Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:49, 26 April 2023

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements. Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Misplaced Pages articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used. Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: This page is biased towards/against Trump because it mentions/doesn't mention x. Why won't you fix it? A1: Having a neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to all viewpoints. Rather, it refers to Misplaced Pages's effort to discuss topics and viewpoints in a roughly equal proportion to the degree that they are discussed in reliable sources, which in political articles is mostly mainstream media, although academic works are also sometimes used. For further information, please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Q2: A recent request for comment had X votes for support and Y votes for oppose. Why was it closed as no consensus when one position had more support than the other? A2: Misplaced Pages is built on consensus, which means that editors and contributors here debate the merits of adding, subtracting, or rearranging the information. Consensus is not a vote, rather it is a discussion among community members over how best to interpret and apply information within the bounds of our policy and guideline infrastructure. Often, but not always, the community finds itself unable to obtain consensus for changes or inclusions to the article. In other cases, the community may decide that consensus exists to add or modify material based on the strength of the arguments made by members citing relevant policy and guideline related material here. This can create confusion for new comers or those unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's consensus building processes, especial since consensus can change. While all are welcome to participate in consensus building, keep in mind that the best positions for or against including material are based on policy and guideline pages, so it may be in your best interest to read up on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines before diving into the debates.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: 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 Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: Indictment of Donald Trump Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign ... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 17, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed July 15, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed August 31, 2019 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 29, 2020 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American / Political parties High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Television Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other talk page banners

Template:Vital article This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 233 million views since December 2007. This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 126 times. The weeks in which this happened: June 14 to 20, 2015 June 28 to July 4, 2015 July 19 to 25, 2015 July 26 to August 1, 2015 August 2 to 8, 2015 August 9 to 15, 2015 August 16 to 22, 2015 August 23 to 29, 2015 August 30 to September 5, 2015 September 6 to 12, 2015 September 13 to 19, 2015 September 20 to 26, 2015 September 27 to October 3, 2015 December 6 to 12, 2015 December 13 to 19, 2015 January 3 to 9, 2016 January 10 to 16, 2016 January 17 to 23, 2016 January 24 to 30, 2016 January 31 to February 6, 2016 February 7 to 13, 2016 February 14 to 20, 2016 February 21 to 27, 2016 February 28 to March 5, 2016 March 6 to 12, 2016 March 13 to 19, 2016 March 20 to 26, 2016 March 27 to April 2, 2016 April 3 to 9, 2016 April 10 to 16, 2016 April 17 to 23, 2016 April 24 to 30, 2016 May 1 to 7, 2016 May 8 to 14, 2016 May 15 to 21, 2016 May 22 to 28, 2016 May 29 to June 4, 2016 June 5 to 11, 2016 June 12 to 18, 2016 July 3 to 9, 2016 July 10 to 16, 2016 July 17 to 23, 2016 July 24 to 30, 2016 July 31 to August 6, 2016 August 21 to 27, 2016 August 28 to September 3, 2016 September 4 to 10, 2016 September 11 to 17, 2016 September 18 to 24, 2016 September 25 to October 1, 2016 October 2 to 8, 2016 October 9 to 15, 2016 October 16 to 22, 2016 October 23 to 29, 2016 October 30 to November 5, 2016 November 6 to 12, 2016 November 13 to 19, 2016 November 20 to 26, 2016 November 27 to December 3, 2016 December 4 to 10, 2016 December 11 to 17, 2016 December 18 to 24, 2016 January 1 to 7, 2017 January 8 to 14, 2017 January 15 to 21, 2017 January 22 to 28, 2017 January 29 to February 4, 2017 February 5 to 11, 2017 February 12 to 18, 2017 February 19 to 25, 2017 February 26 to March 4, 2017 March 5 to 11, 2017 March 12 to 18, 2017 March 19 to 25, 2017 March 26 to April 1, 2017 April 2 to 8, 2017 April 23 to 29, 2017 May 14 to 20, 2017 May 21 to 27, 2017 May 28 to June 3, 2017 June 11 to 17, 2017 June 25 to July 1, 2017 October 8 to 14, 2017 October 22 to 28, 2017 November 26 to December 2, 2017 January 14 to 20, 2018 June 10 to 16, 2018 September 30 to October 6, 2018 October 28 to November 3, 2018 November 4 to 10, 2018 November 11 to 17, 2018 November 18 to 24, 2018 November 25 to December 1, 2018 December 9 to 15, 2018 September 22 to 28, 2019 December 15 to 21, 2019 January 5 to 11, 2020 February 23 to 29, 2020 March 1 to 7, 2020 April 12 to 18, 2020 May 31 to June 6, 2020 June 7 to 13, 2020 June 14 to 20, 2020 June 21 to 27, 2020 June 28 to July 4, 2020 August 9 to 15, 2020 August 16 to 22, 2020 August 23 to 29, 2020 September 27 to October 3, 2020 October 4 to 10, 2020 October 11 to 17, 2020 October 18 to 24, 2020 October 25 to 31, 2020 November 1 to 7, 2020 November 8 to 14, 2020 November 15 to 21, 2020 November 22 to 28, 2020 November 29 to December 5, 2020 December 6 to 12, 2020 December 13 to 19, 2020 January 3 to 9, 2021 January 10 to 16, 2021 January 17 to 23, 2021 January 24 to 30, 2021 January 31 to February 6, 2021 July 10 to 16, 2022 Section sizes Section size for Donald Trump (90 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,114 9,114 Early life and education 3,107 3,107 Personal life 19 13,859 Family 1,340 1,340 Health 3,685 3,685 Views 8,815 8,815 Business career 149 35,713 Real estate 3,919 14,890 Manhattan and Chicago developments 5,738 5,738 Atlantic City casinos 3,612 3,612 Clubs 1,621 1,621 Side ventures 8,039 9,323 Trump University 1,284 1,284 Foundation 5,027 5,027 Legal affairs and bankruptcies 2,316 2,316 Wealth 4,008 4,008 Media career 4,625 4,625 Early political aspirations (1987–2014) 4,967 4,967 2016 presidential election 32 19,815 Campaign 11,729 19,783 Financial disclosures 3,669 3,669 Results 4,385 4,385 First presidency (2017–2021) 139 177,149 Early actions 2,390 2,390 Conflicts of interest 3,368 3,368 Domestic policy 21,326 21,326 Race relations 6,234 6,234 Pardons and commutations 2,574 2,574 Immigration 3,087 20,348 Travel ban 4,348 4,348 Family separation at the border 6,269 6,269 Trump wall and government shutdown 6,644 6,644 Foreign policy 2,859 35,965 Trade 2,517 2,517 Russia 4,221 4,221 East Asia 21 10,653 China, Hong Kong, Taiwan 4,914 4,914 North Korea 5,718 5,718 Middle East 23 15,715 Afghanistan 3,042 3,042 Israel 2,637 2,637 Saudi Arabia 2,229 2,229 Syria 3,797 3,797 Iran 3,987 3,987 Personnel 8,963 8,963 Judiciary 4,174 4,174 COVID-19 pandemic 291 31,784 Initial response 7,808 7,808 White House Coronavirus Task Force 5,281 5,281 World Health Organization 2,677 2,677 Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures 7,968 7,968 Political pressure on health agencies 2,690 2,690 Outbreak at the White House 2,666 2,666 Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign 2,403 2,403 Investigations 1,079 26,084 Financial 3,111 3,111 Russian election interference 6,491 6,491 FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations 2,573 2,573 Mueller investigation 12,830 12,830 First impeachment 10,402 10,402 Second impeachment 3,398 3,398 2020 presidential election 34 25,702 Defeat to Biden 8,429 17,196 Rejection of results 8,767 8,767 January 6 Capitol attack 8,472 8,472 Inter-presidency (2021–present) 5,128 37,452 Business activities 2,382 2,382 Investigations, criminal indictments and convictions, civil lawsuits 1,150 29,942 FBI investigations 5,781 5,781 Criminal referral by the House January 6 Committee 693 693 State criminal indictments 3,176 3,176 Federal criminal indictments 5,743 5,743 Criminal conviction in the 2016 campaign fraud case 7,734 7,734 Civil judgments 5,665 5,665 2024 presidential election 15,411 15,411 Political practice and rhetoric 7,488 37,336 Link to hate crimes 4,757 4,757 Conspiracy theories 3,330 3,330 Truthfulness 10,483 10,483 Social media 5,810 5,810 Relationship with the press 5,468 5,468 Assessments 18 6,911 Public image 4,525 4,525 Scholarly 2,368 2,368 Notes 136 136 References 30 30 Works cited 18 11,572 Books 3,256 3,256 Journals 8,298 8,298 External links 5,431 5,431 Total 408,330 408,330 Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times. Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge. Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Misplaced Pages". The Daily Dot. Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge. Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Misplaced Pages vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today. Griffin, Andrew (23 November 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Misplaced Pages edit". The Independent. Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek. Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Misplaced Pages war has kicked off again". The Inquirer. Brandom, Russell (December 3, 2018). "Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge. Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone". Slate. Alex Pasternack (7 March 2020). "How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company. Retrieved 9 March 2020. Mike hunt (21 May 2020). "Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News. Retrieved 22 May 2020. Dan Evon (11 November 2020). "Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump's Misplaced Pages Page?". Snopes. Retrieved 19 November 2020.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

• v
• e

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
] item
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 7 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Misplaced Pages's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (RfC October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health habits" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

Thoughts

While this statement in the lead is technically accurate, I think that it could be confusing to others.

"making him the first former U.S. president to face criminal charges"

President Grant was arrested while in office. Could it be edited to say something like "the first US president to be arrested since Ulysses S. Grant in 1872. Making note to be the only president arrested after leaving office..." Not stuck on the wording but I think the information is important. Michael-Moates (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

i don't think this article is the place for possibly-apocryphal trivia, no, even if the Grant "arrest" did occur, it was the equivalent of a traffic citation. ValarianB (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/03/1167683136/ulysses-s-grant-was-the-first-president-to-be-arrested

According to this article, Grant never faced criminal charges, although he was arrested. So, based on this, the current wording is fine IMO. Cessaune 17:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It isn't confusing. Trump is still the only U.S. president (former or sitting) to have been indicted on criminal charges. Grant was stopped and cited for "speeding" (racing a horse-drawn buggy down M Street). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Grant never faced criminal charges, so that's pretty irrelevant to Trump being charged with felony offences. Bill Williams 23:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

There is outdated information in the "Indictment" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4041:5A8F:2E00:AC72:D920:2091:FF73 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Abortion in lead

Hi, @Bill Williams:. I saw that you reverted my edit. Dobbs v. Jackson has frequently been cited as the most enduring legacy of Trump's presidency.

Not mentioning it in the lead is a bit strange. KlayCax (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is part of his enduring legacy, but can you point me to a single other article about a President that mentions anything their SCOTUS appointees did in the lead? This is an article about Trump, not the Supreme Court or its justices. They also made other landmark decisions regarding guns (Bruen), Native Americans (McGirt/Castro-Huerta) etc., as did the justices appointed by Obama, Bush etc. This content is not DUE for the lead in an already jam-packed article. Bill Williams 23:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean you could say Obama's judges vote in favor of Obergefell (same-sex marriage), or Bush's judges in Heller (2nd amendment). Obergefell and Heller were landmark, but created (not overturned) constitutional rights.

But Roe was almost 50 years old when Dobbs was decided 5-4, and Dobbs was leaked to press before being officially released (not to mention Whole Women's Health v. Jackson (2021) nullified Roe in Texas even before oral arguments in Dobbs). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I would mention it, though I would grammatically clarify that it was his 3 SCOTUS judges that overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Other judges, such as ongoing litigation over the drug mifepristone (i.e. Matthew J. Kacsmaryk) or in WWH v. Jackson (2021) (which the SCOTUS allowed pre-Dobbs being argued and released) shouldn't be included in the lead in my opinion. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• I've removed the new content about this because it wasn't sourced at all. Please find reliable sourcing that establishes that Dobbs is indeed part of Trump's legacy and then try and convince the community that it's a big enough part of his legacy to be included in the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 03:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Closing of RfC on Mark Milley apology

Moved to User talk:Szmenderowiecki Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

ping|Szmenderowiecki: You wrote that WP:ONUS dictates that it is up to those seeking to include content to rally consensus. As of the moment of writing, the sentence is included in the article. A discussion preceded this RfC. Were you under the impression that the sentence was added recently since you mentioned the discussion that took place a month ago? The sentence was added to the section almost three years ago. WP:ONUS says that "he responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." That's a bit vague but I read that to mean "those seeking to add disputed content." The proponents of the RfC were seeking to remove long-standing content. The RfC proposer's question "Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now)" may have led some readers to believe that it is recently added content. The proposer should have asked whether "the sentence below should be removed from the article." Also, this cute move, u|Iamreallygoodatcheckers, really? I haven’t decided whether I want to do something about this or not, so for now I’m unarchiving the RfC to see what other editors think. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(This wasn't meant to be a private discussion, so copying my comment back to this page. Responses by Szmenderowiecki and Iamreallygoodatcheckers at User_talk:Szmenderowiecki#Mark_Milley_apology_close. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC))

• Bad close and canvassing Please reverse the close, restore the text, and await experienced Admin close. Also, let's not jump to immediate archving of significant discussions, even long ones that take up lots of talk page space. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• The closer was correct in determining that there was no consensus for the material, and yes they are correct in removing it per WP:BLPRESTORE which says, ...the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material... If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. WP:STATUSQUO is not a valid argument to keep because this is a BLP (it even mentions at STATUSQUO the BLP exemption). There should not be a push to include material that there is clearly no consensus for in this BLP. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 15:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  A very disappointing comment and pure equivocation. There was no BLP issue with this article text. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  How does WP:BLPRESTORE apply to the sentence in question (also, the closer didn't mention it)? To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections. WP:STATUSQUO: "unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material" in BLP's? Neither you nor any of the other supporters of your proposal questioned the neutrality and writing standard of the sentence or the reliability of its source. Your argument boiled down to "off-topic". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  When something is being mentioned in the article that is off-topic that means it inherently lacks weight, which falls under WP:NPOV; therefore, it is a NPOV violation. Yes, the closer did not cite BLPRESTORE, but that doesn't mean it doesn't apply. Furthermore, they did cite WP:NOCON, and the BLP exemption under NOCON is more or less the same thing as BLPRESTORE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 15:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close Speaking as an admin who was not involved in the original discussion: The close is fine. It's a reasonable reading of the consensus that WP:ONUS has not been established to include the material, and that's a reasonable reading of Misplaced Pages policy as well. --Jayron32 17:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Jayron, glad to see you here as an Admin who's also familiar with American Politics subject matter.

  Now, here's why I think you're wrong on this: First, "reasonable" is way too weak a test for the close of a month-long discussion on a contentious topic. Second, the closer cites those many who said this page is not about Milley, etc. But those !voters did not address the many explanations as to why this content is more about Trump than Milley the man, and further that its media weight had little to do with Milley man, and everything to do with his unprecedented and urgent rebuke of Trump. Finally, yes some editors view ONUS that way but as you know the interpretation of ONUS as to standing content is highly controversial and has been disputed for years on the V talk page. We have recently seen too many eager, inexperienced non-Admin closes on Contentious Topics. It's repeatedly led to trouble, wasting editor time and morale and though the closers are well-intentioned, it is not worth the waste of editors' time and morale or faith in consensus-building on CT pages. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, that's your reading of the discussion. That someone else interprets the comments and weights the responses differently than you would have doesn't mean they were wrong in doing so, especially since your analysis is colored by the fact that you have a pony in the race. The advantage of leaning on the side of the closer in a close call over your analysis is that they don't. --Jayron32 12:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  Wow, Jayron. Please don't suggest that my comment is intended or motivated by a POV or view about content. Maybe I'm concerned about inexperienced non-Admin closes on difficult issues in CT articles? That would be the simplest explanation. The close should not depend on their interpretation of the controversial issue RE: ONUS. Moreover, if I understand you correctly, you take a questionable position that the issue RE: consensus and ONUS should be interpreted in your and the closer's way notwithstanding that this article has functioned for years by observing established items of consensus, many of them implicit consensus, and protects reinstatement of longstanding text as such. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, it says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." If consensus doesn't exist, then it isn't included. That's only controversial when it's information you want in the article. Look, it's quite clear you intend to badger every that doesn't have an opinion that exactly matches yours. You asked for neutral, third party opinions on the close. I have not been involved in the discussion, or any related matters. I gave my opinion. I have no intention of allowing myself to be hassled anymore. You don't win just because you make more comments. Your opinion is the best documented opinion on the matter, but you are still only afforded the weight due to one person, no matter how many times you comment. --Jayron32 14:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  What would be most constructive, I think (if you wish to continue volunteering your time to this little issue) would be for you to provide a reasoned close that takes account of all the arguements, sourcing, and rebuttals of the removal-advocates. Who knows? Maybe the close was correct. But the closing statement and the "endorse" comments in this thread certainly give no solid reasoned summary and evaluation of the !votes and arguments. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  The closer left a multi-paragraph explanation of their evaluation of the votes and arguments; it would be difficult for me to add anything more that is worth saying. --Jayron32 15:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close - It's best we accept the decision & move on. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn close—while my thoughts do align with GoodDay's above, in that we should really be finding something better to do with our time, the close felt biased to me from the beginning. It did support the outcome I wanted, and I'm not too sure reclosing will change the outcome, but I think reversing it is necessary, if only to uphold policy. I don't have much to say; Space4T explains why it was a bad close nicely above. Cessaune 22:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Reminder — As indicated in the message by Szmenderowiecki at the top of this section, there is a discussion at User_talk:Szmenderowiecki#Mark_Milley_apology_close, where the closer has been responding to comments about the closing. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• See Misplaced Pages:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Recommend taking the closure challenge to WP:AN, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Why, Good Day? That is a last resort that has all the perils of any drama board thread, not least of which is a huge drain on editor resources for a relatively minor matter of detail. Why do you recommend that. A simple "recommend" does not have much weight. SPECIFICO talk 15:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems to have come to a stand still, on this BLP's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

And so you propose stirring up a swarm of nonsense at AN? I don't get it. Why would you recommend restarting what you think is a dead issue? SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's ask @Space4Time3Continuum2x:, what they wish to do next. Withdraw challenge or bring it to WP:AN. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t decided whether I want to do something about this or not, so for now I’m unarchiving the RfC to see what other editors think wasn't a challenge. So now two weeks later we have a few evenly split opinions, three "bad close" and three "endorse close". Looks like a dead issue to me until the arrival of Milley's memoir. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to clarify your position. Are you saying that you weren't challenging the close with your opening remarks and that challenging the close is a "dead issue" and should not be pursued now? Bob K31416 (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, yes, and yes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

First/only "officeholder" or "president" twice impeached by the U.S. House? Which word should be used?

Is this change agreeable? Changing the statement that Trump became the only president to be twice impeached to the (sourced/verifiable) statement that he became the only officeholder to be twice impeached by the U.S. House.

There appears to be disagreement of the gist of consensus that the last discussion this talk page had on it. I believe that the last discussion largely accepted broadening the claim when that was substantively discussed, but objected to using the word "individuals" (hence why this latest edit used the term "officeholders"

By limiting the statement to "president", we leave it unclear whether other officeholders have been twice impeached federally in the U.S. In fact, by the deliberate language that limits the claim solely to "president" it might reasonably be falsely inferred by readers that this wording choice was due to the existence of other officeholder(s) that have been the subject of multiple impeachments. However, by wording it as "officeholder", there is no mistaking this, and its is understood that this means he was the first president as presidents are entirely encompassed by the word "officeholder" SecretName101 (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I would say he's the first "person" to be twice impeached. "President" you correctly note is too narrow, but "officeholder" feels very clunky to me. Loki (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

As I've said in the recent previous discussion, the larger pool of eligible personnel doesn't make the two impeachments more significant, the importance of the office does. How many readers even know that officeholders other than the president are subject to impeachment and, if so, which ones? Why would some of those readers falsely infer that other officeholder(s) ... have been the subject of multiple impeachments instead of being removed from office or care about them? The NBC source is about the House impeachment managers bringing it up "as an example of the Senate holding an impeachment trial for an official who's no longer in office." (It resulted in the Senate determining in 1799 that senators are not "civil officers" and therefore not subject to impeachment). How is this important for Trump's two impeachments? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Too many paragraphs in the lead?

As of writing, the lead has seven paragraphs, and I'm unsure if they benefit the article. The final sentence of MOS:LEAD's lead paragraph recommends four paragraphs. I'm leaning towards suggesting that the paragraphs on his presidency be seen if they can be consolidated into one or two, and maybe consider putting his civil and criminal lawsuits in the same paragraph as his impeachments. What I see as the main issue is that the paragraphs are almost niche focused, and overarching "themes" should be condensed as appropriate. Maybe even see if bits and pieces can be placed into the first sentence and turn it into a multi-sentence paragraph? Just an idea. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Typo in the body of this article

It says "He Three Supreme Court Justices." I don't imagine that is correct. Hairsonfire (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Fixed; removed and I mentioned the intended content in the final lead paragraph. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments requested on draft Rewritten Lead

Should the lead of this article be changed to this rewritten version? This aligns with "current consensus" above.

DynaGuy00 (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I briefly read the rewrite and I think it flows and reads better then the current lead. From my reading of the rewrite I didn't notice anything removed (besides the Dobbs legacy which I've removed from the current lead anyway) and saw only 1 new sentence: Trump has been the subject of significant controversy and critique before, during, and after his presidency. Otherwise, it appears everything else was merely rearranged. However, I could have missed something; so I'll ask DynaGuy00: (1) What content, if any, is actually removed rather than just rearranged? and (2) What content is new? Iamreallygoodatcheckers 03:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Which items of the current consensus does what part of your rewrite align with? The last time you brought up this rewrite, you said the lead is "poorly written". I just spent some time comparing the versions. If it is so poorly written, why are you mostly shuffling sentences around? Example:

Current version: He expanded the company's operations to building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos and golf courses, and later started side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice. Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies.

New: He expanded the company's operations to building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos and golf courses, and later started side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies. He also co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice from 2004 to 2015.’’

IMO, that’s not an improvement. The current version mentions his career(s), and then the legal actions he and his businesses were involved in. Your mention appears to make the point that the legal actions had nothing to do with the Apprentice, which, BTW, isn’t the case (discrimination, idea theft, pitching a failed videophone on the show, Zervos defamation suit).

Your rewrite is 44 characters longer than the current one. You removed "in an aggressive attempt to weaken environmental protections" (anything else?). What did you add? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Link the Trump Wall in lead?

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.

My edit was reverted by for WP:STATUSQUO reasons which linked "building a wall" in the lead sentence diverted military funding towards building a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border to the Trump wall. Would like to obtain consensus on adding this link per WP:BRD. I believe that this link can additionally be helpful for readers looking for more information not he wall itself as the link to the article on Trump's wall is more prominent is placed here. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Include the link. Obviously, it's relevant linking. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 19:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Include; it's one of the most prominent symbols of his presidency. This recent paper calls it one of two metaphors that animate Trump's rhetoric, and describes how it ties-in to everything else: the "President-as-CEO" metaphor, dealmaker symbolism ("I'll make Mexico pay for it"), nativism, protectionism, and soundbyte-as-policy. DFlhb (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, Trump wall says that The concept for the proposed expansion was developed by campaign advisers Sam Nunberg and Roger Stone in 2014 as a memorable talking point Trump could use to tie his business experience as a builder and developer to his immigration policy proposals. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's the edit by User:Space4Time3Continuum2x that reverted the link. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: did you intentionally remove the link or was it just collateral damage to the removal of the other content? Iamreallygoodatcheckers 19:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

It was intentional. The sentence already has two WikiLinks, and the second clause isn't about the wall that didn't get built but about President I-did-more-for-my-military-than-any-president-ever-in-the-known-universe attempting to divert $3.8 billion in funds allocated by Congress to the Defense Department's budget for (among other purposes) "buying equipment for National Guard and Reserve units, such as trucks, generators and spare parts, as well as fighter jets and ships." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the fact that the sentence already has two links really a reason to not include the link? That seems quite arbitrary IMO. Cessaune 00:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You know my opinion: the blue "ink" is distracting from the information. If we have to have some blue (item 60 of the consensus), then let's keep it to a minimum and off the PR stunts like Trump's wall. relevant to his presidency — about as relevant as the other PR stunts, the meetings with Kim Jong-Un, currently commemorated on Trump's I-love-me wall at Mar-a-Lago. They were all distractions from the real agenda, tax-cuts for the super-rich and further dismantling of the social safety net. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Source? Cessaune 14:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

For what, the social safety net? The proposal sunk by an election. Or for his PR stunts being a distraction (, )? I'm opining on the talk page, SYNTH doesn't apply. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikilinking as necessary is better than a quota. Plus, I would say that the Trump Wall is too big of a PR stunt to be grouped with all other PR stunts, considering that it was one of the most well known campaign promises of his as well as the center of a Steve Banon GoFundMe controversy. I don't think that a firm quota should be implemented for sentences; as long as an entire sentence isn't blue (or red for that matter), we should be fine. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Include it; it has obvious ties to Trump and is relevant to his presidency. Cessaune 16:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Neutral - linking or not linking to the Trump Wall, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per Link clarity: "The article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link." Trump's wall is "an expansion of the Mexico–United States barrier" begun under Trump. But Trump never explained what the wall would be except that it would be beautiful and Mexico would pay for it. TFD (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Stop !voting

Please don't treat every talk page discussion as if it needed an up or down !vote off the top. Horrible. And the link is silly, per OP. We need more tertiary sourcing and less holding up each individual action or controversy as if it is dispositive of some unstated conclusion about the subject. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not like you can WP:Bold-refine this specific edit. The ArbCom restrictions also make things a bit tedious. If it was deemed important enough to be reverted, it's important enough to bring to the talk page, and a !vote is a simple, easy and relatively quick way to gauge conesnsus. I don't see what other option there is. Cessaune 16:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I read your response as confirmation of my concern. There are thousands of alternatives that do not take the form of yes or no. I tried to suggest one in my post, without any specific article text proposed. Namely, the article needs to use more tertiary sources, not editor-curated lists of sins and outrages. Tertiary RS by expert mainstream commentators are increasingly abundant. The upshot is that this man was unprepared for the office -- even outside the very wide range of all but one or two of his diverse predecessors. That he lacks the knowledge or personal character to assume such responsibilities, that he routinely misapplied and misapproriated the powers of the US executive, etc. etc. That is more what's needed, with RS citations rather than a mere collation of "smoking gun" gotcha's like the wall, the Bible fiasco, etc. Not that some of those may not be noteworthy in themselves, - the Neo-Nazi equivocation, e.g. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Re "That is more what's needed, with RS citations rather than a mere collation of "smoking gun" gotcha's like the wall, the Bible fiasco, etc." — What Bible fiasco are you referring to? Bob K31416 (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree. ...holding up each individual action or controversy as if it is dispositive of some unstated conclusion about the subject is something we're all guilty of on this page. The article definitely needs to use more tertiary sources, especially now that many tertiary RSs exist on the man.

However, to bring up a full scale overhaul/rewrite in a routine talk page discussion about whether to link three words or not seems kind of... excessive. I don't know. And since this potential tertiary source rewrite isn't going to be finished any time soon, what you're saying just seems kind of irrelevant to the discussion IMO. Cessaune 20:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Silly side comment: given what article this is, I find this subsection title to be unintentionally humorous. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 05:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose --Jayron32 15:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

We need to begin closing discussions like this

This is the type of discussion that is so typical of this page. We have a minor content dispute of relative unimportance and it leads to some discussion among editors and nothing will ever be accomplished from it because everybody is too scared to act on it. Now of course, it doesn't make sense to escalate this further into the dispute resolution process (noticeboards, RfC's, etc.) because it's just not that important. So it results in status quo being aggressively kept in place. This unfortunate reality creates an environment where nothing will ever be readily accomplished and literal hundreds, or thousands, of hours of editor time is sunk for nothing. I understand that I'm involved in this dispute and can't be a fair closer or judge of this discussion, but most closers would probably find a rough consensus or so for inclusion. But, this can not and will never be implemented because on this article status quo is king unless you damn near got a RfC result closed by admin or something equivalent. Frankly, it's analogues to a form of filibuster. WP:Closing would seem to suggest not closing discussions of this nature, but it's written under the pretense that those involved in the discussion saw the consensus and understood that it should be respected, whether they like or not. I sincerely believe that standard can never be successfully applied onto this talk page, and from my experience it rarely happens. That is why for this article, we should have a practice of uninvolved editors going through these simple threaded discussion to determine if there is a consensus of any kind. I believe this would be a effective way to make progress on this article and a more efficient way of ensuring consensus prevails over the status quo. It would also be a reasonable way of avoiding time being spent on time-draining, contentious RfC's, which may be reserved for the big, clearly defined questions or perhaps when a smaller discussion was closed with no consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 03:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. On a heavily edited page the status quo has substantial consensus. In this case there's 2-3 editors who care to change it and hundreds who have not agreed. Also wrong is the suggestion that we should impose or rely on uninvolved editors unfamiliar with all the reasons for the status quo and have them make decisions instead of the most experienced and knowledgeable cohort here. "Most closers would..." = an assertion that cannot be verified or falsified and therefore a meaningless statement. SPECIFICO talk 12:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that, since this page is so heavily edited, anything currently in the article (status quo) has a sort of 'silent consensus' of, at least, the hundreds who watch this page? Just asking for clarification. Cessaune 15:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but it would be better to say a rebuttable "substantial degree" of consensus. so a small insubstantial dissent means relatively little. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't like this line of thinking. If we shouldn't rely on uninvolved editors unfamiliar with all the reasons for the status quo and have them make decisions instead of the most experienced and knowledgeable cohort here, why would you care about the silent opinions of those who watch the page but don't contribute to discussions or the article to any meaningful degree? If someone raises an issue on the talk page, people should have free rein to !vote on it, and, if they choose not to, I don't like the idea that we should assume silence is a form of consensus. Cessaune 16:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Note, I said a rebuttable degree of consensus for the status quo. This is very well established practice on Wikipeda. If you are interested you can read the dozens of discussions of such consensus on various discussion pages. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

If you would like to change any Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines, I would suggest that you discuss it on those talk pages. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair, I guess. Cessaune 18:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This is pretty sensible, despite obvious downsides (and dubious alignment with our policies except WP:IAR). It would have prevented the mess currently ongoing at United States, for example. (full-protected, with such a rapid-fire rate of major changes that it's impossible to keep up or properly scrutinize them). DFlhb (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It's been a week now. Perhaps we can have an outsider close/hat the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved. I'll hat it if you like. SPECIFICO talk 20:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The "this article is part of a series about"-box should lie right below the info-box.

This is the standard. Would someone please fix this? Ramanujaner (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Someone moved it into the Donald_Trump#Russian_election_interference section "to avoid image stacking at the beginning of the article". I just moved it back. Doesn't cause any crowding problems in Vector 2010. In Vector 2022, it pushes Trump's high school photo down into the "Health habits" section but that's the only "stacking". IMO that's preferable to the series box way down in the body. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Ivana Trump’s nationality (consensus item 34)

I have no problem with the consensus, but I want to add this correction as a second source. The consensus is based on this discussion. Two editors stated in that discussion that her mother was Austrian, based on information in Ivana Trump’s article at the time (I corrected it in this edit). That was disinformation the Trumps had fed to the press to hide the fact that Ivana had married Austrian skier Alfred Winkelmayr to obtain an Austrian passport and be allowed to legally leave communist Czechoslovakia. They officially admitted it in 1990 during the divorce proceedings. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to clarify what you want to do. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I just did it. If anyone objects, I'll revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: After a bit of thought, I'll object to that. It wasn't subjected to discussion, so can't be a part of the consensus, so shouldn't be a "source" of consensus 34. It's little different from creating a new consensus item containing nothing but your own comments. I suggest you save that for when #34 gets challenged, if ever. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mandruss: That's assuming I outlive Misplaced Pages or the internet or electricity. I reverted. Maybe I should inform JFG that WP is not a reliable source. So, you're semi-back? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Problem

There is a problem with the infobox, specifically on "Criminal charges". - Someone, please fix it. Felixsj (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Which is? Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I think Felixsj speaks of the following wikitext:

|data1 = Criminal charges

data1 does not appear to be a supported parameter in the infobox because it is rendered as {{{blank1}}}. I have no idea how to fix this. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Flouting of democratic norms

I proposed a Democratic backsliding section in January, which was not discussed in depth. I'm now presenting an improved version. This section is not about Trumpism, but about Trump's direct impact on America's democracy. It is sourced solely to scholarly sources, which is far better than most of our article. And it uses these sources to put forward an analytical appraisal, which our articles needs more of. I use two sources: a study by Yascha Mounk and Stefan Foa, published in the high-impact factor Policy Studies Journal. And a book written by two scholars, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, called How Democracies Die, which The Economist described as "the most important book of the Trump era", and which we don't currently use. The heading could be "Flouting of democratic norms", or "Abandonment of democratic norms".

Political scientists have analyzed Trump's presidency as both a cause and a consequence of America's increasing polarization. Levitszky and Ziblatt say that Trump benefited from a democracy weakened by "extreme partisan polarization", and was the first U.S. president in the last century to meet all four criteria of their "litmus test for autocrats": a weak commitment to democratic norms, delegitimization of political opponents, toleration and encouragement of political violence, and a willingness to curb the civil liberties of opponents and critics. Foa and Mounk say Trump disregarded democratic norms through his tacit or active endorsement of vigilante groups, his lack of commitment to respecting electoral outcomes, and his lack of repudiation of political violence, which weakened the country's "institutional equilibrium", and may "prove to be his most damaging legacy".

Please don't just treat this as an up-or-down vote, which would make it hard to reach a consensus.

DFlhb (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

References

1. Levitsky, Steven; Ziblatt, Daniel (2018-01-16). How Democracies Die. Crown. ISBN 978-1-5247-6295-7.
2. Foa, Roberto Stefan; Mounk, Yascha (2021-11-02). "America after Trump: from "clean" to "dirty" democracy?". Policy Studies Journal. 42 (5–6): 455–472. doi:10.1080/01442872.2021.1957459. ISSN 0144-2872.

I’m not convinced this adds much to what’s already in this BLP. For example, this BLP already discusses the problem respecting electoral outcomes. It may be worth pointing out that political polarization created fertile ground for his election in 2016, but perhaps political polarization is already common knowledge. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

We do already cover election denial and incitement to violence, but we lack anything about the resulting hard-to-reverse damage to American democracy, which is echoed by many other sources (I just picked the two WP:BESTSOURCES, which happen to frame it the most conservatively rather than calling him an "authoritarian" like many other WP:RS). The word norm doesn't appear in our article, despite plentiful sourcing. DFlhb (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Your proposed paragraph appears to be an example of what it mentions, "extreme partisan polarization", since the paragraph reads like a one-sided attack piece. However, in that regard it is somewhat consistent with the rest of the article, so it's hard to exclude it for that reason. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Focusing on norms would be fine, but then it would be necessary to discuss other norms, like the norm of not indicting a former president, or repeatedly impeaching him, or marshaling the intelligence community in an effort to label him a foreign agent, etc etc. Norms work both ways. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

They do work both ways, as Foa & Mounk describe (it's on Sci-Hub), which is why norm violations are dangerous. My previous version included a (peer-reviewed) analysis by Steven Simon that made this point more explicit; I'd be happy to re-include him. But I don't think sources support the idea that the things you list were partisan efforts by Democrats. DFlhb (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Please don't write nonsense like "norm of not indicting a former president." SPECIFICO talk 01:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This statement about norms is not nonsense at all, User:SPECIFICO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I would definitely use the scholars' first names. Who is "Foa"? No first name makes it harder to look them up online, and stylistically, it's just weird IMO. Secondly, I kind of hate it. Though these four may be subject-matter experts, I don't think their opinions on Trump are relevant enough to include as a broad chacterization of the man. I would grab a bunch of subject-matter experts, preferably 8-10, and do something like this (I just made up stuff that scholars might say for the sake of example):

Several political scientists have analyzed Trump's presidency... Steven Levitszky and Daniel Ziblatt say that Trump benefited from a democracy weakened by "extreme partisan polarization"... and argue that Trump's practice of hiring far-right advocates and "often implicit, occasionally explicit" support for far-right causes "emblodened the far-right and alt-right to a degree unheard of in contemporary American politics, one that sets a dangerous precedent"... argues that " systematic subversion of the traditional notions of American presidency, and the excessive amounts of lies, falsehoods and denials told to further his false narratives... may be the most damaging parts of his legacy"...

Something like that. Cessaune 02:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• B-Class New York City articles
• High-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• B-Class American politics articles
• Top-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• B-Class political party articles
• High-importance political party articles
• Political parties task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• B-Class American television articles
• Mid-importance American television articles
• American television task force articles
• B-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Top-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• B-Class United States Presidents articles
• Top-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• B-Class United States Government articles
• High-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class television articles
• Mid-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics