Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 153

Archive 150

Archive 151

Archive 152

Archive 153

Archive 154

Archive 155

→

Archive 160

Alternative descriptions of Trump's positions for top of lead

The list of Trump's policy positions "isoloationist, nationalist..." was removed and reinstated up top in the lead. Because this article is not a snapshot of 2017-8 NPOV, it's appropriate to revisit that and consider what is most noteworthy about Trump as politician and president.

From what I see in current sources, what is most noteworthy is not what are conventionally called policy positions such as we now have up top in the lead. Some of what's now considered most significant is the firehose of manufactured controversy and nonsense that obscured significant national and international issues without addressing them. Some is empowering long dormant or suppressed fringe elements within the American population. We have the benefit now, 2 years past his departure, of an increasing number of solid tertiary sources, including many by notable academics. This reference material needs to be read and culled for the most significant characteristics of Trump the president. Anyone who's not familiar with these sources can go to google-books, set date range 2021-2023 and see what's been published. Of course there are also many such references that have not been published as full length "books." SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

What has changed though? We're veering away from common descriptors of his policy into criticisms of his management style (see below). Those are orthogonal issues; how he ran his government is mostly unrelated to the kinds of policies he enacted or tried to enact. He was (and continues to be) described as populist. His positions on trade, and on US foreign policy, and economics, were, and as far as I know, continue to be described as protectionist, isolationist and nationalist. The deal is, we don't have space in the lead to get into nuance, or to cite hundreds of such sources in the lead. Based on the actual material presented in the body of the article, all four words accurately describe his politics. Populist may be possible removed, because again that's not really about policy, but in general I think the other three words accurately summarize what the body of the article expands on. Donald Trump#Foreign policy "Trump described himself as a "nationalist"[336] and his foreign policy as "America First".[337] He espoused isolationist, non-interventionist, and protectionist views.[338][339]...Trump questioned the need for NATO,[338] criticized the U.S.'s NATO allies, and privately suggested on multiple occasions that the United States should withdraw from the alliance.[343][344]...He withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations,[347] imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports,[348] and launched a trade war with China by sharply increasing tariffs on 818 categories (worth $50 billion) of Chinese goods imported into the U.S.[349]..." I mean, that's just one bit. While we can't exactly put all that in the lead, all of that accurately is summarized by terms like "nationalist" and "isolationist" and "protectionist". --Jayron32 21:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Our articles, not only on Trump but on many contemporary issues, are burdened by the primary and secondary coverage that occurred while the articles were being written. I don't see any top academic or tertiary notable commentators discussing aluminum tarriffs as one of the top personal characteristics or priorities of Trump. It's insructive to look at the Britannica article, e.g. this section. Not that WP and Britannica have identical missions, but they do have the benefit of free reign to update based on improved sourcing and perspective, whereas there is huge inertia on WP due to editors prioritizing stale text over NPOV. NPOV changes as more is known and written, and in the case of Trump the reportage initially started from a journalistic deference to the man due to the stature of his office and title. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

What has changed? Not accepting the outcome of elections, the Big Lie, inciting his followers to overturn. The actions he took as president, summarized in the fourth paragraph of the lead, are more important than his campaign slogans in 2016. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It looks like you're doing what Jayron32 roughly cautioned against, "We're veering away from common descriptors of his policy into criticisms of his management style." Whereas it's not just management style criticisms but criticisms in general. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Please provide links to some of these sources for us to review. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

His most notable working policy was making deception and disinformation his de facto operating policies for everything. Government by chaos ("around-the-clock chaos"[1] worked well for him, as it does with other autocrats. He never tried to be presidential. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

That presents a challenge to us. When the current text was written, you could not even have suggested anything like that on this page. Now, with the benefit of several well-researched books and the reporting of subsequent events, that view at least needs serious consideration. SPECIFICO talk 22:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is one such tertiary reference, published last year: The Presidency of Donald J. Trump A First Historical Assessment, Princeton University Press SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Another tertiary source that "Demonstrates how the Trump presidency differs from any preceding administration".Explores the authoritarian themes that have emerged under Trump's leadership and how to counter them. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, The Trump Effect Disruption and Its Consequences in US Politics and Government another RS collection of academic evaluations. SPECIFICO talk 01:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

And typical of the dozen or so books by journalists and notable commentators, this highly regarded 2022 work by Baker and Glasser.

So, instead of keeping the collection of secondary-sourced news events curated by WP editors -- which is basically our OR as to significance, as well as seat-of-the-pants estimates as to enduring WEIGHT, editors should be drawing on the remarkable body of tertiary sourcing that's becoming available.

Instead of googling on the NEWS tab, we need also need to use the BOOKS or SCHOLAR search modes with recent dates specified. SPECIFICO talk 01:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's only true because it always has been for all subjects (science, history, etc.); we only have the data we have now. Wikipedia is not permanent, we only strive to use the data we currently have; if and when the data changes, we update to reflect the new data. That's just how this works. Your criticism boils down to "Well, I don't think the stuff we have now is true; so I'm waiting for things I think to be true to be published later". That's not how this works. If and when someone produces sources that contradict the current data in a convincing way, we can update. But we have no reason to presume the current data is wrong, absent those sources. You say that better sources exist that contradict the sources in the article currently, and provided some. Can you explain how the Baker and Glasser book, for example, establish that Trumps policies were not nationalist, or isolationist, or protectionist? --Jayron32 12:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Jayron, "Well, I don't think the stuff we have now is true; so I'm waiting for things I think to be true to be published later". That is not at all what I said. The issue is WEIGHT and NPOV. Yes, there are still sources that characterize those as the most significant points about Trump's policies. But those are no longer the key characteristics discussed and documented in mainstream sources. Please don't ridicule my attempt to make a reasoned suggestion that we revisit that wording. I'm disappointed an Admin would take that tack, and I'm not going to engage you further on this. SPECIFICO talk 12:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

How so, though? I mean, the lack of evidence is not the evidence of lacking... Are sources currently saying that those characterizations are incorrect or do they just not mention them. Finding sources that don't mention something is trivial. What we need here is sources that positively assert that the prior information is wrong. Do the more current sources do that? --Jayron32 12:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's be careful to be mindful of WP:NPOV, for this page & Joe Biden's page. Barring the unexpected, they'll be the 2024 major party presidential nominees. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone editing this page is well aware of that. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Although the title of this section is "Alternative descriptions of Trump's positions for top of lead", so far no edit has been proposed. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

No one appointed you the timekeeper, nor are any of us hourly Wikimedia employees. The discussion will unfold as it needs to. Zaathras (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

What? Zaathras, really? How many times have things been shut down on the basis that no edit had been proposed? This is a common complaint, and, looking back through the archives, one you have raised or agreed with on multiple occasions. Cessaune [talk] 22:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Is that constructive, Cessaune? Often IPs show up making "edit requests" without a requested edit. That's not what's on the table here. First off, this discussion was prompted by the removal and reinstatement of our established content, per the thread immediately above this one. I cited just small number of the published tertiary evaluations that we all could read and see whether the current text reflects the dominant narratives. There are collections of essays by noted academics that we should look at to check our current text. Those are not best sellers. I don't own them and likely few editors do. But they should be available in local libraries and judging by the excerpts and summaries in google books, there is lots of thoughtful material to be seen. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your statement as much as I agree with Bob's. I was just pointing out the fact that Bob's statement was pretty reasonable, all things considered. Obviously, this discussion is many orders of magnitude higher than the typical IP's generalized claim of bias. I just didn't like the phrasing Zaathras used. It seems to me that Bob was asking a pretty simple question: What are we actually trying to accomplish with this discussion? Personally, I find it pretty obvious, but... Cessaune [talk] 03:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Specifico, You might try leading by example and find something in one of your sources that you can use to propose an edit to the article along the lines of what you are trying to do in this section. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree with what SPECIFICO said. And since some said that no text was being proposed: well, mine is (through with "Democratic backsliding" as the heading, and with "Trumpism" in the first sentence replaced with "Trump's presidency"; that was bad wording on my part).

It is entirely sourced to scholars (notable scholars at that!), thereby avoiding RSBREAKING, and it's representative of a wider academic consensus. DFlhb (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2023

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.

---

I'd like to request an edit to remove the biased statement: " Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic." m (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

How is it biased, they have been. Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done The sentence summarizes the reliably-sourced content of the sections titled "Racial views" and "Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct" As this sentence seems to accurately summarize the text of the main part of the article, per WP:LEAD, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." (bold mine). The statement is appropriate as dictated by Wikipedia guidelines. --Jayron32 13:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Not in the article is the fact that Trump issued the following statement from the White House on Aug. 14, 2017, after the Charlottesville white supremacist rally.[2]

"As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America.

And as I have said many times before: No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God. We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.

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.

We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our Creator. We are equal under the law. And we are equal under our Constitution. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America."

Bob K31416 (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

If you want a discussion (another one) about this, an edit rewust is not the place. Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

You might have a better discussion at Racial views of Donald Trump but see e.g. [3][4][5][6]. Sandizer (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Trump has made thousands and thousands of publicly recorded speeches. We needn't quote one. Also what Trump has to say about himself is of less concern than on what reliable independent sources say about him. --Jayron32 16:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Also not in the article is this item.[7]

"After nearly two dozen people were killed on Aug. 3, 2019, in a shooting at a Wal-Mart in El Paso, Trump said: 'The shooter in El Paso posted a manifesto online consumed by racist hate. In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry, and white supremacy. These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America. Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart, and devours the soul. We have asked the FBI to identify all further resources they need to investigate and disrupt hate crimes and domestic terrorism — whatever they need.' "

Bob K31416 (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You were already responded to on this, just about Charlottesville. What new are you bringing to the discussion that won't have the exact same response? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2023 (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.

2024

As far as I am aware there are no official candidates, hell we have not even had the primaries. A lot can happen in year. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You can have official candidates before the primaries. They are official candidates for the primaries. They are candidates for their party's nomination. They are not official party nominees, but they are candidates. Trump and Haley are candidates for their party nomination in the 2024 election. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The article currently states (with references): "On November 15, 2022, Trump announced his candidacy for the 2024 United States presidential election and set up a fundraising account.[702][703]" Are you disputing the factual accuracy of that statement? Are you saying Trump did not make that announcement? --Jayron32 15:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It is more likely, based on how they mentioned the primaries, that they have confused "candidate" with "party nominee" --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

No I am saying a lot can happen between now and then. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Well if he chokes on a Big Mac tomorrow, sure, we can just remove him from the categorization. But for the moment he is a declared 2024 candidate. Nikki Haley is already there, too. ValarianB (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

That's like saying we can't call someone "president-elect" after the general election because a lot can happen between November and January. Trump is a candidate for the 2024 election. If he pulls out of the race or something, we will note that, but he will always have been a candidate for the 2024 election because he is one right now. He can end his candidacy, but it doesn't change that, for at least some amount of time, he was a candidate for the election. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I'm not asking you predict the future, I am only asking you to interpret a report of already past events. Is the statement "On November 15, 2022, Trump announced his candidacy for the 2024 United States presidential election and set up a fundraising account.[702][703]" accurate as written? Did Trump really do that? --Jayron32 13:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I have said why I object. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Your statement is counterfactual, it is like objecting because the sky is red. It simply isn't true that he hasn't announced that he is a candidate; he has done so. Your objection makes no sense, and unless you can clarify, expect the objection to be ignored and not acted on in any way. --Jayron32 17:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK, there's two major candidates (at the moment, Trump & Haley) vying for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That does not respond to the issue under discussion here, which is Verification. SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand this section at all. Are we suggesting that it's not verified that Trump and Haley are announced candidates for the 2024 election? What are we doing here? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Nor do I, but apparently the issue is whether "candidate" is used by RS to mean she who appears on the ballot rather than she who declares herself a candidate, raises money, presents herself on media, etc. That would be a verification issue, I believe and secondarily I suppose could be a WEIGHT issue as well. I was just reminding GoodDay that their personal AFAIK did not address what appears above. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a moot point to talk about appearing on ballots as none of the 2024 ballots have yet been printed. Haley and Trump have both filed the necessary paperwork with the FEC and announced they're running; therefore, they are candidates, until they aren't (either via withdrawal, defeat, or victory). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO, what appears on the ballot isn't relevant. The definition (legal or otherwise) of "candidate" isn't "appeared on the ballot." It's whether or not they are an official candidate, i.e. whether they have made the announcement, filed with the FEC, etc. Both Trump and Haley have done so and are candidates. The opening to the discussion suggests that we can't say who is or isn't a candidate until after the primaries, which is just not true, and also refutes the point about names appearing on the ballot (assuming neither withdraws their candidacy between now and then, their names will both appear on ballots during the primaries, yet the opening of this discussion indicates that even being on the ballot for the primaries isn't enough to call them "candidates"). For example, Steve Bullock was a candidate for president in 2020, is in the category for 2020 presidential candidates, because he did have a campaign and an FEC filing, however, he ended his campaign before the Iowa caucuses, and as far as I am aware, his name did not appear on any ballot. However, he was still a candidate, if only for a short time, and we correctly treat him as such. Again, though, @Slatersteven is operating under the factually incorrect belief that we cannot know who the candidates are until after the primaries, whether that's in the form of "did they appear on any ballot" or "are they the party nominee" or "anything can happen between now and then," they are still factually wrong. Essentially, it doesn't really even matter on what point they are confused or incorrect about as, ultimately, Trump and Haley are both (legally and officially), candidates for president in 2024. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I said the discussion I described was pointless. SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that you described the discussion as "pointless" until right now. As I am not a mind reader, I've no way of knowing that was your opinion *shrugs* --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeh, pretty tricky. Muboshgu said "don't understand this section at all" and then I said "nor do I". and then you... etc. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, "pretty tricky," given that "not understanding" and "pointless" are not synonymous statements. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agree with you again.🕵🏻‍♀️ SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

What is the big deal here, we're just placing the article into Category:Candidates in the 2024 United States presidential election. His candidacy has been covered by the sources. I swear people nitpick over the dumbest shit here sometimes. ValarianB (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump is a candidate for 2024. That's fact and it can be categorized as such. Nothing else to say. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 21:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yup, same with Nikki Haley's page & any other candidates bio pages. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Trump political positions deleted from lead

A long standing part of the lead was recently deleted.[8]

"Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist."

The edit summary said, "Trimming 'political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist' — that was the description back in 2016. It would be less positive now."

Here's a Wikipedia article on the subject Political positions of Donald Trump. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It has been 3 years since his presidency's ignominious end. Surely there are more current reflections on the nature of Trumpism and the aims of his lone term in office. ValarianB (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The deletion makes sense. I would say that most of what's currently the final paragraph of the lead should be in the second paragraph, to put the significant facts up top for our readers. SPECIFICO talk 13:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say that statement needs to be returned to the lead in some fashion; he's most notable as the holder of a major political office; the scholarly analysis of his politics is therefore supremely relevant. If he were most notable as a businessman or a TV star, they may not be, but as an erstwhile President, and as someone who continues to make himself notable in the political realm, his politics themselves are supremely relevant. If the analysis of his politics has changed, we can reflect that. I have not seen any more recent source that contradicts the statement that was removed; but if you have found a preponderance of better, more recent sources that say hes political positions are no longer "populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist" then please, by all means, update the information, but it needs to be in the lead in some form. --Jayron32 14:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a summary of his policy and political messages should go somewhere in the lead, not necessarily up top as it was. We should research whether RS currently describe him in such ambiguous and conventional terms. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I think a summary of Trump's positions should be included in the lead in some capacity. I agree with the notion in this discussion that more recent descriptors need to be researched. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Jayron above, it is rather unusual for a politician's positions not to be highlighted and there has not been evidence provided that they have significantly changed. I have restored the line for now, but of course if sourcing exists that something has decisively changed then we can discuss that and maybe refine, but removing it is the wrong solution.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that we can sufficiently cover Trump's political positions in the lead by incorporating them into the lede paragraph covering his presidency. I'm not sure on how to execute it, but this is the idea which I'm leaning towards. My biggest concern right now is making the lead too long...a new paragraph on political positions would likely only make the lede a lot longer. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

One sentence was trimmed. The sentence that was trimmed certainly did not bring the lead into full compliance WRT standards of length, and neither will returning it send it into non-compliance. --Jayron32 21:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been deleted. This page & Joe Biden's page (particularly the leads) should be discussed, before something (removal of obvious vandalism, the exception) is added or removed. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It is what it was at the time. History should not be removed, so it's good that was restored. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

History is removed when it suits the majority. That's why we treat his professional wrestling history unlike any other Hall of Famer's, almost like it never happened. Linda McMahon also matters, for "legit" reasons. Would it be good if I restored the what, why and how of it? Of course not. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Barring the unexpected, it's highly likely that Trump & Biden will be the 2024 Republican & Democratic presidential nominees. So, we all have to be mindful of WP:NPOV, with both BLPs. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

A bit of a non sequitur here, GoodDay. Bringing in new sources has little to do with the BLP status of the article. Dimadick (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Since the consensus appears to be keeping the political positions in the lead, I took another look at the body and changed the wording of the lead from the vague "have been described as" to what the body actually says. He called himself a nationalist. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  So now you believe him, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Eh? Why wouldn’t I believe him when he confirms that he is a racist, mysogynistic liar? Well, he denied that, so we use "characterized as", but he confirmed that he is a nationalist, so "to be" is appropriate. My edit was reverted. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Branding & licensing

The lead presently says, “He expanded the company's operations to building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses and later started side ventures, mostly by branding and licensing his name. From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice.”

Seems to me the links to branding and licensing are helpful. Otherwise many readers will not understand. The personal branding article specifically discusses Trump. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO has now reverted with this edit summary: “These changes obscure and deflect the description provided by the sources and article text.” Makes no sense to me, perhaps she would like to elaborate here at the talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I also think the changes Anythingyouwant made were helpful, and think that version, by linking to relevant articles, is better than with just the word "licensing", unlinked. It is relevant, useful, and overall an improvement. --Jayron32 15:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The meaning of those terms (especially licensing) is not obvious to many. Seems helpful to link. DFlhb (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

This was the text before your addition of the Wikilink to licensing his name: ([he] later started side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. I objected to your change because the linked page isn't about famous people licensing their names for other companies' products. You then reverted me without an edit summary, and then changed the long-standing text to later started side ventures, mostly by branding and licensing his name, adding a second Wikilink to the disambiguation page Branding. (I'll assume that Jayron32 and DFlhb didn't look at either linked page?) Neither link is helpful to understand A licensing his name to B, C, D, E, F, G, etc., to put on their hotels, McMansions, golf courses; sell mattresses, bottled water, fraudulent real estate courses. "To license": transitive verb, definition 2. Common dictionary words don't need links. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

This is the diff under consideration. It links to personal branding, which before commenting, I checked, and which is a relevant link because it deals with the exact thing you say it doesn't. Brand licensing, the other link in the diff under discussion, also seems highly relevant, because when I checked it before commenting, it also seemed highly relevant. So maybe, before telling me what I did or didn't do (when you are not sitting at my computer watching me do it), you should perhaps shut your mouth and just not. --Jayron32 16:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I stand — rudely, see WP:AGF — corrected on the disambiguation page. The argument that Brand licensing also seems highly relevant because it also seemed relevant - well, huh. As for the two "highly relevant" pages, they’re not only lacking reliable sources, one of them is mostly lacking any sources, so we shouldn't link to them.

Personal branding. The first two sentences and the second-to-last sentence are based on two websites that sell courses on how to "build your personal brand". The article has this to say about Trump: Notably, 45th President of the United States and real estate mogul Donald Trump uses his last name on properties and other enterprises (e.g. Trump Tower). There are some more how-to sources in the body, two dead links, and a section on the self-presentation theory of a Canadian sociologist who died in 1982.

Brand licensing. Except for the section on Korea cites almost no sources. It has a link to a page where you can download a podcast to hear "Peter Canalichio with Licensing Brands Inc. explain[ing] the benefits of licensing your brand as well as some of the dangers of brand licensing". The next section contains a couple of cites to retail sales of licensed merch in 2017 and 2015. Followed by sections on brand licensing in Korea (properly cited), India (no cites), and Italy (no cites). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think either of these two wikilinks would be any worse than a Redlink. We include links (red or not) when such a linked article could be informative and useful. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I was strictly commenting on the version reverted by SPECIFICO, which included no disambiguation links. Licensing is not a "common" word; those don't get Wikipedia entries. It's a notable business practice, which the general public is largely unfamiliar with. Many people have no idea that Trump didn't own all buildings with his name on it. A comparable term, White-label product, is also in many dictionaries, but is similarly unintuitive and should be linked if applicable (which isn't the case here). DFlhb (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m a member of the general public, and I didn’t have any problem figuring out that famous people get paid for, e.g., allowing Nike to put their names on a shoe, i.e., license their names for others to use. Trump didn’t brand his name, he was the brand, "a hustling icon of ostentatious wealth": Trump-branded consumer goods, chandeliers, mattresses, steaks, shirts, shoes, ties, colognes, furniture, coffee, vitamins, "even a Trump-branded urine test", Trump University. He/The Trump Organization also owns 62 trademarks, most of them with "Trump" in the name. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"Orange Man Bad" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Orange Man Bad has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 18 § Orange Man Bad until a consensus is reached. An anonymous username, not my real name 06:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2023

Add to the end of the following line:

Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies. 2600:1700:CF30:6C60:80E5:A922:AAF8:9504 (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done This is fully cited within the "Legal affairs and bankruptcies" section of the article. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 03:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Trump falsely claimed Clinton started birther lies

This was removed "and falsely claimed the rumors had been started by Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign." No edit summary explained the deletion.

Why was that removed with this edit by Space4Time3Continuum2x? The source says "Instead, he claimed, falsely, that questions about Mr. Obama’s citizenship were initially stirred by the Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, in her unsuccessful primary contest against Mr. Obama in 2008." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article contains this paragraph:

On September 16, 2016, as the Republican Party presidential nominee, Trump conceded that "President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period." Trump gave himself credit for putting the controversy to rest and also repeated a false claim that Hillary Clinton, his opponent in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and one of Obama's opponents in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, had started the controversy concerning Obama's place of birth in order to harm the candidacy of Obama while boosting her own. While those who did so were Clinton supporters, there is no evidence of Clinton or her campaign questioning Obama's birthplace. (bold added)

The Veracity of statements by Donald Trump article contains this paragraph:

He later falsely stated that Hillary Clinton started the conspiracy theories.

We have a discrepancy between our articles and now a disagreement with RS on this one. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Mea culpa. My edit summary said what I did but not why. The more often false information is repeated, the more people are likely to believe it (Illusory truth effect). The section is about Trump as the face of the racist birther theory. The false statement (out of 30,000 mentioned in the next section) about Clinton is a distraction, both in this section and as intended by Trump when he said it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Me too! There was an edit summary. I now understand your reasoning, so agree that it's better without it. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Suggested improvement of "many false and misleading statements" in lead

The current lead contains this statement:

Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.

The editorial note: <!-- DO NOT CHANGE this sentence without prior consensus; see [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus]], items 49 and 53. -->

My proposal is only about item 49 (a change of the "false...." part)

I have improved the Donald Trump#False statements section based on content and lots of good sources in the Veracity of statements by Donald Trump article. That newly-improved section now says:

• As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks. Characterized as using the firehose of falsehood propaganda technique, commentators and fact-checkers have described the scale of his mendacity as "unprecedented" in American politics, and the consistency of falsehoods a distinctive part of both his business and political identity.

Here you can see the current version in the lead and my proposals, one longer and the other shorter (I keep adding to the list.):

• Current: Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.

1. New 1: As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently promoted conspiracy theories and made false statements in public speeches and remarks. Commentators and fact-checkers have described the scale of his mendacity as "unprecedented" in American politics, and the consistency of falsehoods a distinctive part of both his business and political identity.
2. New 2: As a candidate and president, Trump frequently promoted conspiracy theories and made false statements to such a degree that the scale of his mendacity has been described as "unprecedented" in American politics, and the consistency of falsehoods a distinctive part of both his business and political identity.
3. New 3: As a candidate and president, Trump frequently promoted conspiracy theories and made false statements to such a degree that the scale of his mendacity has been described as "unprecedented" in American politics, and the consistency of falsehoods has been described as a distinctive part of his business and political identities.
4. New 4: As a candidate and president, Trump frequently promoted conspiracy theories and made false statements to such a degree that the scale of his mendacity has been described as an unprecedented, consistent, and distinctive part of his business and political identities.

What think ye? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It is important to point out that this is not just about politics, 2 is shorter, so that would be my preference. Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I think a word is missing in your proposed text, making it not make grammatical sense.

• "and the consistency of falsehoods a distinctive part of both his business and political identity."

May make more sense as:

• "and the consistency of falsehoods is a distinctive part of both his business and political identity."
• "and the consistency of falsehoods became a distinctive part of both his business and political identity."
• "and the consistency of falsehoods has been described as a distinctive part of both his business and political identity."
• "and the consistency of falsehoods was a distinctive part of both his business and political identity."

or something of the sort. Either way, I agree overall with the change and slightly prefer the shorter version. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

ONUnicorn, you are right on the track of my thinking. To me, this is his most distinctive and defining character trait, and also the most disturbing and dangerous one. It affects everything he does, and it infects his supporters, as many of them have abandoned the idea of truth. More Trump-aligned candidates adopt his methods.

I like the attributed version (some slight tweaks to shorten it):

• "and the consistency of falsehoods has been described as a distinctive part of both his business and political identities."

Let's keep working out a consensus version. Thanks for your input. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

My issue is that these proposals basically say the same thing as the current wording, less concisely, with the exception of "business and political identity". So the question is: is it lead-worthy that he told lies during his business career? I don't think so. The vast majority of that section is about his lies during his campaign & presidency, those lies are the most notable & consequential, and the lead should reflect that. DFlhb (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

This might be even better. No need to say "described" or "political" twice:

• New 4: As a candidate and president, Trump frequently promoted conspiracy theories and made false statements to such a degree that the scale of his mendacity has been described as an unprecedented, consistent, and distinctive part of his business and political identities.

How's that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The revised option 4, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It's also the shortest, by removing duplication. It's only a few words longer than the current version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Question What problem are we trying to solve here? What's wrong with the established text? SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  • SPECIFICO, look at this. The current text is okay, but inadequate:
    • Current: Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.
    • New 4: As a candidate and president, Trump frequently promoted conspiracy theories and made false statements to such a degree that the scale of his mendacity has been described as an unprecedented, consistent, and distinctive part of his business and political identities.
  • The bold part is where the real new changes are. I felt the current version was inadequate. The part about "identities" is important. The current text just implies that he has lied. No, it's much deeper than that. It's part of his identity. Since he is incapable of stringing 3-4 sentences together without some form of deception, the first thing we think of when we see him, hear him, or read him is "In what way is he now trying to deceive us?" We aren't talking about his history, but his ever-present way of being now and until he stops breathing. The current lead doesn't catch that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Yes but, especailly for the lead, it slows down the prose with a long run-on sentence and mendacity is likely a head-scratcher for most readers. New 1 seems ok to me, however. Another issue is whether the deceptions should be limited to his political career, when he appears to have been born that way, not that there's anything wrong with that. Lies and deceit were his trademark M.O. from his emergence in the 1980s. SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

So you at least think "New 1" might be an improvement, so let's compare them here, but use "dishonesty" instead of "mendacity". I will also strike the beginning phrases that cover the exact same things:

• Current: Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.
• New 1a: As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently promoted conspiracy theories and made false statements in public speeches and remarks. Commentators and fact-checkers have described the scale of his dishonesty as "unprecedented" in American politics, and the consistency of falsehoods a distinctive part of both his business and political identity.
• New 4a: As a candidate and president, Trump frequently promoted conspiracy theories and made false statements to such a degree that the scale of his dishonesty has been described as an unprecedented, consistent, and distinctive part of his business and political identities.

To make this easier, I will now compare only the parts where real changes occur:

• Current: to a degree unprecedented in American politics.
• New 1a: in public speeches and remarks. Commentators and fact-checkers have described the scale of his dishonesty as "unprecedented" in American politics, and the consistency of falsehoods a distinctive part of both his business and political identity.
• New 4a: to such a degree that the scale of his dishonesty has been described as an unprecedented, consistent, and distinctive part of his business and political identities.

What do you think now? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

If people think this change is necessary, we should at least say "careers" instead of "identities". Identity means a lot more than "long-term pattern of behavior". We're not reading his mind, just describing objective patterns. DFlhb (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

That would fundamentally change the meaning. We are, after all, getting that from RS, so we shouldn't change it unless we use a synonym. An "identity" is "what he's known for", his "reputation", and moreover, it's "consistent", IOW it's always there. It's what he is, his character. One of his major biographers said he's always this way, it's his "persona" (an identity he has developed), and he never steps out of his persona.

Super narcissists are often inveterate liars (George Santos is like Trump), so this is unsurprising. They decide the world should look a certain way, and then they, without any shame, describe things as they wish and expect others to show their loyalty by repeating and backing their delusions. It's a loyalty test, and they will die without changing their minds. No shame at all because they lack an external moral compass. One could replace that with "he is known as a liar", but that's a bit too informal a departure from the sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

References

"many false and misleading statements" in body

Valjean, hoo boy, talk about a firehose of cites, about 5,000 bites worth. 30,573 false or misleading statements isn't enough? That's why we have the two links to the main articles. We should discuss your addition {[9], [10], [11]) first, before discussing changing the lead based on the added text. "Firehose of falsehoods" was discussed some time ago, will take me a while to find. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

LOL! Space4Time3Continuum2x, I just used what we had. For such a sensitie topic, I tend to lean toward over-citing, not that a million more would change the minds of those who feel he speaks the truth. We are obviously going to need to discuss and hammer out a consensus version. Right now, based on suggestions above, I'm honing in on this version (will add it above):

• New 3: "As a candidate and president, Trump frequently promoted conspiracy theories and made false statements to such a degree that the scale of his mendacity has been described as "unprecedented" in American politics, and the consistency of falsehoods has been described as a distinctive part of his business and political identities."

Is this closer? Feel free to come up with ideas. I know you have them! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Valjean, here’s what you added to the body and I just reverted (had to wait because of 3RR), including that jumble of cites at the end that also duplicated cites already in the section.

Firehose

Stelter, Brian (November 30, 2020). "'Firehose of falsehood:' How Trump is trying to confuse the public about the election outcome". CNN. Maza, Carlos (August 31, 2018). "Why obvious lies make great propaganda". Vox. Zappone, Chris (October 12, 2016). "Donald Trump campaign's 'firehose of falsehoods' has parallels with Russian propaganda". The Sydney Morning Herald. Harford, Tim (May 6, 2021). "What magic teaches us about misinformation". Financial Times. Clifton, Denise (August 3, 2017). "Trump's nonstop lies may be a far darker problem than many realize". Mother Jones. Ellefson, Lindsey (December 17, 2020). "'Morning Joe' Rips Trump for 'Firehose of Falsehoods' and 'Nazi-Like Propaganda' on COVID". TheWrap.</ref> commentators and fact-checkers have described the scale of his mendacity as "unprecedented" in American politics, and the consistency of falsehoods a distinctive part of both his business and political identity.

I found the previous discussion. I might as well repeat what I said there. According to the sources you provided, it's a "contemporary form of Russian propaganda known as the 'Firehose of Falsehood'" (quoting Mother Jones). The Rand Corporation calls it The Russian "Firehose of Falsehoods" propaganda model. It doesn't look as though the term caught on for Trump's torrent of lies except for a few comparisons with Russian propaganda. The Financial Times source is no longer "recent" but it's still paywalled, so I haven't read it. There don’t appear to be any more recent RS. Opinion piece: The Wrap piece about Joe Scarborough calling Trump’s Covid-19 remarks a firehose of falsehoods on the December 16, 2020, "Morning Joe". Vox, Mother Jones cite a 2016 RAND Corporation perspective on Russian propaganda that doesn’t mention Trump. Reuters Institute: an article on media coverage of Trump lies — Presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Relationship_with_the_news_media? The 2016 SMH article uses "firehose of falsehoods" in scare quotes and says that Trump’s campaign media push "shares traits" with a propaganda technique pioneered by Russia. The rest of the article is all over the place, mostly about the RAND Corporation perspective and Russian interference in the 2016 election. Here's another article from 2020 mentioning a "Russia-style disinformation campaign". The term hasn't really caught on, maybe because Trump's been off Twitter for two years. I don't see the need to add these cites to the ones we already have. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, let me get this straight (because I obviously might be getting it wrong!). You deleted everything because you didn't like that (1) "firehose" got reintroduced, and you don't like (2) so many citations. Is that basically what just happened? I am not wed to "firehose" at all. It's fine with me to remove it, and it should also be removed from the "Veracity...." article, because that's how I managed to reintroduce it here. I copied from there. I had forgotten about that discussion you found. Thanks for doing that, and I apologize for reintroducing "firehose".

Was it really necessary to undo everything just because of that? This addition is still good:

• • Commentators and fact-checkers have described the scale of his mendacity as "unprecedented" in American politics, and the consistency of falsehoods a distinctive part of both his business and political identity.

Why can't we keep that in the body? As far as any duplication of cites or too many, sure, we can work that out. That's a simple matter. We just need enough to justify the wording. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, this section is supposed to be about the lead, and you are now discussing the body. Would you please move our comments into a new section? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't we discuss the body first? You have my permission to move my remarks into a separate section; I think SPECIFICO's comment is about the body, too, but I'm not sure. I reverted to the status quo pre ante because the cites were confusing. If you look at the references, items 6 and 10 appear to be duplications of items 1 thru 5. You didn't add much text but I don't really see that our text needs improving. Before:

As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks[160][156] to an extent unprecedented in American politics.[745][746] His falsehoods became a distinctive part of his political identity.[745] After:

As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks.[160][156] Characterized as using the firehose of falsehood propaganda technique,[745] commentators and fact-checkers have described the scale of his mendacity as "unprecedented" in American politics,[751][752][753] and the consistency of falsehoods a distinctive part of both his business and political identity.[752] My main concern are the many cites — see my previous remarks on specific ones. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the body: we're at the point where additions and changes shouldn't come from unmaintained sub-articles, but from a few hours of research based on published books & academic papers. It's really not hard, I swear (and I do apologise for continuing to gloat about that passage, but I'm pretty proud of it). DFlhb (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, now we can discuss the content in the body in this section. I do see what you mean about the cites. That can be fixed, and then it might be easier to figure out what's going on. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, here are the two versions, without the duplicate cites and without the "firehose" part:

1. Old: As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks to an extent unprecedented in American politics. His falsehoods became a distinctive part of his political identity.
2. New 1: As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks. Commentators and fact-checkers have described the scale of his mendacity as "unprecedented" in American politics, and the consistency of falsehoods a distinctive part of both his business and political identity.
3. New 2: As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks. Commentators and fact-checkers have described the scale of his mendacity as "unprecedented" in American politics, and the consistency of falsehoods a distinctive part of his business and political identities. (without "both")

How's that for the body? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

or,

1. As a candidate and as president, Trump made thousands of false public statements and remarks, a scale of dishonesty that commentators and fact-checkers described as "unprecedented" in American politics, and the consistency of falsehoods a distinctive part of both his business and political identity.
2. As a candidate and as president, Trump made thousands of false statements in public speeches and remarks. Commentators and fact-checkers describe the scale of his dishonesty as "unprecedented" in American politics, and the consistency of falsehoods a distinctive part of his business and political identities.

All your versions are pretty OK, however. I'm also more or less OK with 1a and 4a in the lead discussion. Yes "identities" is not entirely clear. But it does get closer to the narrative of tertiary sources. "Personal brand" or something like that is also true to the sources, but is also rather unusual wording. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC) SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Above I responded to the proposal of changing "identities" to "careers".

That would fundamentally change the meaning. We are, after all, getting that from RS, so we shouldn't change it unless we use a synonym. An "identity" is "what he's known for", his "reputation", and moreover, it's "consistent", IOW it's always there. It's what he is, his character. One of his major biographers said he's always this way, it's his "persona" (an identity he has developed), and he never steps out of his persona.

Super narcissists are often inveterate liars (George Santos is like Trump), so this is unsurprising. They decide the world should look a certain way, and then they, without any shame, describe things as they wish and expect others to show their loyalty by repeating and backing their delusions. It's a loyalty test, and they will die without changing their minds. No shame at all because they lack an external moral compass. One could replace that with "he is known as a liar", but that's a bit too informal a departure from the sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

"made thousands of false public statements and remarks" is getting into the topic of the next paragraph, so I prefer to save it. Let's focus on the "frequently" wording. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean: do you have a preference, among your proposals? GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, when you see SPECIFICO's and my many versions, what do you lean toward? Feel free to make your own tweaks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If changes are required, then your New 2 would be best. As it has slightly less wording. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Taking a cue from SPECIFICO's version above, I can shorten it even more by leaving out an unnecessary word:

• New 2a: As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks. Commentators and fact-checkers describe the scale of his dishonesty as "unprecedented" in American politics, and the consistency of falsehoods a distinctive part of his business and political identities.

How's that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

References

I'd say habitually.- SPECIFICO talk 02:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

COVID 19 pandemic wikilink

I added COVID-19 pandemic in the United States wikilink in the lead. Believed to be in keeping with the reasonable wikilink consensus in the lead, and because it is one of the most notable things during his presidency people would like to navigate to and learn about. -Teammm ^talk? 18:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Birther paragraph

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.

---

In the section Racial views there is the paragraph,

Trump relaunched his political career in 2011 as a leading proponent of "birther" conspiracy theories alleging that Barack Obama, the first black U.S. president, was not born in the United States.[788][789] In April 2011, Trump claimed credit for pressuring the White House to publish the "long-form" birth certificate, which he considered fraudulent, and later saying this made him "very popular".[790][791] In September 2016, amid pressure, he acknowledged that Obama was born in the U.S. and falsely claimed the rumors had been started by Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign.[792] In 2017, he reportedly still expressed birther views in private.[793]

I suggest moving the paragraph to the section Promotion of conspiracy theories. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

We are aware from your reverted edit that is your suggestion. However, you will probably get better traction with your suggestion if you defend it with... a reason. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

My edit was [12]. The edit summary I gave was, "moved birther paragraph from Racial views subsection to Promotion of conspiracy theories subsection. It does not discuss racial views but discusses a conspiracy theory." Bob K31416 (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

One that pertains to his racism. Andre🚐 23:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Bob, the birther movement was at its core a racism-motivated opposition to Obama's presidency. This not an arguable point. Zaathras (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

No objection to moving paragraph to the proposed section. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

With no reason given, that is not constructive. SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in both places, but maybe shorter in one of them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Valjean, I was thinking about whether that might be possible. If so, that just might be the best solution. GoodDay (talk)

Andre and Zaathras, I'm just going by what's in the paragraph, which does not mention a racial motivation for Trump promoting the birther conspiracy theory. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

We probably should make the connection between birtherism and racism more explicit. One of the existing cited sources, this LA Times piece says: "Trump amplified the false conspiracy theory questioning where Obama was born, becoming the face of the racist “birther” movement". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, that could be strengthened in the article. There are probably some academic sources by now. Pham, Vincent N. (2015-04-03). "Our Foreign President Barack Obama: The Racial Logics of Birther Discourses". Journal of International and Intercultural Communication. 8 (2): 86–107. doi:10.1080/17513057.2015.1025327. ISSN 1751-3057. seems promising. There are several that talk about it as a conspiracy theory as well, so Valjean is right, it is both. Andre🚐 04:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

So far there does not appear to be evidence that Trump had a racial motivation for promoting the birther conspiracy theory, just speculation about what may have been in his mind. If racists use the birther conspiracy theory to attack Obama, that does not mean that Trump's motivation was racist or that it was a racial view of his. Completely ignored in the article and here are anti-racist statements he made as president that I mentioned previously [13]. As far as I know, Trump has never disparaged, criticized or attacked Obama for being black. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It's pointless to assert personal POVs that are contrary to the overwhelming weight of published RS statements on the matter. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You were already given direction on this, Bob. Zaathras (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

From What motivates a conspiracy theory? Birther beliefs, partisanship, liberal-conservative ideology, and anti-Black attitudes,

"A nationally representative survey of Americans showed that birther sentiments were predominant among conservatives/Republicans and individuals holding anti-Black attitudes. These relations were mediated by disapproval of the president [Obama]. Hence, it appears that birther beliefs were motivated both by politically-grounded disapproval and racially-driven disapproval of the president."

Bob K31416 (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

What do yo think this proves? Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

What it essentially says, that birther beliefs were not held by only people with racially-driven disapproval of Obama but by people with politically-grounded disapproval of Obama too. It contradicts the notion that birtherism is simply racist. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

But it also says some do. So if we have RS that says X we need an RS that says X is not true for us to challenge the claim someone believes X. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you clarify your comment for the particular case we are discussing? Bob K31416 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It does not show Trump does not believe it for racist reasons. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

FYI, in the article Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories there is the section Donald Trump. Here's the lead paragraph from that section.

Donald Trump was a prominent promoter of birther conspiracy theories.[144][145] This elevated Trump's political profile in the years leading up to his successful 2016 presidential campaign.[144][145][146] According to political scientists John M. Sides, Michael Tesler, and Lynn Vavreck, Trump "became a virtual spokesperson for the 'birther' movement. When Trump suggested running for president in 2011, his popularity was concentrated among the sizable share of Republicans who thought that President Obama was foreign born or a Muslim or both."[145]

Bob K31416 (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Nor does this show he does not believe it for racist reasons. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The above excerpt suggests that he was motivated by political reasons and the section it came from does not indicate that he believed the birther claim for racist reasons. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. It doesn't even address his personal motivations. On Trump himself, it only states that he became a virtual spokesperson for the movement, and not why. More generally, it addressed who his popularity was concentrated among, but that still doesn't speak to his personal motivation. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for you opinion. There's no implication of Trump being racist in the whole section that the above lead paragraph came from. The only implication is that he was motivated by political reasons. If you have a reliable source that says Trump's birther belief was motivated by racism, feel free to share it with us.

Regarding the part of your comment, "On Trump himself, it only states that he became a virtual spokesperson for the movement, and not why." — That argument can be used for moving the birther paragraph that is the subject of this Talk section. The statement in this article and the RS it came from, only says that Trump became a virtual spokesperson for the movement, and not what his motivation was. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I only replied to the content of the excerpt you provided. It doesn't not suggest or imply anything about his motivation. None. Not at all. It doesn't suggest or imply a political motivation anymore than it does a racist one. You are reading something into the text that is not there. However, your excerpt is not the only source being discussed, and there are others that you've been shown earlier in this conversation that DO address the racist aspect of this. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Apparently you are unable to provide a reliable source that says Trump's birther belief was motivated by racism.

I'm only saying that the birther paragraph should be moved from the Racial views section to the Promotion of conspiracy theories section because we do not have a reliable source that says his motivation was racial. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we can close now, wp:bludgeon invoked. Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/15/902756963/trumps-attacks-on-harris-are-a-return-to-familiar-territory

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/15/politics/kamala-harris-donald-trump-campaign-2020/index.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/trump-racism-comments/588067/

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-floats-false-racist-birther-theory-kamala-harris/story?id=72372616

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history

Do we need more? Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Please give an excerpt that says Trump's birther belief was motivated by racism. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the sources provided? Will you accept an excerpt not worded precisely how you wanted it? Will you accuse other of not providing sources, as you did to me (when I referenced the earlier provided source) in violation of WP:NPA? Are we just going to be circling around this again for another week or more because of just one editor disagreeing and refusing to accept provided sources? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

My comments have been reasonable and without personal attacks. Try giving an excerpt and we'll see how it works out. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I have asked for this to be closed (formaly}.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2023 (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.

Propose adding wanted to nuke North Korea

I propose adding the following after the "fire and fury" sentence:

According to New York Times correspondent Michael S. Schmidt, Trump proposed using a nuclear weapon against North Korea and blaming the attack on another country, but was dissuaded by John F. Kelly.

References

Sandizer (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure one journalists opinion passes wp:blp. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It was not his opinion, it was sourced in his book FWIW. SPECIFICO talk 12:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Which then means it is still just his opinion, as the source does not own it, it attributes it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it's a statement as to fact. Opinion is evaluation or unsupported conjecture. It's possible that any journalist or RS published author makes an error of factual reporting, but that's not the same as a statement of opinion. Anyway, by itself this may be UNDUE but the pattern of him saying and wanting things that RS describe as ignorant, reckless, or destructive is widespread and well-sourced text conveying that would be a better choice than using various examples alone. SPECIFICO talk 15:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

He also tried to buy Greenland. If we listed every asinine idea the subject of this biography floated during his lone term in office, this article would be a mile long if printed out. Zaathras (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't mention trying to buy Greenland, but I feel that attempting to start a nuclear war is fundamentally different in character and significance, as one of the most profoundly noteworthy things a leader of a nuclear power can do. Sandizer (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Recommend not adding. If we were to add every idea that crossed his mind? This page would be (possibly) the longest in the entire project. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Probably UNDUE at this point. I agree with Zaathras's statement as well. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 05:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

And after that one comment about bombing them, he reversed positions and started trying to be Kim Jong-Un's best friend. A stage of his opinion that greatly outlasted his "let's bomb them" stage.-- MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm adding just the source citation to the "fire and fury" statement, but not the summary I proposed. Sandizer (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Please, don't. We don't need three sources for the sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that his positions on NK are famous but we don't have room in this article to explore them properly.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Famous, yes. Complex? Not really. SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by complex.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Not really. SPECIFICO talk 09:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, he went from asking his staff to use nuclear weapons against them, to corresponding with Kim in what he described as romantic terms, which led to a summit where he didn't achieve the denuclearization agreement he had promised would be forthcoming. While the complexity of that arc might be debatable, my problem is that this top-level article doesn't describe the depths of his animosity at the start nor his reaction to failing to obtain the desired agreement. Can we all agree that each of those three phases need more detail here? Sandizer (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

No. All it takes for Trump to change his mind is someone praising or criticizing him, and his reactions are always over the top — Beelzebub to Saint Peter and vice versa. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Always reacting over the top isn't a reason to leave out the fact that he actually asked to push the button when he's running to get his finger back on it. Sandizer (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

New photo for inclusion

Seems to me this photo

Trump meets Reagan

should be in the article. Aside from the dueling pompadours, it suggests the continuity of the Republican policy agenda from RR through the Bushes to its culmination in the Trump tax cuts, evisceration of regulation, and other initiatives. SPECIFICO talk 14:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Meh. The image is "C43456-15, President Reagan shaking hands with Donald Trump at a Reception for members of the "Friends of Art and Preservation in Embassies" Foundation in the Blue room. 11/03/1987." He probably became a member to get invited to the WH. FAPE website: "Since its founding, FAPE has been received at the White House by each President and First Lady." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Their hands touched. Energy flowed between them. The spark was lit. Like when Clinton met JFK as a highschooler. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, reviving this old pants-on-fire misinformation? Are you O.K., been hit on the head or exposed to a toxin lately? It was a meaningless photo-op, a dime-a-dozen reception line for rich people who had given money to support whatever, in this case art for U.S. embassies which entitled them to an annual free dinner at the State Department and a WH reception/photo-op. Trump disparaged Reagan in 1987 during what looked like he might possibly be planning a presidential run or a gubernatorial run or mayoral run and then turned out to be free publicity for "Art of the Deal". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, sad to say by that time in his life, RR would have grinned while shaking hands with Joey the Panda. SPECIFICO talk 15:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I would exclude it, as I don't believe Reagan & Trump were best of buds. Indeed, Reagan's only 'true friend', was Nancy. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

That is a nonsensical rationale to exclude a noteworthy illustration of Trump's courting and acceptance by the Republican icon, Reagan. "best of..." has nothing to do with it, and the remark about his wife is an insult to RR's memory. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Exclude the image. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not a vote. We need reasoned evaluation. If you have any, please try to state it. SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I already gave my reason. The proposed image doesn't add anything of value to this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Adding this image doesn't really bring any value to the article. Unless there is something actually significant about this Trump-Reagan encounter (which I don't think there is), exclude it. Or add it, if you want. It's an interesting photo. You should've just added it, Specifico, and waited for someone to challenge it. Not everything has to be discussed at length. Cessaune [talk] 17:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Where in the article do want this photo?

Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure. Suggestions? It shows the importance of the presidency and Reaganism to Trump, both as the seat of power and as a place to do dress-up glamour. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

That seems like OR, what it shows is they met at one function. Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Evidence trump supported Clinton and his legacy

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_and_Bill_Clinton.jpg

Or just evidence of glad-handing? Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Reagan glad-handed a select group. Not everyone is repeatedly photographed with Pres. Reagan, and the connection and continuity of Republican values from Nixon and Reagan through the Bushes to Trump has been widely discussed. See, e.g. here and here. If you search "reagan trump" on Commons, this is far from the only image of the two enjoying one another. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

That article does not seem to say that Trump was inspired by Regan, but rather the political structures that Regan put in place turned to Trump, not the other way around. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You, too, can join THAT particular select group, currently for a mere 10,000 to 25,000 bucks per year or a $100,000 pledge, payable in five annual installments. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

What makes you think I never shook hands w. the gipper? But the continuity of electoral strategy and policy purpose is well-documented from Nixon to Trump. Nixon was the first post-War Republican to mainstream overtly racist inveiglements of the middle class, and that was enthusiastically appropriated by Reagan and Trump. The Bush's not so much. Overt racism is not a thing in Kennebunk and Greenwich - not necessary. Now Nixon said he was a Keynesian, but Reagan, who never gave such things a thought prior to his presidency, recruited a band of "supply side" stalwarts and launched the post-1980 balloon of the Federal deficit, while funding various academic economists to publish now-discredited theories to give them cover.

So, as many tertiary sources explain, Trump was far from an outlier or anomaly in Republican politics. He, his White House coterie, and the policies of his administration are all tied to his fascination with and solicitation of Republican power icons. He was even BFF pen pals with Nixon in his NY real estate days. SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't post very often but I watch this article closely. Second Coming indeed. I believe that we need to take the time to read SPECIFICO's article suggestions that discuss the background of this photo, which is BTW one of many, that show the association of Trump and Reagon. Heather Cox Richardson started a blog when Trump won the presidency and repeatedly associated his rise to power to Reagon. For example, read this Guardian article [14] Sectionworker (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, my condolences for the Gipper handshake. Image aside, wouldn’t Republican Party (United States) be the appropriate article for continuity of the Republican policy agenda? Reagan, Bush 43, Trump - big tax cuts + big spending increases combined with attempts to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. FWIW, some nice graphs on correlation, or rather lack thereof, of the tax rate on high incomes on economic growth and who benefited: Politico, WaPo. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, Checkers has directed our attention to the photo of the two iconic leaders already extant in the article. I do think the one I found is more straightforward, and the existing one looks almost as if Nancy suspects some unfortunate faux pas by Trump. But one image is enough, and the narrative does need to be updated because sources do describe Trump as Reagan part 2 without the savoir faire. Speaking of Checkers, I never met Nixon, either. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Googled Nixon+Checkers — . Nancy and Ronald are both smiling at someone or something outside the photo frame, and Donald, pants as ill-fitting then as they are now, is focusing on the man he's next in line to shake hands with, King Fahd. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems like this article already has a ton of high quality images, a number of which already include handshakes with various figures. Too many (especially impertinent ones) can get distracting per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. I also don't see any text in the article that it could be used to support, and comments above about using the image to "suggest" a continuation, association, or other meaning that isn't supported in the article or the image itself are troubling given the WP:BLP implications. The image should be excluded unless there is a consensus on some purpose for it that isn't purely decorative or a BLP violation. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If you think Doug Flutie is a more important connection to Trump's life story than Ronald Reagan, bless your heart. Reagan is the direct role model and template that launched Trump. If that's not adequately reflected in the current article text, you might wish to familiarize yourself with the range of RS tertiary discussions of the matter and contribute some more incisive article text. Of course, nobody is required to make any contribution they do not wish. "BLP violation" however, is pretty far-fetched. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I am guessing that this photo will not be included and for good reason. Indeed, reading the article I don't find a place for its inclusion anywhere either. But IMO, what we have is a suggestion to think about the possibility that we are missing an important part of the Trump character which is suggested by the photo that should be in the article. Sectionworker (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, I guess - I'm struggling to see how this image is relevant to this article. If there is some kind of noteworthy relationship or parallel aspects going on between the two it's not documented in this article. So, this photo wouldn't be supported by the prose. Furthermore, we already got an image of Trump and Reagan together, so two might be a bit undue. Otherwise, it's a fine photo in itself. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 00:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Electoral History Bloat Challenge

Year	Office	Type	Party		Main opponent	Party		Votes for Trump			Result
								Total	%	P.
2016	President	Primary		Republican	Ted Cruz		Republican	14,015,993	44.95%	1st	Won
		Convention						1,441 D.	58.3%	1st
		General			Hillary Clinton		Democratic	62,984,828	46.1%	2nd	Won
		Electoral						304 E.V.	56.5%	1st
2020	President	Primary		Republican	Bill Weld		Republican	18,159,752	93.99%	1st	Won
		Convention						2,339 D.	91.73%	1st
		General			Joe Biden		Democratic	74,223,975	46.8%	2nd	Lost
		Electoral						232 E.V.	43.12%	2nd

The above table has been challenged as potential bloat. I'm aware there is considerable concern as to the length of an already full article; if this adds to the Encyclopedic value of the article it should still be added. What are other's opinions on its potential inclusion? -- Sleyece (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Best to exclude, as this BLP is long enough. PS - Such tables should have 'only' the general election opponents. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The Grand Holy Table Arbiter challenged the table as "unsuited", not "potential bloat", 2,689‎ bytes worth of unsuited. Obama and the two Bushes don't have electoral histories, either (I didn't check any further back). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Neither do Reagan, Carter, Ford, or Nixon. (Bill) Clinton has it. Carter's and Nixon's electoral histories have their own articles, but Trump's would be a permastub, and currently redirects to Political career of Donald Trump, where this table could easily be moved.

Bloat or length are barely factors at all, since this table doesn't count as prose, and takes milliseconds to scroll past. This reminds me of the infobox wars. The table is redundant, but it does provide a nice visual way to parse information that's otherwise scattered across the entire article. DFlhb (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Millisecond is a pretty short time, are you sure about that? And Bill Weld doesn't seem like information. SPECIFICO talk 14:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The Weld row is the most useless. So is Cruz, frankly. We could switch to Votes+EV for Trump, Votes+EV for Clinton, and same for 2020, omitting the primaries. The "Result" cells would be merged: one Won, one Lost. With all the misinformation floating 'round about 2016/2020 vote counts, that would be somewhat useful. DFlhb (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

All else aside, I agree that Ted Cruz is useless. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Exclude - this is unnecessary and redundant. We already discuss Trump's elections in the prose. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sleyece: FYI, per WP:AGF. The contentious topics procedure applies to this page (see Warning: Active Arbitration Remedies in the banner section, above). When your edit was challenged, you should have followed the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Instead, you reinstated your edit, and you reinstated it a second time after another editor removed it again, pointing out that it had been challenged. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The first time my edit was reverted, it was reverted by you as Bloat, then you immediately came to the talk page to say it wasn't bloat, so I had to revert back the first revert. I was following BRD guidelines, and it's not my fault if you misspoke.-- Sleyece (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC

You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

"If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted." I went to the talk page, per template to learn the reason for revert was not the reason for revert, so it was incumbent upon me to revert back, so that the BRD process could reset. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Would it not be better (right now), for you to start seeking a consensus for what you want added, to this BLP? GoodDay (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not in the current version, and the table is in the talk page. I can't add to the consensus more than I have. -- Sleyece (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Resetting the BRD process by reverting my revert? What are you talking about? I stated the reason for reverting in my edit summary and here on the Talk page. I did not use the word "bloat" in my edit summary, and that's all I said here on the Talk page since you chose to name this section "bloat challenge". Whether or not I or Specifico used the word "bloat" is beside the point anyway. Your edit was challenged, twice, you did not follow the procedure, twice, you kept arguing about having to revert back to whatever. Sure, there's no need for you to self-revert your second revert now because GoodDay did it for you but stop digging. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

All I want to know how many elections does a President need to stand for before they qualify for a table. Just saying "somewhere between Trump and Biden" isn't a very Encyclopedic range is it? -- Sleyece (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It does seem excessive for this article, which is already very long. The value is questionable here compared to articles on the elections themselves, or more specific articles such as Political career of Donald Trump as mentioned above. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Biden's Electoral History table has 14 rows, Trump's would have four. How many rows would necessitate inclusion in a President's article? -- Sleyece (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

If it were up to me? Electoral history tables would be deleted from all bio pages of politicians. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Include — I think it's informative. For example, I noticed from the table that Trump got more votes and a higher percentage in the 2020 election that he lost (74,223,975 46.8%), compared to the 2016 election that he won (62,984,828 46.1%)! Bob K31416 (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up. Readers drawing wrong conclusions from numbers without context is another reason why we shouldn’t add the table. In 2016, candidates for the Libertarians, Greens, and others got a combined 5.73% of the popular vote, in 2020 they only got 1.85%. While Trump increased his percentage by 0.76% (still way below Clinton’s 48.18% in 2016), Biden received 3.13% more than Clinton. While Trump received 11,239,147 more votes than in 2016, Biden received 15,429,987 more than Clinton in 2016. Why? Because 158,429,631 votes were cast in 2020, compared to 136,669,276 in 2016. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The user's reasoning for inclusion is another reason to exclude and do whatever you want? Please get off your high horse. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Include I don't agree that it's bloat at all. Trump spent the better part of a year claiming that he won an election he clearly lost. There have been 1,000+ Jan.6 arrests. An electoral history that shows his loss is clear data and a table format is both poignant and Encyclopedic. -- Sleyece (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

That rationale has the same problem Space4's pointed out above. It is an unsupported inference that some readers might draw, but not contained within the RS for the content. In fact, that particular conclusion is illogical because Trump's claim is that the count is not true rather than that the count showed him ahead. SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Exclude The information about Trump's political opponents that he won over and lost to is already sufficiently covered in article prose, there is no need to include a table of that plus some numerical data points. It is redundant and ultimately does not convey anything meaningful or useful to the reader. ValarianB (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Include — I don't think it's bloat. I agree with ValarianB that the information in it has been sufficiently covered, however, I think that this table gives the exact data in a clearer and easier-to-find manner than hunting through the article can. Cessaune [talk] 21:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment — Here's a modified version of the proposed table.

Presidential runs by republican Donald Trump

(R, republican; D, democrat; Del., delegates; E.V., electoral votes)

Year	Election	Main opponent	Votes for Trump
			Total	%	Result
2016	Primary	Ted Cruz (R)	14,015,993	44.95%	1st	Won
	Convention		1,441 Del.	58.3%	1st
	General	Hillary Clinton (D)	62,984,828	46.1%	2nd	Won
	Electoral		304 E.V.	56.5%	1st
2020	Primary	Bill Weld (R)	18,159,752	93.99%	1st	Won
	Convention		2,339 Del.	91.73%	1st
	General	Joe Biden (D)	74,223,975	46.8%	2nd	Lost
	Electoral		232 E.V.	43.12%	2nd

Bob K31416 (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I still say Exclude from this BLP & indeed from all US presidents & vice presidents bios pages. GoodDay (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Several Presidents include an Electoral History. Sometimes it's warranted, but not for every President. Surely Zachary Taylor will never need one. -- Sleyece (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Would like to see the list of US presidents & vice presidents that have such tables? GoodDay (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, Bill Clinton has one. IDK, maybe such tables are unbecoming of High Office. A table presents a clearer view, though. -- Sleyece (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment I'm going to call this one. I think there is too much opposition to inclusion at this time. The consensus is a wash. A split vote should fall to exclude -- Sleyece (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Presidential campaigns

In the section Presidential campaigns, there does not appear to be any mention of the 2020 presidential campaign. Bob K31416 (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Bob K31416 It's under the Presidency section with the subheader "2020 presidential campaign" because he was president at the time. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

That being the case, I would suggest changing the section heading from Presidential campaigns to Presidential campaigns prior to 2017, to clarify for the reader. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Update — The recent edit [15] essentially does what was suggested above. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for pointing out the clarity issue. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Valjean, I reverted your edit. I wasn't sure whether you weren't aware of the 2020 presidential election section, which goes into much greater detail, or meant to add a second section. Should we keep the chronological order (2016 campaign, presidency, 2020 campaign, impeachment) which developed kind of organically? I've considered moving the heading of 2020 presidential election up a level to give it more visibility but then we'd also have to move the second impeachment into the post-presidency where it belongs chronologically but not thematically. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this thread or the other mention in the article. It was your edit that alerted me to the fact that there was also a 2020 campaign, so I just added it. (Let's not forget what I added as it might be useful in the right spot.)

We need to fix this situation. We currently have main headings for his other careers: Business and Media. A "Political career" main heading is needed as an umbrella for his campaigns, the presidency, and post-presidency periods. That should all be done chronologically. This involves changing some heading levels but no real change of content, at least not right now.

I'll get started on that so we can see how it looks. No harm done if it doesn't work. We can always revert back. Please give me a chance. I'll report back here when I'm done. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Space4Time3Continuum2x and Bob K31416, now I'm done with the current heading levels after adding the main "Political career" heading. Should we add year headings? I have temporarily deactivated the TOC limit. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

There was no reason for the limit in the first place -- Sleyece (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Sleyece, what was this about: "Template Not for Something Reverted That You Want a Talk Page Discussion About"?? That's not why I used the template. Otherwise, I have no problem with you removing it as I had gotten sidetracked and forgot to remove it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It was clear you had "gotten sidetracked", so no worries. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

From what I saw, your change looks OK to me.

Re "Should we add year headings?" — Maybe you could clarify what you are asking. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I had thought of headings that only listed the years, but the current ones do contain years, so no need to add another indent. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

"Public profile" move?

Shouldn't this section be moved above his Political career? It describes things about his whole life: private, business, media, and political. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

To me it looks like it is predominantly about his political career, with only small parts about the rest of his life. Maybe it should be incorporated into the Political Career section, with the small parts about other parts of his life incorporated elsewhere. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Good points. That might be a viable way to go. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

For now, we could simply move it to the end of the section Political career. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I made the move [16]. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Media career — social media site

I'm considering adding something about Trump's creation of the social media site Truth Social to the Media career section but I'm not sure whether or not that was rejected before. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It makes sense to mention it. Maybe a single sentence with a link would be enough. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I found In the section Post-presidency (2021–present) a paragraph on Trump's media company and Truth Social. So it looks like moving the paragraph to the Media career section is the way to go. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I made the move [17]. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Capital "Insurrection" hoax

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.

---

Video footage of the January 6th "Insurrection" is being released. Democrats are angry and calling for censorship of the footage because it proves that Donald Trump is innocent. The footage has also been withheld in order to wrongfully imprison Americans that committed minor infractions or no crime committed at all. Mitch McConnell (R) and Nancy Pelosi (D) House Speaker, amongst others, planned extensively to perform a scheme of entrapment on the President of the United States in the most treasonous act ever committed in United States history. This information is breaking news and updating rapidly. 169.136.195.25 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You really want a reply? You can't accept that this is a nonstarter here and that this conversation won't go where you want it to? Fine. Tucker Carlson released a few minutes of video from January 6 that were peaceful, but that does not somehow negate the other hours that we have seen from the near 41,000 total hours of video. Those 41,000 hours of video show MAGAs attacking cops and desecrating the U.S. Capitol. Many of those people have since pled guilty to their crimes, and others have been convicted after pleading not guilty. People have been convicted of sedition against the United States. Not the imaginary treason you think Pelosi and McConnell committed. Come back to us with some reliable sources that support any changes that you want to propose. But do not think for a second that anyone is buying Tucker's BS. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You have been brainwashed by highly paid professional liars. Cullen328 (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You really think you have some sort of intellectual insight, eh? What are you, a scholarstorian? 102.115.233.240 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me guess. A meat puppet? GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the good laugh, IP. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2023 (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.

Donald trump accomplishment

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.

---

He recognized Jerusalem as the capital town of Israel,he brokered an accord called Abraham accord .which foster peace and trade with Arab nations in it's neighbors and COVID 19 .he created operation warp speed to create and research COVID 19 vaccine. he signed a COVID 19 stimulus package check for the country during lockdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel oppong Asare (talk • contribs) 13:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you want us to mention these things? Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Many of these things are mentioned, either here or at Presidency of Donald Trump. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2023 (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.

Section sizes vs corresponding main article sizes

I compared the amount of text in the sections Business career, Media career, and Political career with the amount of text in the corresponding main articles Business career of Donald Trump, Media career of Donald Trump, and Political career of Donald Trump. My method of comparison was to start a browser print function and use the preview feature to count the number of pages of the text part of the section or main article.

section: Business career — 4 pages

main article: Business career of Donald Trump — 13 pages

_____________

section: Media career — 1 page

main article: Media career of Donald Trump — 2 pages

_____________

section: Political career — 32 pages

main article: Political career of Donald Trump — 10 pages

Note in the above comparison that the section Political career of this article is 3 times larger than the main article Political career of Donald Trump. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

While some might choose to use different methods for gauging size, such as article bytes, I think your work is worth using for analysis. It exposes a major problem. This is Trump's parent article, and all the other Trump-related articles are child articles. Every single one of those child articles should be mentioned and linked to here.

The relative size/weight of coverage in this parent article should be in rough proportion to the coverage in the child articles, and that is obviously not the case. The proportion is roughly 1:3, but for politics, 3:1 is the opposite. That's crazy! That should be reversed, with roughly ten pages here.

OTOH, there is an aspect that can be tricky here, and I haven't examined it. It's possible that a child article is itself the main article for many grandchild articles, so they should also be factored in. They should all be added together. Do you feel like doing that and factoring that into your numbers above?

It has long been argued that we should move a lot of the political content out of this article, and this highlights the need for that to be done. Also, we should keep the preserve policy in mind, so we're not talking about complete deletion from Wikipedia. We are talking about removing unnecessary duplication and unnecessary detail in this article.

Where's a good place to start when we focus on the politics aspect? I think we go into far too much detail here.

In my experience, each child article (using WP:Summary style) should be represented here with a section and "main" link. Do we do that? I have found that using the lead of the child article as the section content here, works really great. Then the section here should not be edited unless there is a major change in the child article that justifies it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Re "It's possible that a child article is itself the main article for many grandchild articles, so they should also be factored in." — I looked into that regarding the article Political career of Donald Trump, compared it to the article Donald Trump, and it doesn't appear so. It looks like much more work has been done on what is now the section Political career in this article, than was done on the article Political career of Donald Trump.

We might consider moving items from the section Political career to child articles, leaving a summary in the Political career section. The child articles may either already exist, such as Political career of Donald Trump, or can be created. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is about proportion of coverage in reliable sources, not in Wikipedia. Insofar as one is a good heuristic for the other, I've looked at all Wikipedia articles, not just these main articles. Using Petscan, I found that:

1. 103 articles are in Category:Business career of Donald Trump or subcategories (search depth 10)
2. 1552 articles are in Category:Political career of Donald Trump or subcategories. I tried to exclude subcategories that are only loosely connected to Trump, and only ran the search to depth 3.

That relies on number of articles, but articles can vary in length. Longer articles rely on more sources, so that could be a better heuristic for proportion of coverage in sources. Articles in the first category have 4.1 million bytes in total. Articles in the second category, searched using the same parameters as above, have 50.5 million bytes. Using Petscan to sort all articles in Category:Donald Trump by file size, I also found that the overwhelming majority of the longest ones are about politics.

But if we admit that Wikipedia isn't a good heuristic, then we can look at NYTimes mentions of Trump, and see that almost all of their coverage of him is post-2015, according to the CJR. Given that, as CJR notes, the NYTimes often "[sets] the agenda for other outlets", it seems like a better heuristic for proportion in reliable sources. Post-2015 still includes articles about his businesses and other dealings, but we can expect that to be a minority. DFlhb (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that the section sizes should not be determined by the proportions of the corresponding child articles. Simply put, I was thinking that the Political career section (32 printed pages) is too large with details, and material should be moved to its child article Political career of Donald Trump (10 printed pages). Bob K31416 (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Some content moves may be warranted; I just don't think the problem is as bad as Valjean's ratios would indicate.

I do think the current Political career section is poor, and in some cases dreadful, with its entire subsection on the Lafayette Square sideshow, complete non-mention of the George Floyd protests & response, and excessively lengthy section on COVID-19, as I previously explained here, so I'd enthusiastically support moving out any of the recentist content I highlighted in that previous post; but I think those should be moved to main articles like COVID-19 in the United States, or Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church. I believe that would accomplish your and Valjean's goals. I see Political career of Donald Trump as little more than a "fat disambiguation" (WP:IAR), with summaries instead of mere links, that's perfectly good as it is. DFlhb (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good but I didn't quite follow your last sentence, so could you clarify? Bob K31416 (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

DFlhb: collapsing my reply to avoid derailing.

"Fat disambig" is a term I made up for the rare cases where main articles are best kept shorter than child articles, as a mere compilation of summaries, rather than properly expanded; either because child articles are more prominent than the main article, or because the main article just lacks any overarching narrative uniting its sections, hence acting as a disambig page no matter its length. See Mac operating systems for another example; its only goal is to provide jump-off points, but it's best kept short to lower our maintenance burden, and people can just click on child articles to see more. DFlhb (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC) In order to follow what you're saying, I'd like to clear up something first. I think there may be a disconnect between us regarding the meaning of child article and main article. (I think they are synonymous.) So with the aid of an example, let me ask you, what is the main article and child article in the context of the following section heading excerpt from Donald Trump? Foreign policy Main article: Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration Bob K31416 (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC) I use the terms "parent article" and "main article" interchangeably, which I agree is confusing given what the hatnote says. Donald Trump would be the main/parent article, and Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration would be the child article. DFlhb (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification in the collapsed text area. Valjean referred to child articles of Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration as grandchildren of the Donald Trump article. I think that you are suggesting that some of the material in the section Foreign policy of the Trump article should be moved to child articles of Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, i.e. grandchild articles of the Trump article, or elsewhere. That's fine and it's also fine with me if some of the material happened to be better placed in the Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration article. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

President's voices in articles

I checked on the Presidents of the United States articles and it was an audio clips of voices. Can you please upload Donald Trump's voice and add it into the article please? MichaeltheFox8621 (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This probably would be a good idea, actually. There are some clips at Commons already, how about his comments on the 202 election, File:Donald Trump voice.ogg? ValarianB (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That's the one I reverted here. Mupper-san added voice files not just to presidents' articles but also other politicians. Most of them are short. A 10-second voice file of Franz Joseph I of Austria from 1900 — great; one or two-minute clips of JFK, Hillary Clinton, etc. — great. 17 minutes of unfiltered Big Lie ("If you count the legal votes I easily win. If you count the illegal votes, they can try to steal the election from us") — no way. No objection if there's a short clip of something less conspiracy mongering. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Who cares what the content is, it's just a voice, its not like inclusion equates to support of the content. Besides, election denial is central to his personality and belief system, so this one would be quite appropriate for the bio. Besides besides x2, Bubba Clinton's OGG clocks in at 14:14, so Trump's 17 mins isn't unreasonable. ValarianB (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"I just wanna find 7286...votes..." public domain, readily available. SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

ValerianB: "We did the wrong thing somewhere else, so we should do the wrong thing here too" is not a particularly good rationale. --Jayron32 14:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Why would one think the usage is other presidential articles is "wrong"? ValarianB (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the notion that an inappropriately long OGG for "Bubba Clinton" does not justify a similarly inappropriately long Trump OGG file. Cut it down to something more appropriate and upload that instead. Or don't. But don't claim that because we used an inappropriately long OGG file in one other article, we should bind ourselves to doing the same thing here. You're allowed to do the right thing (using a shorter voice file) here, even if it isn't being done in one other article. --Jayron32 15:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The addition of voice boxes to this BLP & other politician bios, is tricky. Hearing the voice is great, but it does open the potential for disputes over what words should be heard. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Reverted edit... 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.

---

SPECIFICO, you reverted my edit. Allow me to justify.

Here's your edit summary:

this "single person's opinion" summarizes extensive detailed research by a panel of accredited experts in scientific and regulatory issues relating to his actions. the edit summary for removal was misleading and the removal obscures the meaning of the text.

Let's break this apart:

1. this "single person's opinion" summarizes extensive detailed research by a panel of accredited experts in scientific and regulatory issues relating to his actions.
   • Yes, it likely does. However, to say it "summarizes" is OR. From the source itself:
   • “This is a very aggressive attempt to rewrite our laws and reinterpret the meaning of environmental protections,” said Hana V. Vizcarra, a staff attorney at Harvard’s Environmental and Energy Law Program who has tracked the policy changes since 2018.
   • It is Hana's opinion and her opinion only, and it is OR to assume that because she may be part of a group, her opinion is representative of the entire group, which I'm assuming is the basis of your "accredited experts" argument. There is nothing in the source that qualifies this.
2. the edit summary for removal was misleading—based on the information I've given above, I don't think the edit summary was misleading.
3. the removal obscures the meaning of the text—I don't think it does.
   • Here is the sentence: He rolled back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations in an aggressive attempt to weaken environmental protections.
   • Now take away the 'aggressive'. I think it's still pretty clear that his goal was to weaken environmental protections. I don't see how the removal of 'agressive' obscures anything. Cessaune [talk] 04:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

No objections to removing "...aggressive...", from sentence. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a reasoned argument. This is not a vote. SPECIFICO talk 01:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Either he rolled back more than 100 enviromental policies or he didn't. In this case he did roll'em back & so there's no requirement for a description on how he did. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The text needs to reflect RS, as it now does. Dismissal of the sourced narrative violates NPOV. Reasoned argument means reasoned from sourcing and policy. SPECIFICO talk 04:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That's one thing GoodDay is not very good at. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You gotta like, you know, provide reasoning based on the source? That's the whole point. We're not arguing straight opinion, we're arguing the meaning and relevance of a particular stretch of RS. Cessaune [talk] 07:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to reinstate this unless someone actually brings up a case against it? Especially SPECIFICO, since you reverted it. Cessaune [talk] 16:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

PLease read WP:ONUS, its down to you to make a case for inclusion. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I did above, using the source and everything. Also, it's not inclusion, it's removal. Cessaune [talk] 16:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

And they have disagreed with your assessment (it is based on RS, a policy-based argument) and you are correct, but you are right WP:PRESERVE is more appropriate. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm just following the ARBCOM stuff. It has to be brought up on the talk page. And I think SPECIFICO's edit summary argument fails WP:OR, based on WP:PRESERVE. I explained why above. Cessaune [talk] 16:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "following ARBCOM stuff", unless you mean that a slow motion edit war is not explicitly prohibited with a bright-line restriction banhammer. Nevertheless, as has been stated, you do not have consensus for this, my objection stands, and the ONUS is on you to demonstrate consensus for your view. You might want to review RS narratives that amply verify "aggressive" although synonyms might also be acceptable. Destruction of regulation was one of the top policy agendas of those who surrounded and advised Trump, and he readily accepted such advice. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

"ARBCOM stuff" refers to the mandated BRD cycle.

I brought up a point, that, contrary to your claim that it ...summarizes extensive detailed research by a panel of accredited experts in scientific and regulatory issues relating to his actions, it in fact is only a single person's opinion, and while it can be reasonably construed that she represents the group she is in, it is OR to do so. You haven't refuted that point or engaged in any sort of discussion. Secondly, you're just saying stuff unsourced—You might want to review RS narratives that amply verify "aggressive" although synonyms might also be acceptable—and putting the ONUS on me to source it? What? Is there a source I'm missing already in the article? Thirdly, how do I demonstrate consensus for my view? We need to talk about it. That's the only way. Cessaune [talk] 17:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

No one is stopping you form talking about it, you were just told you can't make your change until you convince people its needed. Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

So let's talk about it. Simple. No one has talked about it. Cessaune [talk] 18:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes that have, you just do not agree with what has been said. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

What has been said? The text needs to reflect RS, as it now does. Dismissal of the sourced narrative violates NPOV. Reasoned argument means reasoned from sourcing and policy. This is the only statement pertaining to the edit that has been said. It does not address what I said. I "reasoned from sourcing and policy". No one has actually addressed any point I have made. Cessaune [talk] 18:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Please review what I said about 'arbcom stuff", etc. You do not appear to understand policy. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm jusst trying to spark discussion. We can argue forever over nothing or actually talk about the edit. Cessaune [talk] 18:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You've done everything according to policy and the page restriction. The reason for that article text has been given and repeated. Because nobody agrees with the removal, there's nothing more to say. SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

"Aggressive" is sourced later in the article to a member of Harvard’s Environmental and Energy Law Program, quoted by the NY Times. A reliable source, quoting an expert in the field. What exactly is the beef here? ValarianB (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I talked about this. The way it is said in the lead treats the singular expert's opinion as a fact. "...an agressive attempt" isn't corroborated by anything else in the source. Cessaune [talk] 19:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't need corroboration, as it isn't a controversial claim. Trump and the GOP staked out a strong anti-environmental, anti-regulatory policy from the get-go, this is not uncommon knowledge. ValarianB (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

What? Of course it needs corroboration. Source it better, but it needs something to just be stated so matter-of-factly. Cessaune [talk] 19:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

That is your opinion, which you have made painfully clear by this point. ValarianB (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess there is nothing more to say. I really thought on this page, a page notorious for being policy-based, my sourcing argument was strong. You know, you can't just say stuff like it isn't a controversial claim or Trump and the GOP staked out a strong anti-environmental, anti-regulatory policy from the get-go, this is not uncommon knowledge per WP:NOCOMMON and stuff like that. I thought it has been agreed on multiple times in the past that you need multiple RSs to corroborate direct statements such as "an aggressive attempt". But I digress. Cessaune [talk] 20:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The citation is an expert's tertiary meta-review of the analyses of experts in the field. Excellent source for a statement in Wiki-voice. SPECIFICO talk 21:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It's been about a week now & there's no consensus for undoing the revert-in-question. Can this discussion be closed & hatted? GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR applies to what is in an article, not to editor comments that are not part of the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2023 (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.

Israeli–Arab normalization agreements

In the main article Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, there is the section Israeli–Arab normalization agreements. No info from this section is in the Donald Trump article. At the end of the section is,

"Subsequently, the term "Abraham Accords" was used to refer collectively to agreements between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, respectively (the Bahrain–Israel normalization agreement). These two agreements, along with the Israel–Sudan normalization agreement and Israel–Morocco normalization agreement, have been described as one of Trump's most significant foreign policy accomplishments.

References

In the past, editors here have decided to exclude any mention of the Abraham Accords from the Foreign policy section of this article. Were they aware of the significant coverage in the main article Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration? Bob K31416 (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Like before. I've no objections to adding the Abraham Accords to this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not inclined to have the same discussion repeated. Would you happen to know where the above-mentioned section was discussed and give a link to the section in this Talk page's archives? Bob K31416 (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I've no memory of the above-mentioned section being discussed before. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is this being dredged up yet again? It was an accomplishment of the Trump administration, the man himself did nothing but put pen to paper at the finish line. That it why it is relevant to a sub-article on Foreign Policy, and has no relevance to Trump's life and biography.

Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_148#Abraham_Accords_and_NATO

Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_137#Abraham_accords

Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_150#Abraham_Accords

Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_143#Abraham_Accords

Zaathras (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

In my opening message, the Associated Press reference 2 [18] says that the Abraham Accords was an accomplishment of Trump, "The agreement builds on one of his [Trump's] main foreign policy accomplishments, winning broader recognition of Israel in the Arab world under the rubric of the “Abraham Accords.” Bob K31416 (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

We already covered this ground in Archive148. The "accomplishment" is by the Trump administration, not Trump personally. Also, it may behoove you to start looking at more recent sources rather than contemporary media reporting. foreignpolicy.com, for example, notes on 9/3/22 that the Accords are largely considered a failure, and also directly characterize them as "one of the Trump administration’s few foreign-policy achievements". Zaathras (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the archive 148 that you mentioned. The RS-backed point and Wikipedia section I mentioned here were not in that discussion. You are repeating the same point you mentioned in archive 148 that Trump deserves no credit for the Abraham Accords achievement, but that claim is refuted by the AP source I just mentioned, which is a reliable source and you are not. Also, it looks like you're trying to add a new point that the Accords are a failure, but the opinion piece you gave does not say that, although it does claim that the Accords have lost their luster.

I'll be quiet for now and give editors some time and a chance to find and read this discussion, and see if there is any significant support. Do not close this discussion. If there isn't any significant support, the discussion will just fade away and be archived automatically on its own. Bob K31416 (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the previous discussion did not include the same citation you've brought up now, but that doesn't seem to be relevant. The more recent cite I provided notes "the Trump administration", not the person. Also, not sure why you felt the need to issue some sort of "warning" about discussion closure. I'm a participant, and I believe editors should only close discussions they are involved in if it is either clear disruption, or they are the OP and wish to effectively withdraw. Zaathras (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that I've edited the segments quoted above at Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. The Vox piece does not support the claim, but there's an NYT piece and AP News article that do. They specifically credit Trump himself with the accomplishment, calling it "Mr. Trump’s signature foreign policy achievement" and "one of his main foreign policy accomplishments", respectively. I think the subarticle should continue to summarize this view (with attribution), but I don't think those two sources are enough to justify a mention here. I don't think the "it has a section in a sub-article" argument can hold much sway on its own, as this article by necessity will have to exclude some of the content in the many sub-articles. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

From a purely wiki-lawyer point of view, per WP:CCC: "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive." The NYT source and FP source linked above were not discussed in the most recent thread to generate strong consensus, the May 2021 RFC. I personally think consensus from ~20 months ago isn't "recent consensus" anymore, so opening a new discussion about this (especially with new sources) is not disruptive.

Personally, I still feel like the Abraham Accords deserve mention in this article. See my comments in this previous thread for rationales.

As an aside, the Accords themselves seem at least notable. Previous arguments have hinged on the idea that the Accords amounted to nothing in the long-term, so they don't deserve mention. But whether the Accords were a net positive ("formally easing tensions between Israel and its regional neighbors is a success, to be sure" NYT) or a net negative ("they divorced normalization with Arab states from any Israeli peace with the Palestinians. What looked like a breakthrough then now looks like the biggest drawback of the accords." FP), why would we not include even a mention that they were part of Trump's foreign policy strategy? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm still opposed to mentioning the Accords in Trump's top bio. The Foreign Policy article Zaathras mentioned referred to them as "arguably one of the Trump administration’s few foreign-policy achievements", more of an opinion or belief than a fact, and talks about the "Janus-faced nature of the accords and their legacy". Haaretz writes about "a U.S. administration that grandiosely markets a 'peace plan' that ends up being neither peace nor a plan," and concludes the article with this summation: "A broad perspective of the Abraham Accords leads to the conclusion that they failed to live up to the hype Trump tried to generate, and their regional impact was minimal. A narrower, more modest vantage point shows that in terms of relations with the UAE and Bahrain, the accords remain very valuable to Israel." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Point of order

What is so hard about ignoring repeated insistence on reversing repeatedly and recently decided content issues? I hatted this early on, and now we appear to be in the throes of yet another pointless sump that wastes valuable editor time and attention. Let's please ask ourselves whether there's anything new to be said on such matters and focus on other ways to improve the page. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• This has been discussed too much. There is not a consensus and there likely never is going to be a consensus to include the Abraham Accords in this article. For those who support including it, it's best to move on and try to improve the article in another way. These repeated threads are pointless and are not going to improve the article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Idea on how this might be rephrased

Current: Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.

-> Proposed: Some scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.

Just an idea unless maybe there has been a literature review pointing to a large body of scholar and historians at which point you could say many, but then again it is just an idea. DemocratGreen (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

See Consensus item 54 Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus can change. It's been long enough. That being said, no. I disagree. I have proposed something similar in the past: changing He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic to His reaction to and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was widely criticized, but it was shut down, due to the fact that I was attributing it to vague, non-specific entities. Simple, logical reasoning.

I would agree with a sentence like Many scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history, and then include four or five WP:RSs in the form of inline citation to back up that statement. Cessaune [talk] 03:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Replacing facts with weasels or inferring a categorical statement from a list of instances -- both bad ideas, and not improvements. SPECIFICO talk 03:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

'Many' is true and a WP:WEASEL, while the implication of the current sentence isn't. Pick your posion. Cessaune [talk] 04:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"It’s been long enough", "four or five WP:RS"? Our consensus version reflects the consensus among two large bodies of scholars and historians, the ones who took part in the C-SPAN and the Siena College surveys (see Donald_Trump#Approval_ratings_and_scholar_surveys). We'll revisit when there are new surveys (every four or eight years, depending on whether a given president gets one or two terms in office). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

We should not be whitewashing reality. So, no, "some" and "many" are out the window. Zaathras (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

'Many' is true, while the implication of the status quo sentence isn't. 'Some' is potential whitewashing, but I don't like that you characterized a good faith proposal like that. Cessaune [talk] 04:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The sentence as presently-constructed is fine and reflects the sources cited. "Many" is your personal characterization, and just because a suggestion is (apparently) made in good faith, doesn't necessarily make it a good proposal. Zaathras (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair. Cessaune [talk] 05:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Might we consider adding a statement such as 'although some scholars and historians have opinions to the contrary.'? Might the current statement be considered as non-neutral? DemocratGreen (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It would need to be sourced. The sources we have currently don't qualify this. And I really can't imagine a large body of reputable scholars ranking him anywhere below the bottom quartile. Cessaune [talk] 07:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Morocco

I suggest adding a paragraph in the foreign policy section about Morocco, in which we mention Trump's recognition of moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara, as well as his contribution to the normalization of diplomatic relations between Morocco and Israel. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Of far less relevance than the Abraham Accords, no. I'm sure it is already covered in the appropriate article. Zaathras (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no indication he could even find Morocco on a map. I have seen no extensive RS discussion of the proposed content. SPECIFICO talk 00:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps add it to the Trump administration page. if it's not already there. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That is unsupported opinion. There is no RS narrative as to the significance of this. SPECIFICO talk 11:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Trump delivers plastic bottles of water to Ohio

Wikipedia doesn't mention any of the thousands of good deeds Trump has done. Trump recently went to toxic wasteland, previously known as East Palestine, Ohio, after a devastating train derailment carrying tons of the most dangerous compounds known to man. The disaster happened Feb. 3rd, 2023, and Trump arrived 3 weeks afterward to deliver supplies and motivate the Biden Administration to deploy FEMA amongst other resources that the people of that community need. As of March 9th, 2023, Biden has still not visited the community nor deployed adequate assistance for the destroyed town. 169.136.195.25 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I have not seen any source that verifies Trump carried tons of toxins to the derailment site. At any rate, this has not received significant ongoing covverage in reliable sources, not even as much as his Puerto Rico towel-toss or his California forest grooming sojourn with his future daughter-in-law's ex. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

IP, you'll need reliable sources to back up your proposed text. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

There do seem to be plenty of sources giving significant coverage to his visit and giving out supplies, these were the first couple I saw: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Literally everything a president or former president, particularly this former president, does is covered in reliable sources, that's never really going to be an issue. Every year we get to know what the First Family has for XMas dinner. The point is relevance and weight. Did Donald Trump conduct a photo op to deliver supplies? Yes. Is it relevant to his biography? Certainly not. Is it relevant to a sub-article, perhaps some "Post-presidency of..." if such a thing exists? Probably. Zaathras (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, maybe it should be placed in the 2024 Donald Trump presidential campaign page. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Trump water "Trump's visit raised questions about his administration's rollback of rail safety regulations." SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

About that Trump donation: WKBN reported that Trump donated 9 pallets of 16-oz. Trump water bottles, i.e., the Trump Organization donated the stuff they serve at Trump’s clubs and hotels. Prices for a pallet start at $445, i.e., total cost of $4,000 to the self-professed billionaire's business, possibly tax-deductable. Value of free publicity for Trump’s 2024 campaign: priceless. The other 4 pallets and the transportation costs were donated by two moving companies, one of them based in Southern Florida and owned by enthusiastic Trump supporter Rourke who repaid Trump’s hyperbole about the size of his own and Rourke’s donation by repeating the BIG LIE and several more lies on the Tucker Carlson show . A huge donation, according to Trump:: Trump was pictured alongside several crates of water bottles bearing his name that had already arrived; he said more would be arriving on trucks. "We have big tractor-trailers full of water; I think you're going to have water for a long time maybe," he said. Maybe not very long - 12,500 16-oz. bottles of Trump water for a town of 5,000. The Seton Hill University soccer team collected and delivered twice as many. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

All of the above is really why we can't have this, as it would require a full paragraph to show the analyses of this donation, and reactions to it (oK, maybe more than one).It is one incident in one town. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, Trump may well be one of the most dangerous compounds known to man, but he actually went to East Palestine five days after this announcement by Ohio governor Mike DeWine (R) and FEMA. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

This is literally a scene straight from The Ugly American. ValarianB (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2023

Should we remove "Donald John Trump" from | birth_name = parameter, per discussion via Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 30#Birth name parameter and Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 36#Birth name parameter. Surveyor Mount (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting point, although I believe you meant to start an RFC and not submit an edit request, so I've removed the edit request template because it won't work anyway. Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You're pointing to a 5 year-old discussion, and another with only one respondent. I looked through presidential articles back to Lincoln, and all but a handful use the birth_name parameter, and most have birth names matching their full name. I think you'd need a wider discussion than one just on this talk page. ValarianB (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The standard practice on Wikipedia (from what I've seen) is to include the birth_name parameter with the person's full birth name if the birth name is different in anyway from the title of the article, excluding some other reason such as MOS:DEADNAME. In this case Donald John Trump is different from the title Donald Trump. So, no, we should not remove the birth_name parameter. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 14:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Supposed incoming arrest

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.

---

According to recent media activity, Trump is expected to be arrested next week. If this does happen and it is not just Trump lying again about something insignificant, does it warrant a mention and an article? Here's some sources that better explain the situation: [1] [2] [3] Jennytacular (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If it happens, it definitely warrants at least a mention. Ex-presidents don't get arrested every day and so I'm reasonably sure it wouldn't be WP:RECENTISM to mention it. Loki (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

CNN reported on Friday that multiple "law enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity," told them about discussions between "senior staff members from the Manhattan district attorney’s office, the New York State Court Officers ... and the New York Police Department" on the logistics of handling a potential indictment. Apparently, the Secret Service is also preparing for a Trump press conference (natch) after a possible arrest, arraignment, and release from custody. How Trump arrived at "I will be arrested on Tuesday, click the donate button" from that is his secret. If he is arraigned, I expect we will add a sentence or two, and I'm pretty sure that a few editors are already drafting a new article to be the first out of the starting blocks. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The Doonesbury preview of potential developments potentially to come, maybe. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

However there has been no official announcement, and his lawyers do not seem to know anything about it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

That said, until it does happen, we probably shouldn't be adding much to the article about this. Right now, the only named official we have discussing any of this (especially the specifics of the date) is... well I suppose he isn't an "official" anymore, since it is Trump himself. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

We should not add anything about it, until there is an arrest. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2023 (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.