your other statements.

Trump has also never proposed legislation, advanced an agenda, or regularly given lectures or speeches on the topic of bankruptcy. Ditto for multiple other topics that are covered in the article, so I don't think your criteria from inclusion stands up to scrutiny. He has discussed his choice to abstain from alcohol multiple times over the years, due to his family history, and if you want to really understand who the man is, that's one piece of the puzzle. I can see how adding it to the article would benefit our readers, but I cannot see how consciously excluding it benefits our readers at all. On the contrary. Pecopteris (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

1. Identify the most recent consensus in the archives. I believe this will be a consensus to include, and to include something very specific. 2. Re-implement that consensus. 3. Add an item to the consensus list to prevent this from happening again. 4. Move on to the next earth-shattering issue.

The fact that people forgot about a consensus is not a valid reason to revisit it. A change in the editor mix is not a valid reason to revisit it. Process errors are to be corrected, even if discovered years later. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The section identified by SpaceTime above is the most recent in-depth discussion I could find. Riposte97 (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Good. Step 1 is completed, and discussion should cease at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion took place in February 2021 and didn't make it onto the consensus list. The BOLD edit in April 2022 wasn't challenged for two years, i.e., any reinsertion of the content now is another BOLD edit, according to you and NeilN. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The consensus list is a convenience tool; it doesn't add strength to a consensus (people trying to make that so has been one of the objections to consensus lists, as we saw recently at AN; don't be that guy). And a consensus doesn't have to be in the list to count.

Unless you claim that Feb21 was not a consensus, Apr22 was a process error. Process errors are never legitimate process, no matter how long it takes to discover them. So the de facto consensus argument doesn't hold water. Let's not compound one error with another. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Space4T - at this point the restoration is the process error, particularly the restoration of material other than drinking which is not addressed in this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Your edit here breaches the 24h BRD requirement - please self-revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

First, I agree with Space4T may be asserting support that you don't have. He has not commented since my last, so it's just as likely he was swayed by my reasoning. Not that it matters, but I received explicit support from Valjean and a "thank" from Riposte97.

Your rationale appears to be that a process error ceases to be one if it is not detected for two years. That is a rationale I will never accept, since it means process is as flawed as the humans using it. Process errors must be correctable without a time limit.

Had the Feb2021 consensus been in the consensus list, the Apr22 change would never have been accepted without a superseding consensus. The fact that nobody chose to add it to the list, while unfortunate in hindsight, changes nothing.

As for revisiting the consensus, I would oppose that since I don't see that anything has changed except the editor mix. I have never thought that was a valid reason to revisit a consensus, since it allows consensus to swing back and forth with the wind, resulting in supersessions upon supersessions theoretically without end as editors come and go. There's no reason to believe that Group B's judgment is better than Group A's merely because it comes later. However, unlike the rest of this, that's just one editor's strong viewpoint. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

If you want to put forward an argument based on the inviolability of process, then it becomes even more necessary for you to self-revert. You made an edit and it was reverted; you cannot immediately restore it, as there isn't an exemption in the CTOP process for edits that you believe to be correct.

The existence of a previous discussion neither precludes any further edits nor requires that any such edits be reverted. These were not, establishing a new status quo. This quite simply is not a process error at all - this is how Wikipedia works. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: No. BOLD edits against documented consensus are not allowed, never have been allowed, never will be allowed. The fact that it was missed in Apr22 is completely irrelevant. This is not something subject to consensus, and it certainly is NOT how Wikipedia works. As I said here, you are free to argue that the situation surrounding the Feb21 consensus has changed. You have yet to argue that, let alone get consensus for it. You are not free to trample process because it gets in your way. This can go to AE if necessary, and, if they ruled against me, it might be a good time for my full retirement. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mandruss: What are you basing your assertions here on? I don't see anything in the CTOP provision to support your edit, nor anything in policy that agrees with the assertions you've made in this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I am basing my assertions on nine years of widely, almost universally accepted practice at this article. At least one admin actively participates here, other admins have in the past (MelanieN, NeilN, etc.) and no doubt more than a few others pay enough attention to know what's been going on for nine years. To my knowledge, none—zero—have voiced any objection to how things have been done here. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mandruss: "How things have been done here" is not a policy that you can require others to follow, particularly not when it contradicts actual written rules - and particularly not if you want it to be "not something subject to consensus". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Please quote the policy that an editor can BOLDly edit against an established consensus because they disagree with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

BOLD invites editors to be bold in editing articles; it doesn't include a limitation of "unless the section has ever been discussed". That's because Wikipedia evolves over time, and so does consensus. The fact that something was discussed years ago doesn't outweigh the fact that a different version was in place for years after that. And it definitely doesn't justify contravening CTOP requirements. That is the process error here, and I'd ask again that you revert yourself. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll ask again that you Please quote the policy that an editor can BOLDly edit against an established consensus because they disagree with it. The fact that you haven't done so after my challenge strongly suggests that you can't because no such policy exists. You're demanding policy from me while refusing to offer any yourself, not a good look. I'll decline your request for self-revert in the article and counter with a request to self-revert in the consensus list. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I've pointed you to BOLD, where you can plainly see that the hard-and-fast limits you've proposed don't exist. That's more than you've put forward to support your position.

The 2021 discussion was superseded by a subsequent version unchallenged for years, so at this point adding the 2021 discussion to the consensus list would be inappropriate.

On the other hand, CTOP does have a hard-and-fast rule: "an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message." You'll note there's no reference there to exceptions based on the basis for the edit. This edit was a process error even if every other word you've posted here were correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I have now read BOLD from top to bottom. I see nothing saying or implying that an editor can BOLDly edit against an established consensus because they disagree with it. It does say: "On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes [...]"—and that's without an existing consensus in place. Sorry, but it's insufficient to throw shortcuts around and tie your own interpretations to them. That is a newbie mistake unworthy of you. But it appears we're at an impasse pending other participation. I'd be interested to hear from admin Awilley, for one. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss, for as long as I can remember, there was some small print at the bottom of the American Politics template listing the "discretionary sanctions" for this page. That small print had some exceptions to the 1RR, Consensus Required, and later BRD rules that allowed reverting things like vandalism and edits that went against an explicit consensus. I think the consensus list at the top of this page became a thing because of that exemption. But I don't know if those exemptions made it through ArbCom's more recent rewrite of DS/contentious topic restrictions. I checked the template at the top of this page, and I don't see the exemptions anymore. I haven't been tracking things very closely for the past couple of years, so I'm probably not the best person to ask about recent meta here. ~Awilley (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Note this phrase at the top of the consensus list: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting.... That phrase has been unchanged and unchallenged since it was added in December 2016, showing that it's routine to revert a BOLD edit against an existing consensus. Exactly that has been done without objection hundreds or thousands of times; it could not possibly be any more accepted. Since a list item adds no special status to a consensus, my revert per the unlisted Feb21 consensus was no different and no less legitimate. That leaves you with nothing but a dubious claim about a 24-hr BRD vio—I don't think that applies in this situation, and it seems like wikilawyering at best—but I'd be happy to join you at AE if you want to press the point. Anything further between you and me would likely be circular and repetitive, so let's see if we can avoid that. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Leaving aside the rest of that comment for the moment, why do you believe CTOP does not apply to you? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I object to your premise that I do. I don't recall seeing anyone taken to AE for enforcing well-established process too aggressively, let alone successfully. I'm prepared to be the first. As I suggested, I don't need Wikipedia—and Wikipedia certainly does not need me. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You assert that "I don't think that [CTOP] applies in this situation". Is the basis for this assertion simply that you haven't seen it enforced, or do you have a rationale for why it actually doesn't apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I just checked Mandruss's edits and I can't see the alleged BRD violation. I see one revert followed immediately by a talk page post, then another revert more than 24 hours later, with both reverts pointing to a past discussion. That seems, to me, to be within the letter and the spirit of the BRD rule. In any case, I think it may be best to just move forward from here. It doesn't matter if this particular sentence is in the article while you hammer out the details here. ~Awilley (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Awilley: It doesn't matter if this particular sentence is in the article while you hammer out the details here. Sure, as long as it's understood that the consensus content will be retained/restored if there is no consensus to change it here. My way seems more straightforward and less likely to be abused because the process has been muddied (editors supporting "status quo" without understanding the history of the issue), but the end result would be the same if it's handled correctly. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Should the discussion end with no consensus the preceding status quo prevails. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll take that as strong disagreement with what I said. "Absolutely not" sort of implies you have some authority in the matter. As I've said previously, process errors must be correctable without a time limit. There is little question that the "preceding status quo" was a process error. I don't think even you dispute that. Or do you? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do. There is no rule on Wikipedia that requires anyone to revert. While I appreciate you would prefer that someone had, the fact that no one did is not an error, and does not support ignoring the consensus arrived at through editing since the last discussion. Nor does it change the result of a no-consensus outcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

As I've said previously, the Apr22 change would've been immediately reverted—as a process error—had the Feb21 consensus been in the list. I don't think even you would've objected to that revert. Or would you? Your logic that it stopped being a process error because it wasn't detected for two years just does not hold water. I will accept that logic when you point to PAG language to the effect: "Process errors cease being process errors if not detected for years." Until then, this is nothing more than your opinion, so please stop claiming policy support for it. I'm very sorry this situation is not addressed in PAGs one way or the other; absent that, we are left to what actually makes sense. It does not make sense to give content (or removal/absence of content) legitimacy because it slipped through the cracks due to human error.

For a recent precedent, you can refer to Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 167#Net worth update, where consensus item 5 was found to be in error (not an accurate summary of the underlying discussions) ~six years late. Instead of changing the item to reflect longstanding article content, we changed it to reflect the discussions without objection. Now the article content, the consensus item, and the discussions are all in alignment, as it should always be. So correct process, NOT article content, is the primary arbiter around here. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

What you're describing as my logic is not my logic at all. The Apr22 change could have been reverted then. It was not required to be reverted, then or now. That something that was not required did not happen is not an error, then or now. To assert that it requires reverting back to a years-old discussion and ignoring everything that's transpired since then is not "what actually makes sense". And even that pales in comparison to your last assertion. One of the fundamental principles upon which Wikipedia is based is that if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it. Not "if article content gets in the way of correct process, ignore it". That assertion is incompatible with what we're all meant to be doing here, and any argument based on it "just does not hold water". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

At the end of the day, your views are incompatible with nine years of practice at this article, and that practice is not going to change until there is widespread editor support to change it or there is an ArbCom dictate to change it. Here, a talk page consensus is in effect until cancelled or superseded by subsequent talk page consensus, even if that's five years or fifty. We do not allow attempts to supersede talk page consensus by BOLD editing (hence all the "DO NOT CHANGE WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENSUS PER CONSENSUS X" hidden comments in the article). It is pointless for us to continue arguing about it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Be extremely careful with any argument based on WP:IAR in a contentious article. Consensus is hard fought in these articles requiring huge amounts of editor time. If text has existed for a lengthy period, it is disruptive to boldly change it. Gain consensus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless it has existed (or not existed) clearly out of process. In that case we don't need consensus to change it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me your options are:

• Grudgingly adapt to how we do things here, like everybody else. None of us get the Wikipedia we want. This is my preference since I think someone with your experience could be a valuable contributor here.
• Try to get widespread editor support for a change.
• Try to get ArbCom to issue a dictate for a change. If you're as obviously right as you think you are, that shouldn't be too difficult.
• Find an article more to your liking.

That's a lot of options. Not an option:

• Continue to argue about this, loudly and at great length, every time it comes up, which will be fairly often. That would likely be seen as disruption. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that 24-hr BRD applies in this situation. Nine years of actual practice outweighs any written rules, including CTOP. I honestly doubt the community means for 24-hr BRD to apply to process enforcement. It's about content issues, maybe sometimes fuzzy process issues, but never in my experience clear process issues. When EditorB reverts EditorA per an existing consensus, and EditorA re-reverts, EditorA will be re-re-reverted and will end up at AE if they persist (which has virtually never happened). As I indicated, I've yet to see EditorB go to the talk page to discuss their revert, let alone taken to AE with a 24-hr BRD vio complaint. If EditorB's revert was correct, no discussion or 24-hr wait is required. Very little at Wikipedia is so absolute, nor would we want it to be. That's just how it has to be until there is an independent Wikipedia police force.

And you're still wielding acronyms without pointing to specific language; where is it written that our nine years of actual practice has been wrong? Please stop doing that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You provided that answer yourself, with your claim that "Nine years of actual practice outweighs any written rules, including CTOP". You're preferencing your interpretation of common practice at the page, which is apparently documented nowhere, over documented, site-wide procedure. What's more, you're doing it to defend an action that is not common practice at this page or anywhere else that I'm aware of - to revert to a years-old discussion version when a different version was accepted and remained stable for years in the interim. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• It's just as significant as him playing golf as exercise or the battery thing. It adds 4 words to the article. I mean it's whatever I guess 🤷 Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd object to "teetotaler", too, and the sources only have Trump's word for it, so we'd have to attribute the info to him. Meanwhile his golfing habit is extremely visible, and "the battery thing" along with his habit of not exercising has been reported by numerous sources as outlandishly weird (in Kranish/Fisher and O'Donnell (works cited), I'll have to check other books on Trump; New Yorker, CNN, Vox. People abstaining from alcohol isn't unusual these days. On the other hand: "a relaxing glass of schnapps might have kept him out of Poland" in NATO? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

"It does not belong in an encyclopedia to describe a person of the 21-st century" It's mentioned in other articles like Warren Buffett and Cristiano Ronaldo though, and I'm sure others too. Serrwinner (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Step 2 completed.[2] ―Mandruss ☎ 03:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Well done. Thanks for restoring that consensus version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Step 3 completed.[3] Step 4 is up to individual editors and beyond my control. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump series template

Per talk on Joe Biden's page, should this template be removed from this page? ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't imagine why. If the template doesn't have a place in the top-level Trump article, we might as well delete it. Is there another way to easily locate all Trump articles organized by subtopic area? If so, I'm not aware of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I've since understood the importance of these series articles. Especially true in Trump's case as there's so many articles about him. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Specific proposed wording for moderately expanded lede

During the RFC about the potential use of "convicted felon" in the first sentence, there was talk of mentioning his conviction in the second sentence. In the course of this discussion, I wrote up a draft of how the first paragraph might look with this change, which a few people liked as a starting point — one even suggested starting a new RfC with my proposal. I don't want to open that can of worms unless there's demand for it, but I do at least want to put it here to get people's thoughts, rather than leaving it mired in the previous RFC. In its original wording, it read:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. A member of the Republican Party, he is known for his commanding influence over that party's politics beginning in the mid-2010s, as well as being the first former president to be convicted of a crime.

Thinking more about it, and reading the section above where Cessaune mentioned the same idea, I might revise my initial draft to:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. A member of the Republican Party, he is known for his commanding influence over that party's politics beginning in the mid-2010s, his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and his status as the first former president to be convicted of a crime.

The proposal would be to change the first paragraph to include this sentence or something like it, while leaving the rest of the lead section as it is.

This is still a rough draft, but is it worth exploring? Or should this discussion be laid to rest for the time being?

Agreeable-absurdist (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC) Agreeable-absurdist (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Support the structure, particularly the first version. I would support "convicted on felony crimes," not just a crime, which is highly notable. Overturning the 2020 election is already in the lead in more detail. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Support / Comment - despite my highlighting of a potentially-incompatible alternative below, I still think these quickly hit the important points and bring it more into what is a de facto standard form for all POTUS articles I've compared.

Also you've done a probably better (and probably adequate for this moment of history) job of touching on something I struggled to cleanly articulate when I was writing my long-winded version [4] back on the 31st.

Which is: does "A member of the Republican party' communicate a fact clearly (at least in the same way it does when party affiliation is brought up early in other articles).

Because like … look at the state of Sixth Party System (with a `- 2016?` in the infobox and everything). It seems at once clearly accurate to say that he is a member (and indeed leader) of the Republican Party as it exists today (and at least for the next 5 months, and if he wins one presumes ~4 years); but I'm less clear that its meaningfully accurate to say the same (that he was a member) of the party from which he was elevated to the presidency. And its too early to know whether this is official-names-of-organizations-lagging a durable schism that has already happened (akin to equating the modern Democratic Party to the Democratic-Republicans )

anyway, </psuedo-academic musing>

Donald Guy (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2024

I would like to edit several biased parts of this Wikipedia page, which is people's opinions, and has no proper backing to support those claims. I would like to request these claims to be made clear that they are claims, instead of presented as facts, as Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased source of information for people to go to for information, and placing bias into it only serve to discredit the accuracy of Wikipedia, as is already the case. Bernard Stoltz (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.. Also see Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Early inlining of extant relevant main article links (or "Compact disambiguation as lede")

Hello, I was checking back in on what if anything had been elaborated on with my expansion proposal from the 31st (and managed to spend quite a while looking for where it got lost in history before archiving before realizing it was still actively on here 😅) [It's above my payvolunteer-grade to make such a call, but it doesn't look like its trending towards consensus, and I see the valid arguments against (textual) expansion via consensus process.]

(But/therefore) I wanted to bubble up / highlight as separable and tighter scoped for specific consideration the last point(s) I made on the 31st:

— attempting to respond specifically to R. G. Checkers's point ~To be frank, Donald Trump is hard to explain in one paragraph, — I said

"query then also (and whether it hasn't been discussed before) whether a different structural/hypertext approach might be more effective… keep wording and structure as is but make heavier early use of links to existing articles, e.g.

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021."

…"

[I then also gave a more dramatic restructured-as-not-prose alternative, but that is a much WP:BOLDer move for a contested article than adding links to existing articles to existing wording).]

So consider this potentially a concrete proposal;

but perhaps first a point of order from a less-than-expert editor as to if, in fact, there is existing specific policy/style opposing use of such an approach for a multi-faceted subject that pre-empts serious consideration

Thanks, Donald Guy (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Acknowledgment of argument in the alternative I also (still) equally-to-stronger support the similar-but-more-concise-than-my-proposal approach being looked at two sections up,

but despite all the anchored words being retained in that, I'm not fully sure that and this are practically compatible: as that probably amounts to a more decisive editorial decision to singularly center his presidency - whereas this would be, to my mind, trying to improve relevant-info-accessibility for visitors to the article researching the man for "any of his 3 careers"

and like … as a proposal now and 2 weeks ago, it kinda amounts to an attempt to practically improve-as-a-tool-for-navigation what I think is something of a … Nash equilibrium of a compromise as, per se, a lede. Donald Guy (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I may be a bit woozy from lack of sleep, but huh? And why are you starting a new discussion when your earlier one (#Expanding_first_paragraph_in_general_(what_is_notable_enough_to_overtake_chronology?) is still open? Also, you're proposing three MOS:EGGs for the first sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

> Why are you starting a new discussion when your earlier one is still opoen?

Like I said in <small>, I spent an embarrassing amount of time before writing this thinking that discussion had already been archived (or had been errantly deleted instead when I failed to find it in the archive), so maybe remained captured in that perspective.

And/but that seems just on the cusp of auto-archiving without any sort of resolution, so I wanted to pull this somewhat separable proposal out before it got lost. But It's very possible that was either premature or a bad cal

> Also, you're proposing three MOS:EGGs for the first sentence.

I wanted to clarify whether this sort of thing was actually against policy or just uncommon.

That (MOS:EGGs) is a valid referent/citation (but not one I was familiar with before, per se).

Reasonable minds may differ; Personally, While, I freely acknowledge that the links are not to the articles for the broadest refrants of the terms, I personally would never expect them to resolve that way in this context.

I know this because I did/do find the link to POTUS there itself pretty confusing. I'll admit that I wouldn't necessarily a priori think of Presidency of Donald Trump as the target of that link instead, but only because I was unaware keeping articles on a presidency separate from the president was established practice. Now that I do know that, that is my adjusted expectation. (nevertheless I did seek to clarify this in that case by shifting from "45th president of the United States" to " 45th president of the United States")

And I think that follows clear enough for "is an American politician, media personality, and businessman" as well; but I don't suggest no one could be confused.

I'd suggest any frustration experienced there could substantially be ameliorated by making sure those targets carry themselves an early link to the Donald Trump independent concept in their respective ledes to facilitate rapid movement from the specific to general if that _was_ what was wanted.

_But_ if that is a definite no-no then I return to my second referenced but not quoted more dramatic suggestion, the possibility of treating the multi-hyphenate subject as worthy of personal disambiguation to these main articles (if not in/as the lede than perhaps as a hatnote?

or a novel kind of <ref> alike. (cf. Template:Citation_needed, but perhaps like ^{[main article]} or ^[focus] or ^{[more info]} )

> huh?

At core is my frustration that so much accessible information is left on the table as is.

If the outcome of NPOV-and-consensus process applied to the lede is to refuse to characterize the man as primarily any one role from his life (on the basis of recency or relative-notability-as-practiced-by-others), then it seems to follow to me, for consistency of application of that editorial stance, that further efforts could and should be taken to offer the ways those are already broken out (either the main articles, again all of which already independently pre-exist; or skipping ahead to the relevant section of this article)

---

but anyway, I am probably overdue to stop having opinions about this article in particular and perhaps should go be of use elsewhere Donald Guy (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The editing suggestion is, frankly, not good. MOS:EGG is a valid concern here. Zaathras (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Use the wide name!

The name Donald J. Trump is widely used in official documents, social media and newspapers. Please stop insisting on the original name. 81.214.81.191 (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

We go by wp:commonname. Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

See current consensus item 12. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand our WP guidelines. Please, take a look at WP:COMMONNAME and the WP Manual of Style. Donald Trump without the middle initial is still by far the most commonly used name. I'm pretty sure that Michael R. Pence does not qualify as WP:COMMONNAME, either, your [editsum] in that case being Pence's Vice Presidential title is that. In other articles we can say "Mike Pence" but we have to use Vice Presidential Title (Michael R. Pence) in describing as Vice President and Donald J. Trump's running mate. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Expanding first paragraph in general (what is notable enough to overtake chronology?)

While looking across Andrew Johnson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama in service of writing my comment in discussion above,

it is clear that regardless of the outcome of conviction-specific conversations, the first paragraph here is cut significantly down from typical of U.S. Presidents, most of whom have less notability in other fields

I know (from the "current consensus" box) that several points (of specific inclusion & exclusion) have been the topic of several discussions already in the last few years, but the result seems to have been progressive minimalism, whereas it seems to me there are several useful points for inclusion that fall within precedents and NPOV.

I would propose that what currently reads:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

would be more in line with other presidents if it read something like:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, and who is currently seeking a second term. Elected as the nominee of the Republican Party, he is also understood as leading his own political movement within & beyond the party.. As reflected in slogans popularized by and strongly associated with him, he has advocated an open embrace (and implemented policies consistent with) both nationalist ("America First") and reactionary ("Make America Great Again") approaches to American politics; there has been much more divergence surrounding corruption: with many perceiving him as opposing it (as "the Swamp", "the Deep State", and "the Steal") while he has also been investigated, impeached , indicted, and in one case convicted of crimes while seeking, performing, and departing the presidency.

... you know, or something like that. thoughts? Donald Guy (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support* as these are all objectively factual statements.

Redditmerc (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think your version is a significant improvement compared to the current one. Besides some minor grammatical issues, it looks good. Opportunity Rover (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Notes

• Support this lead-for-the-lead approach, not sure on what should be included therein (AMPOL is not my forte, although I follow it closely). A one-sentence opening paragraph is extremely unusual for someone this notable, and unencyclopaedic too.

I think your proposal starts out strong with the first two sentences, but gives too much detail thereafter, which more properly belongs in later paragraphs of the lead. I would suggest something like [Your first two sentences, and then-] As president of the Trump Organization, he was involved in numerous real estate developments in New York City for a number of years, with mixed success. As US President, he implemented several conservative and economically protectionist policies, while also assailing mainstream media for its perceived bias against him. He is the only US President to have been impeached twice by the House of Representatives and to have been convicted of felonies. And then continue with the rest of the lead as is. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 05:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• It may be a good idea to discuss this after the RfC. We can't have too much going on at once. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  On the contrary, expanding the first paragraph will cater to both parts of emerging consensus - that it is necessary to prominently mention the conviction in the lead, and that at the same time adding the conviction to the frail one-sentence lead we have right now will fall afoul of DUE. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 05:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  It is this way because of years of consensus and discussion and it won't be changing over night, and I don't expect there to be agreement on the wording. The more wording you propose the less likely consensus will be met, especially on this article. To be frank, Donald Trump is hard to explain in one paragraph, which is why we have the bloated lead section and the simple, non-controversial first sentence and paragraph. But sure, I'm open to expansion, but I really do think it would be best to see the completion of the RfC first so that its consensus may be a guiding tool and onus here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough, and I hope the two suggestions in this thread can serve as a base for fresh discussion after the RfC.

  As an aside, is it time for the talk page to be temporarily semi-protected? None of the IPs and fresh accounts are adding anything of substance. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 05:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's not a decision for me to make, but I've seen some substantive contributions from IP's here and, naturally, some not. Hopefully, the closer of the RfC, who should be an experienced one, can cipher the good from the bad. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  query then also (and whether it hasn been discussed before) whether a different structural/hypertext approach might be more effective:

  • keep wording and structure as is but make heavier early use of links to existing articles, e.g.

  Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

  • forgo traditional structure for a lede and either ("simply" front-load the table of contents instead, or admit some sort of disambiguation-like un-prosed structure, e.g.

  Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American variously notable in his capacities as:

  • a politician — having served as the the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, currently seeking re-election to presidency, as well as competing in presidential primaries in 2000 and public ally
  • a media personality — having co-produces and hosted The Apprentice, participated in professional wrestling, and appeared (as himself) in various film & television projects
  • a businessman — overseeing the Trump Organization in developing & managing various real estate holdings, as well as developing numerous lines of personally branded merchandise
  • [pending ongoing discussions] a litigant and criminal defendant

  Donald Guy (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Then, if the RFC above comes out as adding convicted felon/criminal you'd have a section for that too and it's even more called out. It might be better to have just the table of contents where you can have the category simply labeled "Civil and Criminal something something". Outcast95 (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  The table of contents does not show up for mobile users, who are a significant portion of our readers. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Good point, then I have to go back to thinking it's appropriate for the current single sentence lede. But a paragraph lede including it would be the most appropriate thing. Outcast95 (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

yes, despite where I ended up on that abivr draft I mostly agree that it probably shouldn't necessarily actually focus exclusively on his presidency (though focus of two sentences doesnt seem unresonable)

I kinda think The Apprentice may still deserve some mention as well. and like I think there is a viable NPOV through line here but I can't quite put my finger on it

like...

"pursuing a strategy of personal branding and celebrity, Trump succesfully grew in recognizability from real estate developer, to figure of NYC tabloid coverage, to household name of film & television, to leader of a political movement and the first person elected to presidency of the united states without prior political or military office. Concerted attempts to control image and narratives have also seen him run well afoul of the law, notably becoming also the first president convinced of a felony: 34 counts of falsification of business records in the state of New York in the commission of another crime"

that's not necessarily better... but it's differently bad at least 😅 Donald Guy (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment. If it's not in the body, it doesn't go into the lead. And if you don't present reliable sources, it doesn't go in the body, either. Are there RS e.g. for "leading his own political movement within & beyond the party", "reflected in slogans", etc.? Also, the first paragraph is currently under discussion in the RfC. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Just talking, there's definitely sources on the MAGA movement. As to that movement being "both nationalist and reactionary approaches to American politics"? That's gonna be another RFC, with sources on both sides. But also, do we take those kinds of subjective stances? It's objectively true he's leading a movement, but you'd be hard pressed to objectively determine the other stuff without Wikipedia taking a meta political science position. Sorry for the motormouth, but I do a lot more politics than I do wiki editing. Outcast95 (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Support For making the sentence an actual lede paragraph. That seems to be at least part of the problem in the discussion above. But I would hold back on some of that wording. The third sentence specifically is doing a lot of work and could be hard to support in a wiki article let alone a lede. I would suggest something like -

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. He is known for his real estate business and he starred on The Apprentice from 2004-2017. He is currently the 2024 Republican leading candidate and expected nominee. He is also the first American President to be convicted on felony charges.

note - I suck at the actual writing part, so this is just a rough example. Outcast95 (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

While I like Wilhelm's above example of what this would like like, in practice I could easily see the introduction of such a paragraph to be mired by multiple RFCs like the one we see above on every little detail. While I don't love the one-sentence opening paragraph, keeping the lead in chronological order helps to prevent a lot of time-wasting battles over what is more notable than what. Yeoutie (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Isn't an RFC naturally a moot point after we have a consensus though? Also, we're going to have RFC's for quite a while on the conviction thing anyways. I'm not against sorting the lede chronologically. It would look hilarious, since his being president is obviously the most important bit. But right now the chronological paragraph that is the first actual paragraph is the normal second paragraph of a bio on Wikipedia; talking about his birth and college. That breaks with the other pages on US presidents. If we did a lede in hybrid I think it could work well. So the sentence subjects in order would be Presidency; Businessman; Media Personality; Criminal Conviction. So something more like-

Donald Trump served as the 45th President of the United States from 2017 to 2020 and is the presumptive Republican nominee for the 2024 presidential campaign. His presidency was marked by the trade war with China and the beginning of the Covid 19 Pandemic. Donald Trump is also a businessman and media personality. He runs a family real estate business and appeared on the TV show The Apprentice from 2004 to 2017. On May 31st 2024 he became the first US President to be convicted of felony charges.

Outcast95 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It helps if such proposals don't get far without appropriate copy edits. If they ultimately become consensus, then we're faced with the question of how much we can copy edit without violating the consensus. If you change it, the article content no longer matches what was agreed to. That's a headache. As we saw recently, an editor couldn't even remove an Oxford comma without violating consensus 50.

Donald Trump served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2020 and is the presumptive Republican nominee for the 2024 presidential election. His presidency was marked by the trade war with China and the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump is also a businessman and media personality. He runs a family real estate business and appeared on the TV show The Apprentice from 2004 to 2017. On May 31, 2024, he became the first U.S. president to be convicted of felony charges.

―Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll support this version. DN (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples: I've now changed "campaign" to "election". Just in case that changes your support. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be a very neutral account for the lead. I support the changes suggested. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I am definitely not a copy editor. I'm just trying to suggest a good neutral lede that could stand for at least the next few months without adjustment. And have that lede be in line with other articles for US Presidents. Outcast95 (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Support this wording, which covers the most important points in a neutral fashion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Please let's refrain from changing the first sentence with this. C 50 is contentious as it is and there is an discussion to change it.

Removed mention of family business and apprentice. Those are already alluded to in the agreed upon first sentence and need no further expansion. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section states that leads should be concise, not wordy. Revised lead below:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. His presidency was marked by the trade war with China and the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. On May 31, 2024, he became the first U.S. president to be convicted of felony charges.

Editing-dude144 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose any expansion, if anything we need to tighten the lede in general. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

You want to tighten a lede that’s one-sentence long? Opportunity Rover (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose -- The existing single sentence is all that needs to be in the first paragraph. All of these other points should be covered chronologically in the rest of the lead. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Fake News Strikes Again

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

---

If Wikipedia wanted to be known for honest,and fact based news and documentation they would stop being so biased. This article on Donald J. Trump is so full of Untruths and shows exactly where Wikipedia stands, politically and morally. 2601:40D:681:7750:443E:D3E1:57FE:28CF (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Donald_Trump/Response_to_claims_of_bias O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

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

RfC: Supreme Court justices appointed by Trump and Roe v. Wade

This sentence had been added in the lead section of the article but a user removed it. Do you agree with adding this in the lead section of the article?

«He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court; they were crucial in overturning Roe v. Wade, which had established the constitutional right to abortion.» Esterau16 (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't belong in the lead section, IMHO. Also, Trump nominated them for the Supreme Court. By saying he appointed them, it suggests they didn't need US Senate confirmation. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

No, it does not belong in the lead. It's not an unimportant detail and is included in the body, but does not belong in the lead section which is supposed to be very concise. R. G. Checkers ^talk 20:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Not important enough for the lead. Can be mentioned in the body like most other controversies and events. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, we could say that he nominated three justices, which is unusual, but I think giving the names of all three is a bit too much detail for the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

3J is OK for lead Highly unusual 3 appointments, highly consequential shift of court, and a key 2016 campaign promise fulfilled. Roe and justices' names do not need to be in lead. Better to trim trivia like college, renaming Trump Org, etc. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, we can name the justices, but shouldn't mention Roe or other cases. Pecopteris (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Name appointments, exclude Dobbs v. Jackson W.H.O., though it can go in the "Judiciary" section of the presidency. Roe was overturned during Biden's presidency by Trump's justices + Thomas & Alito, not Trump himself. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a dig at anyone - but we don't always need bolded !votes, and it encourages people to not engage in more substantial discussion in my opinion. I agree that the justices he appointed are completely due for the body, and the fact he appointed 3 justices may be due for the lead. There is zero reason any of SCOTUS' decisions that they made after his appointment(s) should be included here. To do so is to trivialize SCOTUS and to try and predict what would've happened without or with different appointments by Trump. Overall I haven't seen much persuasive reasoning why the names of the justices themselves are important for the lead, but I'm also not really opposed to them being included as they all have their own articles that provide context. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

We should name the justices.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we should name the appointees. Three justices in four years in atypical (recall that Carter made no appointments to the Supreme Court). I would not specifically name the overturning of Roe. I might say instead that Trump's appointments shifted the direction of the Court. Neutrality^talk 21:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. DN (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Trump v. Anderson from '2024 Presidential Campaign'

I reverted prior edits removing Trump v. Anderson from the '2024 Presidential Campaign' subheading as there was no consensus to remove it. No consensus was given in its removal resulting from this discussion post. Removal of such was done on the basis of an off-handed comment despite prior consensus having already been reached to retain it. No further support for removal was mentioned by anyone other than the petitioner. Petition for its removal can be done here to develop consensus as, WP:NOCON: "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." LosPajaros (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

additional contention for removal as seen in this discussion also did not provide any consensus for removal of it. LosPajaros (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Bias.

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

---

Your editors can keep claiming there is no bias in this article but for those of us living in the objective reality, it's as clear as day to anyone with a functional cerebral cortex that this article is riddled with democrat talking points, opinions, and deductions rather than actual sources. 216.175.28.83 (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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

article bias

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

---

As someone impartial to the politics of the USA, reading through entries of the individual presidents is very disorienting. These writers seem to have a heavy bias against Trump, where in the introductory section, most others recount the president’s actions during their term, this article seems to almost exclusively mention negative things. In comparison, what I’ve seen on social media currently is the public heavily questioning Joe Biden’s mental faculties, yet the only mention of that entire subject is one line in an almost euphemistic way. 133.159.123.180 (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, there are more negative things about Trump (proportionally) than these other presidents? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Addition to the lead

I have been asked to create a talk discussion here regarding mentioning this person is a fraudster in the lead sentence. This is necessary for it is consistent with primary articles. Eg. on the Andrew Wakefield article, due to his criminal conviction of medical fraud he is listed as a fraudster explicitly in the lead; the same should apply on this article (as this person has been criminally convicted of fraud). Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

That is not how we describe people in BLP articles. If anything, what you have done is point out that this Andrew Wakefield article is problematic and likely needs its lede sentence toned down. Zaathras (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This does not seem to be so considering there are in fact many similar articles which follow this convention unanimously, referenced in the previous discussion as I recall. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

To use your example, Wakefield would not have a Wikipedia article if it was not for his fraud. Trump did have one long before he was convicted of fraud. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Wakefield I imagine might have had the article prior to his conviction of fraud since that occurred following quite some time after his controversial takes and study publication.

Regardless, on the contrary, selectively excluding negative information in the lead may be unethical. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

We just had a very similar discussion around this, and there was no consensus to alter the lead sentence. It's worth pointing out that his conviction is already mentioned elsewhere in the lead. — Czello ^(music) 22:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)