Misplaced Pages

Talk:First presidency of Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:55, 25 March 2019 editMr Ernie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,335 editsm Should Mueller report summary be attributed to Barr?: ce← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:09, 24 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,704 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:First presidency of Donald Trump/Archive 13) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{American politics AE|Consensus required=no|BRD=yes}}
{{Controversial}} {{Controversial}}
{{American English}}
{{WPBS|1=
{{WikiProject Donald Trump|class=C|importance=top}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Politics|class=C |importance=high}} {{WikiProject Politics |importance=High |American=yes |American-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=High|USPresidents=yes|USPresidents-importance=|UShistory=yes}} {{WikiProject United States |importance=High |UShistory=yes |UShistory-importance=high |WPUS50=yes}}
{{WikiProject History|class=|importance=}} {{WikiProject History|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=}} {{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject United States Presidents |importance=High |trump=yes |trump-importance=Top}}
}} }}
{{American politics AE|1RR=no|Consensus required=no|BRD=yes}}
{{WPUS50k}}
{{Consensus|'''Consensus on separate articles:'''
{{Annual readership}}
* Current consensus is to split the first term of Donald Trump as president to ] and the second term of Donald Trump as president to ]. This was agreed to ].}}
{{Annual readership|scale=log}}
<!--- Auto archiving configured by ] ---> <!--- Auto archiving configured by ] --->
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:First presidency of Donald Trump/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 7 |counter = 13
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|archiveheader = {{tan}} |archiveheader = {{tan}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 1 |minthreadsleft = 1
}}
{{auto archiving notice
|bot = lowercase sigmabot III
|age = 30
|small=
}} }}
{{section sizes}} {{section sizes}}
{{old move|date=6 November 2024|destination=First presidency of Donald Trump|result=Speedy moved|link=Special:Permalink/1255749353#Requested move 6 November 2024}}



__TOC__ __TOC__


== Please update the section under economy. ==
== Edit to Lead on polling at end of year 1 ==


Currently, the paragraph on the economy has the following line:<br /><br />''In February 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. entered a recession.''<br />
<br />Line can be left but content needs to be added:<br /><br />'''''''''' As per ]


== Concerns about Bias in the Article ==
<nowiki>=== Relying on Authority ===</nowiki>


The article leans heavily on fact-checkers and mainstream media sources like The Washington Post and The New York Times to support claims about Trump's falsehoods and misleading statements. This might make readers more likely to accept these claims without questioning them.
The polling remark in the lead is about polling at 1 year in, and states
: "By the end of his first year in office, opinion polls showed Trump to be the least popular president in the modern history."


<nowiki>=== Picking and Choosing ===</nowiki>
Obviously it is now past two years so this one seems up for an update discussion. Please indicate your preferences or concerns here - some possibilities that occur to me are
:# No change - the note about a year ago can stay, we do not need a current or to-date version
:# Tweak - keep the note about the end of year 1, but tweak the wording to make that more apparent
:# Remove - this was significant a year ago, but enough other things have happened that it is no longer significant
:# Add - add a second line about the second year
:# Replace - put in a replacement line
:# Other - something else


Selective Presentation of Facts
=== Discussion ===


The article mainly focuses on the negative aspects of Trump's presidency, like false statements, controversial policies, and high turnover rates, while ignoring positive achievements or different viewpoints that could give a more balanced picture.
* Replace - my preference is to put in summarizing something more than just day 365. I propose "Trump’s approval rating has been stable and low within a band from about 36% to 43%." Cheers ] (]) 01:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


<nowiki>=== Preaching to the Choir ===</nowiki>
* Comment - pinging a few names to try and generate input - hello ], ], ], ] ... What do you think of updating the LEAD line about end of first year approval rating ? Thanks in advance for any response. Cheers ] (]) 20:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
:Thanks for the ping. I like Markbassett's wording better than what's there, but actually I would prefer to remove the sentence about his polling. I don't think such information belongs in the first paragraph of the lead. Put it in the article. -- ] (]) 00:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
::For comparison: Both Obama and G.W. Bush ''now'' have information in the lead about polling and place in history, now that they are past tense. Neither article had anything about polling or popularity at the end of their second year in office. -- ] (]) 01:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
:::Yes, but neither GWB nor Obama ranked the least popular president after two years, Reagan held that honor until Trump came along, so Trump is now "special." See ] (]) 01:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
:"Through his second year in office, Trump was ranked the least popular president since World War II," ]. It is not enough to say it's ''low'', it's ''the'' ''lowest''. You know..."worse than Carter" and stuff. ] (]) 01:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
:: Carter wasn’t particularly low in his first two years. If you go down the approval ratings link at the start of that section, one can see that Truman, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton seem all in the vicinity and occasionally lower than Trump in their first two years, and later on we see approvals for some past presidents down in the 20s. Seems really more about recent times being more partisan than anything else, but that’s just OR. In any case, please do add input about preference for the section, with reasons. Cheers ] (]) 17:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
:::Because polls are volatile, if there is a sufficient time interval to measure, an average over that time interval is the best way to go, and that's what Gallup did. Two years is a sufficient time interval, and Trump ranks lowest since WW2 by that measure. It is noteworthy and ledeworthy, and my position would be the same if his average was the highest. To characterize it as merely "low" is inadequate. ] (]) 18:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
:::: Meh. Ford, Reagan, and Clinton seem by eyeball to be close in the ‘two-year average’. But I don’t recall that snapshot ever being paid much attention. It’s always been the approval-of-the-day as both news and reflects political strength, and around 40 just isn’t particularly odd. The RS seem more impressed/bored that his approval really has stayed the same ... events to date did not particularly swing it up or down. Cheers ] (]) 01:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
* '''Option 3: Remove from lead''' – Not worth a sentence there. (I'd say the same if Trump were the most popular president ever…) — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


Assuming Agreement
: Removal is acceptable to me - There doesn’t seem much interest here and ONUS no longer satisfied. I’ve given it a full month so will consider that the answer. ] (]) 13:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


The article seems to assume that everyone reading it already agrees that Trump is bad, using language and framing that assumes readers share the same negative view.
:'''Done'''. I have removed the 2018 polling line from the lead per discussion. I was tempted to respect it by the MelanieN suggestion to paste it into the body, but have left it out ... it's in need of rewrite to make it clear it was specifically about day 365 and not the whole, and I don't feel charitable about doing that work for something that currently lacks ONUS or interest, plus I don't feel right about legitimizing a straight-to-lead edit that was not summarizing the body by backfilling the body with it. If someone else wants to clarify something about it into the body, go to. Cheers ] (]) 05:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


<nowiki>=== Making Things Too Simple ===</nowiki>
== Proposal: mention false and misleading statements in the lede ==


Simplified Narratives
I propose to add the following sentences to the lede. This mirrors the ] article, and is virtually identical to the version ] with the exception of the first wiki-link to ]. ]] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">]</span>''' 03:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


The article often oversimplifies complex issues like economic policies, judicial appointments, and foreign relations, only showing the negative side without exploring the bigger picture or considering other perspectives.
{{tq2|Trump ] during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by ]s, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics.}}


<nowiki>=== Unsupported Claims ===</nowiki>
* Tagging {{ping|soibangla|PackMecEng|Snooganssnoogans|MrX|Markbassett|Volunteer Marek}} who were involved in a related discussion above. ]] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">]</span>''' 04:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


Lacking Proof
* No. Still not met ], contrary to existing consensus was/is against such language here, and again some supports or cites somewhere else is simply irrelevant, it’s failing LEAD and V unless it is in *this* article and about *this* article’s topic and body. This seems just a rerun of recent failed attempts ( archive 7 “Edits to lead” started 9 January, and “This revert should be reverted” started 8 January) with minor changes to phrasing but without any substantive effort at making a better case or improving basis. Cheers ] (]) 04:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
::How in the world is it "failing V"? That makes no sense. In fact, how is it failing LEDE? If it's relevant to the main level ] article it '''is even more relevant''' here since it's directly about his presidency. Ridiculous.] (]) 05:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
:*How can it fail WP:V and WP:LEDE when we have an entire subsection on '''False and misleading statements''' with over 15 sources? ]] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">]</span>''' 06:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
::* I have tightened the section so that the body reflects what is being proposed here. ]] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">]</span>''' 06:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
:* Tosh. It should be obvious: failing LEAD and V here because it is proposed based on content and cites IN SOME OTHER ARTICLE !!! As already stated at all the 3 weak efforts so far, a proposal for lead here must make its case HERE, and have basis on content and topic HERE, or else it fails V and LEAD for HERE. Put some effort into it, do not just keep rerunning the same notion with wrong-for-here material dubbed from elsewhere. Cheers ] (]) 23:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
{{od}} It's notable precisely because his rate of falsehoods is far beyond anyone else in politics. You ask where is the content, we have a whole subsection on '''False and misleading statements'''. You ask where the cites are, here they are,<ref name="McGranahan">{{cite journal |last=McGranahan |first=Carole |url=https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/amet.12475|title=An anthropology of lying: Trump and the political sociality of moral outrage |journal=] |date=May 2017 |volume=44 |issue=2 |pages=243–248 |doi=10.1111/amet.12475 |quote=Donald Trump is different. By all metrics and counting schemes, his lies are off the charts. We simply have not seen such an accomplished and effective liar before in US politics. }}</ref><ref name=Kessler-181230>{{cite news | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/30/year-unprecedented-deception-trump-averaged-false-claims-day/?noredirect=on | title=A year of unprecedented deception: Trump averaged 15 false claims a day in 2018 | quote=“When before have we seen a president so indifferent to the distinction between truth and falsehood, or so eager to blur that distinction?” presidential historian Michael R. Beschloss said of Trump in 2018. | work=] | date=December 30, 2018 | accessdate=January 10, 2019 | first=Glenn | last=Kessler}}</ref><ref name=Glasser-180803>{{cite news | url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/trumps-escalating-war-on-the-truth-is-on-purpose | quote= ... the President’s unprecedented record of untruths ... | title=It’s True: Trump Is Lying More, and He’s Doing It on Purpose | work=] | date=August 3, 2018 | accessdate=January 10, 2019 | first=Susan | last=Glasser}}</ref><ref name=Konnikova>{{cite web | last=Konnikova | first=Maria | title=Trump's Lies vs. Your Brain | website=Politico Magazine | date=January 20, 2017 | url=https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/donald-trump-lies-liar-effect-brain-214658 | accessdate=March 31, 2018 |quote=Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent. }}</ref><ref>Sheryl Gay Stolberg, , ''New York Times'' (August 7, 2017). "President Trump, historians and consultants in both political parties agree, appears to have taken what the writer Hannah Arendt once called “the conflict between truth and politics” to an entirely new level."</ref> and also in the article. ]] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">]</span>''' 01:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
{{sources-talk}}
:::: ] Sigh. Let me detail out some of what’s looking wrong or deceptive or at least not good practice as an approach and not focused to LEAD or V. (There are nice aspects too ... It’s very good in that it clearly stated content and tagged folks from before. But since it did not address prior objections, and seems to have difficulty in seeing / understanding / accepting any other aspects, and seems intending to repeat or override rather than responding to the concerns.) The proposal is made on the basis of
::::* “This mirrors the ] article”, as if that matters here or for LEAD
::::* Being “virtually identical”, which reads as ‘I didn’t like that consensus so here’s my personal rewrite’
::::* Also, adding a wikilink is odd/unexplained, not exactly LEAD basis and this link is to not something of Presidency scope and a page argued as a generic POV fork and ATTACK page, with DUE issues and a title that seems sarcasm or at least not followed. (The ] goes into even trivial things wrong, not on ‘Veracity’)
::::* No reference to parts of ]
::::* No reference to the topic of this article and avoiding ]
::::* Not mentioning prior consensus (consensuses?) here were without this and prior discussions on similar addition particularly two recent threads
::::* Misguided sounding phrasing of appeals to ] ... I.e. deserving its own separate article,
:::: So... I read a response to LEAD and V that began with an assertion not related to LEAD or V as a bit of unsupported posturing... and various other assertions not simply responding to the lead of this article by LEAD and topic of this article with guidance quote bits and pointing to article content here ... just seems an indication the proposal cannot do so. Assertions made as if personal opinion that it is ‘notable’ or thought ‘important’ are all very well — but that would not suffice as sole POV even in body, and seems nothing to argue it fits LEAD. Cheers ] (]) 14:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


Some claims in the article, such as Trump's supposed disrespect for the rule of law and democracy, are made without enough proof or detailed analysis to back up these serious accusations. ] (]) 22:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::* Of course consensus on the lede of the ] article matters. Much of the content ledes are similar, and this content is not about his business / TV stuff before his Presidency.
:I've been at this for over 10 years, and I've never seen Misplaced Pages editors scurry off to implement one user's generalized suggestions for improvement, or to address one user's generalized concerns about bias. It just doesn't work that way. You can participate as an active editor, subject to all the rules and processes that all editors live by. Or you can make specific, policy-based suggestions for changes to articles, and they will be considered by the article's editors. But this is a waste of your time. For further information, read: ]. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 22:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::* I didn't do a personal rewrite. The text is exactly the same. The only difference is the wiki-link.
:I completely agree with you, the fact that the Russia Election Interference Hoax is even mentioned when it’s been proven over and over again that it was a HOAX is even in this article proves there’s plenty biases. Every thing in this article criticizes the former president and fails to mention his many accomplishments, but yet mentions every single controversy he’s had. Right or left encyclopedias should be non biased. The average American sees this when trying to do research. Right or left anyone not looking at this from a political point of view and take the manufactured hate for one man out of their heads for one second would see that this and 75% of mainstream media is doing their best to degrade Trump. There’s articles that disprove almost all the hate and biased statements made about the Trump campaign with creditable facts and proof but no we must completely change the landscape of this site and internet media in general and criticize any person who supports Trump or the Republican Party and lock any pages that have the potential of people editing and telling the people the real TRUTH. Is this the America/world you really want to live in? Restrictions on the “Fair media” like this only apply when the other side has facts that you don’t like ] (]) 18:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::* The wiki-link is relevant, the other page is content on false and misleading statements by Donald Trump, including during his presidency.
::Please try getting your news from a reputable source. Russia has interfered with our elections. Proven, and demonstrated at ] and ] and ]. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 18:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::* The proposed text is relevant to the topic of the article, Trump is making many false and misleading statements both leading up to and during his presidency.
:::Yeah because the justice system that brought hundreds of cases against Trump since he took/left office just randomly stopped pursing perhaps their most prevalent claim they had against the man they hate so much. It’s been proven and admitted by Mark Zuckerberg that Meta actively promoted Biden/Harris during the last election and shadowbanned content promoting the GOP yet theirs not any articles about “Meta Election Interference in the 2020 Election” The Russia Hoak was blown up in the media by the Clintons and leftist news and gave nothing hearsay and incredible evidence, but when the mainstream media uses it as its talking points for 4+ years you end up with a million articles of ACCUSATIONS so much that the ones that prove that this thing was a HOAX with the actual court papers as their evidence it gets buried. BIPARTISAN MEDIA SHOULD BE A PILLAR IN OUR COUNTRY BUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE WHY WE DIVIDE ] (]) 15:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::* Relevance to WP:LEAD: ''includes mention of significant criticism or controversies, and make readers want to learn more'' ... ''Reliably sourced material about encyclopedically relevant controversies is neither suppressed in the lead nor allowed to overwhelm; the lead must correctly summarize the article as a whole.'' Trump's lies are significant and have received much coverage:
::::Please read ], and stop using all capital letters in your comments. It's sen as shouting on the Internet, so is poor manners. ] (]) 22:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::* - ]
:::::That’s how real people talk when they’re upset about this unjust bullshit. I have respect for almost every person on this earth even the people who I was directly talking too, but I’m absolutely sick of it, I love how I’m called out on something as simple as typing in caps or “sounding offensive” because it may “hurt someone’s feelings” yet someone like RFK Jr. can have his character and legacy tarnished because of the opinions of people who run a site that just happens to be where a large majority of people go to first when researching a new person. Think RFK Jr’s feelings are hurt when literal lies are told about him and he’s painted as a “whack job”. The man can’t even explain himself anymore because the narrative is already instilled in most people from website like this a legacy media. So again let’s UNITE not FIGHT. Have a problem with my caps so be it, your still going to wake up in the morning and life will go on. ] (]) 00:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::* by ]
::::::I'm sure it would be bad for RFK Jr if he was called a "whackjob" or had lies told about him, but this article doesn't do either of those things. ] (<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>) 00:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::* by ]
::::::*<s> by ]</s>
::::::* - '']'' magazine <s>journal</s>
::::::* - '']'' journal
::::::* - ''Public Integrity'' journal
::::::* - '']'' journal
::::::* - '']'' journal
::::::* because it was now ''"a mainstay in political commentary, now often being used by major publications without the need for clarification or definition in their headlines." - follows by linking to and which promptly mentions Donald Trump.
:::::* With the lack of a definitive consensus in the recent discussions as listed above on this page, this proposal seeks to determine consensus now. ]] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">]</span>''' 05:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::::* by ]
:::::::* by ]
:::::::* by ]
:::::::* by Nathan Bomey
:::::::* by Rick Cusick
:::::::* by Charles Siegel
:::::::* by Ryan Skinnell
:::::::* - ''Informal Logic'' journal
:::::::* - '']'' journal
::::::* One of my links above was not valid. As such I have taken the liberty to find more links. Trump's false statements are clearly significant enough to his presidency to be included in the lede. ]] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">]</span>''' 08:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


== First president since Carter to initiate no new military conflicts? ==
* Since this had achieved consensus previously why ISN'T this in the lede NOW? ] (]) 05:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
:* False premise. Maybe it was unclear the rfc was elsewhere, and not about this proposal. This runs contrary to what was/is consensus for lead. It had not achieved consensus here, it had a kinda-sorta rfc in another article. Cheers ] (]) 23:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
*Support. Trump's main claim to fame so far is the lack of veracity in his statements. We even have an article on the ]. ] (]) 07:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per all the good reasons already stated on the main article. I agree with Marek that there is no reason not to put this in the article now. The proposed content is a highly significant point about the Trump presidency. Does anyone actually refute that? - ]] 🖋 12:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
:* Yes, refute it as unproven and basically still not even worked on. The first thread is still at the top of TALK here, failed ONUS of there was not consensus for material such as this — basically soibangla just dropped the thread at “This revert should be reverted”. Cheers ] (]) 23:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


Does this warrant inclusion in the subsection of foreign policy? From what I've researched, this point is factually correct and would seem to merit inclusion here.
*'''Support''' - matches main article, and highly significant point about the Trump presidency. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
: ] ‘matches other article’ does not suit ]. Cheers ] (]) 22:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
:: A strong and obvious consensus that material belongs on the parent article lead section is obviously illustrative for a lead section on a subtopic article. And you missed the second part of my post: this is a highly significant point about the Trump president (as the cited sources so). And is there really a need for you to ]? ]<sup>]</sup> 00:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
::: ] obviously not, but when they’re talking to me or my point then a response is invited. As to your second part ...I took that as just flamboyant hyberbolic, meaning nothing. If you’re seriously wanting me to consider that as a point, then explain it — I ask you to show how “highly significant” is something other than just hyperbole. I don’t see that in common phrasing from RS, and it’s not the mathematical meaning e.g. over 30% of coverage (it seems a low percentage of articles are on it from a relatively few sources), and it’s not a reference to some objectively measured consequence of his remarks, and it’s not a big portion of the article — not a lot of things to even say on the topic. So what is “highly” significant mean? RSVP, cheers ] (]) 02:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
:::: and I take the lack of explanation to mean it was just bloviating... ] (]) 03:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
::::: The many, many sources cited by starship.paint above directly speak to the historical significance of the unprecedented scope of false and misleading statements. And I'd ask you not to be rude, thank you. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::: ] pfft. You complained I hadn’t noted the apparently empty hyperbole part, now complain when I give it serious attention. Make up your mind. Meanwhile, pointing at a seeming semi-random ten cites to some pretty low-prominence-pubs of little relationship that aren’t in the article and aren’t about “significance” and saying “many many” sounds like that’s pretty much more casual hyperbole, as that’s a pretty trivial level of significance. Anyone could get twice as many of far bigger prominence about Melanias shoes. So second part now noted, still looks like empty hyperbole. Cheers ] (]) 01:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
::::::: The ''New York Times'', ''Washington Post'', ''New Yorker'', and multiple-peer-reviewed journals are not "low-prominence-pubs." ]<sup>]</sup> 16:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::::: You pointed to ten other cites that *are* wimpy as why you said “highly significant”. Now you’re just naming publishers without specifying a cite. Just seems like trying - badly - to hunt about for something. Look, I asked for what you meant by the apparent empty hyperbole “highly significant”. You produced nothing, and now produced two different stories more. No need to keep grasping for my sake, I’m ok with it being just hyperbole. Over & out. ] (]) 01:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::::* The grey box that says '''Sources''' has ''New York Times'', ''Washington Post'', ''New Yorker'' etc. Also, I can't really take you seriously with your previous comment that ''Anyone could get twice as many of far bigger prominence about Melanias shoes.'' ]] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">]</span>''' 07:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::* (against my better judgement) ] Well thanks for the clarification. Still have Neutrality changing about where he was pointing, and never did get his meaning for “highly significant”. So empty hyperbole. As to your taking me seriously that Melanias shoes coverage far exceeds the teeny prominence of list “Informal logic journal”, “American ethnologist”, “Qualitative Inquiry journal”, etcetera he was saying showed “historical significance”? I’ll just suggest we have ] which applies, and ] is a lot more direct and verifiable about her shoes than about the vague aspersions. Neutrality’s “historical significance” here seemed just flailing to defend the first empty hyperbole with another or with ]. Again, no need to flail around trying to find some way to defend it for my sake, the not having a description/definition in hand was enough to know there really wasn’t one. And I’m OK that TALK had some empty hyperbole in it, and really it isn’t needed or helpful to TALK by trying further to find potential backfill on it. Cheers and Over & out again. ] (]) 00:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::* You're still disputing WP:V? We do have direct, verifiable sources. They are quoted above in the grey box. As for the other sources, we have books by notable authors, including Pulitzer prizes winning ones. The journals, Informal Logic might be a minor one, but American Ethnologist's citation reports rank is 14/85 for anthropology, and Qualitative Inquirys citation reports rank is 10/98 for social sciences. Not as teeny or wimpy as you describe. ]] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">]</span>''' 02:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::* ] Don’t be silly. Duping content from another article meant it is not summarizing the article - not following ] - and lacks the cites of that other article body - thus failing ]. A grey box tucked somewhere in TALK of the article also does not satisfy ] for article content. The specific 5 cites in the grey box seem to have 3 that are helpful but insufficient to support the breadth of the claim or the prominence in this article. For the teeny pubs prominence, you’re saying this is no better than 10th or 14th hence lacks prominence or consensus even in those small ponds — it then looks more like Google just found some very remote instances. Citing circulation or Alexa numbers might allow better perspective anyway. Cheers ] (]) 15:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


A fact check from USA Today, linked here
] - To give advance notice and ask your thoughts re venue.... I think it best to ping some appropriate V and LEAD forum(s) to ask for some more inputs and policy clarification about ‘the cites and content summarized are elsewhere’ question. I am thinking ] for Lead and ] or ] for V, as the ] combined forum seems more for proposals. Please ping back if you've thoughts for better venue. Cheers ] (]) 04:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
::*By all means go ahead ]] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">]</span>''' 02:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
::::* ] OK, the relevant RSN section is . Cheers ] (]) 05:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::* It’s been over a week there, and has gotten the suggestion to mark it as ]. I’ll give it another day or so to see if anything else appears and then give it a try. Cheers ] (]) 11:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/01/fact-check-trump-not-first-president-since-eisenhower-without-new-war/6086636002/


furthers the point that military conflicts with and without Congressional approval have occurred in every presidential term prior to Trump up until and including Reagan, but no such conflicts were initiated during Trump's term.
*'''Oppose'''- There's no need for this, other than to make the article even more negative than it already is. Name any political office holder and I guarantee I can find false or misleading statements that he or she has made. Reminds me of an old joke: How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.--] (]) 04:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
::* That is what is notable. ]] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">]</span>''' 02:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''- ] is right, there should have been an attempt to get more input here since it appears select editors were canvassed here, rather than all editors that regularly edit the page or have participated in discussions about the lead.--] (]) 05:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
:*{{ping|Rusf10}} - it wasn't canvassing, there was a related discussion about the lede on 8 January 2019, it wasn't archived at the moment I made this post, I pinged everyone who participated in that discussion. If you regularly edit this page and watchlist it, you would see this discussion. ]] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">]</span>''' 02:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
:::{{yo|Starship.paint}} and why were the participants of that paticular discussion chosen and not those of the more recent discussion about the lead on Jan 23. This would have also included {{yo|MelanieN|JFG}}.--] (]) 03:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
:::*{{ping|Rusf10}} - the 8 Jan discussion was very related to this one, it was similar topic. The 23 Jan discussion was not related, it was on polling. The two users you mentioned had the chance to reply to the earlier discussion but didn't. ]] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">]</span>''' 03:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


I would think this does warrant inclusion in the foreign policy subsection of Trump's presidency, especially considering the apparent 35-year track record of previous US presidents in this regard. ] (]) 08:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} For WP:V concerns, I managed to find more sources. I will list them together with what was already found above, so you'll see repeats. There's '']'', '']'', '']'', ], '']'', '']'', '']'', ], and the ].
<ref name=unprecedenteduntruths>Sources:
#McGranahan, Carole (May 2017). "An anthropology of lying: Trump and the political sociality of moral outrage". '']''. '''44''' (2): 243–248. doi:. It has long been a truism that politicians lie, but with the entry of Donald Trump into the US political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented."
#Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (August 7, 2017). . '']''. Retrieved March 11, 2019. President Trump, historians and consultants in both political parties agree, appears to have taken what the writer Hannah Arendt once called “the conflict between truth and politics” to an entirely new level.
#Kessler, Glenn (December 30, 2018). '']''. Retrieved February 20, 2019. “When before have we seen a president so indifferent to the distinction between truth and falsehood, or so eager to blur that distinction?” presidential historian Michael R. Beschloss said of Trump in 2018.
#Konnikova, Maria. . ]. Retrieved March 4, 2019. All presidents lie ... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent."
#Barabak, Mark (February 6, 2017). . '']''. Retrieved March 11, 2019. White House scholars and other students of government agree there has never been a president like Donald Trump, whose volume of falsehoods, misstatements and serial exaggerations — on matters large and wincingly small — place him "in a class by himself," as Texas A&M;'s George Edwards put it.
#Glasser, Susan (August 3, 2018). . '']''. Retrieved January 10, 2019. for the President’s unprecedented record of untruths ... the previous gold standard in Presidential lying was, of course, Richard Nixon ... the falsehoods are as much a part of his political identity as his floppy orange hair and the “Make America Great Again” slogan.
#Dale, Daniel (December 22, 2017). . '']''. Retrieved March 4, 2019. “We’ve had presidents that have lied or misled the country, but we’ve never had a serial liar before. And that’s what we’re dealing with here,” said Douglas Brinkley, the prominent Rice University presidential historian.
#Cillizza, Chris (May 9, 2018). . ]. Retrieved March 4, 2019. We've never had a president with such a casual relationship to the truth ... The sheer rate of Trump's untruth-telling is staggering. It is unprecedented.
#Skjeseth, Heidi Taksdal (2017). (PDF). Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Trump is not the first president to be at odds with the press, but the amount of lies he delivers and his aggressive attacks on and constant undermining of the legitimacy of the media, is unprecedented.</ref> ]] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">]</span>''' 03:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
{{sources-talk}}
::These are a bunch of opinion pieces. And putting these opinions in the lead and stating it as fact is very misleading at best.--] (]) 04:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
:::*{{ping|Rusf10}} - are you saying all of these are opinion pieces? Which ones exactly, can you be clear? The first source is a journal article, you know? ]] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">]</span>''' 04:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Some of them are opinion pieces and some are not, like the last two.] (]) 04:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
:::*{{ping|Volunteer Marek}} - in the interests of transparency, as I asked above, could you also state which you believe are the opinion pieces? ]] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">]</span>''' 04:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' and I'm pretty sure there already was consensus to include this.] (]) 04:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
:: Not at this article. The top of this thread points to the BLP article RFC consensus (now in archive 95 there) to have a similar line on the topic. In this article there was an insert by Soiblanga but discussion about reverting its revert fell dormant (now in archive 7) Cheers ] (]) 06:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support.''' One of the most noteworthy and well-covered aspects of Trump's presidency. This material absolutely belongs high-up in the lead section. If there wasn't consensus to include it before, there is now. ] <small>(])</small> 19:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support:''' The proposed edit is the mildest possible way to characterize who is indisputably the most fundamentally dishonest man ever to be POTUS, and quite likely in the history of American public life. This is not a partisan matter, it's not ], it's a fact: we've never seen a liar like him. It's utterly astonishing anyone can still be disputing this, but I will stop short of characterizing their motives or states of mind. Let's get this over with and lock it down, both here and in his BLP. ] (]) 23:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This is simply a matter of fact and extraordinary well sourced. ] (]) 00:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Largely due to the consensus on the main ] article. It makes sense to also include this proposal, or something similar to it, in the lead of this article.] (]) 05:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


:Some would argue that the reasons for this were not really positive. ] (]) 08:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Request a typo fix: Under historical rankings at the bottom of the article, it states "Siena College Research Institute's 6th presidential expert poll, released in February 2019, placed Donald Trump 42''th'' out of 44th — ahead of Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan.," instead of 42''nd''
::If it's relevant to his policy, what does positive or negative matter? I don't really understand what it is you're trying to say, to be perfectly honest. ] (]) 09:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 21:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


:::Can you provide a source that says it was due to policy? ] (]) 09:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
== Should Mueller report summary be attributed to Barr? ==
::::Does it need to be due to policy to be worthy of inclusion? It doesn't seem outlandish to include this detail compared to other Wiki articles I've seen.
::::I will note that it appears I've been suggesting an edit to the wrong article. I was attempting to submit for the foreign policy subsection of the broader Donald Trump article - itself a subsection of the presidency portion.
::::But your feedback can inform or preclude a talk submission in the proper article feed, which is why I'm submitting this here despite realizing my mistake.
::::It seems a more fitting inclusion in a brief summary that includes "Hallmarks of foreign relations during Trump's tenure included unpredictability, uncertainty, and inconsistency. Tensions between the U.S. and its European allies were strained under Trump."
::::Do you think I should make a talk submission for that article, as I intended to? ] (]) 09:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::I mentioned policy because YOU did. I regard that wording you just quoted as very accurate. Trump didn't have formal policies in most areas, including international relations. He just reacted based on his own emotions at the time. Fortunately, in the areas of starting wars, the US has a lot of safety valves built into it's systems. It's hard for a leader to start a war on a whim. ] (]) 00:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::George Bush and Dick Cheney would beg to differ. God forbid an accomplishment made by the Trump Administration is controversial to post ] (]) 04:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

== How to deal with a potential second Trump adminstration? ==

Supposing Trump wins in 2024, would this article be renamed to ''Presidenc''ies ''of Donald Trump,'' as is the case with Grover Cleveland? Or would a new article be made for the second term, given the increased volume of info? I know this is a bit early to be asking this, but still. ] (]) 01:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

:I would prefer to see a second article, unlike someone who had two or more consecutive terms. ] (]) 04:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

:: Seems that this question is becoming relevant. ] (]) 09:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:Considering this article already has a cleanup tag for being too long, I think having separate articles is the way to go. ] (]) 11:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

== Biased ==

this article and the language contained therein is clearly biased against Donald Trump. It is not presented as a listing of fact, rather a combination of fact, opinion, lies, and personal diatribe. Wiki continues to disappoint as a "reputable" encylopedic digital manuscript.

There was no Russian election interference in 2020. That is a lie. Of the many legal accusations against him that have been made, none have been upheld. This man has endured scrutiny that his opponents could never endure. Wiki is asking for donations and will receive none from me as I do not trust it as an information source. "Fake news. Very sad." ] (]) 01:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

:] was real and it's happening again this year too. And he was convicted of 34 felonies. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 01:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

== Add context ==

In the section of January sixth, please add that Trump encouraged his supporters to march "peacefully and patriotically" as shown in the full speech of the clip next to the section.

] (]) 00:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move 6 November 2024 ==

<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, #000); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''

The result of the move request was: '''Speedy moved.''' ] has already been created. I see one "technical" oppose, citing ], however the article on Trump's 2017&ndash;2021 presidency would be far too long if we were to incorporate everything from his 2025&ndash2029? presidency. <small>(])</small> ] (]) ] 14:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
----

] → {{no redirect|First presidency of Donald Trump}} – He is elected president for a second term of office now, meaning this should be moved. ] (]) 11:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Speedy support''' - ] has already been made, and the chances of him somehow not becoming President in January is incredibly small. ] (]) 11:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Technical oppose''': Given ], there might be an argument for renaming this ] instead. Depends on if both terms can be handled here or not. --] (]) 11:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::As an aside, if moved to First presidency of Donald Trump, then Presidencies of Donald Trump should be a disambig instead. --] (]) 11:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::@] This article is already too long, if we add all contents that would happen during his second presidency to this article, it would be more long than how it is today. Best is divide first and second presidencies as suggested. Franklin D. Roosevelt also has different articles on his presidencies. ] (]) 12:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' <span style="font-family:Corbel;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px;background:#244aa5">]]</span> 12:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' - This article has been tag for being too long so a split is justified. '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 12:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for accuracy, it is the first presidency, not the only presidency. ] (]) 12:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': I'll probably speedily move it in a few if no one else objects (that is if I don't fall asleep first). ''''']''''' <sup>(] / ])</sup> 12:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Seems sensible now there's going to be a second presidency. ] (]) 13:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' per nom <span style="font-family:monospace;color:#004;">]]]</span> 13:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

==Linking==

{{ping|Batong1930}} Regarding , see ]. ] (]) 05:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
}}

== The merging of the 1st and 2nd presidency into this article ==

I see that ] has just merged both pages. I oppose this, mainly because this article already has a ''verylong'' tag. We have more than enough content to fill multiple articles, and the second term hasn't even begun yet!

Edit: Additionally, this goes against the recent consensus in "Requested move 6 November 2024" (above).

-] (]) 00:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

:@]: Hi, just saw this and very briefly looked at the RM discussion above. You're right. I did go against consensus and will not pursue any further action on this. ] (]) 01:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

== ] charts ==

{{multiple image | total_width=650
| image1 = 20241116 "Gaslighting" (topic) on Google Trends.svg
| image2 = 20241116 "Fake news" (topic) on Google Trends.svg
| image3 = 20241119 "Toxic masculinity" (search term) on Google Trends.svg
}}
These three charts that I generated and uploaded were removed by ] with the edit comment, "]".


However, the charts were generated entirely from objective data from ], and are simply not encompassed by the description at ].
Given that this administration, including former AG Jeff Sessions (I don't know enough about the current AG), frequently lies about things and distorts its own reports, it seems fair to attribute statements made by administration officials rather than state things in Wiki voice. ] (]) 22:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
:Probably, but we should see how sources treat it and follow suit. I would be surprised if they don't attribute the summary of findings to Barr, with the possible exception of the quote that Barr attributed to Mueller.- ]] 🖋 22:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
:Of course it should be attributed to Barr, because he's the one who's making the statement. All relevant sources note this, although some of the headlines (rather than actual text) are a bit sensationalistic about it.] (]) 06:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
:Parts of the report summary were Barr's judgment, but he also directly quoted Mueller's report a few times. Does anyone seriously think that Mueller would sit idly by while Barr distorts the results of his years long investigation, with key parts of the actual report surely to be released to the public? Barr isn't stupid, and there's no way he wouldn't follow this by the letter of law knowing how much interest it is going to receive. ] (]) 14:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


The charts are highly relevant in their analysis of terms whose use exploded during Trump's first presidency, the subject of this article. I think the charts should remain, and I ask editors to contribute their opinion. Please cite specific Misplaced Pages policies if appropriate. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">] (])</span> 17:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
==Michael Cohen's allegation in lead==
* '''Include.''' Per my description above. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">] (])</span> 17:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
{{yo|Volunteer Marek}}, added an unproven claim by Michael Cohen that Donald Trump knew about the wikileaks email leak ahead of time. I'm not sure how this got in the lead in the first place, as I do not see any previous discussion about it. Why would this one claim be so significant that it goes in the lead? It seems ] to me. The claim also does not seem to be supported by the Mueller Report which concluded, the Russians were responsible for the hacking the email, but there was no evidence that Donald Trump or members of his campaign "conspired or coordinated" with Russia.--] (]) 02:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
:I agree that this was an allegation, and a rather vague one at that, and should not be in the lead, -- ] (]) 02:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC) :It's a textbook example of original research. Also, including a splashy graphic with "Toxic masculinity" based on that original research has particularly significant weight issues. ] (]) 19:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' unless ] can be found linking the Google searches to Trump's presidency. RCraig09's charts may be {{tq|"generated entirely from objective data",}} but Misplaced Pages still requires secondary sources to analyze/interpret the data (and confirm its significance). Absent such sourcing, inclusion of these images would constitute ] by implying a direct connection between specific Google search results and the "First presidency of Donald Trump," which has not yet been ]. Secondary sourcing is also necessary to establish notability/], particularly in a large article like this one.] (]) 19:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::Cohen did indeed make the allegation, per source. Not sure what's vague about it. We don't know what the Mueller Report concluded, only what Barr said it concluded, and regardless, that's actually kind of irrelevant.] (]) 06:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:09, 24 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the First presidency of Donald Trump article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
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.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPolitics: American High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States: History / 50,000 Challenge High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!
WikiProject iconHistory Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon2010s Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s 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.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States Presidents: Donald Trump High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents 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.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.
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!
ConsensusConsensus on separate articles:

Section sizes
Section size for First presidency of Donald Trump (88 sections)
Section name Byte
count
Section
total
(Top) 8,330 8,330
2016 election 3,481 3,481
Transition period, inauguration, and first 100 days 3,749 3,749
Administration 4,919 16,756
Cabinet 7,381 7,381
Dismissal of James Comey 4,456 4,456
Judicial appointments 4,726 8,973
Supreme Court nominations 4,247 4,247
Leadership style 6,947 55,939
False and misleading statements 11,476 11,476
Rule of law 11,592 11,592
Relationship with the news media 11,300 11,300
Twitter 14,624 14,624
Domestic affairs 67 248,865
Agriculture 2,302 2,302
Consumer protections 2,362 2,362
Criminal justice 7,025 12,926
Presidential pardons and commutations 1,732 1,732
Drug policy 3,025 3,025
Capital punishment 1,144 1,144
Disaster relief 182 10,931
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria 8,577 8,577
California wildfires 2,172 2,172
Economy 14,311 34,135
Taxation 6,587 6,587
Trade 13,237 13,237
Education 4,833 4,833
Election integrity 652 652
Energy 7,880 7,880
Environment 25,157 25,157
Government size and regulations 4,859 4,859
Guns 2,664 2,664
Health care 13,123 50,694
Reproductive rights 5,742 5,742
Opioid epidemic 3,763 3,763
COVID-19 pandemic 28,066 28,066
Housing and urban policy 2,055 2,055
Immigration 18,159 39,412
Family separation policy 9,397 9,397
Travel bans 7,678 7,678
2018–2019 federal government shutdown 4,178 4,178
LGBT rights 7,890 7,890
George Floyd protests 2,669 18,354
Photo-op at St. John's Episcopal Church 6,545 6,545
Deployment of federal law enforcement to cities 9,140 9,140
Science 5,573 5,573
Space 1,159 1,159
Surveillance 623 623
Veterans affairs 3,648 3,648
Voting rights 4,939 4,939
White nationalists and Charlottesville rally 5,750 5,750
Foreign affairs 5,895 49,396
Defense 7,244 7,244
Afghanistan 4,407 4,407
China 1,528 1,528
North Korea 7,859 7,859
Turkey 2,859 2,859
Iran 6,841 6,841
Saudi Arabia 6,645 6,645
Israel / Palestine 4,655 4,655
United Arab Emirates 1,463 1,463
Russia and related investigations 15,972 47,137
Special counsel's report 28,020 28,020
Counter-investigations 3,145 3,145
Ethics 3,840 56,986
Role of lobbyists 2,210 2,210
Potential conflicts of interest 13,855 13,855
Saudi Arabia 1,058 1,058
Transparency, data availability, and record keeping 6,792 6,792
Hatch Act violations 2,173 2,173
Security clearances 3,439 3,439
Impeachment inquiry 12,863 12,863
Use of the Office of President 10,756 10,756
Elections during the first Trump presidency 3,247 23,957
2018 midterm elections 559 559
2020 re-election campaign 2,354 20,151
Lost re-election and transition period 4,297 4,297
Electoral vote count and U.S. Capitol attack 6,715 6,715
Aftermath 6,785 6,785
Historical evaluations and public opinion 49 8,051
Historical evaluations 1,771 1,771
Opinion polling 3,836 3,836
Democratic backsliding 2,395 2,395
See also 655 655
References 76 76
Further reading 3,478 4,792
Historiography, memory and teaching 1,314 1,314
External links 1,476 1,476
Total 538,619 538,619
On 6 November 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to First presidency of Donald Trump. The result of the discussion was Speedy moved.


Please update the section under economy.

Currently, the paragraph on the economy has the following line:

In February 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. entered a recession.

Line can be left but content needs to be added:

U.S. recession ended in April 2020, making it shortest on record As per WP:RS

Concerns about Bias in the Article

=== Relying on Authority ===

The article leans heavily on fact-checkers and mainstream media sources like The Washington Post and The New York Times to support claims about Trump's falsehoods and misleading statements. This might make readers more likely to accept these claims without questioning them.

=== Picking and Choosing ===

Selective Presentation of Facts

The article mainly focuses on the negative aspects of Trump's presidency, like false statements, controversial policies, and high turnover rates, while ignoring positive achievements or different viewpoints that could give a more balanced picture.

=== Preaching to the Choir ===

Assuming Agreement

The article seems to assume that everyone reading it already agrees that Trump is bad, using language and framing that assumes readers share the same negative view.

=== Making Things Too Simple ===

Simplified Narratives

The article often oversimplifies complex issues like economic policies, judicial appointments, and foreign relations, only showing the negative side without exploring the bigger picture or considering other perspectives.

=== Unsupported Claims ===

Lacking Proof

Some claims in the article, such as Trump's supposed disrespect for the rule of law and democracy, are made without enough proof or detailed analysis to back up these serious accusations. ChonokisFigueroa (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I've been at this for over 10 years, and I've never seen Misplaced Pages editors scurry off to implement one user's generalized suggestions for improvement, or to address one user's generalized concerns about bias. It just doesn't work that way. You can participate as an active editor, subject to all the rules and processes that all editors live by. Or you can make specific, policy-based suggestions for changes to articles, and they will be considered by the article's editors. But this is a waste of your time. For further information, read: Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. ―Mandruss  22:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I completely agree with you, the fact that the Russia Election Interference Hoax is even mentioned when it’s been proven over and over again that it was a HOAX is even in this article proves there’s plenty biases. Every thing in this article criticizes the former president and fails to mention his many accomplishments, but yet mentions every single controversy he’s had. Right or left encyclopedias should be non biased. The average American sees this when trying to do research. Right or left anyone not looking at this from a political point of view and take the manufactured hate for one man out of their heads for one second would see that this and 75% of mainstream media is doing their best to degrade Trump. There’s articles that disprove almost all the hate and biased statements made about the Trump campaign with creditable facts and proof but no we must completely change the landscape of this site and internet media in general and criticize any person who supports Trump or the Republican Party and lock any pages that have the potential of people editing and telling the people the real TRUTH. Is this the America/world you really want to live in? Restrictions on the “Fair media” like this only apply when the other side has facts that you don’t like Dreadpirate43 (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Please try getting your news from a reputable source. Russia has interfered with our elections. Proven, and demonstrated at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah because the justice system that brought hundreds of cases against Trump since he took/left office just randomly stopped pursing perhaps their most prevalent claim they had against the man they hate so much. It’s been proven and admitted by Mark Zuckerberg that Meta actively promoted Biden/Harris during the last election and shadowbanned content promoting the GOP yet theirs not any articles about “Meta Election Interference in the 2020 Election” The Russia Hoak was blown up in the media by the Clintons and leftist news and gave nothing hearsay and incredible evidence, but when the mainstream media uses it as its talking points for 4+ years you end up with a million articles of ACCUSATIONS so much that the ones that prove that this thing was a HOAX with the actual court papers as their evidence it gets buried. BIPARTISAN MEDIA SHOULD BE A PILLAR IN OUR COUNTRY BUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE WHY WE DIVIDE Dreadpirate43 (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS, and stop using all capital letters in your comments. It's sen as shouting on the Internet, so is poor manners. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
That’s how real people talk when they’re upset about this unjust bullshit. I have respect for almost every person on this earth even the people who I was directly talking too, but I’m absolutely sick of it, I love how I’m called out on something as simple as typing in caps or “sounding offensive” because it may “hurt someone’s feelings” yet someone like RFK Jr. can have his character and legacy tarnished because of the opinions of people who run a site that just happens to be where a large majority of people go to first when researching a new person. Think RFK Jr’s feelings are hurt when literal lies are told about him and he’s painted as a “whack job”. The man can’t even explain himself anymore because the narrative is already instilled in most people from website like this a legacy media. So again let’s UNITE not FIGHT. Have a problem with my caps so be it, your still going to wake up in the morning and life will go on. Dreadpirate43 (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure it would be bad for RFK Jr if he was called a "whackjob" or had lies told about him, but this article doesn't do either of those things. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

First president since Carter to initiate no new military conflicts?

Does this warrant inclusion in the subsection of foreign policy? From what I've researched, this point is factually correct and would seem to merit inclusion here.

A fact check from USA Today, linked here

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/01/fact-check-trump-not-first-president-since-eisenhower-without-new-war/6086636002/

furthers the point that military conflicts with and without Congressional approval have occurred in every presidential term prior to Trump up until and including Reagan, but no such conflicts were initiated during Trump's term.

I would think this does warrant inclusion in the foreign policy subsection of Trump's presidency, especially considering the apparent 35-year track record of previous US presidents in this regard. Danielnrg (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Some would argue that the reasons for this were not really positive. HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
If it's relevant to his policy, what does positive or negative matter? I don't really understand what it is you're trying to say, to be perfectly honest. Danielnrg (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Can you provide a source that says it was due to policy? HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Does it need to be due to policy to be worthy of inclusion? It doesn't seem outlandish to include this detail compared to other Wiki articles I've seen.
I will note that it appears I've been suggesting an edit to the wrong article. I was attempting to submit for the foreign policy subsection of the broader Donald Trump article - itself a subsection of the presidency portion.
But your feedback can inform or preclude a talk submission in the proper article feed, which is why I'm submitting this here despite realizing my mistake.
It seems a more fitting inclusion in a brief summary that includes "Hallmarks of foreign relations during Trump's tenure included unpredictability, uncertainty, and inconsistency. Tensions between the U.S. and its European allies were strained under Trump."
Do you think I should make a talk submission for that article, as I intended to? Danielnrg (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I mentioned policy because YOU did. I regard that wording you just quoted as very accurate. Trump didn't have formal policies in most areas, including international relations. He just reacted based on his own emotions at the time. Fortunately, in the areas of starting wars, the US has a lot of safety valves built into it's systems. It's hard for a leader to start a war on a whim. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
George Bush and Dick Cheney would beg to differ. God forbid an accomplishment made by the Trump Administration is controversial to post Dreadpirate43 (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

How to deal with a potential second Trump adminstration?

Supposing Trump wins in 2024, would this article be renamed to Presidencies of Donald Trump, as is the case with Grover Cleveland? Or would a new article be made for the second term, given the increased volume of info? I know this is a bit early to be asking this, but still. EA09thesecond (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer to see a second article, unlike someone who had two or more consecutive terms. TFD (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Seems that this question is becoming relevant. Hektor (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Considering this article already has a cleanup tag for being too long, I think having separate articles is the way to go. PolarManne (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Biased

this article and the language contained therein is clearly biased against Donald Trump. It is not presented as a listing of fact, rather a combination of fact, opinion, lies, and personal diatribe. Wiki continues to disappoint as a "reputable" encylopedic digital manuscript.

There was no Russian election interference in 2020. That is a lie. Of the many legal accusations against him that have been made, none have been upheld. This man has endured scrutiny that his opponents could never endure. Wiki is asking for donations and will receive none from me as I do not trust it as an information source. "Fake news. Very sad." 216.16.60.218 (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections was real and it's happening again this year too. And he was convicted of 34 felonies. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Add context

In the section of January sixth, please add that Trump encouraged his supporters to march "peacefully and patriotically" as shown in the full speech of the clip next to the section.

NicoConservative (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 6 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Speedy moved. Second presidency of Donald Trump has already been created. I see one "technical" oppose, citing Presidencies of Grover Cleveland, however the article on Trump's 2017–2021 presidency would be far too long if we were to incorporate everything from his 2025&ndash2029? presidency. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)


Presidency of Donald TrumpFirst presidency of Donald Trump – He is elected president for a second term of office now, meaning this should be moved. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, if moved to First presidency of Donald Trump, then Presidencies of Donald Trump should be a disambig instead. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
@Super Goku V This article is already too long, if we add all contents that would happen during his second presidency to this article, it would be more long than how it is today. Best is divide first and second presidencies as suggested. Franklin D. Roosevelt also has different articles on his presidencies. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Linking

@Batong1930: Regarding this edit, see MOS:SOB. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC) }}

The merging of the 1st and 2nd presidency into this article

I see that User:Interstellarity has just merged both pages. I oppose this, mainly because this article already has a verylong tag. We have more than enough content to fill multiple articles, and the second term hasn't even begun yet!

Edit: Additionally, this goes against the recent consensus in "Requested move 6 November 2024" (above).

-OXYLYPSE (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@OXYLYPSE: Hi, just saw this and very briefly looked at the RM discussion above. You're right. I did go against consensus and will not pursue any further action on this. Interstellarity (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Google Trends charts

These three charts that I generated and uploaded were removed by User:Marcus Markup with the edit comment, "WP:OR".

However, the charts were generated entirely from objective data from Google Trends, and are simply not encompassed by the description at WP:OR.

The charts are highly relevant in their analysis of terms whose use exploded during Trump's first presidency, the subject of this article. I think the charts should remain, and I ask editors to contribute their opinion. Please cite specific Misplaced Pages policies if appropriate. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a textbook example of original research. Also, including a splashy graphic with "Toxic masculinity" based on that original research has particularly significant weight issues. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless reliable sources can be found linking the Google searches to Trump's presidency. RCraig09's charts may be "generated entirely from objective data", but Misplaced Pages still requires secondary sources to analyze/interpret the data (and confirm its significance). Absent such sourcing, inclusion of these images would constitute original research by implying a direct connection between specific Google search results and the "First presidency of Donald Trump," which has not yet been verified. Secondary sourcing is also necessary to establish notability/WP:WEIGHT, particularly in a large article like this one.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories: